Hey, where's my thanks for bringing this to your, and thus the world's, attention? I'm the one who has been misspending his youth watching these damn shows.

Posted by: Hugh at April 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Hugh:

Sorry about that. Here you go.

"Thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald, who actually watches the Beck Show, and let me know about this exchange."

Apologies for the omission, old man.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 26, 2008 1:36 PM

What passes for discourse these days really boils my blood. The only thing sillier than the End Timers is that actual political entities think the foolish rhetoric of the inconsequential can lead to peace.

Posted by: theonecalledjonesy at April 26, 2008 1:37 PM

Why is that significant? Because in the Bible, Daniel, Chapter 9, it talks about a seven-year comprehensive peace deal between Israel and the many nations and enemies that surround it. Seven years.

Interesting.

And why the ten-year time limit? Not because they're getting close to fulfilling Biblical prophecy, but because that is the period

stipulated for a truce in Islamic law. One manual of Muslim jurisprudence teaches that "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

Note that this can only be done if "Muslims are weak." The same legal manual also quotes this verse of the Qur'an: "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Sura 47:35).

The middle east has always been bad news; don't know about anyone elses prophecies, but I got one of my own -- I predict that it won't change.

I'd be willing to wager that this part of the world will end up becoming the graveyard for everyone else sooner or later.

I would just as soon take a pair of scissors and cut this part of the world out of the globe with all of its people and everything that came from the region -- and send it out to space where they can war against each other to their hearts content forever.

Implementation of such a notion seems to be impractical, unfortunately -- so the rest of us are stuck with the consequences whatever happens.

Posted by: witness at April 26, 2008 1:40 PM

The muslims always offer a truce in order to rebuild and attack again as taught to them by their founder Mohammed. There can never be co-existence with muslims only endless war-and-truce until all is lost to islam.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at April 26, 2008 1:51 PM

It's useful to understand the underlying qur'anic justification for Hamas' "peace" offer because it provides insight into a mindset that, if nothing else, has been consistent in its historical quest to conquer the world. However, it would be a mistake to treat this as other than one of a wide range of tactics used in their war against the Dar al-Harb. A proper response to this should be to consider ways in which such behavior could be turned against those who are are foolish enough to act in such a consistent and predictable fashion. These guys would make terrible poker players and we should not hesitate to call their bluffs.

Generally, it would be a mistake to frame the events in the ME in terms of "End Times" prophecies, except insofar as this might be necessary to manipulate players who base their actions on such delusions. Is there anyone considering exploiting this side of the problem, say with the idea of finding ways to end up in an advantageous position on the day after "The Rapture?"

I, too, watch Glenn Beck and find him hugely entertaining. However, he goes off the deep end on some things, including his fascination with all things associated with the End Times.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 1:57 PM

Slightly off topic but if you haven't read Joel Rosenberg's latest book "Dead Heat" I suggest you do it is spooky and scary even for a Christian like myself.

Posted by: Clifford at April 26, 2008 2:00 PM

And of course, now, that Hamas has shown weakness and called for a truce, is the time for Israel to exert more pressure, a lot more pressure on Hamas.

Posted by: Dsinc at April 26, 2008 2:11 PM

And in ten years the current youth population will be a more formidable force of militants.
On the other hand, the West could use its brainpower to develop means to short-cut the dilemma.

Posted by: Shawmut at April 26, 2008 2:23 PM

I was in "crazy land" last night with Glenn too, his words not mine ;o)

Fascinating stuff. I'm not sure what to make of all this end times stuff, but it's interesting to say the least, especially the Iran and Russia link. Not being a bible reader I'm intrigued that there was a place called "russia" in those days?

Posted by: gymgal at April 26, 2008 2:23 PM

"And of course, now, that Hamas has shown weakness and called for a truce, is the time for Israel to exert more pressure, a lot more pressure on Hamas."
Posted by: Dsinc

Exactly.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 2:26 PM

"...I'm not sure what to make of all this end times stuff..."
Posted by: gymgal

This end times stuff has a long, long history, with the return of the Savior or the Mahdi or the Flying Spaghetti Monster being predicted to coincide with more or less random geological or astronomical or arbitrary calendar events. When it doesn't happen, as it inevitably does not, then the prediction clock is reset to some future date or unpredictable event, or the classic prophecies of the Bible or of Nostradamus are "reinterpreted" and the game starts again.

