• #EverySingleTime #SecretPlan #israHell #Ukraine
    "There is NOTHING covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." ~ Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:26)

    LEAKED REPORT: Israel acknowledges Jews IN FACT ARE Khazars;
    SECRET PLAN FOR REVERSE MIGRATION FROM israHell TO Ukraine.
    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/

    In other words (((they))) want to establish a New israHell in Ukraine (Europe). Just google "Israel’s SECRET PLAN for a "Second Israel" in Ukraine". The new Ukrainian president Zelensky is also Joo.

    This is WHY the Kikes from the the 0'Homobama's State Department (Victoria Nuland) STAGED a coup in Ukraine in 2014.

    ***(((Victoria Nuland))) is the wife of a prominent WARMONGERING Neocon (((Robert Kagan))), who is a co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the NEW American Century and and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; (((She))) became FAMOUS after (((her))) leaked phone conversation with an U.S Ambassador to Ukraine (((Geoffrey Pyatt))): “F*ck the E.U.” while discussing the future of Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5

    https://canund.com/posts/73268
    #EverySingleTime #SecretPlan #israHell #Ukraine "There is NOTHING covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." ~ Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:26) LEAKED REPORT: Israel acknowledges Jews IN FACT ARE Khazars; SECRET PLAN FOR REVERSE MIGRATION FROM israHell TO Ukraine. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/ In other words (((they))) want to establish a New israHell in Ukraine (Europe). Just google "Israel’s SECRET PLAN for a "Second Israel" in Ukraine". The new Ukrainian president Zelensky is also Joo. This is WHY the Kikes from the the 0'Homobama's State Department (Victoria Nuland) STAGED a coup in Ukraine in 2014. ***(((Victoria Nuland))) is the wife of a prominent WARMONGERING Neocon (((Robert Kagan))), who is a co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the NEW American Century and and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; (((She))) became FAMOUS after (((her))) leaked phone conversation with an U.S Ambassador to Ukraine (((Geoffrey Pyatt))): “F*ck the E.U.” while discussing the future of Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5 https://canund.com/posts/73268
    Alondra Velazquez - #EverySingleTime #SecretPlan #israHell...
    #EverySingleTime #SecretPlan #israHell #Ukraine "There is NOTHING covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." ~ Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:26) LEAKED REPORT: Israel acknowledges Jews IN FACT ARE Khazars; SECRET PLAN FOR REVERSE MIGRATION FROM israHell TO...
    CANUND.COM
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • Worship
    August 13 “Come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.” Psalm 95:6
    Listen to today's Devotional

    Centuries ago our word “worship” was expressed as two words in English, “worth-ship”. The idea behind this Old English expression was that God’s glory, majesty and holiness made Him so “heavy” that a man would have to bend his knees, bow his head and lower his eyes under such a holy load.

    In other words, the “weightiness” of God should bring us low before we lift His name on high and acknowledge and proclaim His worth. The next time you bow down and kneel before God, take a moment to feel His holy weight. Then worship Him with awe and reverence! https://mailchi.mp/a8f936e44082/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452801?e=9cbe669f39
    Worship August 13 “Come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.” Psalm 95:6 Listen to today's Devotional Centuries ago our word “worship” was expressed as two words in English, “worth-ship”. The idea behind this Old English expression was that God’s glory, majesty and holiness made Him so “heavy” that a man would have to bend his knees, bow his head and lower his eyes under such a holy load. In other words, the “weightiness” of God should bring us low before we lift His name on high and acknowledge and proclaim His worth. The next time you bow down and kneel before God, take a moment to feel His holy weight. Then worship Him with awe and reverence! https://mailchi.mp/a8f936e44082/the-truest-freedom-you-can-ever-experience-452801?e=9cbe669f39
    Worship
    Worship Him with awe and reverence.
    MAILCHI.MP
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Living Truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-10
    JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU (TSIDKENU = si ken noo)
    “There is no one righteous, not even one…” (Romans 3:10)

    Jehovah-tsidkenu. What in the world do these words mean? We may know Jehovah is the personal name of God, which is translated as “LORD.” Tsidkenu is likely the word we are not familiar with, which means “our righteousness.” Altogether, Jehovah-tsidkenu means “the LORD our righteousness” in Hebrew.

    Tsidkenu, “our righteousness,” is not a familiar phrase we use today, if it is used at all. The man on the street probably associates it with self-righteousness. When someone says, “He’s so righteous,” it is not a compliment but a cynical statement about their self-righteous judgmentalism. But this is not the way this word is used in Scripture. Righteousness is a word used of God to talk about His good character.

    Human beings, created to display God’s righteousness, are in a situation far removed from that as Paul tells us, “There is no one righteous, not even one…” (Romans 3:10). When we attempt to be righteous with our rolled-up sleeves and determination we discover that, “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

    There is a legacy within us that recognizes the need to do what is right yet we are in constant internal turmoil. Paul explains, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?” (Romans 7:22-24).

    Jehovah-tsidkenu––the LORD Our Righteousness––means that we have no claims based on performance, based on history or based outside of Christ. On their own, all these will do is make us self-righteous and a spiritual snob. But the LORD Our Righteousness is about our standing before God. “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20) when we recognize that Jesus Christ became sin and died for us. Every sin we ever committed, thought of committing or will commit, He took it and made our standing before God righteous.

