Thursday, March 31, 2016

Crisis In Kosovo A Mixture of Iron and Clay

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Kosovo. This follows this post about India and Pakistan. This follows this post about former Muslims in America. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

A broader perspective of the Balkans is needed than what the electronic news media typically provides. Much information about this “campaign” cum war is presented in the form of fast moving video clips and short sound bites. A more valuable insight can be gained in part from history, and in part from holding current events up against the backdrop of biblical prophecy.
Population statistics for the Kosovo of early 1999 indicate there were between one and two million people, 90 percent of which were ethnic Albanians. In the mid-60s the population of Kosovo was roughly 75 percent Albanian and 25 percent Serb. A quarter century before that it was about 65 percent Albanian descent and 35 percent Serb. But as recently as 1918, the ethnic Serbs and Albanians were relatively equal in size in Kosovo. What happened to the Serbs that used to live in Kosovo? That's a long and complex story that has much to do with recent events. They were forced out in part by the knives and guns of Albanian militia, in part by the troops of Mussolini, in part by the governing policies of Marshall Tito, and in part by economic forces.
Yugoslavia, meaning “Southern Slavs,” was literally created by the Allied Powers after World War I. From its inception it was an unstable, bitterly divided kingdom in which its various ethnic groups feuded with each other. Marshall Josip Broz Tito governed Yugoslavia from 1953-1980, and did much to create the present situation. It was in his best interest to encourage various rival ethnic groups to dominate different parts of the country. In line with that strategy, he refused to allow Serbs to return to Kosovo after WWII and encouraged immigration by and growth of the ethnic Albanians. A one-percent payroll tax was imposed upon all of Yugoslavia to subsidize the development of Kosovo along Tito's design. He established an autonomous government in the region (Serbs who live in Kosovo, from that day up to the present time, are required by law to study the Albanian language from the 7th to the 12th grades).
Religious and Nationalist Roots
These are not the only reasons why President Milosevic has been able to arouse such nationalistic fervor among Serbs in recent years. Religion is also a major, albeit little mentioned factor. The western third of the province of Kosovo was established as a direct dominion of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Middle Ages and still has many areas that Serbs consider holy to their faith. The Serbs are Orthodox, having their own Patriarch and their own faith separate and distinct from the Eastern Orthodox Church. By contrast (a primary component in the current crisis), the Kosovar Albanians (as of early 1999), were approximately 90 percent Muslim.
Serbs first migrated to the Balkans in the sixth century A.D. and by the 1300s had established a powerful empire with its heartland in Kosovo. They fought a bitter battle against the Turks in the late 14th century on the plains of Kosovo. Awareness of the battle is intricately woven into the Serb national consciousness. Serbs were brutally dominated by the Turks for over four centuries, before gaining their independence in a 20-plus year war in the early 19th century.
The meaning of Kosovo to the Serb is compared to the meaning of Jerusalem to the Jew. So deep is the Serb passion for this land that one government official is quoted as saying recently that Serbs would fight until the last man to preserve Kosovo as part of Serbia. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Draskovitch (labeled a moderate) said, “Our faith was born there, as was our language, our nationhood, our pride. It is incumbent upon us to defend Kosovo even if we die.” Asked by an American reporter if he does not want his hungry country to become part of the West and share in its wealth, he replied, “Not if the price is Kosovo.”
But the roots of the ethnic Albanians are, if anything, even deeper than those of the Serbs in Europe. Believed to be descendants of the ancient Illyrians, their forefathers settled the Balkan Peninsula hundreds of years B.C.! Albanian is one of Europe's oldest spoken languages. Parallel to the Serb action against Turkish rule was an Albanian resurgence of nationalism that led to the freedom of Albania from the Turks. Kosovar Albanians led that drive for independence, imprinting the Albanian people with their own nationalist feelings for Kosovo. Migrations of Serbs forced the Albanians into present-day Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro.
A little less than a hundred years later, during the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, Serbia defeated the Turks once again, seized Macedonia, and was awarded control of Kosovo. Serbs conducted the first ethnic cleansing of Albanians and other Muslims at that time, killing or expelling about 100,000 (including the family of Mother Teresa).
Leading up to World War II, Serb Nazi academics advocated the total “ethnic purification” of “inferior” Muslims and Albanians from Yugoslavia. During 1945-1947, another 100,000 Albanians were killed or expelled from Kosovo. In turn, Mussolini's troops drove back the Serbs, encouraging ethnic Albanians to pour into Kosovo. Back and forth the angry, bitter ethnic fighting went. As stated above, Tito would not allow Serbs back into Kosovo after Mussolini's purge.
