What this article (U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils of an Israeli Strike at Iran - NYTimes.com) says is that if Israel hits Iran and Iran hits Israel back but doesn't hit the US, the US will not hit Iran. In other words, if Israel attacks Iran, Israel will be at least partially on its own. However, one must keep in mind that US military minds have previously conceived at the highest levels the idea of attacking itself (the US attacking the US) under a false flag. Could Iran count on the US not doing that? Could powers within the US military adamantly opposed to such deception prevent Zionists within the US from pulling off that exact false flag anyway?
We have been informed that Israel has been warned (militarily warned in person) that there will not be another USS Liberty, meaning that the US would attack Israel were it to attack any US ship or base or whatever the way it attacked the USS Liberty. If you don't take that seriously, please note the absolute silence of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League after that warning was issued. The Pentagon and the President were not bluffing.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's lead geo-political strategist, has openly stated that the US should inform Israel that the US would shoot down Israeli planes headed to attack Iran (barring hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program one would assume).
Frankly, if Israel were to attack Iran against the better judgment of cooler and saner (it doesn't take much) heads in the US, then the US should wash its hands of the Zionist Project. I wouldn't have been backing the Zionists in what they are doing or have done since day one; but regardless, the US really needs to detach Israel from the American hip.
What really needs to happen is for Israel to stop doing what everyone else who is decent hates.
Of course it doesn't help matters when the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, wields his power as a battle ax. The way he handled the demonstrations in Iran, even though there was CIA and Mossad involvement, was terrible. His sharia law views are beyond the pale. For instance, he has a convert from Islam to Christianity sitting on death row. The man is a Christian preacher locked up for not reversing his conversion to the Jesus of the Gospels. According to his Islam, it's okay to believe in and to respect the Jesus of the Qur'an (which Jesus never existed), but it is not okay to believe in the Jesus of the Christianity of the Gospels, where Mohammed heard of Jesus in the first place.
How outrageous would Ali Khamenei think it if I were to behead a Christian convert to Shiism because he wouldn't renounce Islam and become a Christian again? Who would want to? Who in his right mind would want to be a member of such a violently coercive religion or sect? The violent history of some who claimed to be acting as Christians has given Christianity a bad reputation. In the end, it's no different for Islam; and Mohammed himself was a very bloody man (he renounced the Jesus of the Gospels remember).
There are Muslims who don't believe in Ali Khamenei's version of Islamic law. I've conversed with them. They don't have a problem with Christians proselytizing so long as they are free to remain Muslims if they choose. Why can't Ali Khamenei be at least that non-coercive/non-compulsive (in this case, using violence to cause something to occur)?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)