If I were a planner in the Pentagon, I would seriously consider setting up a war game based on Biblical or Qur'anic prophecies. Silly as this might sound, it would be in recognition of the fact that there are powerful and dangerous players in the world whose actions appear to be influenced on world views so based. The idea would be to treat prophecies as being a strong element guiding or influencing the decisions of an insane adversary, and this would give us an advantage in both tactics and strategy. The element that would be new in this, and would have to somehow be incorporated into the war gaming system, would be to relax the assumption that the adversary always operates according to rational principles.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 2:51 PM

Eastview:

You nailed it dead on with "it would be a mistake to frame the events in the ME in terms of "End Times" prophecies" and should have left it at that rather than gone on off the rails with the qualifier "except insofar as this might be necessary to manipulate players who base their actions on such delusions".

In insisting on a fairy tale view of Biblical authority, rejecting both the clarifying insights of received Tradition found in historic mainstream orthodox Christianity and the enlightened view provided by modern, accurate and scientifically valid methods of exegesis, these naive Christian fundamentalists end up turning the Bible into the same kind of abosolutist, obscurantist and impenetrable text that renders the Koran so dangerous and that accounts for the growing violent, reactionary and antimodernist benightedness within Islam that readers of Jihad Watch and other anti-Jihadist commentary are familiar with. They are not (as of yet at least) as overtly violent as the Jihadists but the apocalyptic doomsday scenario these groups psychotically hope for, featuring a nuclear cataclysm in the ME, makes them extremely dangerous just the same and I would suggest that there is a risk that rather than "manipulating them" we would simply empower them to manipulate events on the ground in an attempt to "force the hand of God" (who, in any event, like the Islamic "Allah" comes across as an amoral psychopath predetermining events and outcomes at the expense of freedom, rationality and responsibility). We do not need this kind of help.

What is needed to defeat Islam's violence is principled resistance based on rationality and the pursuit of natural justice, not "end times" delusions and "end of days" scenarios or any other silly supersition.

Posted by: templar at April 26, 2008 2:58 PM

"on January 27, 2004 that Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce at that time, in exchange for full withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza Strip."

In short, no treaty, just a truce. No recoginition of Israel's right to exist beyond the period of the truce.

That should be just about enough time to acquire nuclear weapons and replenish arms supplies, including recruitment and training of a new, better armed, better trained Jihadist army.

In the meantime, Hamas can prepare the next generation of young people to liberate their Palestinian homeland when the truce runs out.

Sounds like a good deal, but for who?

Posted by: rational at April 26, 2008 3:08 PM

I might have added to my last sentence:

"and definitely not the nuclear wetdreams of these wingnuts"

One final point. If I've understood the activities of these Christian doomsday sectarians correctly, some of these groups maintain various types of missions in the Middle East, including Israel. Since they are of western origin, particularly from the United States, it seems to me that Western governments, particularly the American state department and FBI ought to look closely into their activities. If they are actually trying to stir things up in the Middle East as their critics charge in order to promote a war there that would result in a nuclear exchange, this is a criminal and subversive attempt to conduct a parallel foreign policy. They should be charged, tried and, if found guilty, imprisoned, and in any case forcibly repatriated, and their activities suppressed by their respective governments just as readily as any Imam who shouts "death to the western crusaders" in his sermons should be.

Posted by: templar at April 26, 2008 3:11 PM

I used to flip around and watch Beck if there was nothing else on but until he retracts his "Islam is a religion of peace" turd of a statement (which I heard him last say last summer and and am not aware he has retracted it) he has zero credibility with me.

