Greetings from Tyler,
Our consciences were seared once again this week by the atrocious burning alive of the Jordanian pilot held captive by ISIS. Hopefully, none of us has had to undergo the agony of actually watching the video, but certainly got the idea through detailed descriptions and two or three still-frames. But it seems somebody in a decision-making capacity to do with our military reactions to the ongoing stream of beheading, stoning and now burning, should be having to watch these things. It turns out the burning alive may have taken place weeks ago, and was just revealed after ISIS pretended to want a prisoner swap with Jordan, for the pilot they’d already burned.
The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan has not taken this event lying down, and besides executing two terrorists in its custody, King Abdullah has promised to take the fight to ISIS, and apparently has the overwhelming support of Jordanians. To what degree the United States will assist Abdullah remains to be seen.
The United Arab Emirates quietly dropped out of the fight weeks ago because the U.S. had no adequate plan to retrieve pilots in the event of a shoot-down of one of their planes. That fact was withheld from the public, and only came to light this week, after the administration continued to list the UAE as a participant in the bombing campaign long after they’d dropped out. In hindsight, it appears their concerns were justified.
But the reaction from on high was to warn us not to “get on our high horse” in condemnation of such brutality, because “terrible acts have been committed in the name of Christ,” referring to the Crusades of 800 years ago and the Inquisition of 500 years ago. It is technically true that horrible things were “done in the name of Christ,” but we would point out that those things were done under the direction of the papacy and the Catholic church, and certainly have never been committed by the true church or true followers of Jesus Christ. But if we could change the subject back to the situation at hand… For some reason, we Americans, and British, Australians and Canadians need to be constantly reminded that we’re no better than the terrorists; our religion is as dangerous as theirs; and we “Christians” are just as brutal as fanatical Muslims, except the president won’t even call them that.
Since ISIS has no fear of the United States (at least under current leadership), many are casting about wondering who will take the lead and move to destroy the bloodthirsty terrorist movement before it gains an even greater swath of the Middle East. Some have asked, what about Europe?
The advent of EU soldiers into Lebanon is already under discussion in Brussels. They’re not exactly talking about taking a fight to the terrorists, but they are talking about a European “peacekeeping” military force they would like to station in the south of Lebanon presumably to stand between Israel and the kind of skirmish that took place a couple of years ago with terrorist fighters in Lebanon. You may remember what happened during that exchange, when UN “peacekeeping” outposts were used by the terrorists for launching rocket attacks into Israel.
It seems that for now, the European Union isn’t interested in getting involved in battles against the terrorists but a sentiment keeps emerging that they should have some kind of military presence in the region, even if it is out of immediate harm’s way, and in the passive role of “peace-keeper.”
The EU has steadfastly supported the cause of a Palestinian state, regularly condemned Israel for building settlements and for its military responses into Gaza. The advent of troops into south Lebanon might just turn out to lead to something much greater in the future. Imagine one of those guys getting captured and burned at some point. As mentioned in the Breitbart article, Brussels Commissioner Reveals Plans to Deploy EU Army in Middle East, “An EU military force has been a dream for europhiles for decades, yearning to give the EU more clout by having an armed back up to its political and economic policies.”
The only problem with that is, that it is primarily Germany that dictates EU economic policies and funding for the military force would come mostly from Germany. With the EU falling into greater unpopularity all over Europe including Germany, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment on the rise, serious economic peril looming for the Euro and the EU, you might wonder whether it is a good idea to encourage all concerned to forget the hardest lesson of the 20th Century and break the post-WWII sanction against Germany ever again becoming a military power. Under current circumstances that sentiment seems to have almost completely receded from consideration.
Last week we mentioned the controversy accompanying Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to address Congress, without prior approval from the White House. The former female Speaker of the House has suggested that she and her colleagues may find that they are “too busy” to attend. Netanyahu is expected to try to explain what a danger Iran will be, to Israel, to the United States, and all the western world, with nuclear weapons at their disposal. You might think there would be no need for such an explanation. But observers believe the “deal” being negotiated with Iran is allowing the nuclear program to proceed, and will not prevent its completion. Many publications ran this week with the claim by an Iranian military leader, that U.S. officials are “begging” Iran for a deal, and he also said the U.S. was negotiating from a position of weakness. No kidding?
After the blowup over Netanyahu’s invite to address Congress, you may find it interesting that Speaker Boehner has invited the pope to address Congress in September, with not so much as a whimper of resistance. (Who’s next, the ayatollah?) This truly is historic and without precedent. A pope has never been asked to address Congress before, and by extension he will have the attention of the entire nation and the world. We can expect to be lectured about income inequality, gay rights and our responsibility to welcome and support diseased immigrants from all over planet earth. It will be the same kind of gag-worthy tripe we’re treated to all the time, but there will be even more.
As we’ve seen before, every commentator on radio and television, every news writer, the panelists in every discussion will force his blasphemous title down our throats. The term Holy Father belongs to God, and Him alone. If Francis were half as humble as he pretends, he would dispense with it, repent, and apologize to God and everyone else. But just wait. His speech will undoubtedly include a call for all Christians to join in brotherhood and unity with Rome. He’s already well along in the “unity” mission. Does anything here ring any bells at all?
Mark Armstrong
