Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Obama After Israel’s Nukes?
The Woodward Report ^ | May 6, 2010 | Brad Macdonald

Posted on 05/06/2010 7:36:41 AM PDT by honestabe010

Forget Iran, the Obama administration appears to be more worried about Israel’s nukes.

It appears the next phase in the standoff over Iran’s apocalypse-inducing nuclear weapons program is beginning to come into focus.

In the months ahead, don’t be surprised if the efforts of the Obama administration to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions become predicated on the nuclear disarmament of the Jewish state. Why is this likely? Simple: Such a mandate is the inevitable outgrowth of the foolish yet increasingly pervasive tendency to consider as equals the nuclear ambitions of Israel and Iran.

This false moral equivalence between the nuclear programs of Iran and the Jewish state is currently on display in New York, at the month-long Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (npt). The conference is supposed to focus on revising and updating the npt, of which Israel has never been a signatory. But when the conference opened Monday, it quickly became evident that UN member states had set their sights on a “predictable target.”

That would be Israel.

In one of the first addresses Monday morning, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa spoke on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is the largest single coalition within the United Nations (118 of the 192 UN countries are members). According to Asia Times, Natalegawa noted specifically that it was Israel’s refusal to sign the npt that had “resulted in the continued exposure of non-nuclear-weapon states of the [Middle East] to nuclear threats by the only country possessing these weapons of mass destruction.”

Forget Iran’s fearless scramble for nukes—most UN member states apparently believe the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East comes from Israel’s refusal to sign the npt.

After Natalegawa’s address, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state who personally attended the conference...

(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agenda; antisemite; antisemitic; antisemitism; bho44; bhofascism; bhoiran; bhoislamism; bhomiddleeast; bhonukes; bhotreason; bhotyranny; democrats; dhimmicrats; husseinobama; iran; iraniannukes; israel; nukes; obama; whitehousejihad; whitehousejihadi; whitehousejihadist; whitehousejihadists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: honestabe010
Hmmm....another pro-Muslim, anti-Israeli foreign policy initiative from the 0 White House.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

61 posted on 05/06/2010 10:10:04 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

There is mention of “all the tribes of the earth” witnessing Him returning and coming on the clouds of heaven. For ALL to see, not just a ‘heavenly’ appearance is what I meant. You must have misunderstood me or I you.


62 posted on 05/06/2010 10:35:46 AM PDT by 444Flyer (We shall not be moved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

Absolute nonsense.


63 posted on 05/06/2010 10:39:29 AM PDT by verity (Obama Lies - Obongo must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Jesus simply warned His listeners that the Temple would be despoiled again.

No He didn't. He specifically said that it would be the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Not that precision ever mattered to the preterists.

Well, there's no personal, Big-A "Antichrist" in Scripture. The Bible never employs the term in that manner.

True, but you know exactly what I meant when I used the term, so it retains its usefulness as convenient shorthand. I could call him the Man of Sin, the One from the Abyss, the Assyrian, the Abomination, the Son of Perdition, the Beast, etc., but "Replacement-Christ" is pretty accurate for what he'll be for most of the world.

But, at any rate -- as mentioned, Christ's own prophecy regarding the despoilment of the Temple has also been fulfilled.

Only in the manner of the "near" part of a "near-far" prophecy. Titus Vespasian never set up an idol in the Holy of Holies, and neither did the zealots, the preterist misuse of Josephus' political opinion notwithstanding.

Frankly, if you understood the prophecies of the First Coming, you would join those of us who dilligently observe the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Second Parousia in our own day.

Shalom.

64 posted on 05/06/2010 10:44:43 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist; junta
I'm pretty sure junta was being sarcastic, but yes, you're right.

Shalom.

65 posted on 05/06/2010 10:47:05 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer
There is mention of “all the tribes of the earth” witnessing Him returning and coming on the clouds of heaven. For ALL to see, not just a ‘heavenly’ appearance is what I meant. You must have misunderstood me or I you.

Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, I could observe that the use of the word "earth" in this context could easily refer to the Roman World (as in Caesar's decree that "all the world should be taxed" -- it refers to the Mediterranean World, not Australia or South America).

But while that's possible, I think it more likely that the word "Ge" here rendered "earth" simply means "Land" (another meaning of this exact same word), as in the "Land of Israel".

This would make particular sense, given the reference to "The Tribes".

Ergo, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the Tribes of the Land (of Israel) mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Considering that the word "Ge" means "Land" just as easily as it means "Earth", it's entirely likely that Christ's listeners understood that He was speaking of the Land of Israel, and the Tribes of the Land of Israel. IMHO, our English translations just don't express this referential continuity quite as well as does the original.

66 posted on 05/06/2010 10:53:32 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: honestabe010

this is just a silly arguement by you rightwingers!!!!

The Dear One doesnt want Israel’s nukes he wants to NUKE Israel....


67 posted on 05/06/2010 10:56:24 AM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

You wrote:

“...As noted, the Matthew 24 passages referring to Christ’s coming refer not to His future Bodily Return to Earth, but rather to His heavenly coming in judgment upon Jerusalem...”