Yugoslavia started to unravel after Tito's death in 1980 with a re-igniting of ethnic and religious conflicts. Kosovo, the poorest region of the country, was not an attractive home for Serbs who could move elsewhere. Serb emigration, coupled with a much higher birth rate among the Albanians and illegal immigration (one Internet report says that there are at least 500,000 illegal aliens among the Kosovar Albanians!), resulted in an 80 percent Albanian population in Kosovo by the early 1980s.
Old Wounds Reopened
Milosevic rose to power on anti-Albanian rhetoric, promising to restore a Serb majority to Kosovo. Drawing upon unsavory memories, he referred to ethnic Albanians as “Turks.” Age-old animosities were on the rise once again. Over the next decade, Milosevic attempted to make good his promises through three wars, involving Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. Although a democratically elected president, Milosevic is a former communist who has encircled himself with criminal elements, including men who are both anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic. He has exercised a combination of skill and ruthlessness to inspire nationalism as well as generate fear, ensconcing himself in power.
Now we need to look at the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), the military force that is perceived by many in the West to represent the interests of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The KLA wants to take over the existing infrastructure of Kosovo completely, an infrastructure that the Serbs, ethnic Albanians, (and over two dozen other ethnic groups), have built up over the years. A March 24, 1999 CNN report called the KLA an unlikely catalyst for NATO's first attack on a sovereign nation in its 50-year history.” Even a year ago it was a tiny, militant splinter group that was pushing for complete independence of Kosovo. The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist group and some reports assert that the KLA was initially set up and financed by none other than Muslim radical Osama bin Laden. KLA militia has killed numerous ethnic Albanians in Kosovo attempting to force its leadership upon the Kosovars. It is well known that the KLA funds itself through the sale of drugs.
Nationalist rhetoric by President Milosevic, coupled with his 1989 repeal of Kosovo's autonomy and its financial subsidy, provided the political environment for the KLA to spawn. Serb police and the Yugoslav army took actions to purge the KLA and its drug operations from Kosovo. Sporadic murders of Serb policemen and Serb farmers in Kosovo by the KLA brought on reprisals by Milosevic's army-actions that in turn inflamed the KLA further. So much has happened in recent months-now in recent days -with all sides suffering anguished wounds that serve only to inflame their passions and their causes even more. Responding to the current crisis, men of Albanian descent are streaming from all parts of the world into Albania on a daily basis-volunteers to join the KLA. No immediate, truly peaceful solution is in sight.
Extremists on Both Sides of a Complex Situation
Prince Tomislav, fifth in line to the exiled Yugoslav throne, is anguished over the destruction of his homeland by NATO bombs and missiles. His wife is the daughter of an American father who flew for the RAF in the Second World War and a British mother who was also in the military. The Princess said, “It is shocking to think the Americans and British are driving this bombardment. If people knew the real truth about the Balkans the British public would never have given its support. There are extremists on both sides . I pray to God for an early end to this madness but I cannot see how it will happen” ( The London Times , emphasis added).
“There are extremists on both sides” offers a poignant summary of the entire tragedy.
Macedonia is a former province of Yugoslavia, slightly larger in size than the state of Vermont, bordering Kosovo. Possessing a sense of its size can help us appreciate the choking problem of a sudden influx of tens of thousands of refugees. Just to illustrate the ethnic mixing in the area, the country is 65 percent Macedonian, 22 percent Albanian, 4 percent Turk, and 2 percent Serb. Its principal religion, the religion of the majority, is Eastern Orthodox. Politically, it sympathizes with Serbia. Like its former sisters in the Yugoslavia of Tito, it's a transshipment point for Southwest Asian heroin and hashish. Unemployment, running at approximately 30 percent, is arguably a major factor for unrest.
Serbia, including Kosovo, is slightly larger than the state of Maine. Recent population statistics show it to be 63 percent Serb, 14 percent Albanian, 6 percent Montenegrin, and that the primary religion is [Serbian] Orthodox (65 percent), followed by Muslim (19 percent). Unemployment is estimated at over 35 percent and the country is poor.
Such a diverse ethnic makeup is indicative of many of the countries of Europe. For another example, Vojvodina province of Hungary, located along Serbia's northern boundary, has a majority Serb population and an autonomous government. This factor of great ethnic diversity represents a profound concern to the many nations of Europe, as they watch to see how NATO will resolve the crisis in Kosovo. A newly created independent country for the Kosovar Albanians—a long—stated objective of the KLA-could well fuel independent movements in ethnic minorities in numerous nations of Europe.
Different Focus-Different Picture
Mr. Herbert Armstrong often related that focus was all-important in understanding. “Like taking a photograph,” he would say, “everything depends on where you situate your camera.” Looking at a subject with even a slightly different focus can radically change “the picture” that you see. It is revealing to use the focus of today's events in Europe to look again at familiar prophecies of the Bible.
