RDKirk said:

But the military is accountable for how they are attacked. They must be attacked within the legal framework of the Law of Armed Conflict that every military member has been taught.

Click to expand...

Would a "double tap" in regards to an aerial strike be considered illegal, if the enemy personnel were attempting to salvage the illegal cargo after the first strike, with no first responders in sight?

keras said:

I quoted Daniel 12:10b..... only the wise leaders will understand.
The context is Daniel 12:8.....The Words are to be kept secret until the time of the end.

Click to expand...

The words are unpacked in Revelation for anyone who bothers to understand Apocalyptic Symbolism.
Your fever dreams of 2010 mislead you about 2012 and the AOD in 2026.
Why should we believe anything you say?

keras said:

Also, your rejection of a viable explanation of Zechariah 5,

Click to expand...

NOTHING you say about the OT is 'viable' as you rip everything out of context and make it about now.

Remember - most of the OT prophecies are about THEIR times and THEIR concerns, not ours.
They build and build on this idea of the judgement in the Day of the Lord - as the Assyrians ride in to Israel, as the Babylonians ride into Judah, and as the Persians later ride across the entire Middle East - and grant Israel the right to return home. Prophecy fulfilled! And yet... there are a few passages that refer to more to come.

Most of them are fulfilled in Jesus gospel events in eschatological tension.

keras said:

without any sensible alternative, is unreasonable and shows extreme bias, as well as just ignoring the present realty of the Middle East situation.

Click to expand...

Oh, right? That conflict that you said "will not fizzle out." On and on you went - and that was one of your SHORTER posts!


But rather than your futurist goggles on current affairs having all the Muslim countries join a coalition to fight Israel - guess what happened? Your futurist filters fluffed these affairs! There's a ceasefire. It DID 'fizzle out'. I'm not saying there's a lasting peace in the Middle East. I'm saying that THIS war DID fizzle out. You said it would not! You got all dogmatic, and did declareth -

"What that will be, is told to us in the Prophetic Word:"​

Except - wrong again. Fizzle. Oh - and rather than "combined force of the neighbouring countries attacking" - it is Militant Zionism that mainly continues the carnage - even in this 'peace.'

So now you have made false claims about 2012, how Gaza will not fizzle, AND the AOD 2026.
I hoped by now you would have learned?


As the FIRST comment on your Gaza thread of 2023 said:

What do I predict for 2026?​

I predict that unless the Lord returns before then (which he could, because there's nothing theologically required to happen since the gospel reached Rome aka "all nations" nearly 2000 years ago) - I predict that futurists will continue to misread the prophets, misread theology, and misread current affairs.

They will see their patterns, make their declarations, and utterly embarrass the Lord with their false predictions.

Some of them will even be more excited about their pet-theories about the anti-Christ, and will tell non-Christians more about the anti-Christ than they will about Jesus!

That's what I predict.

And given the above examples of how futurism fluffs thinking, I'm pretty sure I'll be proved right.

Unless the Lord returns in the next 5 seconds.
Which he could.

President Donald Trump is still talking about his plan to give Americans a tariff dividend refund in 2026.

Trump discussed the potential checks in a two-hour-plus Cabinet meetingon Dec. 2, during which he also called the "affordability" issue a "Democrat scam," and appeared to nod off.

"Next year is projected to be the largest tax refund season ever, and we're going to be giving back refunds out of the tariffs, as we have taken in literally trillions of dollars," -- [this is literally not true] -- Trump said early in the meeting. "We're going to be giving a nice dividend to the people in addition to reducing debt."

The nonpartisan, not-for-profit The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Trump's tariffs will raise about $300 billion per year, while tariff dividends would cost about $600 billion per round

durangodawood said:

We have an actual US Senator interviewing on Infowars???

Click to expand...

Well, the highest degree he's earned is Coach. We can't expect much.

We have an actual US Senator interviewing on Infowars???

No wonder this country is in such a muddle. People with real power having no sense of whats real. I guess thats what we get when enough of the voters are similarly afflicted.

(Im "holding space" for the possibility this didnt even happen. Its almost too absurd.)

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

When an action cannot be justified, yet a courageous individual steps up to defend it, that person may be mistaken—entirely in error for trying to support what cannot be defended. Nonetheless, their bravery and willingness to stand apart from the crowd to champion the indefensible should be acknowledged as a form of chivalry.

