xjwsforChrist

New deal struck between UN and Iran. Israel is incensed, calls it a huge mistake, and refuses to take potential strike off the table during 6-month trial period. May the world hope Israel is not as trigger happy as she appears to be. I fear she is.

Peace. Truly.

A slave of Christ,

Shellamar

Well.

I think I'll go catch up on some reading....


Peace to you,
tammy

Good Morning Shelby..

Israel is used to doing what it wants..
If it decides to strike Iran..It will..


..............................................OUTLAW

_________________

Whew I hope Iran doesn't piss them off, very scary. Or is it that Iran has to get rid of their nuclear entirely?
I haven't been following this lately.

If the past is any indication of the present and future, it will be the west that breaks their terms of agreement before Iran does. And as it happened in the past, the 'contract' and agreement is written in such a way that each party may read something else into it.

I read that Obama has stated that not all sanctions are to be lifted, but that the Iranian president has stated that all sanctions ARE to be lifted.

Here is the link of the agreement. Shelby, you are the one who gets the 'lawyer speak', but it looks to me as though it states all sanctions are to be lifted in the first paragraph (as far as I have read), but it is part of a longer sentence that could possibly be construed to mean something else.


Actually I just re-read it. It is the phrase 'will produce' a lifting of all sanctions that is going to cause the problems.

I am going to read the whole thing, and ask our Lord to help me SEE it for what it is. But here is the link if you want to take a look, and if anyone else does also:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/image ... n.text.pdf


Peace,
tammy

Well, I read it... and it seems like a good agreement... IF both sides can be trusted (peace to you, dear tec, and thanks for posting it!). I cannot see where the West breaking their agreement would be detrimental, other than to give Iran leave to resume their activities. I can see where Iran breaking their agreement would restore the... mmmmmmm... fears and concerns that currently exist.

I think the real ISSUE is... why does ISRAEL have a problem with the agreement, what does SHE thinks might/will occur... so that SHE isn't onboard with it? For instance, does she think that the lifting of sanctions will give Iran more funds to advance their program, so that WMD CAN be built? Does she think, perhaps, that Iran is not being forthcoming as to ALL of its facilities (it isn't... but what world government that COULD protect ITSELF from attack from IT'S enemies would leave itself COMPLETELY vulnerable? The US wouldn't. Russia wouldn't. England wouldn't. Israel certainly wouldn't... and has pretty much said that!)?

So, I think we only have part of the story. Given that everyone EXCEPT Israel thinks it's at least a start, if not perhaps a PERFECT agreement, what is Israel's "problem"?

I think one of her "problems" is believing that, as "God's chosen people"... she can do NO wrong. She has ALWAYS thought that, though, even to her OWN detriment. Israel's hands have RARELY been clean, if history is to teach us.

Even so, her enemies can't just go after, attack, punish... and devastate her. Her punishment is allowed, but only to an extent. At some point JAH ALWAYS steps in, sometimes even punishing her punishers worse. And any of us who are parents can understand that - while we may not have a problem with another family member/dear friend/loved one disciplining, even punishing OUR children... there is a limit. At some point, WE go, "Oh, wait, no, uh-uh, that's TOO much/harsh! No, I will discipline MY child!" We will even go after such one if we think they're out of line... or the punishment is TOO harsh.

But if we LET them, even our own children may... thinking that we will back them up in everything... EVEN WHEN THEY'RE WRONG... DO wrong to others.

Israel may very well be in the same position. She might THINK she can do whatever... wherever... to whomever... with no repercussions... simply because of who she "is." She would be mistaken, though.

Yet, any who deal with her too harshly would be mistaken, too. Because some IN her, albeit few, are STILL the least of Christ's brothers... by means of Abraham's blood. And so, what ones do to THEM... they do to HIM.

I hope this helps... and I will look for something that states Israel's position, if anything comprehensive is out there. I have heard a lot of commentary, but nothing makes tangible sense to me. It all seems so, "Well, it's wrong... BECAUSE! Because Iran has previously made certain statements, and still is... and we just don't TRUST her! So, there should be NO agreement at all, unless they get rid of EVERYTHING!"

Peace!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

Yes, reading it seems to be fine. The specific sanctions that are to be lifted are addressed in detail. So there should be no wriggle room, at least not for the next six months.