The life of the prophet Daniel was once threatened by a rash and impetuous decision by Babylonian Emperor Nebuchadnezzar. The background of this crisis in Daniel's life is explained in Daniel 2. Nebuchadnezzar had a terrifying dream that he could not recall or understand. He threatened to execute all of his advisors if they would not tell him the dream and its meaning. The Empire went from relative peace one day to an impossible stalemate the next that threatened to wipe out the entire senior staff (here we find an example, similar to recent events in Europe, of how unforeseen circumstances can bring sudden change)! The advisors couldn't be certain that this was not a trick and dare not “invent” a dream to satisfy the king. And Nebuchadnezzar's pride would not allow him to back down and lose face from this impossible demand he had made of his senior staff. This seemingly brutal threat from Nebuchadnezzar illustrates the different mentality of different cultures and peoples. Violence and bloodletting were routine “tools” of governing.
The catalyst for this unexpected and unforeseen crisis was a dream given by God ! He has reserved the prerogative to change the course of human affairs. “He changes the times and seasons,” said Daniel (Daniel 2:21). Political and military strategists can predict with some accuracy the likely actions of leaders and nations. But there are unseen factors that they cannot predict. Not only does God plant thoughts in the minds of men, He also brings or allows various men to come into positions of power and influence at key times. In Daniel's words, God “removes kings and raises up kings” (Daniel 2:21). Arguably, whoever is in power at a given point or place in history has a profound effect on the course of human events. Consider but a few of the personalities that helped to shape the current Balkan crisis: Marshall Tito, Pope John Paul II, Presidents Clinton and Milosevic-perhaps even the terrorist Osama bin Laden! Unique factors formed and shaped these men, and their influence at a given time has changed history.
Iron Mixed with Clay
Nebuchadnezzar's dream, interpreted by Daniel, was a prophetic overview of world history in advance, from Babylon's days up to the return of Christ. Shortly before His coming the world will be dominated by a confederation of nations characterized in the prophecy as “iron mixed with ceramic clay” (Daniel 2:33, 41-42).
The prophecy provides its own commentary in verse 43: “As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men ; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.” Different “ethnic groups” that would not normally coalesce as a unit are “baked” in the heat of crisis into a temporary union. “Ethnic” comes from the Greek word ethnos that is translated as “nations” in the Bible.
Carry that thought of the unexpected and the unpredictable to Revelation 13. A modern version of ancient Babylon, combining the old empire's speed, brute force, and powerful voice, controls the world at the crisis at the close of the age. Note that this “beast” comes out of nowhere, its “birth” is unexpected and unpredictable , dependent upon supernatural action from God [according to Daniel's prophecy] and the unseen influence of Satan [according to John's prophecy]. One sharp refresher lesson of the Balkan war, the crisis in Kosovo, is that world politics can spin or turn with appalling suddenness.
Note that a second beast, a super-religion in contradistinction to the political super power that is the first beast, comes into power at about the same time (verse 11). In a marriage of convenience the persuasive capacities of religion will bond with the political power of government (this fact is verified in a prophecy of one beast eventually destroying the other; Revelation 17:16). The political power of government wields the legal, financial, and military authority of a constituted superpower government (verse 12). In return, the religion uses its “pulpits”—literally—to excite and incite the world to align itself behind the political superpower entity. In a symbiotic relationship, they bring each other to their mutual pinnacles of power— suddenly .
Speaking to the same subject, chapter 17 of Revelation confirms that this end time outline includes a hastily achieved alignment of previously unknown nations and leaders. “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast” (verse 12). Remember again the lessons of the current picture of the Balkans where nations and leaders have come out of what was Yugoslavia to form completely new entities.
Clearly fingering the Roman Empire as the precursor of the final confederation of states (verse 9), John thereby identifies Europe as the setting for the final world government. The Balkan crisis shouts “iron and clay!” What elements make it unlikely that Europe's ethnic groups will join together? Religion, economy, history (today's crisis, WWII, or all the way back to the 14th century!), nationalism, racism, conflicting governing philosophies (democracies, fascist dictatorships, communism, socialism-all in various forms).
Finally, Revelation 17:17 reminds us of the element of the unknown and the unpredictable-“God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose.” As Daniel recorded, God reserves to Himself the prerogative to change the course of human affairs. We have the broad outline of prophesied events, but there are other facets to that outline-personalities, catalytic events, and their timeline—that God will trigger or allow according to His will. In the meantime, we watch—and we pray. WNP

