Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: klasG4e on January 09, 2020, 06:06:14 AM
-
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/andrew-p-napolitano/a-lawless-political-assassination/ (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/andrew-p-napolitano/a-lawless-political-assassination/)
A Lawless Political Assassination (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/andrew-p-napolitano/a-lawless-political-assassination/)
By Andrew P. Napolitano (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/andrew-p-napolitano/?ptype=article)
January 9, 2020
(https://www.volcast.com/pics/button_speaker_174x40_1x1.png?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2F2020%2F01%2Fandrew-p-napolitano%2Fa-lawless-political-assassination%2F) (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/andrew-p-napolitano/a-lawless-political-assassination/#)
“America … goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” — President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)
Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade a then-friendly country without the knowledge or consent of its government and αssαssιnαtҽ a visiting foreign government official. The victim was the head of Iran’s military and intelligence. The formerly friendly country is Iraq. The killing of the general and his companions was carried out by the use of an unmanned drone. The general was not engaged in an act of violence at the time he was killed, nor were any of his companions. They were driving on a public highway in a van.
The president’s supporters have argued that the general’s death was revenge for Americans and others killed by the general’s troops and surrogates. Trump has argued, more importantly, that he ordered the general’s death because of what evil the general might order his own troops and surrogates to do in the future.
Can the president legally kill a person not engaged in an act of violence because of what the person might do in the future? In a word: No.
Here is the backstory.
The president has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides only two means for the federal government to kill a human being. The first is pursuant to a declaration of war, which only Congress can do. That permits the president to use the military to kill the troops of the government of the country against which war has been declared. Congress has not declared war on Iran.
The second way that the Constitution permits federal government killings is pursuant to due process. That means that the person to be killed is lawfully in custody, has been properly charged, lawfully tried and fairly convicted of a capital crime, and the conviction has been upheld on appeal.
Can the president kill foreign military personnel and claim the justification of self-defense? The laws of war permit him to do that, but self-defense — actually, defense of the country — only comes into play when the foreign military personnel are physically engaged in killing Americans or are certainly about to do so. That justification only applies — the law here is 600 years old and has been consistently applied — when force is imminent and certain.
Were imminence and certainty not the requirement, then nothing would prevent a president from slaying any monster he chose simply based on a fear that the monster might someday strike. Such a state of affairs is contrary to two presidential executive orders, one issued by President Gerald R. Ford and the other by President Ronald Reagan, and neither negated by Trump. Such a territorial invasion and killing also violate the United Nations Charter — a treaty that prohibits unlawful invasions and killings of member nations’ territories and officials outside of a lawful and U.N. approved declaration of war.
Roaming the world looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law, but also it violates basic ʝʊdɛօ-Christian moral principles, which teach that the end does not justify the means and might does not make right.
Think about it. If the American president can kill an Iranian government official in Iraq because of fear of what he might do — without a declaration of war or any legal process — can the Chinese president kill a Mexican government official visiting in Texas or an American intelligence agent encouraging revolution in Venezuela for fear of what they might do?
This is not a fanciful or academic argument. It not only goes to the fidelity to the rule of law that we require of our leaders in order to maintain personal liberty and limited government, it also goes to our safety. We have laws to prevent wanton killings, lest killers turn on us.
In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More argues with his son-in-law, William Roper, about the extent of the law’s protections of those universally recognized as evil. Roper says that he would cut down all the laws in England to get rid of the Devil.
More counters that even the Devil is entitled to the benefits of the law. Then he hurls this zinger: “And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you?—?where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast?—?man’s laws, not God’s?—?and, if you cut them down?—?and you’re just the man to do it?—?d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
More crystalized the dangers of those who — like Trump — take the law into their own hands for the sake of expedience or to rid the world of a monster. Without law, how does one decide what monsters should go and what monsters may stay?
When President Obama used drones to kill peaceful uncharged Americans in Yemen, candidate Donald Trump condemned that behavior. He offered that as president, he would bring the troops home, stop the nation building, quit being the world’s police force and end the endless wars. Instead, his act of state terrorism has succeeded in doing what the general he killed could never do while alive. Trump has united the Iranian people behind their fanatical government, and he caused the Iraqi government to kick out all American troops — troops that had no lawful or moral basis for being there in the first place and whose numbers have only increased.
