Women, children, elderly called to battle

[NewGuy]

PA put them in harm's way as Israelis fought terrorists
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38582

Women, children, elderly called to battle

Amid accusations Israel targeted innocent protesters at the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority has been calling this week for "women, children and elderly" to stand in front of Israeli bulldozers and tanks.

The call came despite the PA's knowledge Rafah was the site of armed battles between the Israeli army and Palestinian terrorists, reports Palestinian Media Watch, an Israel-based monitoring group.

Israel has apologized for injuring and killing civilians Wednesday during an army operation to search for terrorists and missiles the PA has smuggled from Egypt.

Palestinian Media Watch says the PA consistently has urged civilians to put themselves on the front lines in these military situations.

In this case, the PA-controlled daily newspaper Al-Ayyam called specifically for "women, children and elderly" to make an "impassable barrier" in Rafah.

Subsequently, "thousands of civilians marched into the heart of the battle, thus setting the stage for the accident," PMW said.

The Al-Ayyam report read:

"Ashraf Jumaa, principal of the Abu Iyad school for organizational staff in Rafah, said to Al-Ayyam that the [civilian] march … will be an impassable barrier for the occupation bulldozers, and will prevent their progress to the Rafah neighborhoods. … He called for all the citizens – women, children and elderly –to participate. … He demanded of all the citizens of the Rafah district, who left their homes and abandoned them, to return to those homes and to stay in them … to cause the failure of the occupation’s plans … ."

Israel initially was accused of killing as many as 20 Palestinian civilian demonstrators, but the number has dropped to about 10. The Israeli govenment insists only seven were killed, including five armed terrorists.

Israel's ambassador to the U.N., Dan Gillerman, explained the situation to the Security Council before it passed a resolution Wednesday, 14-0, condemning the anti-terrorism operation. The United States abstained.

"Today, Israel stands at the gates of hell in the Gaza Strip," Gillerman said. "The southern city of Rafah serves as the arms smuggling gateway of the Palestinian Authority and the main pipeline of transporting weapons and ammunition to Gaza."

 

[JohnGalt]

Israel needs to ignore the security council and destroy the palestinian threat...even if that means women, children, and yes even our beloved elderly.

Frankly, I don't care if all those militant palestinians die, as long as our democratic connection in the Middle East remains intact. Drastic, yes. Neccesary, yes.

 

[NewGuy]

Look at the vote and who sided which way.

 

[JohnGalt]

who voted wich way?
The vote was 14-0 for condemning the attacks...although with the mockery that is the U.N. all that condemnation means is that Israel will get a stern frowning upon.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
who voted wich way?
The vote was 14-0 for condemning the attacks...although with the mockery that is the U.N. all that condemnation means is that Israel will get a stern frowning upon.

The US abstained.

-One vote away from unanimous condemnation of Israel.... *WORLDWIDE CONDEMNATION*.

 

[JohnGalt]

ah, my bad.

Well, we do a good job of protecting our democratic allies.

Now, for my sake...what would a unanimous vote have meant to Israel?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
ah, my bad.

Well, we do a good job of protecting our democratic allies.

Now, for my sake...what would a unanimous vote have meant to Israel?

Nothing other than America would have been hypocritical. How can we fight a WOT and then tell Israel that they can't..... Hell, they are suffering from terrorists much more than we are.

 

[JohnGalt]

Yes, sounds reasonable, but being condemned by the whole world carries kind of an unpopular buzz, no?

Would the U.N. take action had the U.S. voted differently?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Nothing other than America would have been hypocritical. How can we fight a WOT and then tell Israel that they can't..... Hell, they are suffering from terrorists much more than we are.

The whole world being against Israel means a LOT Biblically.

 

[JohnGalt]

hmmm, Israel signing a seven year peace with Palestine would be worse though.

 

[JohnGalt]

That's when the bible says hell will break loose, literally.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
That's when the bible says hell will break loose, literally.

Right NG.... I've been reading a lot lately. And you too are right John.... although some think that the destruction of Damascus has to happen before the peace treaty.....

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The whole world being against Israel means a LOT Biblically.

That article you posted yesterday about the EU signing their constitution in Rome really does point to the prophecies. It won't be long now I believe.

I read an article in the Jerusalem Post that says many in the Israeli Army and government are saying that if it looks like Bush is going to lose, they need to go hard against their enemies as any democratic president will, most likely, not support Israel.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Right NG.... I've been reading a lot lately. And you too are right John.... although some think that the destruction of Damascus has to happen before the peace treaty.....

What part of the prophecy refers to the fall of Saddam's regime, and explicitely mentioned the murder of his sons.

I know I have seen this in the online text, but I lost my link.

When I referenced this it blew me away with the relevence.

Anyone?

 

[JohnGalt]

I have no idea which verse, but I know what you are refering to.
All this biblical talk makes me feel unclean.
I am going to go eat a sandwich. mmmmm

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Comrade
What part of the prophecy refers to the fall of Saddam's regime, and explicitely mentioned the murder of his sons.

I know I have seen this in the online text, but I lost my link.

When I referenced this it blew me away with the relevence.

Anyone?

Frankly, I haven't seen that one. I am still reading though. Frankly, I have been focused on trying to see what signs I need to watch for in the future and less about what has already happened. The scriptures are pretty clear though if people would read them So clear it is, frankly, scary. Well, scary unless you know where you sit with Christ.....

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by JohnGalt
Yes, sounds reasonable, but being condemned by the whole world carries kind of an unpopular buzz, no?

Would the U.N. take action had the U.S. voted differently?

And the UN is in the position to take moral stands? I think not.

Where is the UN when an 8 month pregnant women and her 4 daughters are mowed down by gunfire? Where are they when soldiers carrying out their duty, whether they like it or not, are shot like dogs? No where. The UN lost credibility with many prior to the oil for food scandal. They've lost more since.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Comrade
What part of the prophecy refers to the fall of Saddam's regime, and explicitely mentioned the murder of his sons.

I know I have seen this in the online text, but I lost my link.

When I referenced this it blew me away with the relevence.

Anyone?

There is none.

You are refering to Christ and his two prophets which will come wearing sackcloth and prophecy while shooting flame from their mouths at people who try to kill them.

-The reference you have is often from another religion with a parallel but opposite view of end times which pits Christ as an evil demon and the two prophets as bad guys.

The BIBLE is CLEAR on the prophecies presented in Revelation and Daniel as far as the 2 prophets, a revived roman empire, and the world being against Israel.

 

[freeandfun1]

yeah, i think he is refering to the claims that the "Bible Code" mentions the killing of oooooday and kooooosay

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by NewGuy
There is none.

You are refering to Christ and his two prophets which will come wearing sackcloth and prophecy while shooting flame from their mouths at people who try to kill them.

-The reference you have is often from another religion with a parallel but opposite view of end times which pits Christ as an evil demon and the two prophets as bad guys.

The BIBLE is CLEAR on the prophecies presented in Revelation and Daniel as far as the 2 prophets, a revived roman empire, and the world being against Israel.

Hmm... hold on, I'm going to try to track this down...

Honestly I thought it was quite stricking and believe it to be genuinely documented. I'll have to do some searching.