You might also be interested in...

Obama: “The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”

A timely post about from http://www.jihadwatch.org  about Obama and Islam. This follows this post about Muslim immigration. This follows this post about Islam in Michigan. This follows this post about Apple and the San Berdu phone. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.You can follow me here.
 

Obama: “The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”

Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.
It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari
Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
One might also get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from these Qur’an verses:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.
We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.
Obama at Islamic Society of Baltimore, Allah
“Obama on What Trump and Cruz Get Wrong About Islam,” by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, March 29, 2016 (thanks to Daniel Greenfield):
…In one of my recent conversations with Obama, he dilated on this point in an interesting way. (“The Obama Doctrine” contains many thousands of words of Obama’s thoughts on foreign policy. However, I could not, for reasons of space, include all of what he had to say. In the coming weeks, I will be highlighting some of the things he told me that did not make it into the original article.) Obama made these particular comments during a conversation about Ronald Reagan’s influence on Republican thought. His main argument here is that rhetoric that could legitimately be deployed against an ideology like communism cannot be similarly deployed against the world’s second-largest religion.Obama first praised Reagan’s “moral clarity about communism,” saying, “I think you can make a credible argument that as important as containment was in winning the Cold War, as important as prudence was in winning the Cold War, that at a time when perhaps the West had gotten too comfortable in the notion that, ‘Look, the world is divided and there’s nothing we could do about it,’ Reagan promoting a clearer moral claim about why we have to fight for freedom was useful and was important.”
The danger comes, Obama told me, when people apply lessons of the struggle against communism in the struggle against Islamist terrorism.
“You have some on the Republican side who will insist that what we need is the same moral clarity with respect to radical Islam. Except, of course, communism was not embedded in a whole bunch of cultures, communism wasn’t a millennium-old religion that was embraced by a whole host of good, decent, hard-working people who are our allies. Communism for the most part was a foreign, abstract ideology that had been adopted by some nationalist figures, or those who were concerned about poverty and inequality in their countries but wasn’t organic to these cultures.”
He went on to say, “Establishing some moral clarity about what communism was and wasn’t, and being able to say to the people of Latin America or the people of Eastern Europe, ‘There’s a better way for you to achieve your goals,’ that was something that could be useful to do.” But, he said, “to analogize it to one of the world’s foremost religions that is the center of people’s lives all around the world, and to potentially paint that as a broad brush, isn’t providing moral clarity. What it’s doing is alienating a whole host of people who we need to work with us in order to succeed.”
Obama said that the manner in which a president discusses Islam has direct bearing on the fight against Islam’s most extreme manifestations. “I do believe that how the president of the United States talks about Islam and Muslims can strengthen or weaken the cause of those Muslims who we want to work with, and that when we use loose language that appears to pose a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam, or the modern world and Islam, then we make it harder, not easier, for our friends and allies and ordinary people to resist and push back against the worst impulses inside the Muslim world.”
Obama added, “This is not speculation on my part. Let’s just track what has happened from the emergence of ISIS to the language that Donald Trump has used and his logical conclusion that we should ban Muslims from entering the country, including potentially Muslim citizens. That wasn’t by accident. I’m amused when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”
One answer to the challenge posed by ISIS, Obama said, is to highlight for the world the achievements of American Muslims, and also the idea that a Muslim can live in a multicultural, multi-confessional country like the U.S. without losing faith. “We have the ability to continue to promote the extraordinary success and patriotism and loyalty and success of Muslim Americans,” Obama said. “That is as powerful a message that we can send to other Muslim countries who are going through these identity crises.”
This is not a thought of Obama’s alone. Based on my own conversations at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community, I can say with reasonable certainty that there are no senior-level national security professionals in the U.S. who believe that it is in America’s best interest to risk making Islam itself the enemy. The two leading Republican candidates for president are currently out of step with this conclusion.
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Hackers with 'Syria Ties' Infiltrate Water Utility’s Control System
Massachusetts: Another Virgin Mary statue defaced, "Allah" painted in Arabic on its base
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

In Brief... Consequences of an Indian-Pakistani Nuclear Exchange

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about a potential war. This follows this post about Easter. This follows this post about former Muslims in America. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
 
What would happen if a nuclear weapon such as those in the arsenals of India and Pakistan were detonated? Perhaps 122,000 people would die per detonation. So if the two nations exchanged only one weapon each, nearly a quarter of a million casualties would result immediately.
Additionally, anyone within 100 miles who looks at the detonation would be instantly blinded. Of course, radiation continues to kill beyond those destroyed in the initial blast. The “kill zone” of the type of nuclear weapons these nations have is 2,500 square miles. That's why Britain and the United States warned their citizens to leave both countries at the height of the tension. Clearly, some military personnel who are fighting the War on Terror would be in the kill zone of radiation fallout.
How far would the radiation fallout extend? According to Dr. Garner, it would definitely reach the U.S. mainland. How damaging it would be at that point is anyone's guess and might be difficult to measure. Consequences would present themselves in increased cancer rates—something that might be difficult to attribute to a single cause.
Back to India and Pakistan, there is an additional and frightening result of radiation poisoning beyond the kill zone. Radiation is known to lower the immune system of those exposed to it. People outside of the kill zone would suffer enough radiation poisoning to seriously lower their immune system, resulting in the eruption of diseases that haven't been serious problems for decades. And new diseases will arise.
Regardless of what radiation fallout does in other parts of the world, the diseases that spring from radiation poisoning in the war theater will spread around the world, warned Dr. Garner. He cited how difficult it is to contain disease in this world of regular international travel.
Thankfully, it appears that India and Pakistan have moved back from the brink of a nuclear exchange. But the rhetoric between these long-time antagonists leaves one with little confidence that the threat has disappeared.
Jesus warned that as mankind approaches the end of this age, we would hear of “wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6). Modern technology has raised the ante in this no-win game, so that “rumors of wars” are exceedingly disturbing. Christ went on to encourage His followers to remain calm, assuring them that this bad news is necessary just before the close of the darkest time of human history. And, with the close of this evil age will come the dawning of the wonderful world of peace under the management of God's Kingdom.

You might also be interested in...

 

Being a 'home-grown' terrorist doesn't mean immigration policy irrelevant

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about "home-grown" terrorism. This follows this post about immigration. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.


Being a 'home-grown' terrorist doesn't mean immigration policy irrelevant

 

 https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax

I'm seeing a lot about "home-grown" terrorists from news media and open-borders enthusiasts.
They seem to be suggesting that the fact that many of the perpetrators were not recent immigrants means that immigration policies don't play a significant role in the wave of terror in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino and the next target cities.
Of course, there are many factors other than immigration behind these atrocities. But regardless of whether these bad guys arrived in a country six months ago or lived their whole lives there, nearly every one of them operated from within immigrant communities.
Experts on organized crime have long noted that big foreign-culture communities unintentionally serve as the pools in which the bad guys can easily swim out of sight of the authorities.
Crime historians tell us that nearly every nationality that has immigrated to America over the last 200 years in a large wave has brought with it a new organized crime network. It isn't that those nationalities are filled with criminals. But the large unassimilated number of a nationality in a foreign land provides a space for the bad guys to swim with much less chance of detection.
For half a century, promiscuous immigration policies in Europe and the United States have been filling these "enabling pools" faster than assimilation has been able to empty them.
While security forces in our countries work to protect against the next terrorist attack, our immigration policies should NOT continue to fill those pools with large flows of new foreign citizens.
There is no need to single out people by religion, ethnicity or country of origin. The problem can be greatly addressed by dramatic reductions in nearly all forms of immigration.
We don't need the massacres of Brussels, Paris and San Bernardino to justify adopting all the immigration-reduction goals of NumbersUSA (recommended by a bi-partisan federal commission for economic reasons).
But Brussels, Paris and San Bernardino should provide even more urgency to break the gridlock in Congress.
The aim should be to halt all immigration possible. Add as little as possible to the enabling pools. This will ensure that the number of immigrants arriving is small enough that all can truly be screened for security. In addition, the categories allowed to continue will be of immigrants most likely to arrive with the best chance of rapid assimilation.
Our full set of recommendations are found at: https://www.numbersusa.com/about
  • Eliminate chain migration that brings in unending flows of distant relatives of an original immigrant.
  • Eliminate the visa lottery that brings in people by raffle.
  • Eliminate employment-based visas for workers who have skills that unemployed Americans have.
And for now, a change in our long-standing goals, enact a moratorium on all refugee resettlement until Americans can be guaranteed of the safety of the program. In the meantime, the U.S. should concentrate on helping far more refugees find safe, healthy refuge in their home region.
During an era of Brussels, Paris and San Bernardino, we should restrict immigration to:
(a) spouses and minor children of immigrants already here,
(b) marriages and adoptions by U.S. citizens,
(c) workers with extraordinary skills in the national interest.
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

 

Monday, March 28, 2016

Editorial: Mexico continues to Meddle in U.S. Elections!

Editorial

Unfortunately, it is hard to see where there are "moderate Muslims", and partly because of this, the U.S. would like to control who comes into its nation.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/todays-perpetual-snipe-hunt-the-search-for-moderate-muslims

However, the neighbor of the U.S., Mexico, continues to kneecap any effort by the U.S. to do so. This nation has been encouraging its populace to migrate into the U.S. and then to meddle in the U.S. election cycle in order to, among other things, prevent the U.S. from restricting any Muslim immigration.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-from-middle-america-main-stream-media-finally-notices-meddling-mexicans-encouraging-immigrants-to-naturalize-and-vote-against-trump-but-where-is-gop


With an amigo like Mexico, who needs enemies!

Democrat Chair Caught Cussing in Front of Nuns While Pushing to Make Them Fund Abortions

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This follows this post the Supreme Court. This follows this post about the death of Antonin Scalia. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.

The head of the Democratic Party was caught cussing in front of a group of nuns while protesting for abortion outside the Supreme Court yesterday. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also a congresswomen from Florida, joined abortion activists at a rally to lobby the Supreme Court to make the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for abortion-causing drugs.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Wasserman Schultz was speaking to a group of Planned Parenthood supporters who were there while the court was hearing oral arguments in the case of Zubik v. Burwell. The Little Sisters of the Poor are one of many plaintiffs who are asking to be exempting from the federal government requirement to cover contraceptives in their health-care plans.
“Those rights that we secured must remain in place and while we’re at it this Senate needs to do their damn job!” yelled Wasserman Schultz to cheers.

wassermanschulz4

Wknd Box Office: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Eye in the Sky, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Creative Control

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Eye in the Sky, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Creative Control

By Debbie Schlussel
batmanvsupermaneyeinthesky

mybigfatgreekwedding2creativecontrol
The new superhero behemoth is the worst of the new movies in theaters this weekend. Among the others, there are some decent choices.
* Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Rated PG-13: As I noted in my Thursday review, this long, confusing bore is a waste of ten-bucks-plus and 2.5 hours of your life you’ll never recover. It’s an uninteresting, dark, messy buildup to a short, ridiculous, barely-explained fight between the two superheroes in the title. Read my complete review.
TWO MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
* Eye in the Sky – Rated R: This is a great movie because it does a great job of showing how liberal bureaucrats and their faux-humanitarian concerns get in the way of the West fighting Islamic terrorists. It captures that so well that I highly recommend it (even though it stars the late Jew-hating, anti-Israel schmuck Alan Rickman, RIH). It’s well-done, even if an important twist to the plot line is contrived and unlikely. The movie is also a great indictment of the liberalism that cripples the British government from being an effective actor (though I think the movie is far too charitable in making the U.S. look tougher than it actually is these days, under Barack Obama–and even earlier, under George W. Bush). Helen Mirren gives her usual excellent performance. Also, with one or two exceptions, the movie doesn’t hedge on who the enemies are: Islamic terrorists.
The story: satellite video and intelligence indicate to British military and government officials that several wanted Islamic terrorists have been located in Southern Kenya and may be planning a terrorist attack. A British colonel (Mirren) wants to bomb them immediately, as does a Brit general (Rickman). But British government officials repeatedly hem and haw and delay to avoid making the decision to take lives (even though the lives are those of documented Islamic terrorists who’ve planned and executed terrorist attacks). The movie explores the ethics of using drones and shows that with each ridiculous delay, the situation becomes more and more dangerous and risky.
One particularly liberal (and repulsive) British government official, a woman, is straight out of ACLU central casting. She objects to bombing the terrorist location for every reason she can come up with. First, it’s that the terrorists are not an imminent threat and need to be captured and given a trial (which isn’t possible). Then, when bomb vests are shown and it’s obvious a terrorist attack by these individuals is imminent, the woman insists that because some of the terrorists are British and American citizens, they cannot be assassinated.
When the decision is finally made to strike, a young Muslim girl is now outside the compound, selling bread. The girl just so happens to be the daughter of “enlightened, liberal” Muslim parents who allow her to play with a hula hoop and learn math, both of which are forbidden by the local Muslim terrorists controlling the area. This is the contrivance–in fact, the deceit–of this movie. What are the odds that a “cute, enlightened, moderate” Muslim girl would be outside a terrorist compound selling bread? Hint: they aren’t very good odds. In fact, usually, fellow scumbags and terrorists are outside the terrorist compound. Or Muslims who morally support the terrorists. Or a Muslim girl who is taught by her hateful Muslim parents to hate America, not to hula hoop. And, sadly, the people who run this country often care more about sparing these America-haters’ lives than our own.
What I think is accurate in this film–in addition to the frustrating idiocy of liberal government bureaucrats–is that the American military officers who are to perpetrate the strikes (one of them is played by Aaron Paul) are very sad and filled with anguish over risking the girl’s life. Unfortunately, our Muslim enemies have no such humanity or sympathies.
The movie was nail-biting suspenseful throughout, and incredibly frustrating. Also, I was fascinated by the technological details (I hope the enemy doesn’t learn too much from this, if it’s accurate), such as the mini-drone, made to look like a tiny insect, which is flown inside the home where the terrorists are meeting and films them. That was very cool.
I did not like that the movie made it look like American officials had no problem with the strikes and were very anxious to go forward. That’s the way it should be, but we know that American liberal policy under both Obama and Bush actually rules the day. So, we often don’t effectuate such strikes, to avoid hitting women and children, etc. Take the opportunity we had to strike Osama Bin Laden under the George W. Bush Administration. But Bush didn’t want to hit other guests of Bin Laden–supporters who were Gulf State royalty (as if they had some sort of innocence or merited protection when they hung out with this murderer of Americans). Yes, unfortunately, we are often as bad as the British bureaucrats in this movie.
I also didn’t like that the late friend and enabler of Islamic terrorism, Alan Rickman, plays a courageous, bold fighter of Islamic terrorism (with great, tough dialogue, especially at the end of the film). That’s not irony. It’s BS.
Still, this movie really captured the outrageous, ludicrous handicaps, nonsense, and frustrations the West needlessly imposes upon itself in fighting the enemy. And making it an ineffective, losing fight.
THREE REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboyreagancowboy
Watch the trailer . . .

* My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 – Rated PG-13: To say I didn’t like the original My Big Fat Greek Wedding is an understatement. So, 14 years later, I expected to hate this sequel. But, while some of it is really dumb and some of the jokes are gross or fall flat, I laughed a lot and was mildly entertained by this. It’s not bad. And, guys, if you must take your significant other to a chick flick, this is one of the most bearable ones. Plus, where else will you hear Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” sung in Greek? That said, if I were Greek or they made a movie like this about Jews, I’d be offended.
While the movie (made by Greeks) is about a traditional, immigrant Greek family, it could be–like it’s first installment–about any ethnic immigrant family to America, still green and feeling its way around American culture, while trying to hold on to old world values, mores, and idiosyncracies. And about half of the actors playing Greeks in this movie are Jewish or Italian or from some other ethnic background. SCTV alumna Andrea Martin, who is of Armenian descent, is the real star of this, reprising her role as Aunt Voula. She’s hilarious. Without her, the movie would mostly sink. Also good is Mark Margolis (Margolis is a Jewish surname, not Greek), whom you might remember from “Breaking Bad” as the old Mexican gangster in the wheelchair who helps blow up drug kingpin Gus.
The setting of the movie is nearly two decades after the original takes place. Toula Portokalos (Nia Vardalos, who also wrote this and, along with Tom Hanks and his Greek wife Rita Wilson, executive-produced it) is back. But now, she and her “white bread” American husband Ian (John Corbett), are the parents of Paris (the beautiful Elena Kampouris), who is nearly 18 and applying to colleges (all while she is embarrassed by her “boater” family). Her parents and the rest of the extended family want her to stay in Chicago. Also, Toula and Ian are trying to bring back the romance to their marriage. At the same time, Toula’s parents (Lainie Kazan, also Jewish, and Michael Constantine) discover that they are not legally married under the Greek Orthodox church because the priest who married them back in Greece, never signed the marriage certificate. Now, they must decide if they want to get married again to make it legit.
Throughout all of this, Aunt Voula (Martin) dispenses her very blunt, hilarious advice. Also Toula’s dad (Constantine) asserts that virtually all of Western civilization came from Alexander the Great, and he tries to prove he’s Alexander’s descendant.
Not a “great” movie, or even the best comedy I’ve ever scene. Not even close. But it’s light and entertaining, fun stupidity. Relative to most chick flicks, this one is cute and funny. And you needn’t have seen the first one to fully appreciate this one.
ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyhalfreagan
Watch the trailer . . .

* Creative Control – Rated R: This independent, low-budget movie is produced by Amazon.com and Mark Cuban’s Magnolia Pictures. It was not screened for critics, so I went to see it on my own. It’s high on style, less so on story. But, still, it does have a slightly interesting concept and story idea, though the execution of those isn’t as interesting. The movie also moves slowly with very little payoff at the end. I definitely wouldn’t pay ten bucks to see this (and didn’t have to–the theater I went to lets me see movies free, as a member of the Detroit Film Critics Society). The movie probably isn’t for anyone 60 or over, and it has stark sexual themes.
This movie takes place in the future in Brooklyn. The movie is mostly filmed in black and white for a reason: so that virtual reality features, functions, and AI creations can stand out in color. David (Benjamin Dickinson, who also wrote and directed this) is an executive at a pretentious hipster New York ad agency. He and his girlfriend Juliette (Nora Zehetner), a yoga teacher, are bored and complacent in their relationship and their lives. David has a thing for his best friend, Wim’s fashion designer girlfriend Sophie (Alexia Rasmussen). Wim (Dan Gill) is a fashion photographer and isn’t faithful to Sophie. He’s cheating on her with the models he shoots.
One day, David is assigned to an account for a company that produces virtual reality glasses (a la Google glass). He begins using the glasses and soon creates a female virtual reality lover with the face of Sophie and the body he himself designs. And the virtual sexual affair begins. In the meantime, Dan is also trying to have a real-life affair with Sophie. While she seems slightly receptive, the virtual reality version is much more receptive.
As Dan has his virtual reality affair with the image created via the glasses, Dan and his real-life live-in girlfriend Juliette grow apart. And things being to fall apart for Dan at work and in his social life, too. Dan is assigned to make an ad campaign for the glasses using real-life avant-garde hip-hop/soul artist and actor Reggie Watts. But Watts is all over the place and doesn’t make something that is usable. Plus Dan, obsessed with his virtual reality life, isn’t on top of things.
Dan falls further and further into an addiction with his virtual reality love and it ruins all other aspects of his life. Or does it?
The movie’s sudden ending is fine. I like that kind of thing when it’s done right. It’s just that this movie wasn’t that great leading up to the ending. And I felt like, “Is that all there is?” when I walked out.
Again, the ideas here are interesting (especially as virtual reality becomes more and more a part of our lives). The execution of those ideas, not so much.
HALF A MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Ridiculous Penis Envy/Pissing Contest Bore