Trump cut down the laws to get to the Devil. Whom will he kill next?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL)
Iran and Iraq are not friendly countries. They persecute Christians which goes unreported by the media you watch.
-
Trump so far has had no true impeachable offenses, until this.
-
Trump so far has had no true impeachable offenses, until this.
He said that intel knew that the general was about to strike the US, as such, I don't see that as an impeachable offense at all, I see that as him doing his duty.
-
He said that intel knew that the general was about to strike the US, as such, I don't see that as an impeachable offense at all, I see that as him doing his duty.
And yet they apparently could not provide one iota of hard evidence to sustain this allegation. If our trustworthy intel that never ::) lies to us had such evidence why was it not shared with the American public -- at least after the assassination? If they were following the usual script it would have been for reasons of national security don't you know. ::)
-
And yet they apparently could not provide one iota of hard evidence to sustain this allegation. If our trustworthy intel that never ::) lies to us had such evidence why was it not shared with the American public -- at least after the assassination? If they were following the usual script it would have been for reasons of national security don't you know. ::)
Naturally I am going with the assumption that Trump's not lying, but in reality I highly doubt that any of us will ever know the whole truth....which is why articles like in the OP will be numerous. Conspiracy theories have always been popular.
-
And yet they apparently could not provide one iota of hard evidence to sustain this allegation.
Do you have any understanding of how intelligence agencies work? It's very likely that the classified information used to kill that guy is also relative to other people/situations. That's why it's not been "proven" or "released" (and don't hold your breath waiting). The intelligence community doesn't work for "we the people"; it's been this way for 70+ years. Get over it.
-
Do you have any understanding of how intelligence agencies work? It's very likely that the classified information used to kill that guy is also relative to other people/situations. That's why it's not been "proven" or "released" (and don't hold your breath waiting). The intelligence community doesn't work for "we the people"; it's been this way for 70+ years. Get over it.
Amazing, how invariably the CIA and intel agencies will all have a volunteer army of good American citizens run cover for them, something even Pompeo himself in a moment of candor does not do here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac
-
Naturally I am going with the assumption that Trump's not lying, but in reality I highly doubt that any of us will ever know the whole truth....which is why articles like in the OP will be numerous. Conspiracy theories have always been popular.
Naturally, I am going to wonder why you ASSUME that Trump was not lying. On the other hand, it's just as possible he thought he was telling the truth because he assumed our 100% honest ::) intel agencies were telling him the truth but I kind of doubt someone like Trump would have assumed that.
And yes, of course, it's possible that he told the truth because he passed on the truth that he got.
Questioning the official narrative should be a lot more popular, but fat chance with a largely insouciant American public.
-
Do you have any understanding of how intelligence agencies work? It's very likely that the classified information used to kill that guy is also relative to other people/situations. That's why it's not been "proven" or "released" (and don't hold your breath waiting). The intelligence community doesn't work for "we the people"; it's been this way for 70+ years. Get over it.
You are right. We really know nothing, but using the past for a template, Saddam Hussein was killed because he had 'weapons of mass destruction", Mommar Quadaffi killed for the greening of Northern Africa and introducing the gold backed Dinar. The fake killing ( reportedly killed 6 times over the past decade)of the Al Baghdadi actor who may not even be a real person and Obama's " killing" of Bin Laden in 2011 to get re-elected, when we know Prime Minister Benizar Bhutto was assasinated over the admission that Bin Laden died in 2002.
It kind of freaked me out when Trump added the killing of the general to the Baghdadi and Bin Laden killings as I know those two were false. It delegitimized the killing of the general for me.
-
To clarify, Trump bunched the three killings together in one of his speeches to the nation yesterday.
-
To clarify, Trump bunched the three killings together in one of his speeches to the nation yesterday.
And he also included his standard whopper about the supposed $150 billion of our money that we just turned over to Iran when that amount referenced was their assets which we had frozen and or stolen/seized from Iran in the first place.
-
And yes, of course, it's possible that he told the truth because he passed on the truth that he got.
Questioning the official narrative should be a lot more popular, but fat chance with a largely insouciant American public.
I'm all for "questioning the narrative" but which one should we question? The media corps LIE; the intel communities LIE; the politicians LIE. So how do we even know what happened?