Posted by: j_not_a at April 26, 2008 3:18 PM

"...I would suggest that there is a risk that rather than "manipulating them" we would simply empower them to manipulate events on the ground in an attempt to "force the hand of God" (who, in any event, like the Islamic "Allah" comes across as an amoral psychopath predetermining events and outcomes at the expense of freedom, rationality and responsibility)."
Posted by: templar

I was not trying to be cynical in using the term "manipulation" (well, maybe a little), but rather suggesting that we should take advantage of the weakness inherent in the End Times philosophy and be willing to exploit it to the fullest. Yes, these people are dangerous, and this would have to be taken into account in devising strategies that would avoid "empowering" them. The point is that rather than be intimidated by them, we should be fully prepared to engage them, on all fronts, instead of letting them dictate the terms of discourse.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 3:21 PM

Eastview:

Thanks for the clarification. But rather than try to manipulate them, why not just get them out of the way and deal with the Jihadists directly?

The American government tried to manipulate the mujahideen in Afghanistan and look where that ended up.

Posted by: templar at April 26, 2008 3:32 PM

Templar, I fully agree with your last post. The actions you proposed should be pursued as part of an up front, fully articulated and transparent policy firmly grounded in rational principles. My remarks fall more along the lines Sun Tzu's dictum "Know your enemy", of being able to identify weaknesses wherever they exist and being prepared to take advantage of these weaknesses.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 3:38 PM

"The American government tried to manipulate the mujahideen in Afghanistan and look where that ended up."
Posted by: templar

Point well taken.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 3:55 PM

Hamas would not be able to keep its word for more than a Day. It would be nothing more than Political Cover to continue doing exactly what they are doing now. The press would just reference everything they report based upon a Truce. Like Sadar's. His followers are always breaking the Truce the press reminds us as being in place

Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 26, 2008 3:55 PM

Hamas would not be able to keep its word for more than a Day. It would be nothing more than Political Cover to continue doing exactly what they are doing now. The press would just reference everything they report based upon a Truce. Like Sadar's. His followers are always breaking the Truce the press reminds us as being in place

Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 26, 2008 3:56 PM

Glenn Beck's "End of the world" "reporting" is always most influenced by the person he has spoken to most recently.

I find Joel Rosenberg's eschatological narrative to be obsolete and lazy. Joel is just resting his laurels on the dominate narrative that culminated with the Left Behind series.

Many of us Bible-believing Christians have gradually come to reexamine all of the past premises and concluded that the Left Behind narrative is wrong.

Instead I and many others have come to hold to an Islamic-centric End Time narrative...

Part of what justified questioning the old narrative is an examination of the basis for Rosenberg's view that Ezekial 38 speaks of Russian involvement in the Gog/Magog war.

This quote here explains why Rosenberg (and thus Beck) is wrong:

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch10_the_revived_islamic_empire.htm

Regarding Meshek and Tubal, here again, we find some prophecy teachers once again giving them a Russian identification. Many very well-known prophecy teachers base their opinions primarily on the fact that the Scofield Study Bible identifies these two “nations” as correlating to the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. The problem again, is that the basis of this interpretation comes primarily from the similar sound of the words: Meshek – Moscow, and Tubal – Tobolsk. While this may be convincing to some, the weakness of this reasoning has already been discussed above. Again, unless one can legitimately trace the roots of a particular word back to its Hebrew origin, then the argument is based on very weak evidence. It is a forcing of the puzzle piece where it doesn’t naturally fit.

Mark Hitchcock, a well-known Bible teacher accurately points out that Meschek and Tubal are mentioned in Ezekiel 27:13 as trading partners with ancient Tyre. Tyre was in what is today Lebanon. “It is highly doubtful” says Hitchcock, “that ancient Tyre was trading with people as far north as Moscow and Tobolsk.” In fact, it is questionable whether or not these areas were even very well populated in Ezekiel’s day. Hitchcock concludes that:

"A closer study of these names reveals that Meschech and Tubal are the ancient Moschi/Mushki and Tubalu/Tibareni peoples who dwelled in the area around, primarily south of, the Black and Caspian Seas in Ezekiel’s day. These nations today are in the modern country of Turkey, possibly parts of southern Russia and northern Iran"

Posted by: Vince at April 26, 2008 4:08 PM

Vince, all this is very interesting, but could you explain what relevance it has to the main thread?