Click to expand...

That's a kind of wisdom that I cannot disagree with.

An Ex Cathedra statement with a nice encyclical about the history and meaning of the priesthood would put the finishing touch on this.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump aides plan megabill marketing reboot for GOP lawmakers​

A Wednesday briefing will urge a focus on "working families" after the president questioned his "big, beautiful" branding.

Click to expand...

GOP frustrations grow over lackluster ‘big, beautiful bill’ sales pitch​

Talk about the massive tax package largely evaporated after Labor Day amid high-stakes fights over releasing documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and the 43-day government shutdown. Yet even before those controversies, polls showed the GOP legislation was unpopular.

This has frustrated lawmakers who say the party needs to do more to sell its signature accomplishment, especially as Democrats hammer them on the issue of affordability.

Complicating the picture for the GOP is a sluggish economic backdrop, headlined by inflation that has ticked upward and tariffs that have contributed to higher prices.

Trump labeled the Democratic affordability chatter a “con job” Tuesday, even as his approval rating slips amid voter concerns about his handling of the economy.

“It’s way too [doggone] expensive to live in this country right now,” one GOP operative said. “We need to be seen as at least caring about that.”

House Republicans are staring down warning signs that their slim majority could be in peril next year, especially after the party won Tuesday’s House special election in Tennessee by single digits in a district President Trump carried by more than 20 points last year.

Another headache for the GOP and its sales pitch is Trump, who has not talked about the tax bill as much as some in the party would like and has largely eschewed political rallies in key states that previously have been one of his hallmarks.

[Well, he has his hands full lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize.]

Gene2memE said:

The language is US v Calley is both stark and clear:

"the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with illegal orders. ​

​

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior’s order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful."​

​

However, in this administration and political climate? With this SecDef and President? Who have pushed out generals and admirals for questioning the legality of orders or asking clarifying questions?

I'd say that anyone who refuses any order, even a clearly illegal one, better hope their JAG lawyer is very good and happens to have friends who are high up in the chain of command. Or happens to hold a lot of crypto.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making with regard to my post.

But the men in uniform are operating under the Law of Armed Conflict which specifies what is illegal.

From my own investigation and military intelligence practice, I'd brief that those speedboats are, indeed, in use by drug operatives. The Administration claims that current Congressional armed force authorizations gives them authority to target these vessels, and Congress--as a body--has not disputed that. Congress has not passed any resolutions against it. The matter is being contested in court. When it reaches the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will not rule on it because the Supreme Court's long-standing precedent is not to get involved with military operations. They leave that to Congress.

Military law speaks in terms of illegal orders being "manifestly illegal" or "patently illegal." If it takes a court to sort out whether an order is illegal, then it is not "manifestly" or "patently" so.

The specific question of whether the Administration is attacking these speedboats illegally is not for anyone in uniform to answer.

That question is for Congress to answer.

But the military is accountable for how they are attacked. They must be attacked within the legal framework of the Law of Armed Conflict that every military member has been taught.

Oompa Loompa said:

I apologize for the late reply. I often get swamped with notifications and cannot keep track of it all. But to answer your question, if there were survivors and those survivors were positively identified, and those survivors were not still actively trying to resist (like trying to salvage drugs), it would be both morally and legally wrong to kill them. But as I get more information about the topic, it appears that the situation isnt so simple.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd say that the survivors were 'actively trying' not to drown. Just make a mental note that the orders were not 'prevent these drugs from getting to the US'. It was literally 'kill them all'. That's the position you have to square with your conscience.

essentialsaltes said:

'No-win position': GOP careening towards crisis on health care plan​

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

GOP faces a familiar dilemma: What to do about Obamacare?​

Click to expand...

They don't seem to have figured it out.

Frustrated GOP barrels toward key health insurance vote without a clear plan​

Republicans say they won’t have their alternative proposal to address rapidly rising insurance premiums ready in time for next week’s vote, leaving some GOP senators dissatisfied about the lack of a clear strategy to counter the Democrats’ bill.

A group of centrist Republican and Democratic negotiators worked over the Thanksgiving recess to make progress toward a bipartisan deal, but they said it won’t be ready in time for next week’s vote, either. This is fueling pessimism about any deal being reached this year.