I am not sure if what people 'hear' (and see) and what is actually written... are always the same thing. In fact, they rarely are the same thing.



This page (look under "united states" and then under "iran") shows something of a possible misunderstanding between the US and Iran. Maybe that is more along the lines of propaganda though...

But that (one member of an agreement hearing one thing (or being told one thing)... and the other member of an agreement hearing another thing (or being told another thing) ) is where the breakdowns occurred in Israel/Palestine.



Wouldn't Israel's stance on this - against the un and against Iran - just reinforce the Iranians view of them? Especially if Israel does something on its own initiative?



Peace,
tammy

Yes, and so that is the purpose of establishing the... wait, let me see what they call it... ah, right, the "Joint Commission", luv (peace to you!)... which is made up of the "E3/EU+3 and Iran." Here's how they define it:



So, perhaps Israel has a problem with the compilation of that Commission, including perhaps its members/directors...



Sorry, but can't seem to locate what you're referring to, luv.



In truth, people hear... what they want to... and don't hear what they don't. Regardless of whether it's truth or not. And I hate to say it but Israel has a documented history... of not hearing... or speaking... truth. Jeremiah Chapter 8 speaks directly to that. Iran might have that same track record, but I don't know if/where it's documented. At least, not in the same detail as with Israel.



Well, it would certainly lend itself to Iran's accusations and THEIR mistrust, yes. As for the rest of the world, I'm not sure why the rest of the world considers Israel to be without blemish, except... and I just heard... guilt. For what was done by Hitler... and then what the others (England, US, etc.) did once that tragedy was over - rejected them. Although, the US rejected Jews long before that, if memory serves me. Jews weren't considered much better than black folks, at one point. Now... well, they kinda "rule" the US... at least Hollywood - LOLOLOL! (but China is gaining on them). So, what choice does the US have BUT to befriend her?

If Israel does something... mmmmmm... preemptive, though, I don't think it will matter what the world thinks of anyone. I think it will be "on... like Donkey Kong". For EVERYBODY. Although, any strike BACK... by Iran... stands to be much, much worse. And I think THAT is what the other UN members are TRYING to prevent: they know Israel is "trigger happy" and COULD make a pretty good strike... BUT... they DON'T know to what extent Iran could... and would... retaliate.

And they don't want to find out. Because, the THINK it COULD be even worse and anyone EVER even imagines. And... they would be right. Israel, though, in her arrogance, isn't quite seeing it that way. She thinks she is stronger. She doesn't get that it isn't always the strongest... or the one with the largest army/most weapons... or even the one that belongs to JAH... that wreaks the most... and most damaging... havoc. Maybe in the end, but not always at first.

Sigh. Come, Lord JAHESHUA. For EVERYONE's sake.

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

Shellamar

Amen to that, yes.

Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Well... hmm... maybe it would help if I posted the link, lol:


http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/iran-deal-reaction/



Yes, I hear you. I am thinking more along the lines of the double-dealing that went on with regard to Israel and Palestine, with the British. I am just thinking though, and remembering the deals that went wrong from that time period and deal.


Peace to you,
tammy

Sorry for the delay, girl - had to run errands (peace, luv!). So, okay... I can see where the media is trying to make it LOOK like there's confusion, but I'm not really seeing it. Hence, I think the media is simply trying to hype the thing up and sensationalize it when there's really nothing TO sensationalize... other than a deal WAS struck. Let me show what I "see":

Per CNN -



Okay, let's now look at their definition of "all over the place" -



THEN, CNN says:



Personally, I only see two "corners":

Corner One - Those FOR it, such as the US, Iran, the UN, and the European Union; and

Corner Two - Those AGAINST it, which is really only Israel, as those "US Republicans" are really only against Obama... and ANYTHING he does... such that had he sided WITH Israel here, and NOT done the deal, they would have taken shots at him for THAT. So, I'm don't think these folks really count... as against OR for... ANYTHING... since their agenda here has absolutely NOTHING to do with helping Israel OR limiting Iran OR slowing nuclear proliferation... or ANYTHING... other than merely opposing Obama.

And folks can cry "Foul!"... but I'm not saying it because I am "for" Obama. I'm not "for" anyone... except Christ. I have stated it HERE, though... because it is their FIRM and STATED (from Day One) agenda.