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 4:22 PM

A truce with Hamas may prove to be far better than than all the peace treaties that with have seen with the PLO and Fatahs.

A different perpestive from Obadiah Shoher

What most here dont seem to realise is that Hamas represents the Palestinian people, their true aspirations: to get rid of Israel without a large-scale war. Hamas is very sensitive to Palestinian wishes: it even foreswore Islamic fundamentalism and refused to participate in worldwide jihad.

Hamas offered Israel long-term truce. Any Muslim who says differently is a liar: Islam positively forbids non-Islamic state in this land, and Muslims may recognize the conquerors only temporarily. Hamas, therefore, offers as much as it can under the Islamic law. Hamas is an honest and, in its own way, decent Islamic organization unlike the Fatah thugs.

Hamas was the first Palestinian organization which tried to enforce order in Gaza, and could succeed – but independent and Fatah-supported militias refused to submit, and Hamas shrunk from civil war in Gaza. Stuck between Israeli sanctions, local militants, and discontent population, Hamas cannot do any better.

Hamas refrained from attacking Israel for long time. The attacks attributed to Hamas are actually perpetrated by Izz ad Din Kassam Brigades loosely connected to Hamas. There is no way Hamas can give an order to Kassam Brigades to stop shelling Israel. Their relations are cooperative rather than hierarchical. The militants have no part in the diplomatic process and naturally resist to be left out of the game; so they enter the game with rockets. The cycle of violence around Gaza is self-perpetuating: minor violence from Gaza, sanctions and reprisals from Israel, more attacks, more sanctions – until it’s hard for everyone to stop.

Israel has no alternative to negotiating with Hamas. Fatah is a bubble. It always was a bubble, a one-man’s operation. Hamas can easily replace assassinated leaders, but Fatah cannot. Short of Abbas, Barghouti, and a handful others Fatah has no popular figures. Palestinians support Hamas as an organization, but Abbas – as an individual leader. Fatah amply demonstrated that it cannot enforce security in the West Bank even with Israel’s help. For some odd reason Israel punishes Gaza (where Hamas tries to end the attacks), but rewards the West Bank (where Fatah payrolls the terrorists).

It is a big question whether Israel needs peace with Palestinian Arabs. But if she does, then we must be talking to Hamas.

http://samsonblinded.org/blog/where-is-peace.htm

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 26, 2008 4:36 PM

Robert,

I love your blog, but I think in this case you're getting the "what" and the "why" confused. Rosenberg merely said what prophecy says would happen, not why it would happen. It could happen for any of number of reasons, be it Islamic law, or a seven year itch of an Islamic scholar (sorry for the metaphor brutality there), but that doesn't really matter.

And for all of you out there who are so quick to dismiss Biblical prophecy, I suggest you go back and do a little research on prophecies in Daniel concerning events hundreds of years later, and how many of them came true down to the detail before writing it off so quickly.

Posted by: Wonder95 at April 26, 2008 4:49 PM

Vince:

Like others who call themselves "Bible-believing" Christians, a term meant as a reproach to Catholics, Anglicans, mainline Protestants and other earlier Christian groups, you're missing the whole point of what apocalyptic literature is about. I don't want to digress too far from the topic of this thread, but I want to make a general comment about your position because whatever scenario you ultimately settle on for the "end time" is a distraction, rather than a useful tool in answering Islam. So please consider this summary of what historic, orthodox Christian and Jewish tradition have to say, in general, about writings like Daniel, Revelation, etc., bearing in mind that this was a very common and widespread genre in the religious literature of the Semitic ME during the intertestamental period of about 300 BC to 100 AD, particularly during times of acute crisis such as the Jewish Maccabean revolts.