[Since] The GOP has no consensus on how to proceed on the issue, which may spur a group of Republican senators to cross the aisle next week and vote for a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Shaheen, who has been in touch with House colleagues, said that even if the Senate passes a bill, it’s becoming clear that the Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not bring it up for a vote.

“What I’m hearing is that it’s unlikely that Speaker Johnson will take up any bill and that it would have to be done by a discharge petition,” she said.

Michie said:

She is still going on crying jags. It’s hard. We’ve been helping her with the financial aspect of things, death certificates, etc. We’ll be contacting an attorney this week to help walk her through the legalities for her protection and security.

Click to expand...

I'm so sorry. She's in our prayers. Jen and I will be going to Ohio this Sunday for the wake and funeral. It's on Tuesday we will be home Wednesday. Tomorrow I'm going to Potsdam to get my Nucala injection for my eosinophilic asthma. It's my first dose. I've been suffering for many, many months so to finally get relief is great. I'm really hoping it works.

Then after we get home from Ohio I've got to start a 4 day prep for a colonoscopy on the 15th. They still haven't found out what's wrong with my constipation and they'll be finding out on the 15th hopefully.

I'll post an update on the prayer wall when they find out what it is.

Guojing said:

That National Israel never accepted Christ (Romans 11:11), so by the order of the Great Commission spelt in Luke, they could not leave Jerusalem until that happen.

Click to expand...

But some of them did, and significant church leaders from Jerusalem left to go verify events in other churches.
Jesus was clear. The kingdom of God is not of this world - and then exploded out of Jerusalem all over the Roman Empire within a few decades. In Acts 1:8 he declared that the gospel would be preached to the ends of the earth - and by the end of Acts we see that happening as it reached the heart of the Roman Empire. As they say, "All roads lead to Rome."

Basically, as far as the New Testament is concerned, there is no theological reason the Lord could not have returned then. The gospel WAS preached to all nations in biblical terms by the end of Acts. That's the theological significance of what we see. It's not geographically speaking accurate - but according to the concerns of the New Testament - there was absolutely nothing the bible requires to happen after the gospel reaches 'all nations.' (And in the overall thrust and vibe of the New Testament - the gospel reaching Rome seems to be that measure.)

Guojing said:

Peter did not preach that Christ died for his sins and all he needed to do is to believe in his resurrection and he will be saved. Peter only knew the gospel of the kingdom, which is the gospel of the circumcision, as given by Acts 8:35 "work righteousness".

Click to expand...

That's quite a dangerous reading of the passage and of the gospel Peter taught!
Question: if Cornelius was already saved through 'works righteousness' - why did God send an angel to tell Cornelius he needed to hear what Peter had to say?

Why did God send Peter the vision of the unclean animals - and that God declared them clean? This fits in with another question I might ask today: how is it that I, a gentile Australian, can be in God's kingdom right now, here in Sydney Australia?

Answer: Jesus death and resurrection on my behalf! The gospel of faith!

What does Peter talk about with Cornelius? The gospel of faith in Jesus death and resurrection - which Cornelius seemed to already know! But something about Peter's presentation was important enough for God to use angels and visions to get Peter to go and declare it to Cornelius so God could show THE CHURCH how God was pleased with the gentiles - and sent the Holy Spirit on them all.

Note how Peter says they ALREADY KNOW the gospel!

The gospel! From Acts 10: (and please understand these are biographical summaries of the message. Contraction was a common tool in biographical narrative in the literature back then. Peter probably spoke for hours!)

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Gospel declared, Holy Spirit given, and Peter amazed at the way the kingdom of God was spreading even to gentiles.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Guojing said:

Do you recall Acts 8:1, last 3 words? I didn't said Apostles, I said the 12 + James, which will exclude Paul.

Click to expand...

Do you mean Acts 1:8?
Do you mean to rejig what the bible actually says about Cornelius obviously receiving and believing in the gospel and receiving the Spirit as a result?

What is the point of all this? Some special role for Israel now? Some way to justify some eschatological expectation for Israel? Something to do with modern Jews re-establishing a Militant Zionist state that disobeys international law and unjustly runs an apartheid system, and robs Palestinians of their land? (Not that the Palestinians are shining angels in all this either - but if we look at the numbers in this particular conflict - Militant Zionism is FAR deadlier and harsher than Militant Islam!)