__________________________

I read into that statement some sort of a esoteric or limited return. Or one that has already occured. It hasn’t. That’s how I understood your statement.

He IS returning bodily as he promised for ALL to see according to Matthew 24:30:

“.. and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Acts 1:9-11 (King James Version)

9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”


68 posted on 05/06/2010 10:57:24 AM PDT by 444Flyer (We shall not be moved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
No He didn't. He specifically said that it would be the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. Not that precision ever mattered to the preterists.

Actually, if I blew up your house, and then you rebuilt it, and then I blew it up again... you could refer to "THE" time that I blew up your house, and you'd be correct in reference to either instance.

And, no, I'm not planning on blowing up your house. Or blowing it up again, sometime afterwards. Just making an observation.

69 posted on 05/06/2010 10:58:12 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

See #66.


70 posted on 05/06/2010 10:58:52 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

Saw your reply. We’ll just have to agree to dissagree. I know we could go back and forth all day, but I can’t hijack this thread any longer and have to take off for an appointment. Take care.


71 posted on 05/06/2010 11:07:27 AM PDT by 444Flyer (We shall not be moved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
And, no, I'm not planning on blowing up your house. Or blowing it up again, sometime afterwards. Just making an observation.

If I put mustard on my burger, it would be delicious. Not that that has anything to do with the conversation either. Just saying.

"Abomination of Desolation" does not mean "blow up the Temple." How do I know? Because Antiochus never blew up the Temple! The Maccabeans cleansed it after driving him out; that's what Hannukah is all about.

If Yeshua were referring primarily to the 70 CE destruction of the Temple, He would certainly have used an allusion to the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, not Antiochus. Furthermore, Paul tells us exactly what "Abomination of Desolation" means in 2Th. 2:4. Just as Antiochus put up an idol of Zeus with his own face in the Holy of Holies, "so that [the Man of Sin] takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God."

Titus Vespasian never did any such thing. After the Temple was already destroyed, he set up ensigns to his father, Emperor Vespasian, at the edge of the Court of the Gentiles (I forget which gate), but Acts 21:28 tells us that this wasn't considered part of the Holy Place in any case, and therefore could not be considered the fulfillment of Yeshua's prophecy.

Shalom

72 posted on 05/06/2010 11:11:09 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

Could that be why we’re not allowed to know the details of his birth and life?


73 posted on 05/06/2010 11:26:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2312894/posts?page=242)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
If I put mustard on my burger, it would be delicious. Not that that has anything to do with the conversation either. Just saying. "Abomination of Desolation" does not mean "blow up the Temple." How do I know? Because Antiochus never blew up the Temple! The Maccabeans cleansed it after driving him out; that's what Hannukah is all about.

Okay, I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. Poor analogy on my part.

Here, I'll just quote Augustine's cross reference of Luke to Daniel to prove the point, instead.

Sorry I did not make my point clear before. Mea maxima culpa.

74 posted on 05/06/2010 11:34:53 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Well duh of course I was being sarcastic. The left always bloviates aboout intergration, assimilation, diversity, multi-culturalism and that would be the death of a small nation such as Israel. And I do believe the left means those things with no exceptions, and if Jews argue that such is genocide the left says, “tough.”


75 posted on 05/06/2010 12:01:01 PM PDT by junta (S.C.U.M. = State Controlled Unreliable Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Sorry, but I don't consider Augustine to be authoritative by any stretch. I go by what the Scriptures say, and what they say in this case is that the Temple would be defiled by a man calling himself God, not that the Temple would be destroyed.

Yeshua did prophesy that the Temple would be destroyed; of that there is no doubt. But by citing a well-known fulfilled prophecy that was very much on the Jewish heart of the Temple's defilement (and therefore, subsequent restoration), He was also looking beyond that to events leading up to His Parousia on the clouds of Heaven, where every eye will see Him.

Shalom.

76 posted on 05/06/2010 12:34:26 PM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
...don't be surprised if the efforts of the Obama administration to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions become predicated on the nuclear disarmament of the Jewish state.

77 posted on 05/06/2010 3:54:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

78 posted on 05/06/2010 4:01:11 PM PDT by SJackson (Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Sorry, but I don't consider Augustine to be authoritative by any stretch. I go by what the Scriptures say, and what they say in this case is that the Temple would be defiled by a man calling himself God, not that the Temple would be destroyed.

No, Augustine's cross-reference of Daniel to Luke, which specifically refers to the desolation of Jerusalem, trumps your reference to 2 Thessalonians -- which has no such reference whatsoever.

I realize that Hal Lindsey teaches people to improperly associate 2 Thessalonians with the abomination of desolation reference in Daniel, but you really shouldn't. It's not what the Scripture says.

By contrast, the Augustinian cross-reference of Luke to Daniel is clear, consistent, and provably FULFILLED.

79 posted on 05/06/2010 4:53:24 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
What Israeli nukes? Israel doesn't have nukes. All those that believe Israel has nukes are just believing in the fever dream of those idiot Muslims.

After all, Israel has never admitted to having nukes... and we don't doubt the word of our allies.

(Ambiguity can cut both ways... making your enemies think you might have ‘em... or making them think you might not.)

80 posted on 05/06/2010 4:55:55 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson