Protecting Lebanon

Aug 19th, 2006, in IM Posts, by

President Yudhoyono remains extremely enthusiastic about sending peacekeepers to Lebanon.

On the 16th president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono reaffirmed Indonesia's commitment to "protect" the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples from Israel. In his State of the Nation address the president said:

...we have stated our readiness to join with the U.N. Peacekeeping force, in order to protect the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples from Israeli attacks.

Ever since the conflict in the middle east broke out there have been endless calls to send the Indonesian army to the area, and, as noted here in Peacekeepers for Lebanon, the calls often have a strong note of belligerence to them.

The Indonesian armed forces are reported to have readied 850 men to be deployed to Lebanon and the Minister for Defence, Juwono Sudarsono, said the number of might be increased to 1,000. The plan to send the troops has met with near universal support among influential people, at least those who are quoted by professional Israel-baiting organs such as Antara. House speaker Agung Laksono was reported to have said words to this effect:

The House and all Indonesians denounce the Israeli attack against Lebanon, killing more than 1,000 civilians, including children.

But it seems there is a shortfall in equipment needed for the peacekeeping task. Juwono Sudarsono tells that he made a phone call to his counterpart in France with the intention of making a purchase of 32 tanks. Unfortunately:

But because France is on holiday throughout August then we won't find out until after the 20th.
(Namun karena Prancis sedang libur sepanjang Agustus, maka saya baru tahu setelah tanggal 20.)

If the purchase does go through, he says, the Indonesian government has expressed the wish that the tanks be sent straight to Lebanon. Protecting the Lebanese people seems to be an urgent and expensive business.

Yudhoyono's speech contained 400 odd words on foreign policy and a full 60% of those were devoted to the middle east, particularly to Lebanon and Palestine, two countries far away from Indonesia and of little practical importance to the life of this country. There are many other such similar places in the world, like Sudan for example, in whose Darfur region it is estimated that up to 500,000 people, mostly civilians, and many of them children, have died due to conflict since February 2003. Their lives do not seem to warrant the same concern for "protecting" as those in Lebanon however, Jews and America cannot be blamed for their suffering.

What's more, as Israeli UN envoy Dan Gillerman noted, is that Indonesia, along with Malaysia, does not even recognise one of the parties to the dispute. He said:

It would be very difficult if not inconceivable for Israel to accept troops from countries who do not recognise Israel, who have no diplomatic relations with Israel.

and

...to expect countries who don't even recognise Israel to guard Israel's safety I think would be a bit naive.

But for the Indonesian military and politcal elite it's all about "protecting" Lebanon, and tying the country's identity and future to that of the dysfunctional, bickering, and backward Islamic world. Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono let it be known that Indonesia will take no part in any disarming of Hezbullah troops even if they are required to by the UN.


45 Comments on “Protecting Lebanon”

  1. avatar IndraPr says:

    SBY is absolutely correct. Indonesia and the rest of the peacekeeping force should ensure that they are protecting the supressed (in this case, Lebanon) from the agressor (in this case, Israel), and not the other way around. It’s common sense. Why on earth we need to “protect” the agressor?

    This applies everywhere, be it Lebanon or anywhere else.

  2. avatar Oigal says:

    Thanks for the demonstration of the non biased attitude the world could expect from the Indonesian Peace Keepers Indra.

    Of course we can expect the same support and logic if Israel is requested to montier the progress in Aceh or perhaps Papua should things flair up again.

    Lets be honest, certain countries cannot and should not take part in this peace keeping force if it is to have any chance at all and I include the US in this evaulation

    The concept is fairly simple a Peace Keeping Force should be NEUTRAL..

    Interesting also you declare Israel the only aggressor. Once Israel completes the withdrawl, then the only non Lebanon “army” still occupying Lebanon will be???? (hint starts with “H” and is not subject to the authority of the elected government of the country)

    Of course we will be demanding they cede authority to the elected government of Lebanon as well won’t we ??

  3. avatar IndraPr says:

    We are talking about the peacekeeping force to be stationed in Lebanon. In this context, it’s the Lebanese people who need to be protected. If you’re talking about Hizbullah, then I don’t see a reason why the peacekeeping force would need to protect Lebanese people from Hizbullah.

    Remember, all the 1,000 Lebanese civilian victims were killed by Israel, not Hizbullah. If we’re talking about peacekeeping force to be stationed in Israel, then yes, the force should protect the Israeli from Hizbullah attack. But if we’re talking about peacekeeping force to be stationed in Lebanon, then they should protect the Lebanese… from who? Of course, from Israel’s attack. It was Israel who attacked Lebanon, not Hizbullah or any other party or country.