The whole point of apocalyptic literature, attested by the very etymology of the word "apocalypse" is to "reveal" or "uncover" the hidden reality of things, namely (to the religious mind) the presence of God in human history as well as the meaning, and the ultimate end (as in "purpose", "goal", "objective" or "design"), of that presence, not to discern a set of geostrategic events occuring generations, millenia or even further into the future, that will somehow signal the certain completion of that design, or bring it inevitably about. The imagery that you evoke of the battle between "Gog and Magog", and every other striking and fantastic image used in apocalyptic, is code language designed by an embattled community of the faithful in times of persecution and other crisis, but recognizable to them as allusion to the triumphant events of their past, and meant to reassure them about the present and its troubles while concealing the subversive nature of that message hidden from the hostile foreigner or repressive occupying power. (To summarize it the way Pope Benedict did in one of his recent Angelus talks, the point it tries to get across to a suffering community is "Do not be afraid of the silence of God" because he is always with you, as the events of the past show.) The fine details are references to the past, not to some distant future that the seer could not have envisioned, that are presented as assurance of God's ongoing presence and protection. The message is about the future only in the most general sense, namely that God and his faithful will ultimately triumph in history, as they have done many times before.

One of the problems with the theology of Scripture that your comment operates from is that it ultimately opens the door the kinds of conclusions drawn by groups like the ones that Eastview and I have been discussing and the distortions of religion that they generate in all sorts of areas ranging from the understanding of the nature of God to the freedom of the human person, as well as their dangerous meddling in geostrategic and foreign policy.

Posted by: templar at April 26, 2008 5:04 PM

The use of end times beliefs in formulating policy can be reduced to three words: know your enemy.

That was how I took Eastview's post. Our leaders need to know and understand what is driving the many Islamists, particularly Ahmadinejad. We have generally formulated policy on the premise that our adversary is just like us, that he wants the same things we do: peace, freedom and a long life. It worked during the cold war but not now for one simple reason: our enemy wants none of these things.
It can be argued that most Muslims are indeed just like us and want the same things we do but they aren't the ones in charge. We are faced with leaders who are willing to blow up their own countries and bring on nuclear armageddon in order to fulfill religious prophecy. We have to play the cards we are dealt. That might mean understanding what those running the Islamic asylum are trying to accomplish and then doing our darndest to make sure they don't succeed.

Posted by: PMK at April 26, 2008 5:07 PM

And for all of you out there who are so quick to dismiss Biblical prophecy, I suggest you go back and do a little research on prophecies in Daniel concerning events hundreds of years later, and how many of them came true down to the detail before writing it off so quickly.

Posted by: Wonder95

Such as?

Most biblical prophecy is couched in metaphor and can be interpreted many different ways.

Posted by: PMK at April 26, 2008 5:14 PM

Eastview:

Um.. this article is about the flaws of Rosenberg's analysis which was broadcast on Glenn Beck's show.

I was highlighting another aspect of that analysis and showing where the flaws were in that.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by: Vince at April 26, 2008 5:34 PM

Glenn Beck, first a Catholic now a Mormon. Him seeing the end of times coming.
Fine, but keep religions out of our schools, how many more articles do we have to read, that they were teaching about Islam, in our schools. God forbid, that the Arabs starting to build Islam schools here, with their money, just like the Mosques. Next thing " Madrasses " ?

Posted by: Maria at April 26, 2008 5:40 PM

templar: I am missing no point. I don't need lectures on the Bible from someone who went out of his way to find something to be offended about by the term "Bible-believing"

In any case, my review and reexamination of Biblical prophecies that has opened my eyes to Islmaic implications is hardly without merit.

I'll give the link again for the free on-line version of the book "Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah"

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

By the way.. on the front cover of the physical book that one can buy from Amazon.com
it says:

"A fascinating and provocative work. A must read for priests and pastors, students and lay-readers everywhere"
- Robert Spencer , Director of Jihad Watch

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1414104405/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Posted by: Vince at April 26, 2008 5:42 PM

And how much simpler and clearer analysis of what they are doing would be if anyone had the guts to look at the content of the Islamic teachings that Hamas follows.

And it wouldn't hurt for Christians (real and imagined) to look at the Bible from time to time, especially since so many charlatans want to make up things about the End Times.

Well done avoiding heretical speculations, Robert!