.
My only point is that you are all riled up about the Presidents/intel's story (i.e. potential lie #1) vs the media's article (i.e. not-potential, but actual lie #2). It's like you're arguing over who is worse - Judas, Martin Luther or Hitler. Does it really matter? You'll never have all the facts; you'll never know the multiple agendas in all of this (from middle east oil $, to Iraq drug money, to Trump's re-election campaign, to corps selling newspapers, to Peℓσѕι's hate of Trump, to Congressmen critiquing the President for "air time" and popularity, to legitimately hurting ISIS, to legitimately helping protect bases in Iraq, etc, etc). There's about a HUNDRED different angles to this situation and we'll never know enough to make sense of it. So calm down and quit attacking your fellow men for being confused and clinging to the "most positive" mental story (I.e. that a very small few in govt might still care to protect us), even if most us know that even this small hope is b.s. Sometimes, in the midst of war (and we're in the middle of an information war, which has lasted decades), you have to cling to positive thoughts, however unrealistic. You have to stay sane. What's the alternative? What does ranting and raving solve, when a solution is impossible?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL)
Iran and Iraq are not friendly countries. They persecute Christians which goes unreported by the media you watch.
That has nothing to do with the definition of "friendly country".
-
Trump so far has had no true impeachable offenses, until this.
Indeed, this is crying out for impeachment, the very type of scenario the Founding Fathers envisioned when drawing up the impeachment process. That is also why the Constitution has always required Congressional approval before going to war. They have skirted this by redefining these as NOT being war, but just isolated military actions. But that intent of the Constitution is precisely to prevent a rogue President from committing the entire country to war on a whim and endangering the country.
Being the conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't doubt if the entire impeachment circus regarding total stupidity wasn't orchestrated in order to provide cover for Trump for a later impeachment for this kind of behavior.
-
Number of Americans killed in their own country every year by Iranians: 0 that I know of.
Number of Americans killed in their own country every year by Mexicans: 30,000, by conservative estimate.
-
Sometimes, in the midst of war (and we're in the middle of an information war, which has lasted decades), you have to cling to positive thoughts, however unrealistic. You have to stay sane. What's the alternative? What does ranting and raving solve, when a solution is impossible?
If you say so. :laugh1:
-
This assassination really bothered me and the Napolitano artlcle is good to get the conversation rolling.
Thanks for posting it Klas.
I agree that it was a lawless political assassination, but noticed an immediate red flag in the tex:
"... looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law, but also it violates basic ʝʊdɛօ-Christian moral principles, which teach that the end does not justify the means and might does not make right."
Whenever you hear the term, "ʝʊdɛօ-Christian", know that it is a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic code-word.
ʝʊdɛօ-Christian is a propaganda term, to lull weak Christians into thinking we have a common culture with the Jєωs.
The core of judaic culture is the тαℓмυd and we Christian have nothing in common with it.
Our country's president αssαssιnαtҽs another country's general, to kiss-up to Benjamin Netanyahu .
It was lawless, yes, but where did the concept come from? It is from judaic тαℓмυdism.
Our poor country is so culturally judaized, we don't even recognize barbarity when it happens right in front of our face.
I recall reading Father Feeney's comments on the nuclear annihilation of civilian populations at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In hindsight, we know neither bombings were necessary, but ʝʊdɛօ-masons wanted to test the bomb on large concentrations of Japanese Catholics.
Father Feeney stated that at that point, he knew that America had lost it's Christian moral compass.
Yes, Father... by 1945, America had already been judaized.
-
+1000!