    Do we know that? Or are we tiptoeing around God hoping that there is enough good in our backpack to impress Him? Because it never will. We need to come to Jesus and acknowledge before Him that our rightful place should have been on that cross, where He acted as our substitute. Jesus bore our sin in His body and because of that, He now offers us His forgiveness and cleansing, so that our status before God is now righteous. Thank You, Jehovah-tsidkenu for giving us tsidkenu.

    Prayer: Jehovah-tsidkenu, praise You, for out of Your grace, mercy and love I am made righteous because Jesus bore my sin on the cross. Thank You, Lord.
    Living Truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-10 JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU (TSIDKENU = si ken noo) “There is no one righteous, not even one…” (Romans 3:10) Jehovah-tsidkenu. What in the world do these words mean? We may know Jehovah is the personal name of God, which is translated as “LORD.” Tsidkenu is likely the word we are not familiar with, which means “our righteousness.” Altogether, Jehovah-tsidkenu means “the LORD our righteousness” in Hebrew. Tsidkenu, “our righteousness,” is not a familiar phrase we use today, if it is used at all. The man on the street probably associates it with self-righteousness. When someone says, “He’s so righteous,” it is not a compliment but a cynical statement about their self-righteous judgmentalism. But this is not the way this word is used in Scripture. Righteousness is a word used of God to talk about His good character. Human beings, created to display God’s righteousness, are in a situation far removed from that as Paul tells us, “There is no one righteous, not even one…” (Romans 3:10). When we attempt to be righteous with our rolled-up sleeves and determination we discover that, “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). There is a legacy within us that recognizes the need to do what is right yet we are in constant internal turmoil. Paul explains, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?” (Romans 7:22-24). Jehovah-tsidkenu––the LORD Our Righteousness––means that we have no claims based on performance, based on history or based outside of Christ. On their own, all these will do is make us self-righteous and a spiritual snob. But the LORD Our Righteousness is about our standing before God. “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20) when we recognize that Jesus Christ became sin and died for us. Every sin we ever committed, thought of committing or will commit, He took it and made our standing before God righteous. Do we know that? Or are we tiptoeing around God hoping that there is enough good in our backpack to impress Him? Because it never will. We need to come to Jesus and acknowledge before Him that our rightful place should have been on that cross, where He acted as our substitute. Jesus bore our sin in His body and because of that, He now offers us His forgiveness and cleansing, so that our status before God is now righteous. Thank You, Jehovah-tsidkenu for giving us tsidkenu. Prayer: Jehovah-tsidkenu, praise You, for out of Your grace, mercy and love I am made righteous because Jesus bore my sin on the cross. Thank You, Lord.
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • Living truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-09
    IMPUTED
    God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
    The opening verse of this devotion, from Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth, gives one of the most important truths that we can ever come to learn: we can only become what Christ is in our standing and position before God because Christ became what we are in His standing and position before God.

    The phrase that theologians have used for this is “imputed righteousness.” Imputed implies that it is not an inherent one within ourselves. Christ’s sin was not inherently in Himself. Rather, our sin was imputed to Him and His righteousness was imputed to us. Therefore, when Jesus Christ went to the cross, His standing before His Father changed. He who knew no sin was made to be sin. This was not His own sin, but sin was imputed to Him.

    Jesus Christ hung on that cross before His Father as a murderer, rapist, liar and a cheat. Everything Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and even what us were, Jesus was on the cross. He was declared a sinner before His Father. We may never come to understand what it was like for Jesus emotionally and spiritually to be made sin before His Father. We may say that it is not fair and, of course, it is not. But neither is the other side of the equation fair.

    The imputed sin on Christ and the imputed righteousness on us have nothing to do with our track records. This is not about His behaviour or our behaviour. For us, it is simply saying, “Thank You. You took my sin in Your body on the cross.”

    This gives us tremendous confidence on Judgment Day. If we put any confidence in our track record, we are deluding ourselves. Our grounds for confidence are based entirely upon the fact that Jesus Christ is our substitute. Jesus substituted Himself for our sin on the cross and now He substitutes our sin for Himself in our standing before God. John tells us, “This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: in this world we are like Jesus” (1 John 4:17).

    Our imputed righteousness is about our standing before God and our imparted righteousness is about our growth in righteousness and holiness. It is humbling for us to acknowledge that apart from Christ we are nothing and have nothing. God credits to us what we do not deserve and cannot earn because Jesus imputed to us His standing. May we rejoice in our peace and standing with God because of Jesus and live lives that reflect Christ’s imputed righteousness to us.

