Comments on: What Should Be Done About Iran?

By: Lujack Skylark

Lujack Skylark — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:34:50 +0000

Persian-Iran: President Ahmadinejad has threatened to kill every Jew on planet earth. Ethiopia: Jewish lives threatened; Jews moved to Israel. Phut-Libya: Gaddafi rallies Black Africans against Israel for the sins of British colonizers in Africa’s past and Togarmah, once part of Turkey, has changed from secular to Moslem. All nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:5-6 prophet’s vision. I say Israel has wolves at its door but God has assured Israel victory.The same prophet 2500 years ago (Ezeliel 36:24) stated Jews would come home. Prophecy activated May 14, 1948. Ahmadinejad believes he rides the 12th Imam’s white horse. Of course his horse awaits him in Revelation 6:2. Ahmadinejad will cause the breaking of the seals in Revelation chapter 6. We are stepping right into the prophecy zone. We should inform our friends our Bible is coming alive. Bring them the knowledge God has told us the truth!
Lujack Skylark

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:52:38 +0000

Thanks Brett

Krauthammer might reply in this fashion to your two points: Given that Muslim fanatics are quite happy to engage in suicidal terrorist acts, in part, to secure a guaranteed safe passge to paradise and the sensual delights that can be found there, that does indeed make them more likely to resort to the use of nukes (although perhaps not infinitely more, as you rightly point out).

Second, given what a maniac and fanatic Ahmadinejad is, he might well be willing to see Iran exterminated for the good of the cause. Retribution by Israel and/or the West is no assurance that Iran will not act so foolishly.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Brett Austin

Brett Austin — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:36:52 +0000

Thankfully, Krauthammer’s article appears to be more titillation than information. Lets face it – we love to be scared, it makes life seem so significant!
And we all want to live in the end times, right?
There are a couple of points in this opinion piece which are not particularly accurate and which make me suspect that it is more sensation than journalism.

Firstly, Israel is currently the nuclear and conventional hegemon in the Middle East, and will remain so, with the backing of the United States. The aquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran will not change the balance, since nuclear weapons are completely useless. They cannot be deployed by Iran without ensuring the annihilation of Iran as the US or Israel strike back. What they do provide is a measure of security against an initial nuclear strike by Israel (who also fear nuclear retaliation). This will embolden Iran to engage Israel in conventional warfare, or it would if they had any chance at all of beating Israel in a conventional conflict. Nukes or no nukes, Iran will still be far less powerful than Israel, both in conventional and nuclear terms – and that’s before we introduce the additional factor of American support for Israel.

Secondly: ‘The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age.’ This statement obviously contains no factual information for the reader. What exactly does ‘infinitely more likely’ mean? Does it mean that it is certain that they will use nuclear weapons? Is the author forgetting that the only nation to ever actually deploy nuclear weapons on an enemy is the USA? (not that I have any right to be critical of that decision).
How can something be ‘infinitely more likely’ to happen than something which has already happened?

Brett Austin, Melbourne