“ʝʊdɛօ-Christian”—the “defector-believer” oxymoron
“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=54&ch=6&l=15#x)
“The thesis of this book is that Judaism and Christianity do not form a common tradition, ‘the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian tradition.’ They are not compatible ... only now, for reasons of politics and sociology, have some representatives of Judaism maintained otherwise....”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Jєωs and Christians: the myth of a common tradition, ISBN 1-586841-08-4, Binghamton NY: Classics in Judaic Studies
http://books.google.no/books?id=qDdoHV9sPsAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Jєωs%20and%20Christians%3A%20the%20myth%20of%20a%20common%20tradition&hl=no&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.no/books?id=qDdoHV9sPsAC&lpg=PP1&dq=Jєωs%20and%20Christians%3A%20the%20myth%20of%20a%20common%20tradition&hl=no&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false)
From both the Judaic and Christian perspectives, “ʝʊdɛօ-Christian” is an oxymoron in the vein of “defector-believer.” Keep in mind that, as the rabbis freely stipulate, Judaism is a post-Christian religion, hence Christianity preceded Judaism, not vice versa:
“Pharisaism became тαℓмυdism, тαℓмυdism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”
Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, The Jєωιѕн Publication Society of America (1946) p. xxi
“The term Judaeo-Christianity, strictly speaking, applies only to those Christians, born in Judaism, who looked upon the Law as still binding, and who therefore found themselves in an irreconcilable conflict, not only with St. Paul, but with all Christianity.”
Batifol, “Primitive Catholicism,” p. 238; Harnack, “History of Dogma”, I, 289 in Rev. Fernand Mourret, SS., Rev. Newton Thompson, STD (translator), A History of the Catholic Church, Volume I Period of Early Expansion, St. Louis MO (Herder Book Co.) 1946, p. 79
https://archive.org/stream/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurch/VolumeOne#page/n1/mode/2up (https://archive.org/stream/AHistoryOfTheCatholicChurch/VolumeOne#page/n1/mode/2up)
…
-
but noticed an immediate red flag in the tex:
"... looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law, but also it violates basic ʝʊdɛօ-Christian moral principles, which teach that the end does not justify the means and might does not make right."
Whenever you hear the term, "ʝʊdɛօ-Christian", know that it is a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic code-word.
ʝʊdɛօ-Christian is a propaganda term, to lull weak Christians into thinking we have a common culture with the Jєωs.
The core of judaic culture is the тαℓмυd and we Christian have nothing in common with it.
Our country's president αssαssιnαtҽs another country's general, to kiss-up to Benjamin Netanyahu .
It was lawless, yes, but where did the concept come from? It is from judaic тαℓмυdism.
Our poor country is so culturally judaized, we don't even recognize barbarity when it happens right in front of our face.
I recall reading Father Feeney's comments on the nuclear annihilation of civilian populations at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In hindsight, we know neither bombings were necessary, but ʝʊdɛօ-masons wanted to test the bomb on large concentrations of Japanese Catholics.
Father Feeney stated that at that point, he knew that America had lost it's Christian moral compass.
Yes, Father... by 1945, America had already been judaized.
You are absolutely right re the red flag Incred. I almost did not post the article for that very reason. I should have taken the time to point out what you and Mark 79 have done so well here.
Thanks for giving a plug for Fr. Feeney, a true Catholic hero.
I have to say, it's been a bit of a wake up call to discover how many TradCats on CathInfo appear to go along with Matthew on the assassination and the idea of going to all out war with Iran. Quite sad! Quite amazing! I could well picture them cheering on Truman w/ his 2 atom bombs and the mad bomber Lemay who firebombed Tokyo and 66 other cities in Japan while in the process indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians. Lemay (a Lemay type character was played by George C. Scott in the movie classic Dr. Strangelove) even admitted openly that had the U.S. lost the war he could have been tried as a war criminal. Could have been?! He most definitely would have been and should have been.
By the logic of those folks who don't have a problem with the assassination of that Iranian hero and top general, they would not have much to stand on in decrying the assassination of one of our top generals (who by the way have been emasculated in not being able to speak out against LGBT) while passing through the Toronto airport!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL)
Iran and Iraq are not friendly countries. They persecute Christians which goes unreported by the media you watch.
St. Joseph's Cathedral[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph%27s_Cathedral,_Tehran#cite_note-1) (Persian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language): سنت جوزف کلیسای جامع ), also called the Chaldean Catholic cathedral of Tehran, is a Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) building in Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran), Iran, in which the Chaldean rite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_rite) is followed. It is located north of Enqelab Street (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enqelab_Street), Shahid Abbas Moussavi. It should not be confused with Tehran's Cathedral of the Consolata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran) (where the Latin rite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_liturgical_rites) is followed), nor with the Apostolic Armenian Saint Sarkis Cathedral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarkis_Cathedral,_Tehran).
