Saturday, July 14, 2007


The
Samson
Option


From WND (with thanks to Michael):


Last week, WorldNetDaily reported a stunning admission from a Syrian official. He said that Syria had "learned from the Hezbollah experience last summer and we can have hundreds of missiles hitting Tel Aviv that will overwhelm Israel's anti-missile batteries."

He claimed Syria has "proof" Israel is also readying for a war. "We hear about special Israeli trainings to take Damascus. We see that Israel is re-establishing bases of the Israeli army in the Golan that are unusual and not needed except for war. We believe the Israeli government has an interest in confronting Syria to rehabilitate its image of losing to Hezbollah."


The WorldNetDaily report also says that Damascus believes newly-installed Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a former prime minister, "wants to prove he is a military expert." This information is perfectly in line with the official statements made by both Bashar Assad and Mushen Bilal to several major Arab newspapers.


Furthermore, London's Daily Telegraph reported June 25 that Tehran was establishing a missile defense shield for Syria. Iran is also preparing to ship sophisticated military hardware, including "dozens of medium-range Shahab-3 and Russian-made Scud-C missiles, together with Scud-B missiles."


Syria recently test-fired two Scud-D surface-to-surface missiles that have a range of about 250 miles. This puts virtually all of Israel's population centers within range. Analysts say the planned Iranian arms shipment to Syria may be coordinated with the delivery of advanced Russian fighter jets.


Syria is also known to be producing non-conventional warheads, including those containing V-X gas for delivery via the new longer range and more accurate Scuds. All Israel's cities are within range of these missiles. Most of them can be reached in less than three minutes. Syria is gambling that Israel's performance in the Hezbollah war of June 2006 means that it has seen all Israel has to offer.


Apparently, Bashar Assad now believes Israel can be beaten. Assad is miscalculating. In the event Syria launches a gas attack on Israel, it's a virtual certainty that Damascus would be instantly obliterated by Israeli nuclear weapons.


The thought of being gassed evokes a visceral response among Israel's Holocaust survivors and their descendants that Damascus wildly underestimates. Israel has more than 400 nuclear weapons in hidden silos in various places within its borders, as well as at least two submarines in the Mediterranean that are launch capable. And you can be certain that in the event of a massive WMD attack by the Syrians, Israel will respond in kind.


There are two particular codes used by Israeli Defense Forces when planning worst-case scenario responses. One is called the "Masada Option." Masada was an ancient fortress taken by the Romans following a three-year siege. Just before they were overrun, the defending Jews committed suicide rather than be captured.


The other code term, "The Samson Option," refers to Samson, who said just before he pulled down the house of the Philistines on himself – and them – "Let me die with the Philistines." Judges 16:30 records it this way: "Then Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And he pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than he had killed in his life."


That's pretty clear imagery. Israel will not just meekly fade away into destruction. And it certainly won't die alone, even if it has to destroy itself in the process of nuking the Middle East.
I once encountered Ariel Sharon in the Knesset in the late 1970s. I asked him if Israel still had a Masada Option. He boldly announced, "No longer 'Masada Option' – now 'Samson Option.'"


Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir almost used that "Option" in the first days of the Yom Kippur War, when it appeared they were going to be overrun. Dayan gave the code for its use when he told Prime Minister Meir, "Arm the doomsday weapons, the Third Temple is about to fall."
War with Syria threatens to bring all nations of the Middle East into direct conflict with Israel – even the supposedly moderate state of Jordan. Jordan has never recovered from the defeats it suffered at the hands of the Israelis, particularly in 1967, in which it lost both the West Bank and East Jerusalem.


Amman plays a cagey game, sitting on the fence, not quite friends with Israel and not quite enemies, but certainly ready to reclaim Jerusalem should the opportunity arise. The words of Zephaniah outline both Amman's history and its future.


"I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Amman, by which they have reproached my people, and made boasts against their border. Therefore as I live, says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Amman as Gomorrah, even the breeding of weeds, and salt pits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall plunder them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them." (Zephaniah 2:8-9)


Each of these events is in the future, according to Scripture. In each case, these prophecies remain unfulfilled. But current events suggest that all could be fulfilled to the letter – in an instant of time.


Never in history have any of these events occurred. More than that, at no time in recorded history were any of these things even possible. And never before have all the causative factors been present at the same moment in history.


But today, they are the only logical conclusion if current events continue along their current path. It's a terrifying scenario, but to those who trust that these signs point to the imminent return of Christ for His Church, it is, nonetheless, an exciting time to be alive. This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.


To view this item online, visit


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56669

Saturday, July 14, 2007

'De-Islamatization': Why it must be done?!?

Is there not a cause?
~ David (c. 1040 B.C.)


Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils ... nor, I think, will the human race.
~ Plato ("The Republic" 473c-d)


Bombs, bullets and soldiers alone will never stop al-Qaida, Hezbollah, radical Islam and their religious fanatical jihad against Judaism, Christianity and the West. Why? Because Islam is an idea, a belief, a philosophy, a worldview, a religion that over a billion and a half people follow and live their daily lives by.


Islam determines what Muslims think, hear, value, believe ... even die for. Islam is what a billion and a half Muslims have banked their eternal destiny on and more than not will gladly give their lives to assure a Muslim world, as painfully witnessed recently in the terrorist bomb plots at London's West End and Scotland's Glasgow Airport where so far six of the eight suspects detained are respected, upper-class Muslim medical doctors.