RDKirk said:

I'm arguing from the perspective of an ordinary troop on the front line. What will that person be held accountable for by a court-martial?

Click to expand...

The language is US v Calley is both stark and clear:

However, in this administration and political climate? With this SecDef and President? Who have pushed out generals and admirals for questioning the legality of orders or asking clarifying questions?

I'd say that anyone who refuses any order, even a clearly illegal one, better hope their JAG lawyer is very good and happens to have friends who are high up in the chain of command. Or happens to hold a lot of crypto.

wing2000 said:

"International Strike Force" could be the DEA or Coast Guard. He didn't say anything about the U.S. military.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe he meant to go arrest them, in their own country, and bring them back to the US for trials.

...But more likely, he meant to go kill them.

Valletta said:

If you feel your civil rights have been violated contact an attorney to see if you have a legitimate case. There are problem officers, I remember a study in Chicago said that if they got rid of 1% of the officers the city would have saved a ton of money. Although a large majority of complaints are found to have no substance, there are that 1 or even 2 percent of officers who are repeat offenders and should be removed. As in other professions they somehow find a way to manage and keep their jobs.

Click to expand...

I see, so a society with enough citizens with enough disposable income to mount a legal defense against an overly zealous constabulary is just hunky-dory?
”Land of the free” no more.

Landon Caeli said:

Watch the video, it's only a minute and 45 seconds.

He calls for an "international strike force" to go after the "narco-terrorists where they live".
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

"International Strike Force" could be the DEA or Coast Guard. He didn't say anything about the U.S. military.

Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said, “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”

“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States,” the Connecticut lawmaker said.

He later said that “the admiral confirmed that there had not been a 'kill them all' order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter.”

In a joint statement, Himes and the House Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Adam Smith, D-Wash., said, “we saw or heard nothing today to convince us that the decision to strike the vessel a second time was justified.”

chairman [Tom Cotton] said that in the video, he saw two survivors “trying to flip a boat” and “load it with drugs” before they were killed.

Sen. Chris Coons ... added that he and Cotton emerged from the briefing with “different understandings” of what they saw.

Landon Caeli said:

What sense does it make at all, that Trump would pardon Hernandez, if there wasn't factual evidence that the Biden DOJ did something shady?

...A jury wouldn't know if, say, the Biden DOJ made some special arrangements with some witnesses, especially if those arrangements were kept classified.

Click to expand...

When an action cannot be justified, yet a courageous individual steps up to defend it, that person may be mistaken—entirely in error for trying to support what cannot be defended. Nonetheless, their bravery and willingness to stand apart from the crowd to champion the indefensible should be acknowledged as a form of chivalry.

wing2000 said:

Can you name any democrat or republican leader (prior to 2015) who called for the direct use of military force to go after drug traffickers? Admiteddly, my memory might be fuzzy, but I can't think of any. Certainly, no president in my lifetime has ever called for using our military in this manner.

Click to expand...

Watch the video, it's only a minute and 45 seconds.

He calls for an "international strike force" to go after the "narco-terrorists where they live".
Login to view embedded media

Landon Caeli said:

Such people were also the mainstream democratic party in recent times. Until the party changed drastically immediately after Trump became president.

Click to expand...

Can you name any democrat or republican leader (prior to 2015) who called for the direct use of military force to go after drug traffickers? Admiteddly, my memory might be fuzzy, but I can't think of any. Certainly, no president in my lifetime has ever called for using our military in this manner.

It found that the information Hegseth shared had been marked "secret" and could have imperiled American troops had it been intercepted by a foreign adversary, the two people who have read the report said. The evaluation by the Defense Department Inspector General also concluded that Hegseth violated military regulations by using his personal phone for official business, according to those people.

The report also said that Hegseth, as the secretary of defense, is the “original classification authority” and in fact does have the authority to declassify intelligence based on his judgment.

But the inspector general did not address whether Hegseth took the proper steps to declassify the information shared in the chat, the two people said.


Signal gate report via Politico:

Ophiolite said:

Unfortunately such action appeals to certain people, who see it as forceful, direct, appropriate and effective. (While it is the first two, it is certainly not the last two.) By what I am confident is the purest of coincidences such people also tend to be MAGA supporters.

Click to expand...

Such people were also the mainstream democratic party in recent times. Until the party changed drastically immediately after Trump became president.