It functions as the seat of the Chaldean Catholic Archeparchy of Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Archeparchy_of_Tehran) (Archidioecesis Teheranensis Chaldaeorum), a jurisdiction created for Catholics of the Chaldean rite that was established in 1853 and moved to Teheran in 1944 under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) who depends on the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Oriental_Churches) (Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus).
Currently it is under the pastoral responsibility of the Archbishop Ramzi Garmou (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Garmou).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph%27s_Cathedral,_Tehran
The Cathedral of the Consolata,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran#cite_note-2) also called the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Tehran, is a Catholic Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) building in the city of Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran), Iran, in which the Latin or Roman rite is followed.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran#cite_note-4) It is not to be confused with the Chaldean Catholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Catholic_Archeparchy_of_Tehran) cathedral of Tehran, St. Joseph's Cathedral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph%27s_Cathedral,_Tehran), where the Chaldean rite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_rite) is followed.
The cathedral is located near the Italian embassy in Tehran and Nofel Loshato Street. It is the main church of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ispahan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Ispahan) (Archidioecesis Hispahanensis Latinorum), which was created in 1629 by Pope Urban VIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII).
It is under the pastoral responsibility of Bishop Sarkis Davidian. Due to the diversity of nationalities of Christians in the city, it offers religious services in various languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Consolata,_Tehran
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_ISIL)
Iran and Iraq are not friendly countries. They persecute Christians which goes unreported by the media you watch.
I think that the above and this post will refute that Iran persecutes Christians.
In October 2010, an Iranian official delivered a letter from President Ahmadinejad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad) to Pope Benedict XVI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI) in which the President said he hoped to work closely with the Holy See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See) to help stem religious intolerance, the breakup of families and the increase of secularism and materialism. A return letter from Pope Benedict was hand-delivered by Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Cardinal_Tauran), President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Interreligious_Dialogue), according to Passionist Father Reverend Ciro Benedettini (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ciro_Benedettini&action=edit&redlink=1), Vice-Director of the Vatican Press Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Press_Office) in a statement issued November 10, 2010. The Papal letter's contents were not disclosed. Cardinal Tauran met with the Iranian leader while Tauran was participating in a three-day meeting on Islamic–Christian relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam), along with Iranian Catholic leaders. The meeting was a joint initiative of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Interreligious_Dialogue) and the Teheran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teheran)-based Islamic Culture and Relations Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Culture_and_Relations_Organization).
Early relations began during the reign of Shah Abbas I when the Persian embassies visited the pope. The two countries have had formal diplomatic relations since 1954, since the pontificate of Pius XII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XII), and have been maintained during Islamic revolution.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Iran_relations#cite_note-time-2) Iran has a large diplomatic corps at the Vatican with only the Dominican Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic) having more diplomats accredited to the Holy See.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Iran_relations#cite_note-time-2)
In 1979 Pope John Paul II sent envoy to Iran to help to solve the Hostage Crisis. In 2008 relations between Iran and the Holy See were "warming", and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) "said the Vatican was a positive force for justice and peace" when he met with the Papal nuncio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_nuncio) to Iran, Archbishop Jean-Paul Gobel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Gobel).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Iran_relations#cite_note-3)
According to an online news story article by Carol Glatz (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carol_Glatz&action=edit&redlink=1) of Catholic News Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_News_Service) posted on the CNS website on Thursday, October 7, 2010, President Ahmadinejad "told Pope Benedict XVI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI) that he would like to work more closely with the Vatican in an effort to stop religious intolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance) and the breakup of families. The president also appealed to world religions to cooperate in the fight against secularism and materialism, Iranian news agencies reported. The appeals came in a letter that was handed to the pope by Iranian Vice President for Parliamentary Affairs Sayyed Mohammad-Reza Mir-Tajeddini (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sayyed_Mohammad-Reza_Mir-Tajeddini&action=edit&redlink=1), during a brief meeting Oct. 6 at the Vatican. Vatican spokesman Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Lombardi) confirmed to Catholic News Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_News_Service) Oct. 7 that the letter was given to the pope and its contents already published by Iranian media outlets. According to reports, the letter praised the pope and the Vatican for criticizing a U.S. pastor's threats to burn copies of the Qur'an (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) on September 11". On November 3, the Pope sent the Iranian President a letter in reply, in which he stated that the establishment of a bilateral Vatican-Iranian commission would be a desirable step towards solving the problems of the Catholic Church in Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Iran).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Iran_relations#cite_note-4)
-
blah, blah, blah…
It is typical of both you and Satan to admix truth and lies.