    Prayer: Dear God, thank You that Jesus’ righteousness has been imputed in me so that my standing before You is perfect and pure. Praise You, God!
    Living truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-09 IMPUTED God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21) The opening verse of this devotion, from Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth, gives one of the most important truths that we can ever come to learn: we can only become what Christ is in our standing and position before God because Christ became what we are in His standing and position before God. The phrase that theologians have used for this is “imputed righteousness.” Imputed implies that it is not an inherent one within ourselves. Christ’s sin was not inherently in Himself. Rather, our sin was imputed to Him and His righteousness was imputed to us. Therefore, when Jesus Christ went to the cross, His standing before His Father changed. He who knew no sin was made to be sin. This was not His own sin, but sin was imputed to Him. Jesus Christ hung on that cross before His Father as a murderer, rapist, liar and a cheat. Everything Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and even what us were, Jesus was on the cross. He was declared a sinner before His Father. We may never come to understand what it was like for Jesus emotionally and spiritually to be made sin before His Father. We may say that it is not fair and, of course, it is not. But neither is the other side of the equation fair. The imputed sin on Christ and the imputed righteousness on us have nothing to do with our track records. This is not about His behaviour or our behaviour. For us, it is simply saying, “Thank You. You took my sin in Your body on the cross.” This gives us tremendous confidence on Judgment Day. If we put any confidence in our track record, we are deluding ourselves. Our grounds for confidence are based entirely upon the fact that Jesus Christ is our substitute. Jesus substituted Himself for our sin on the cross and now He substitutes our sin for Himself in our standing before God. John tells us, “This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: in this world we are like Jesus” (1 John 4:17). Our imputed righteousness is about our standing before God and our imparted righteousness is about our growth in righteousness and holiness. It is humbling for us to acknowledge that apart from Christ we are nothing and have nothing. God credits to us what we do not deserve and cannot earn because Jesus imputed to us His standing. May we rejoice in our peace and standing with God because of Jesus and live lives that reflect Christ’s imputed righteousness to us. Prayer: Dear God, thank You that Jesus’ righteousness has been imputed in me so that my standing before You is perfect and pure. Praise You, God!
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Living Truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-08
    Christ Jesus the Lord
    “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord...” (Colossians 2:6)

    “What’s in a name?” is a famous question from William Shakespeare’s play, Romeo and Juliet. Even though we have two names, and the second is usually our family name, when we look at the name “Jesus Christ,” it does not mean “Christ” is Jesus’ family name. Rather, the name “Christ” is a title, which means, “the anointed one.” Like Queen Elizabeth, we do not call her Elizabeth Queen because “Queen” is not her family name but a title that sets her apart. Similarly, the name “Christ” sets Jesus apart.

    Paul puts three titles of Jesus in one sentence to tell us three things we receive when we believe in Him, “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in Him” (Colossians 2:6). Firstly, we have received Christ, who is the divine One. Paul goes on to explain, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness” (Colossians 2:9-10). Because the fullness of God lives in Christ, and the fullness of Christ lives in us; therefore, everything God is comes to live within us!

    Secondly, we have received Jesus, which is His human person. As the Father declared in a unique way at Jesus’ baptism, “This is My Son, whom I love” (Matthew 3:17), Jesus declared to His disciples, “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). We become sons of God only by being in Christ, so we share His Sonship as John writes, “Yet to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12-13).

    Thirdly, we have received Him as Lord, which is His function as reigning Lord. When Jesus Christ becomes our Lord, there are wonderful facets. He forgives us, cleanses us and guarantees us heaven when we die, because we have already received that gift of eternal life. But do not divide Him up as though His lordship was an optional extra. That is who He is and He comes to take that role in our lives.

    When we acknowledge and receive Christ Jesus the Lord, we are set apart by declaring that His deity, sonship and lordship lives in our life through His Spirit. The Spirit of the Lord Jesus knows exactly what it is like to be human. He faced all the struggles of humanity and is able to help us. He knows the pressures that we face and He is not helping us from a distance, but lives within our hearts. Now, doesn’t the name “Christ Jesus the Lord” just comfort us?

    Prayer: Praise the name of Christ Jesus the Lord, who dwells within me. Thank You that You are not far away but near and close to me.
    Living Truth Daily Devotion, 2019-08-08 Christ Jesus the Lord “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord...” (Colossians 2:6) “What’s in a name?” is a famous question from William Shakespeare’s play, Romeo and Juliet. Even though we have two names, and the second is usually our family name, when we look at the name “Jesus Christ,” it does not mean “Christ” is Jesus’ family name. Rather, the name “Christ” is a title, which means, “the anointed one.” Like Queen Elizabeth, we do not call her Elizabeth Queen because “Queen” is not her family name but a title that sets her apart. Similarly, the name “Christ” sets Jesus apart. Paul puts three titles of Jesus in one sentence to tell us three things we receive when we believe in Him, “just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in Him” (Colossians 2:6). Firstly, we have received Christ, who is the divine One. Paul goes on to explain, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness” (Colossians 2:9-10). Because the fullness of God lives in Christ, and the fullness of Christ lives in us; therefore, everything God is comes to live within us! Secondly, we have received Jesus, which is His human person. As the Father declared in a unique way at Jesus’ baptism, “This is My Son, whom I love” (Matthew 3:17), Jesus declared to His disciples, “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). We become sons of God only by being in Christ, so we share His Sonship as John writes, “Yet to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12-13). Thirdly, we have received Him as Lord, which is His function as reigning Lord. When Jesus Christ becomes our Lord, there are wonderful facets. He forgives us, cleanses us and guarantees us heaven when we die, because we have already received that gift of eternal life. But do not divide Him up as though His lordship was an optional extra. That is who He is and He comes to take that role in our lives. When we acknowledge and receive Christ Jesus the Lord, we are set apart by declaring that His deity, sonship and lordship lives in our life through His Spirit. The Spirit of the Lord Jesus knows exactly what it is like to be human. He faced all the struggles of humanity and is able to help us. He knows the pressures that we face and He is not helping us from a distance, but lives within our hearts. Now, doesn’t the name “Christ Jesus the Lord” just comfort us? Prayer: Praise the name of Christ Jesus the Lord, who dwells within me. Thank You that You are not far away but near and close to me.
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • "Yes, so this problem of bad homosexuals goes back far beyond the actual push – which came from within the organization – to induct open homosexuals into the group.