So, I don't see "all over the place." I see two corners... which is not unusual. Although one is usually the GOAL, two isn't SO bad, considering that the implication is that there are more (perhaps four, five, or even six!). Bullocks puckies. It's just that for some reason (sensationalism of what has turned out to be a very ho-hum resolution, perhaps?)... CNN apparently wants to use RHETORIC in telling ITS "journalistic" version.

Here's another:

Per CNN, Rouhani and Obama are not saying the same thing. They base this on Rouhani's comment that "All sanctions will be lifted" as part of the deal.

But that's not entirely FALSE. Per the DEAL, IF Iran holds true to the trial period... and any subsequent agreements... it is entirely possible that all sanctions WILL be lifted. That is the INCENTIVE... FOR the deal. Rouhani may only be presenting an optimistic and prophetic OUTCOME:

"Since I know MY country will adhere to the deal... and I trust that the others will, as well... all sanctions WILL [ultimately] be lifted."

But CNN saying it THAT way... rather than trying to put a "spin" on it... won't SELL as much NEWS... and so won't reap as much in advertising dollars! Like virtually ALL mainstream, western media TODAY... CNN has to "tell the story" in a way that will get folks going, "Whuu-what??! Wait, I need to see THAT for MYSELF!" Click on... CNN. On the TV, on the Internet, etc.

Then, they take something John Kerry apparently said, that "the written deal does not say that Iran can enrich uranium."

If I were a betting woman, I would wager that if you actually heard Mr. Kerry... or he was asked (to clarify/explain/expound)... he would ADD... "past 5% purity" or "to weapons grade, no." But the deal doesn't prohibit Iran from enriching uranium at all; only the LEVEL of such enrichment.

Soooo... sorry, but I didn't get what CNN apparently got... or (deceitfully) wants others to THINK was/is the case... with this deal. Everybody I heard talk about it was "in, like Flynn"... EXCEPT Israel. Oh, yeah, and those few die-hard "I'm gonna get that Obama out of White House so's it can stay white" Republicans who, again, wouldn't have agreed had he sided WITH Israel. They have SAID he cannot, WILL not, win with them. So, it doesn't MATTER the issue. Which is why I don't think they count, in this... or anything where Obama is involved... at all. Because they have STATED that THEIR "side"... is WHATEVER side HE is NOT on.

But that's just what I see. I am sure there are others who see it differently.

BUT... even with all of that, neither side is going to keep to the agreement. Iran isn't being forthright (but not really to blame, as no one else is either, and they feel the need to protect themselves, as they should... because most likely the FIRST "strike" isn't going to come from them, but from the dear but shivering and trigger happy folks in "the Holy Land"...), and the west is NEVER to be trusted... sooo...

It's really smoke and mirrors for EVERYONE. NO ONE's hands are going to be clean when the dust finally settles. Let's all meet back here in, say, a decade... and then see where we stand. IF we're here...

I hope this helps, luv!

Peace... in the Middle East... and EVERYWHERE! As CHRIST gives it!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

YES, I can see that now, thank you! It IS propaganda (their own spin on the events, just in a few phrases, that is not in line WITH the events).

Man! I even knew to be on the lookout with CNN (really with anything), and I still honed in on that. Though there are even worse reports than those ones with their descriptive phrases and even wild metaphors, stirring the pot.


I did get that the uranium can be enriched... just not past the 5%.



Okay... but in the meantime, lets meet back here in two months and see what the smoke and mirrors are showing then!



Peace to you,
tammy

Yeah, two months... then four... then... six (when the "initial deal" is scheduled to conclude). It could be fascinating. Then again, it could be SO mundane and boring... that we'll HAVE to get CNN's take on it JUST to stay awake! LOLOLOL!

And yeah... I almost HATE CNN. I cannot stomach Andy Cooper, although I do like (sometimes) Piers Morgan (although, he can be a bit of a boor, at times).

I'm one of those people who reads/listens "between the lines" of the news. No matter WHO'S reporting it. Because in the western world news is no longer as much about news... as it is about advertising dollars. Goodness, we need another Walter Conkrite or Edward Murrow...

Peace, luv!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar