George W. Bush Talked to Chirac about Biblical Prophecies.

The other day I have found an amazing story on the internet, a story that was highly over-looked by main media.

I’m writing this post to show the immense stupidity of war. The War in Question ? USA invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Georges W Bush, before invading Iraq , called the former French President Jacques Chirac and said :

“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. . . . The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. . . . This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

Who are Gog and Magog ?  Figures, monsters, mentioned in the Ancient Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran, nothing wrong or bizarre about that in monotheist religions with the same God.  Gog and Magog in the Ancient Testament of Ezekiel are two mysterious and destructing forces that will menace Israel. In the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, Gog and Magog will be fought by a gathering of nations,  “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call, and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.

And I completely understand Chirac, the leader of the so-called only superpower in the World, in order to convince and gather nations to invade Iraq, spoke about biblical prophecies ? Now I wonder if Bush called his English friend Tony and spoke about this.  Did Tony Blair say :”Bloody Hell…Bush must be right, Gog and Magog are obviously plotting against Israel in the Middle East, we must fight this war.”

Maybe Bush was really thinking that France was going to be convinced when he talked about prophecies ? The question is, did Bush really think that biblical prophecies were being accomplished ? Or it’s just to disguise his attack against Iraq, or both ? My heart go to both of the allegations.

Maybe entire families of US troops were destroyed because some biblical prophecies.

Maybe approximately a million men woman and children were killed because of some biblical prophecies.

Image

Answer to Sara el-Yafi Post : Pick Your Present. Vote.

Sara  el-Yafi states in her article that the universal suffrage to elect the head of the state would empower its people, and she makes up a poll, a mock election ballot.  Yes, politicians must work for the people, first of them the president.

Yes the Parliament power must be diluted, diminished.

But I have one problem with your article, she condemns confessionalism and she says :”No religions, no geographically restricted voices, just equal voices for all in one country.”

She presents to us a list of presidential candidates, and says in her article that the direct voting will lead the Lebanese to a less confessional state. Yet the list is based on confessions. All the candidates are of one confession. I know, she put up that list because it is a tradition, the candidates are based on the unwritten National pact of 1943, the National Pact is highly sectarian. And I personally will never vote, even if I could, to elect a candidate limited to his confession.

Let’s say we the people could vote for a president. A president with no religion presented to us, I am not saying atheist, (of course everyone has the right to) just a president that conceals his religion, (or his atheism) for the purpose of not influencing the people’s vote. And if he does that, now this is going to be interesting.

I completely understood what she wrote in the article, and respect her ideas.

But the real problems, the essence of them in the Lebanese state, is not the direct or indirect voting, but the rules that accompany it, the National Pact, the Taef Agreement that put so much limits to the needs of, I am sure, the majority of the Lebanese citizens. A full working national assembly that will look up to the real problems of the country, such as Energy, Equal Rights, ban of Corruption, Environmental issues and what we lack the most, Economical Security. Maybe an impartial assembly ?

Either way, keep on the suggestions and good article.

Jackie Chamoun case needs to be relativised

jackie-chamoun-

People that are blaming the main audience of caring too much about Boobs and not enough bombings are…caring too much Jackie Chamoun’s boobs and not bombings ? Blaming also the “Lebanese people” to not care enough about woman beaten to death by her husband are also turning the attention away from these stories and bringing focus on the “scandal”. #Stripforjackie is not going to bring attention on other cases…And that’s the vicious circle.

Today two booby-trapped cars were dismantled in Mazraa and Labweh (bekaa), and 4 missiles, ready to be fired on Dahye (Beirut Suburb) were found in Debbieh , yet I felt that the Lebanese “Twitterverse” did not care about it, and that’s an irony. #Stripforjackie brought more attention on boobs than bombs, what a lot of you bloggers blamed.

Jackie Chamoun is free to do whatever she wants of course, but let’s take a look on more “civilized” countries, France for example, does not allow woman to go topless : see the article of the Code Pénal here,  monokini is allowed in beaches. So if a woman like Jackie Chamoun showed her breasts in a French public ski resort, she would have been arrested, could be put one year in prison and would be fined 15,000 euros.

It is neither legal in UK.

Here’s a part of an interview she made on NBC Olympics :

Yes. If we were somewhere else in Lebanon, in a public place, maybe they would have shooted us. But we were on the slope in Faraya and it is an open space. The people who go there are people from Beirut who are open-minded, more international in their thinking, and also the jet-set of Lebanon so it wasn’t a problem there. It’s really open there, like in Europe. In other places we could have been in really big trouble.

 

The Lebanese constitution : article 8 :

Individual liberty is guaranteed and protected by law. No one may be arrested, imprisoned, or kept in custody except according to the provisions of the law. No offense may be established or penalty imposed except by law.