    It’s almost like these bad homosexuals (“pedophiles”) infiltrated and completely took over an organization that allowed them to prey on young boys, and then pushed for the open acknowledgement of themselves as helpers and mentors of the boys they were molesting." - Andrew Anglin

    https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/shocker-as-the-gay-boy-scouts-are-hit-with-a-pederasty-scandal/
    "Yes, so this problem of bad homosexuals goes back far beyond the actual push – which came from within the organization – to induct open homosexuals into the group. It’s almost like these bad homosexuals (“pedophiles”) infiltrated and completely took over an organization that allowed them to prey on young boys, and then pushed for the open acknowledgement of themselves as helpers and mentors of the boys they were molesting." - Andrew Anglin https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/shocker-as-the-gay-boy-scouts-are-hit-with-a-pederasty-scandal/
    Shocker as the Gay Boy Scouts are Hit with a Pederasty Scandal
    Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer August 7, 2019 This good homosexual Boy Scout leader has sworn a ...
    DSTORMER6EM3I4KM.ONION.LINK
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • White Supremacy Massacres Ravage El Paso And Dayton
    The 21-year-old white supremacist suspected of carrying out a deadly shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas wanted to stop a "Hispanic invasion of Texas," according to a political document police believe he wrote.

    The toll in Saturday's massacre rose to 22 people killed and more than two dozen injured on Monday morning, and it was one of three major mass shootings across the US in the past week.

    But even among that horrific trio, the shooting in El Paso stood out as a domestic terrorist attack designed to inspire fear among Hispanic immigrants to the US.

    The killings took place at a spot along the US-Mexico border frequented by Mexicans and by a man who police believe posted a political document explaining his hatred of immigrants and race-mixing.

    President Trump on Monday morning said the shooter's manifesto was "consumed with racist hate."

    "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy," he said.

    "These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul."
    But he did not acknowledge his own divisive and racist rhetoric or address the suspect's access to firearms, and instead focused on unrelated issues of mental health and violent video games.
    #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola
    https://youtu.be/kE3PtbmvNyo
    The Damage Report 8/5/19
    White Supremacy Massacres Ravage El Paso And Dayton The 21-year-old white supremacist suspected of carrying out a deadly shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas wanted to stop a "Hispanic invasion of Texas," according to a political document police believe he wrote. The toll in Saturday's massacre rose to 22 people killed and more than two dozen injured on Monday morning, and it was one of three major mass shootings across the US in the past week. But even among that horrific trio, the shooting in El Paso stood out as a domestic terrorist attack designed to inspire fear among Hispanic immigrants to the US. The killings took place at a spot along the US-Mexico border frequented by Mexicans and by a man who police believe posted a political document explaining his hatred of immigrants and race-mixing. President Trump on Monday morning said the shooter's manifesto was "consumed with racist hate." "In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy," he said. "These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul." But he did not acknowledge his own divisive and racist rhetoric or address the suspect's access to firearms, and instead focused on unrelated issues of mental health and violent video games. #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola https://youtu.be/kE3PtbmvNyo The Damage Report 8/5/19
    White Supremacy Massacres Ravage El Paso And Dayton
    White supremacists carry out mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. John Iadarola and Brooke Thomas break it down on The Damage Report. Follow The Damage Repo...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Actions
    GERMANY REPORT

    EATING NRW DEN 3
    31..07. 20197

    TIME 21 O'CLOCK 04 MIN.