Posted by: Amillennialist at April 26, 2008 5:51 PM

I am becoming so tired of Jihad watch.

George W. Bush is the president, not Jimmy Carter.

Bush is with the jihadists. This site is becoming bankrupt, isn't it?

Every poster on this site is with Bush? Yes or no?

Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are with President Bush. Yes or no?

This is not about Carter. It's about Bush.

Posted by: monk at April 26, 2008 6:02 PM

monk: I dont see how you could be tired of Jihad Watch since if you were engaged with it for any length of time you would know the answer to the question "Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are with President Bush. Yes or no? "

The answer is obvious.

Posted by: Vince at April 26, 2008 6:04 PM

Where is the condemnation of this crimial Vince? This traitor?

Posted by: monk at April 26, 2008 6:15 PM

I am so tired of this traitor, George W. Bush. God judge him. I am so tired to seeing him meet and kiss our enemies. Why doesn't Jihadwatch expose this enemy of America? What is wrong with this site?

Why do I, a lonely Jew have to condemn this monster, George W. Bush. What are Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald afraid of.

Why does it take a little Jew like me to expose this friend of our enemies?

Bush has virtually ruined the Republican party (may party), not to mention this nation.

Wake up jihadwatchers. Please wake up.

Posted by: monk at April 26, 2008 6:22 PM

Vince:

I am not "lecturing" you on the Bible, any more than you are "lecturing" me or any other readers in presenting your view of things. This forum exists for the free exchange of ideas about how to defeat Jihad - or how not to defeat it. If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen - or get a thicker skin!

If you do not find my information convincing, you're free to put it aside and ignore it.

I did not, as you suggest, "go out of my way" to find fault with your use of the term "Bible believing". I merely read between the lines. Actually, no one need "go out of the way" to find offence with it since its meaning is perfectly clear from its use within intra-Christian polemics. It suggests that Christians who do not believe as you do are NOT "bible believing", and therefore wrong, if not apostates, heretics or worse.

If this is not true, then please advise me, what does the term mean, and why is its use necesary as a qualifying adjective by Christians such as yourself? You may find it interesting to know that you are not exactly the first such believer I've encountered using it.

As for Robert Spencer, as the holder of a degree in Theology I am familiar with the faith that he professes, and I can tell you that, notwithstanding the sensational title of the book you mentioned, it would be a mistake to read into such a general comment an endorsement of the kind of narrow interpretation of apocalyptic that you are applying to things. But then again, solid scholarship has never gotten in the way of sensationalism, where "Bible believing" Christians are concerned.

Posted by: templar at April 26, 2008 6:31 PM

This intellectual laziness in the West is deplorable and infuriating.

7 years after 9/11 and after 10.000 more terrorist attacks there should be at least a few hundred, if not thousand people in government and in the media who educated themselves about Islam and the doctrine of jihad conquest.

Btw: I don't want to reference Wikipedia, has anybody got a good link that explains the Treaty of Hudaybiyah?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 26, 2008 7:07 PM

"The use of end times beliefs in formulating policy can be reduced to three words: know your enemy.

That was how I took Eastview's post."
Posted by PMK.

That pretty well sums it up.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 7:32 PM

"Every poster on this site is with Bush? Yes or no?"
...
Posted by: monk

Er, no, every poster on this site is not "with Bush" whatever you might mean by that. In fact, if you've spent any time here you'd know that most posters are highly critical of the Bush administration and its uninspired, even uninformed, policies regarding the ME. Where you will find support "for Bush" is in regard to the long term and continued U.S. commitment to Israel. Carter is a side show, and a rather pathetic one at that. He gets space and garners reactions here for his outrageously titillating political actions, in the same way as Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan get space and commentary in the MSM for their outrageous antics.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 7:54 PM

I think we first need to ask ourselves how pervasive this particular "manual of Muslim jurisprudence" is actually used.

You don't want to make the same mistake the British made with the Manusmriti.

It may exist, but that doesn't mean people actually use it. The longer you don't understand how it works, regardless of rhetoric, the longer you are going to have to wait to neutralize a particular threat.