We must change philosophy (religion) by philosophy.


This isn't an original idea. Remember that the first thing the victorious Allies did after conquering Hitler and his Nazis during World War II was to institute a comprehensive "de-Nazification" program to change the thinking of all Germans away from Nazi fanaticism and anti-Semitism to a representative democracy, establishing a republic based on the legal/moral paradigm of the rule of law and a Constitution. A similar program was enacted by Gen. Douglas MacArthur to convert the Japanese masses away from the maniacal fanaticism of Emperor Worship, which existed for over 1,000 years. Sixty years later, Japan stands as a faithful ally of America and a bulwark republic in an area rife with Communist dictatorships and growing Islamic hegemony.


Why wouldn't a formal policy of religious conversion, "de-Islamatization" if you will, work for a U.S. president that's got the guts, vision, leadership and ability to do it? The critics will prattle: "The Muslim faith is a religion of peace, not war"; "All Muslims aren't bad"; "The Muslims will call us 'Crusaders.'" Let us prove them right, not by reclaiming or conquering Muslim lands, but neutralizing the radical elements of their religion at the meta (intellectual) level by spreading our Judeo-Christian traditions – traditions that are infinitely more compatible with a democratic-republic form of government than any form of Islam, which, I wrote in an earlier column, is incompatible with a republic.


I know to some readers this sounds a bit radical, Pollyannaish and naïve, but hear me out. Look at what Muslim countries do to our Judeo-Christian beliefs. There is an explicit, unified and purposeful strategy to forbid strictly the Bible, Christian literature or proselytizing of any kind in virtually all Muslim countries at pains of capital punishment – the most egregious and overt being Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the war on terror. Yet the Muslims can build mosques in America and in the West as fast as Saudi Arabia, Iran or some other Muslim country, or terrorist organization, sends them the funds. The result: Genocidal Islam grows right here in America, while Judeo-Christianity dies a slow death on the vine due to 150 years of neglect and failure to use the world's greatest religion as a viable domestic and foreign policy strategy and geopolitical export to the nations of the world.


The crux of the argument is: Can a secular liberal democracy ever defeat genocidal Islamic jihad against the West? I answer no. The problem with the war on terror is that we are asking the wrong people for their expert opinion to deal with the West's vexing problems of worldwide terrorism.


In the fourth century before Christ, the Greek philosopher Plato, in his magnum opus, "The Republic," had the same dilemma and criticism with his view of history up to that time and even with the rulers of his day. Plato's contention was that a competent, well-rounded ruler needed, besides a thorough grounding in the military arts, mathematics and music, to also have a meticulous foundation in philosophy. The Greeks called this curriculum The Quadrivium. The ideal leader needed to be a philosopher-king.


Why? Because philosophers understood better than, say, a military commander, a senator, a well-connected Athenian, "guardians" (officers/soldiers) or "merchants" (business owners/producers), the intricacies of human nature, of mankind's predilections, perversities, prejudices and what makes them do certain things under certain situations. Moreover, a philosopher, because he is a deep thinker and spends much of his time contemplating the particulars of human nature, would be better equipped to come up with a viable solutions to America's rhetorical "war on terror."


Earlier this year in a surprise debate with a former liberal professor of hers, Dr. Mary Grabar made the following prescient remarks on Plato:


I think that's a big misconception about "The Republic." In the literature, the claim is often made that Plato was advocating a totalitarian government. But my understanding is that the dialogue is not to be taken literally. Rather, the philosopher-king is the reluctant ruler, motivated not by ego or personal gain. His motivation is the love of wisdom and justice. These ideas, indeed, form the basis for our republican form of government, in contrast to a popular democracy ruled by the masses. You may recall Thrasymachus. …


Speaking as a philosopher, I am convinced that America's current military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only ineffective, but generates increasing numbers of fanatical Muslims championing jihad – something to die for.


No wonder our cause in the war on terror is lost before it begins and will only get worse unless President Bush and his war advisers start reading (and following) the enduring and wise admonitions of Plato's "Republic" and begin fighting a war of ideas, a war of philosophy, a religious war against the Muslim infidels like those battles waged by the great philosopher-kings of old – in primeval times when Christian monarchs like Charles "the Hammer" Martel (686-741), Charlemagne (742-814), Richard the Lionhearted (1157-99), Elizabeth I (1533-1603), Jan III Sobieski (1629-96) and Peter the Great (1672-1725) all fought so valiantly against the Muslim menace, face to face.


As President Bush implements his ill-fated military "surge" in Iraq, I wish he understood that he doesn't need more troops to be sent to this 21st century Vietnam; he needs one adviser that has read Plato's "Republic" to give him a crash course on how to follow the tried and true strategies of the magnificent philosopher-king.


Three thousand years ago, David, a future philosopher-king, was born. A young, anonymous Jewish boy on the back hills of Judea asked his king as the armies of Israel cowered in fear before the dreadful Philistine giant, Goliath, the simple but sublime question: "Is there not a cause?" That same teenage boy took a rag and a rock, ran onto the battlefield to confront this 9-foot-9-inch infidel giant, popped him in the head with his slingshot, killing him, and chopped off his head with Goliath's own sword. Now, in my humble opinion, that boy was a real man! Would to God that America, Britain, Israel and all nations of good will had a philosopher-king to deliver us this day from our two greatest enemies – liberalism and Islamic hegemony.