You have done so repeatedly with your drive-bys, dropping a satanic bomb (demon symbol prefiguring Mary, falsifying Matthew for your "greater idea," lying about what Jorge says to give him cover, "paraphrasing" St. Paul to defend Jorge's "Jesus made himself the devil," partially quoting Pope St. Pius X to falsify and ally him with Jorge's Judaizing, etc.) and when called out for your blasphemies and lies, dropping mass quantities of pious sounding camouflage that do not really address or exculpate your lies and blasphemies.
You are truly despicable.
-
Poche: 2019 Christmas Iran leadership persecutes and tortures Christians especially converts.
Muslim countries have never been “friendly”. They reject Jesus the True Prince of Peace.
-
Pompeo: I Lied About Soleimani ‘Imminent Attacks’
January 11, 2020 in News (http://republicbroadcasting.org/category/news/) by RBN Staff (http://republicbroadcasting.org/author/slad/)
Save (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?guid=NwyXWr0asaoG-2&url=http%3A%2F%2Frepublicbroadcasting.org%2Fnews%2Fpompeo-i-lied-about-soleimani-imminent-attacks%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Frepublicbroadcasting.org%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FPompeo.jpg&description=Republic%20Broadcasting%20Network%20%C2%BB%20Pompeo%3A%20I%20Lied%20About%20Soleimani%20%E2%80%98Imminent%20Attacks%E2%80%99)
(http://i2.wp.com/republicbroadcasting.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Pompeo.jpg?resize=432%2C288) (http://i2.wp.com/republicbroadcasting.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Pompeo.jpg)
source: www.lewrockwell.com
(https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/daniel-mcadams/pompeo-i-lied-about-soleimani-imminent-attacks/)By Daniel McAdams (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/daniel-mcadams/?ptype=article)
Trump’s neoconservative Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is a man unafraid to admit to being a liar. In fact he seems to revel in his ability to lie (https://youtu.be/qfrhATD4nM0) to the American people.
Remember just a week ago when Pompeo told us that the US absolutely HAD to send in a drone to αssαssιnαtҽ Iran’s top general, Qassim Soleimani, while he was in Iraq on a peace mission (https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/soleimani-was-baghdad-diplomatic-mission-saudi-peace-iraq-pm) because he was planning “imminent attacks” on US personnel and interests in the Middle East.
These claims were crafted to blunt any criticism of the blatantly illegal act of killing a top military officer of a country with which you are not at war in a third country (which forbade the attack on its soil) with which you are allied. Americans raising concerns about the murder of Soleimani were to be made to look unpatriotic if they objected: “you mean you WANT Americans die??”
That’s how propaganda works.
Then when the smoke clears, you laugh it all off and admit it was all a lie. As Pompeo did last night.
READ MORE HERE (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/daniel-mcadams/pompeo-i-lied-about-soleimani-imminent-attacks/)
Share this:
-
Poche: 2019 Christmas Iran leadership persecutes and tortures Christians especially converts.
Muslim countries have never been “friendly”. They reject Jesus the True Prince of Peace.
We have not heard from the Poster, Spouse of Jesus who is in Iran since her last post in 2012.
-
Israeli Intelligence was Instrumental in Qasem Soleiman's Assassination
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/12/israeli-intelligence-was-instrumental-in-qasem-soleimanis-assassination/
-
Muslim countries have never been “friendly”. They reject Jesus the True Prince of Peace.
And the USA embraces Jesus the True Prince of Peace?
-
Israeli Intelligence was Instrumental in Qasem Soleiman's Assassination
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/12/israeli-intelligence-was-instrumental-in-qasem-soleimanis-assassination/
Shocking ... just absolutely shocking.
-
The U.S. Embassy had literally been firebombed and overrun with Soleimani’s cowardly, filthy scuмbags just a day or teo before we took him out. There IS no question of imminence when the attack is ongoing. “How did you know he was gonna throw a hook after he hit you with those tow jabs?” “Well I knew he was gonna throw something... he wasn’t stopping.” This guy firebombed our embassy! Stop defending him!