Blue

Posted by: Blue at April 26, 2008 8:09 PM

Why do I, a lonely Jew have to condemn this monster, George W. Bush. What are Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald afraid of. - monk

What you're alleging could not be farther from the truth. We've been highly critical of the Bush administration (and preceding ones) at this site. Look at the recent coverage of Condoleezza Rice and the State Dept. lexicon. Look at our coverage of the Iraq war, and search the archives for "George W. Bush" or "President Bush."

You asked: "Every poster on this site is with Bush? Yes or no?"

A resounding no. The fact that the Democrats are so often worse doesn't give Bush or the GOP a free pass.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 26, 2008 8:22 PM

Spans of years in the Bible are not necessarily literal. In fact, the number "7" is symbolic of completion.

BTW, Joel Rosenberg does write more than fiction.

Posted by: Always On Watch at April 26, 2008 8:24 PM

When your sworn enemy asks for a truce, attack them harder!

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 26, 2008 8:57 PM

Always On Watch is correct; apocalyptic Biblical texts (especially Revelation) is full of symbolism.

Too many "teachers" misrepresent those texts and thereby damage the faith of believers who do not study for themselves. They make a mockery of Christianity.

Posted by: Amillennialist at April 26, 2008 11:02 PM

...if anyone had the guts to look at the content of the Islamic teachings...RS

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at April 26, 2008 11:05 PM

witness,

The problem is Islam, not Israel nor the Middle East.

Posted by: Amillennialist at April 26, 2008 11:12 PM

Islam's on the losing end. They know it, and we know it. Which is why the babies at MSM baby them so much. Their primitive 7th century upside down invert philosophy is rubbing against the 21st century, and they can't handle it. So they project all their faults on us, call for hudnas because they are losing. No pity for them, they are an extinct species already, but fun to watch how it all devolves for their Mesoptomian moond god and his ill fated Prophet. Allah has been unkind to the Mususlman, and he knows it. We should know it too. Ten years, or a hundred years, of truce cannot help them. They are doomed by Allah, their protector god, who pisses on them repeatedly. No pity.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 27, 2008 12:47 AM

Maybe this is why the USA is not in the “End Time Prophecy”.
Christopher Columbus.
In 1500 AD, he wrote about America in one of his famous letters:

"God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of St John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."[
Prophecy about the destiny of the land that he would discover. A "New World" was to arise in the West to fight a final Crusade against the Arab powers of the Middle East.

In a letter dated 7 July 1503, he said he had received a
vision while yet a young man in which the Holy Spirit spoke
directly to him in these words:

God ... will cause your name to be wonderfully
proclaimed throughout the world ... and give you the
keys of the gates to the ocean which are closed with
strong chains.

I read his “"Libro de las profecias" “Book of Prophecy”, He really believed he was “chosen” by God.
If it is true, and it was the “Holy Spirit” who spoke to
Columbus, then the USA is in “End Time Prophecy”.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at April 27, 2008 1:16 AM

One accept a truce/armistice when booth parts realize that the fight have reached an dead end and further fighting only will lead to mutual destruction, usually without time limitation as an first step in an agreement on a peace treaty. If the truce accord doesn’t contain the pretext for negotiations on stable peace it’s quite meaningless.

But during a truce you have to be just as vigilant as in war time on what your enemy does to advance their positions. A truce is a Modus Vivendi, only a war paused, its still war. What is the point with a temporary non shooting war where your enemy use the time to build up it’s strength. The ever ongoing armistice in Korea is an exception due to due to the bizarre nekrocracy regime in the north.

Col. Ziv Levy, an air force base commander said: “We spend a lot of time and a lot of effort in training and being prepared for the worst. We cannot lose a single war. The first war we lose, Israel will cease to exist,”

Posted by: Engelbrekt at April 27, 2008 5:26 AM

Is there nothing we learn from history? Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, and Muslims bearing peace!