By Debbie Schlussel
batmanvsuperman
On Tuesday night, I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Rated PG-13), which is in theaters tonight. And the only “justice” here would be to give me back that 2.5 hours of my life that I’ll never get back. The movie is an endless, unremarkable pissing contest between two dull, miserable characters in capes consumed by a “my penis is bigger than yours (or maybe yours is bigger than mine)” fight.
batmantshirt
I went to the movie wearing a t-shirt that said, “I Like My Men Tall, Dark, and Batman” (see above). But no longer. I hated this movie, and I especially hated this Batman–the “adult” spoiled brat Batman played by “adult” spoiled brat Ben Affleck, who looked very much like an aging mobster–like his character from the box office bomb, “Gigli,” a couple of decades later. [BTW, the t-shirt’s a lie. I don’t actually like Batman. My fave is Supe. But I liked the t-shirt.]
I can’t believe Michigan taxpayers paid through the nose to subsidize this crappy movie. The money would have been better spent getting the people of Flint drinkable water. But, instead, bazillions were spent to make the movie here so one of its stars (I think I know who it is–and it isn’t Affleck or Henry Cavill) could give some chick an STD and so that leftist Democrat Senator Debbie Stab-a-cow could be the world’s most forgettable movie star as the Governor of Metropolis (and I thought Metropolis was a city, not a state).
Despite a ton of special effects and action, I was bored to tears by this movie. I even fell asleep twice and missed nothing . . . except more brooding by every single character in this confusing silver screen mess. Would it have killed Affleck (Bruce Wayne/Batman) or Henry Cavill (Clark Kent/Superman) or the self-hating Jewish Israeli Gal Gadot (Diana Prince/Wonder Woman) to smile even just once? Back in the day when superhero movies were actually decent, Christopher Reeve was generally happy. He smiled, he was a smart aleck with a wink, and you wanted to get to know him. He was likable. These guys aren’t. They’re a miserable lot–unhappy, suffering (from what, I’d love to know), and so overstuffed with angst, it made me uncomfortable and annoyed. But this is what the Millennials want. Hipsters love suffering, darkness, and feeling bad about something even though they are the most privileged, spoiled generation in history. The same goes for these superheroes (who weren’t so super in this; not even close). They are bored and unhappy, and they like darkness (their costumes, including that of Wonder Woman are darker than ever). It’s not good enough to be heroes and have magical superpowers.
So, instead, for some unexplained reason, Bruce Wayne is out to get Superman, whom he knows is Clark Kent. And for some unexplained reason, Clark Kent doesn’t like Bruce Wayne, whom he knows is Batman. And Kent mouths off some stuff about Wayne’s lack of respect for civil liberties. Huh? Yeah, I had no idea to what he was referring, and I just didn’t care. Ditto for the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building, which was jarring to see on the same day that Islamic terrorists bombed two locations in Brussels. But no worries, there are no Islamic terrorists in this movie–keeping true to the modern-day “we cannot identify the real terrorists [Muslims]” rule for superhero movies and, frankly, almost all Hollywood movies. Instead, it’s some guy in a wheelchair who lost both his legs when Gotham got attacked by General Zod and fought with Superman, something that isn’t really explained. It had to be explained to me by the fanboy sitting next to me, whom I had to consult during the entire movie.
And that’s the thing: the movie is waaaaay tooo confusing. I had no idea what was going on at times or who some of the people were onscreen. You need a fanboy translator at the ready during the entire movie. I was lucky to have one–and, while I’m usually a movie Nazi who gets upset when others talk during the movie, I probably bugged everyone around me with my endless questions to Fanboy Translator.
The only parts of the movie that were clear were Lois Lane’s naked breasts in the bathtub scene. Little was left to the imagination in the gratuitous, repeated shots, with only actress Amy Adams’ nipples missing from the shot. Barely missing. I mean, I know there was a “love scene” between Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve in one of the Superman movies of the past. But in a superhero movie that you know kids are gonna see, did they need to see most of Amy Adams’ chest?
Oh, and another part of the movie that’s clear: Adams’ Lane is trapped by terrorists somewhere in Africa (you think they’re Muslim, but the movie is too chicken and PC to say so). Superman rescues her from being killed by them, and so he’s the bad guy because of collateral damage. Congress holds hearings. So typical. But even more typical: the movie doesn’t take sides on this. Maybe Supe is a bad dude for causing destruction when fighting terrorists. Barf. Oh, and by the way, you and I are the bad guys for wanting to deport aliens. You see, we’re on the same side as the guy they show with the sign calling to deport aliens like Superman. Haha, funny.
Then, there is Lex Luthor, overplayed by the poorly cast Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg, who once played Facebook dictator Mark Zuckerberg, plays him here again, on steroids. We all know that if Mark Zuckerberg could do what he really wants, he’d be even more evil than he already is. And instead of merely playing online recruiter, propagandist, and censor for ISIS and Islam, he’d probably spy on superheroes, pit them against each other using artificial contrivances, and then create a half-Kryptonian, half-human monster (very bad CGI) from his own blood to try to kill Superman, as he does in this movie. Especially if you add in a dash of Nazi collaborator George Soros. Still, I wasn’t buying it. Eisenberg is probably the worst Lex Luthor we’ve ever seen in a Superman movie.
The movie doesn’t really tell you who Diana Prince is (you hear her first name once and you never hear the name “Wonder Woman”). And there are few scenes of her arguing with Bruce Wayne because she stole some hard drive from him. Why? No clue. They don’t tell you. Soon, we see surveillance tapes of many superheroes and comic book characters, including many not in this movie. I had no idea who they were and the movie doesn’t say, so, again, I had to consult Fanboy. The tapes, made by Lex Luthor, show Diana Prince/Wonder Woman getting money from an ATM. What was the point of this? It was like reading US Magazine and seeing “Superheroes–They’re Just Like Us! They use the ATM machine.” Well, I guess they had to give her something to do to fill space in this 2.5-hour cure for insomnia. Yaaawn.
You might compare this movie to bad sex. It builds up for so long to the unexplained, unjustified fight between Batman and Superman. But when it finally happens, it lasts just a minute or two and isn’t exciting. Plus, it’s not believable. Remember, Batman isn’t really a superhero. He’s not an alien or the result of an experiment gone wrong. He doesn’t have any superpowers. He’s just a spoiled rich kid in a pretentious costume and cape. So, in a contest between him and Superman, who do you think would prevail. Here’s a SPOILER hint: it’s not logical the way it turns out.
On Monday, I told a friend how excited I was to see this the next night. He was dismissive and said, “But why are they fighting? That’s so dumb. It doesn’t make sense.”
After seeing this, my thoughts exactly.
***
At the beginning of this movie, director Zack Snyder told us not to give away spoilers and ruin the movie for everyone else. But there’s only one real spoiler, which I had questions about. So I’m putting it on another page. If you want to read it, click here.
TWO MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
Watch the trailer . . .