    GERMANY
    EATING NRW STEEL
    BERGMANN FIELD "SMALL ISTANBUL"
    START OF NO GO ZONE
    REPORT 31.07.2019
    LIVELY AFTER FUSE! OK !
    to 1) (TRUTH OR NOT TRUTH CONDITION BY TRANCE OF THE ILLUMINATI OF THE FREEMASON SATANIST SECRET ISLAM SCIENTOLOGY
    THE SUGGESTIONS ARE NOW TRUE THE JEWS THE ILLUMINATI THE FREEMASONS DRAW ME A MINDED IMAGE THE EXISTING PERVERSE ISLAM PUTTING ME TO MY POWER IS REGULARLY SUCKED OUT I WILL BE SWEEPED EVERY NIGHT YOU DO NOT LET ME SLEEP THE ISLAM HERE IS BAD PEACEFUL HE IS BUT NOT EVERY NIGHT HE BUGS TO OTHER LEVELS AS I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE ISLAM I HERE IN THE POTT RIGHT DIFFICULTIES HERE IS ALL INFILTRATED FROM ISLAM WITHOUT HEAVY WEAPONS HERE CAN NOT BE PLACED A RIGHT OF LAW WE NEED A GENERAL ISLAM PROHIBITION TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THE RUHR POT KUMPELS DO NOT TAPE ALSO THE BABIES BELONGED AND HOW YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE KILLING AGAINST YOU IN THE CIVIL WAR MUSLIMS ALL ARE BOUND IN THE KORAN AND WHEN A MAJORITY EXISTS SINCE THERE'S NO BUMPER MORE BELIEVE IN ANOTHER BELIEVING INTERNAL TALKS TO GERMAN TURKISH FACILITIES AND OTHER INTERFACES TO ISLAM THERE WAS NO MUCH CLAIMED ONLY SO MUCH IF THE NRW WILL TAKE YOU SLAUGHTER I WAS TO THE DOCTOR AND AM TOMORROW IN THE PRACTICE I AM TENS WHAT THIS TIME COMES ON ME I HAVE AN ENTRY STILL I HAD NO CHILDHOOD I WAS LIKE A SLAVE KEEPS AND BECOMES ONLY ONE STONE BELOW TODAY
    SO TILL TOMORROW SO GOD JESUS WILL AND GRACE HAS
    PS: IN MY LUNCH CALM WAS OPENED TO ME A LONG JOURNEY IN SHORT TIME WOULD BE OVER LIGHT YEARS THERE WAS MORE IMPROVED YOU SPEAK FROM GOD DA I WAS TAKING LIGHT YEARS AND VERY VERY LONG TIME I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD TO DO SOMETHING WITH GOD THEY DO NOT AND DO NOT SAY DIRECTLY MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT GOD IS EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME AND NEEDS NO SECOND TO LEAVE MILLION LIGHT YEARS AGAIN
    THEN TO THEN

    Aktionen
    DEUTSCHLAND BERICHT

    ESSEN NRW DEN 3
    31..07. 20197

    ZEIT 21 UHR 04 MIN.

    DEUTSCHLAND
    ESSEN NRW STAHL
    BERGMANN FELD "SMALL ISTANBUL"
    ANFANG EINER NO GO ZONE
    BERICHT 31.07.2019
    LEBENDIGE NACH SICHERUNG! OK !
    zu 1) (WAHRHEIT ODER NICHT WAHRHEITSBEDINGUNG DURCH TRANCE DER ILLUMINATI DES FREIMAURER-SATANISTEN-SECRET-ISLAM SCIENTOLOGY
    DIE SUGGESTIONEN SIND JETZT RICHTIG HEFTIG DIE JUDEN DIE ILLUMINATI DIE FREIMAURER ZEICHNEN MIR EIN DÜSTERES BILD DER AUSFÜHRENDE PERVERSE DER ISLAM SETZT MIR ZU MEINE KRAFT WIRD REGELRECHT ABGESAUGT ICH WERDE JEDE NACHT GESTRESST MAN LÄSST MICH NICHT SCHLAFEN DER ISLAM HIER GIBT SICH SCHEINBAR FRIEDLICH IST ER ABER NICHT JEDE NACHT SCHLÄGT ER ZU IN ANDEREN EBENEN DA ICH DEN ISLAM NICHT ANERKENNE HABE ICH HIER IM POTT RICHTIGE SCHWIERIGKEITEN HIER IST ALLES INFILTRIERT VOM ISLAM OHNE SCHWERE WAFFEN KANN HIER KEIN RECHTSSTAAT DURCH GESETZT WERDEN WIR BRAUCHEN EIN GENERELLES ISLAM VERBOT UM HANDELN ZU KÖNNEN WAS DIE RUHR POT KUMPELS NICHT KAPIEREN AUCH DIE HIER GEBORENEN UND WIE IHR ANNEHMT DAS ES KUMPELS SIND WERDEN GEGEN EUCH KÄMPFEN IM BÜRGERKRIEG MUSLIME SIND ALLE IM KORAN GEBUNDEN UND WENN EINE MEHRHEIT BESTEHT SEIT IHR KEINE KUMPELS MEHR SONDERN ANDERS GLÄUBIGE ICH HABE INTERNE GESPRÄCHE ABGEHÖRT VON DEUTSCH TÜRKISCHEN EINRICHTUNGEN UND SONSTIGEN SCHNITTSTELLEN ZUM ISLAM ES WURDE DA NICHT VIEL GEREDET NUR SO VIEL WENN DIE NRW ÜBERNEHMEN WERDEN DIE EUCH SCHLACHTEN ICH WAR BEIM ARZT UND BIN MORGEN IN DER PRAXIS ICH BIN GESPANNT WAS DIESES MAL AUF MICH ZU KOMMT EINEN EINTRAG HABE ICH NOCH ICH HATTE KEINE KINDHEIT ICH WURDE WIE EIN SKLAVE GEHALTEN UND BIN INNERLICH BIS HEUTE NUR NOCH EIN STEIN
    ALSO BIS MORGEN SO GOTT JESUS WILL UND GNADE HAT
    PS : IN MEINER MITTAGS RUHE WURDE MIR ERÖFFNET DAS ICH IN KÜRZE EINE LANGE REISE ANTRETEN WÜRDE ÜBER LICHTJAHRE HINAUS DORT GING ES MIR BESSER SIE SPRACHEN VON GOTT DA WURDE ICH STUTZIG LICHTJAHRE UND SEHR SEHR LANGE ZEIT ICH FRAGTE OB SIE ETWAS MIT GOTT ZU TUN HÄTTEN SIE VERNEINTEN UND SAGTEN NICHT DIREKT DENN MEINE ERFAHRUNG IST ES DAS GOTT ÜBERALL GLEICHZEITIG IST UND KEINE SEKUNDE BRAUCHT UM MILLIONEN LICHTJAHRE ZURÜCK ZU LEGEN
    ALSO BIS DANN
    Actions GERMANY REPORT EATING NRW DEN 3 31..07. 20197 TIME 21 O'CLOCK 04 MIN. GERMANY EATING NRW STEEL BERGMANN FIELD "SMALL ISTANBUL" START OF NO GO ZONE REPORT 31.07.2019 LIVELY AFTER FUSE! OK ! to 1) (TRUTH OR NOT TRUTH CONDITION BY TRANCE OF THE ILLUMINATI OF THE FREEMASON SATANIST SECRET ISLAM SCIENTOLOGY THE SUGGESTIONS ARE NOW TRUE THE JEWS THE ILLUMINATI THE FREEMASONS DRAW ME A MINDED IMAGE THE EXISTING PERVERSE ISLAM PUTTING ME TO MY POWER IS REGULARLY SUCKED OUT I WILL BE SWEEPED EVERY NIGHT YOU DO NOT LET ME SLEEP THE ISLAM HERE IS BAD PEACEFUL HE IS BUT NOT EVERY NIGHT HE BUGS TO OTHER LEVELS AS I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE ISLAM I HERE IN THE POTT RIGHT DIFFICULTIES HERE IS ALL INFILTRATED FROM ISLAM WITHOUT HEAVY WEAPONS HERE CAN NOT BE PLACED A RIGHT OF LAW WE NEED A GENERAL ISLAM PROHIBITION TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THE RUHR POT KUMPELS DO NOT TAPE ALSO THE BABIES BELONGED AND HOW YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE KILLING AGAINST YOU IN THE CIVIL WAR MUSLIMS ALL ARE BOUND IN THE KORAN AND WHEN A MAJORITY EXISTS SINCE THERE'S NO BUMPER MORE BELIEVE IN ANOTHER BELIEVING INTERNAL TALKS TO GERMAN TURKISH FACILITIES AND OTHER INTERFACES TO ISLAM THERE WAS NO MUCH CLAIMED ONLY SO MUCH IF THE NRW WILL TAKE YOU SLAUGHTER I WAS TO THE DOCTOR AND AM TOMORROW IN THE PRACTICE I AM TENS WHAT THIS TIME COMES ON ME I HAVE AN ENTRY STILL I HAD NO CHILDHOOD I WAS LIKE A SLAVE KEEPS AND BECOMES ONLY ONE STONE BELOW TODAY SO TILL TOMORROW SO GOD JESUS WILL AND GRACE HAS PS: IN MY LUNCH CALM WAS OPENED TO ME A LONG JOURNEY IN SHORT TIME WOULD BE OVER LIGHT YEARS THERE WAS MORE IMPROVED YOU SPEAK FROM GOD DA I WAS TAKING LIGHT YEARS AND VERY VERY LONG TIME I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD TO DO SOMETHING WITH GOD THEY DO NOT AND DO NOT SAY DIRECTLY MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT GOD IS EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME AND NEEDS NO SECOND TO LEAVE MILLION LIGHT YEARS AGAIN THEN TO THEN Aktionen DEUTSCHLAND BERICHT ESSEN NRW DEN 3 31..07. 20197 ZEIT 21 UHR 04 MIN. DEUTSCHLAND ESSEN NRW STAHL BERGMANN FELD "SMALL ISTANBUL" ANFANG EINER NO GO ZONE BERICHT 31.07.2019 LEBENDIGE NACH SICHERUNG! OK ! zu 1) (WAHRHEIT ODER NICHT WAHRHEITSBEDINGUNG DURCH TRANCE DER ILLUMINATI DES FREIMAURER-SATANISTEN-SECRET-ISLAM SCIENTOLOGY DIE SUGGESTIONEN SIND JETZT RICHTIG HEFTIG DIE JUDEN DIE ILLUMINATI DIE FREIMAURER ZEICHNEN MIR EIN DÜSTERES BILD DER AUSFÜHRENDE PERVERSE DER ISLAM SETZT MIR ZU MEINE KRAFT WIRD REGELRECHT ABGESAUGT ICH WERDE JEDE NACHT GESTRESST MAN LÄSST MICH NICHT SCHLAFEN DER ISLAM HIER GIBT SICH SCHEINBAR FRIEDLICH IST ER ABER NICHT JEDE NACHT SCHLÄGT ER ZU IN ANDEREN EBENEN DA ICH DEN ISLAM NICHT ANERKENNE HABE ICH HIER IM POTT RICHTIGE SCHWIERIGKEITEN HIER IST ALLES INFILTRIERT VOM ISLAM OHNE SCHWERE WAFFEN KANN HIER KEIN RECHTSSTAAT DURCH GESETZT WERDEN WIR BRAUCHEN EIN GENERELLES ISLAM VERBOT UM HANDELN ZU KÖNNEN WAS DIE RUHR POT KUMPELS NICHT KAPIEREN AUCH DIE HIER GEBORENEN UND WIE IHR ANNEHMT DAS ES KUMPELS SIND WERDEN GEGEN EUCH KÄMPFEN IM BÜRGERKRIEG MUSLIME SIND ALLE IM KORAN GEBUNDEN UND WENN EINE MEHRHEIT BESTEHT SEIT IHR KEINE KUMPELS MEHR SONDERN ANDERS GLÄUBIGE ICH HABE INTERNE GESPRÄCHE ABGEHÖRT VON DEUTSCH TÜRKISCHEN EINRICHTUNGEN UND SONSTIGEN SCHNITTSTELLEN ZUM ISLAM ES WURDE DA NICHT VIEL GEREDET NUR SO VIEL WENN DIE NRW ÜBERNEHMEN WERDEN DIE EUCH SCHLACHTEN ICH WAR BEIM ARZT UND BIN MORGEN IN DER PRAXIS ICH BIN GESPANNT WAS DIESES MAL AUF MICH ZU KOMMT EINEN EINTRAG HABE ICH NOCH ICH HATTE KEINE KINDHEIT ICH WURDE WIE EIN SKLAVE GEHALTEN UND BIN INNERLICH BIS HEUTE NUR NOCH EIN STEIN ALSO BIS MORGEN SO GOTT JESUS WILL UND GNADE HAT PS : IN MEINER MITTAGS RUHE WURDE MIR ERÖFFNET DAS ICH IN KÜRZE EINE LANGE REISE ANTRETEN WÜRDE ÜBER LICHTJAHRE HINAUS DORT GING ES MIR BESSER SIE SPRACHEN VON GOTT DA WURDE ICH STUTZIG LICHTJAHRE UND SEHR SEHR LANGE ZEIT ICH FRAGTE OB SIE ETWAS MIT GOTT ZU TUN HÄTTEN SIE VERNEINTEN UND SAGTEN NICHT DIREKT DENN MEINE ERFAHRUNG IST ES DAS GOTT ÜBERALL GLEICHZEITIG IST UND KEINE SEKUNDE BRAUCHT UM MILLIONEN LICHTJAHRE ZURÜCK ZU LEGEN ALSO BIS DANN
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Scientists Urge UN to Add Environmental Destruction to Geneva Conventions' List of War Crimes
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/24/scientists-urge-un-add-environmental-destruction-geneva-conventions-list-war-crimes
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    In a letter to the editor published Tuesday by the journal Nature, two dozen scientists from around the world urged the United Nations' International Law Commission to adopt a Fifth Geneva Convention that creates protections for the environment in armed conflicts.

    The four existing Geneva Conventions and their three additional protocols are globally recognized treaties that establish standards under international humanitarian law for the treatment of wounded troops in the field, soldiers shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflicts. Violating the treaties amounts to a war crime.

    "Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction, and poison water resources," notes Tuesday's letter. "The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife."

    The letter—entitled "Stop Military Conflicts From Trashing Environment"—was spearheaded by Sarah M. Durant of the Zoological Society of London and José C. Brito of the University of Porto in Portugal. The 22 additional signatories (pdf) are affiliated with organizations and institutions in Egypt, France, Hong Kong, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Libya, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    "We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission's recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations," says the letter, which recognizes that the U.N. commission is meeting this month to discuss expanding on the principles it has drafted (pdf) about protecting the environment in war zones.

    Adopting an environment-focused convention "would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources," the letter explains. It also highlights the importance of companies and governments collaborating to regulate weapons transfers, and holding the military industry accountable for its impact on the environment.

    Zoological Society of London's Durant told The Guardian in an interview published Wednesday that "the brutal toll of war on the natural world is well documented, destroying the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, and driving many species, already under intense pressure, towards extinction."

    "We hope governments around the world will enshrine these protections into international law," she said. "This would not only help safeguard threatened species, but would also support rural communities, both during and post-conflict, whose livelihoods are long-term casualties of environmental destruction."

    Durant's co-author Brito added that "the impacts of armed conflict are causing additional pressure to imperiled wildlife from the Middle East and North Africa. Global commitment is needed to avoid the likely extinction of emblematic desert fauna over the next decade."

    A 2008 article from Worldwatch Institute—a U.S.-based environmental research group—details how "widespread concern about the environmental effects of warfare began with the American war in Vietnam," when soldiers infamously used the powerful herbicide known as Agent Orange to wipe out forest cover and crops.

    Global concerns over the environmental effects of war arose again in the 1990s, when Iraqi forces burned Kuwaiti oil fields, and the United States used bombs and missiles that contained depleted uranium on Iraq. As The Guardian reported in 2014, "researchers have suggested the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq, making the environment carcinogenic."

    The letter in Nature is not the first demand that international rules of war be crafted to protect the environment. In 2007, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), a U.K.-based charity, issued one such call.

    CIWEM's then-executive director Nick Reeves said at the time that "long-term environmental damage is an inevitable consequence of war. The environment may seem a minor casualty but combined with the destruction of democratic informed decision-making, war prolongs human suffering and undermines the foundation for social progress and economic security."

    "CIWEM demands a convention to examine the establishment of U.N. protocols for the protection of the environment," said Reeves. "We also need to acknowledge that fighting occurs where resources are scarce due to over population, meaning we need sensible population policies. We must treat the environment and each other with more respect."

    Read the full letter published by Nature Tuesday below:

    The United Nations' International Law Commission is meeting this month to push forward a 2013 programme to protect the environment in regions of armed conflict (go.nature[dot]com/2ewdyj). We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission’s recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations.

    Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction and poison water resources (see, for example, J. C. Brito et al. Conserv. Lett. https://doi[dot]org/gfhst9; 2018). The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife.

    A Fifth Geneva Convention would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources. Companies and governments need to work together to regulate arms transfer (see go.nature[dot]com/2lgtfx). And the military industry must be held more accountable for the impact of its activities.
    Scientists Urge UN to Add Environmental Destruction to Geneva Conventions' List of War Crimes https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/24/scientists-urge-un-add-environmental-destruction-geneva-conventions-list-war-crimes Jessica Corbett, staff writer In a letter to the editor published Tuesday by the journal Nature, two dozen scientists from around the world urged the United Nations' International Law Commission to adopt a Fifth Geneva Convention that creates protections for the environment in armed conflicts. The four existing Geneva Conventions and their three additional protocols are globally recognized treaties that establish standards under international humanitarian law for the treatment of wounded troops in the field, soldiers shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflicts. Violating the treaties amounts to a war crime. "Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction, and poison water resources," notes Tuesday's letter. "The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife." The letter—entitled "Stop Military Conflicts From Trashing Environment"—was spearheaded by Sarah M. Durant of the Zoological Society of London and José C. Brito of the University of Porto in Portugal. The 22 additional signatories (pdf) are affiliated with organizations and institutions in Egypt, France, Hong Kong, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Libya, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. "We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission's recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations," says the letter, which recognizes that the U.N. commission is meeting this month to discuss expanding on the principles it has drafted (pdf) about protecting the environment in war zones. Adopting an environment-focused convention "would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources," the letter explains. It also highlights the importance of companies and governments collaborating to regulate weapons transfers, and holding the military industry accountable for its impact on the environment. Zoological Society of London's Durant told The Guardian in an interview published Wednesday that "the brutal toll of war on the natural world is well documented, destroying the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, and driving many species, already under intense pressure, towards extinction." "We hope governments around the world will enshrine these protections into international law," she said. "This would not only help safeguard threatened species, but would also support rural communities, both during and post-conflict, whose livelihoods are long-term casualties of environmental destruction." Durant's co-author Brito added that "the impacts of armed conflict are causing additional pressure to imperiled wildlife from the Middle East and North Africa. Global commitment is needed to avoid the likely extinction of emblematic desert fauna over the next decade." A 2008 article from Worldwatch Institute—a U.S.-based environmental research group—details how "widespread concern about the environmental effects of warfare began with the American war in Vietnam," when soldiers infamously used the powerful herbicide known as Agent Orange to wipe out forest cover and crops. Global concerns over the environmental effects of war arose again in the 1990s, when Iraqi forces burned Kuwaiti oil fields, and the United States used bombs and missiles that contained depleted uranium on Iraq. As The Guardian reported in 2014, "researchers have suggested the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq, making the environment carcinogenic." The letter in Nature is not the first demand that international rules of war be crafted to protect the environment. In 2007, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), a U.K.-based charity, issued one such call. CIWEM's then-executive director Nick Reeves said at the time that "long-term environmental damage is an inevitable consequence of war. The environment may seem a minor casualty but combined with the destruction of democratic informed decision-making, war prolongs human suffering and undermines the foundation for social progress and economic security." "CIWEM demands a convention to examine the establishment of U.N. protocols for the protection of the environment," said Reeves. "We also need to acknowledge that fighting occurs where resources are scarce due to over population, meaning we need sensible population policies. We must treat the environment and each other with more respect." Read the full letter published by Nature Tuesday below: The United Nations' International Law Commission is meeting this month to push forward a 2013 programme to protect the environment in regions of armed conflict (go.nature[dot]com/2ewdyj). We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission’s recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations. Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction and poison water resources (see, for example, J. C. Brito et al. Conserv. Lett. https://doi[dot]org/gfhst9; 2018). The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife. A Fifth Geneva Convention would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources. Companies and governments need to work together to regulate arms transfer (see go.nature[dot]com/2lgtfx). And the military industry must be held more accountable for the impact of its activities.
    Scientists Urge UN to Add Environmental Destruction to Geneva Conventions' List of War Crimes
    "Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction, and poison water resources."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000

0% INTEREST , NO HIDDEN FEES, NO CREDIT CHECK, 100% APPROVED UP TO $10,000