Posted by: David England at April 27, 2008 5:54 AM

After seeing the different postings on this subject, (some about the end times), I am posting my response to all the previous postings, citing the late great country and western legend Johnny Cash. The song is called, "Goin By The Book". Here is an YouTube presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnnTwyByui0

Reflect on this.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 27, 2008 2:27 PM

Here is a bonus, the lyrics itself.

GOIN' BY THE BOOK
(Chester Lester)

« © '86 Vidor Publications »

" You can see it in the movies and the paper and the TV news

Somebody's army is always on the move

There's gonna be a battle the lines have been drawn

They've got guns and tanks and planes

The wells are gone dry and the water is bad and the rain is acid rain

There's war after war and rumors of war from the East

There's a rumblin' in the ground and they're talkin' about the beast

Good mothers cry cause the rivers run high with the bloood of too many sons

Some people say peace is on the way but the worse is still to come

Cause the prophets wrote about it and Jesus spoke about it and John gotta take a look

And he told us what he saw and it's easy to see

It's goin' by the book it's goin' by the book

[ guitar ]

There's armies in the cities and the missiles stand ready for flight

A pale horse rides like the wind across the night

And that rumblin' in the desert like thunder gettin' closer

And the trumpet's gettin' ready to blow

There's gonna be a shout that will wake the dead we better be ready to go

Cause the prophets wrote about it...

It's goin' by the book goin' by the book "

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 27, 2008 2:30 PM

"Spans of years in the Bible are not necessarily literal. In fact, the number "7" is symbolic of completion."

Posted by Always On Watch

Exactly!

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 3:45 PM

10 years...golly that should be just enough time to give the unmolested Hamas enough time to build a small nuclear weapon. I assume ex-President Carter will want to call another news conference to heap unmitigated praise on these murderers.

Posted by: JayKayMcK at April 28, 2008 1:27 AM

"And why the ten-year time limit? Not because they're getting close to fulfilling Biblical prophecy, but because that is the period stipulated for a truce in Islamic law."
== == == == == ==

Ten years is the outside limit; if the Muslims become strong enough to go on the offensive at any point in the "truce" (6 months, 2 years, 5 years, whenever) then they are exhorted to break the truce and attack their enemies again in order to seize more land, slaves, and booty for the glory of Allah.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at April 28, 2008 1:31 PM

I would be ery careful about trashing "End Timers" or "Eangelical Christians" because doing so is Forest Gump exercise in short-sighted stupidity.

Yes, Joel Rosenberg made an ill-informed error in stating that a "time limited" hudna has never before occured between Israel and her enemies.

However, there will be no ambiguity with respect to the time duration of a "peace-pact" is eventually sighed IAW the prophecy in Daniel.

It will be a 7-year deal, and that & years constitutes what is known in eschatology as Daniel's 70th Week. Jesus spoke of the same period of time in His Olivet Discourse.

Only the totally ignorant dismiss things of such prophetic significance.

Posted by: Sean Osborne at April 29, 2008 10:04 PM

If I were some folks posting comments here, I'd be very careful about trashing "End Timers" or "Eangelical Christians" because doing so is tantamount to being a "Forest Gump" exercise in short-sighted stupidity borne of complete ignorance of the subject matter.

Yes, Joel Rosenberg made an ill-informed error in stating that a "time limited" hudna has never before occured between Israel and her enemies. His bad, but it has absolutely no reflection or aderse effect on Biblical prophecy.

However, that said, there will be no ambiguity with respect to the time duration of the real-world "peace-pact" that is eventually sighed IAW the prophecy in Daniel and Revelation.

A European Union leader (specifically identified by Daniel) will be the guarantor in the "covenant among many". The pact will utterly fail, by design, and having lasted a total of 3 years and 6 months. Armageddon occurs 3 years and 6 months later, and all good student of Bible prophecy know what event ends that war to end all wars.

The "covenant among many" flase peace will be a 7-year deal, there is no eschatological question about that. Those final 7 years will constitute what is known in Biblical eschatology as Daniel's 70th Week. Jesus spoke of the same period of time in His Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24).

Only the totally ignorant dismiss things of such prophetic significance.

Posted by: Sean Osborne at April 29, 2008 10:15 PM