    It’s common sense. Wherever a peacekeeper force to be stationed, be it in Lebanon, Israel, or any other country, the force should be responsible to maintain peace and protect the people (where it is stationed) from another party’s aggression.

  4. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    The victims in this war are the innocent civilians of both Lebanon and Israel, who have been caught in the crossfire of two extremist, absolutist, exclusionist, religious ideologies, one which apears to have control of the political system in Israel and one which has spawned uncontrollable terrorist and militia organisations such as Hezbollah, Al Queda etc. Both of these regimes stir up hatred and distrust for the other religion and constantly fan the fires of the middle eastern conflicts, if that were not enough we now have America’s right wing religious controlled leadership, which also wants to get in on the act.

    Unless the root cause of the problems in the middle east are corrected soon, the three sets of fans will flare up the fire until it resembles the flames of hell itself!

  5. avatar O. Bule says:

    I think Indonesia has enough problems of its own without taking on Lebanon’s.

    O. Bule

  6. avatar Ben says:

    as long as its peace keeping then it is ok
    if its jihad then go to hell with those terrorist

  7. avatar Miss Indo 07 says:

    Yep.. Peace keepers should be the neutral one, if you depend one side,then your’e absolutely not peace keepers but only add more trouble and mess around.

    I absolutely agree with O. Bule, I think even indo itself has a lot of problems already, and how could the president still too kaypoh and think about other countries’ problems?

    Hey mr president, can’t you just try to make indo in a peace condition first?

  8. avatar Oigal says:

    “It was Israel who attacked Lebanon, not Hizbullah or any other party or country”

    Indra.. I know it go against the majority of what is available to read in Indonesia but Hizbullah has been attacking Israel for years and I am not defending Israel here just stating facts they are two sides killing people.

    I notice you did not bother to mention any of the Israeli civilian deaths..don’t count? didn’t happen?

    “It’s common sense. Wherever a peacekeeper force to be stationed, be it in Lebanon, Israel, or any other country, the force should be responsible to maintain peace and protect the people (where it is stationed) from another party’s aggression. ”

    Close Indra..You keep prentending there is only one aggressor..that is simply not true!!!

    What is common sense is to keep BOTH sides apart until sanity prevails if that is humanly possible and sending a biased nation who has no intention of following the resolution anyway is a recipe for further disasters..

    The really challenging bit will be actually finding nations who can act fairly ..

  9. avatar Miss Indo 07 says:

    Yep, those narrow-minded people keep thinking that there’s no Israel civilian people became a victim in this war.

  10. avatar IndraPr says:

    I never said that there’s no Israel civilians become victims of this war.

    According to Channel NewsAsia:

    The ceasefire has largely held since it took effect to end more than a month of war that left close to 1,300 people in Lebanon, most of them Lebanese civilians, and killed 160 people in Israel, mostly soldiers.

    You can justify yourself the effectiveness of the war. It’s not effective at all! Israel’s target is the Hizbullah terrorists and more than thousands of Lebanese civilians become the victim. Is it justifiable? It’s not. What they did to the Lebanese people are simply terror attacks, no difference from what the Hizbullah terrorists did. Who are the terrorists? Hizbullah *AND* Israel. Who are the victims? Lebanese civilians.

    In this Israel vs Lebanon case, Israel is the aggressor. Lebanon is *NOT* Hizbullah. The peacekeeping force will be stationed in Lebanon. Their duty would be to protect the Lebanese from Israel’s aggression. The UN might want to deploy another peacekeeping force in Israel to protect the Israelis from Hizbullah’s attack, go ahead. I don’t think Israel needs such protection anyway, they already have the best army in the Middle East.

    Going back to the main topic discussed on this post, the main responsibility of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon: to maintain peace *IN* Lebanon. Meaning, they would have to protect the Lebanese from Israel’s aggression.

  11. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    IndraPr,

    Indra, in light of the recent news about the IDF breaking the ceasefire, it would appear that you may be correct!

  12. avatar Oigal says:

    Ok..obviously the fact that the peace keepers should be Neutral does not appeal to your sense of logic..

    Assuming the peace keepers protect Lebanon from Israel. By their own admission Indonesian “Peace Keepers” have not intention of disarming Hizbullah, what would be the course of action if Hizbullah starts firing rockets into Israel again..

    No Indra, you never said that there’s no Israel civilians become victims of this war, you did not even acknowledge them at all.

    Please also do not make the assumption or imply I support one side or the other, I have never stated that! All of my posts are based on the simple issue that who ever goes into that tindebox has to be Neutral (and appear so as well) if it has to succeed.

    And the main topic..Peace Keepers are to keep the peace..not take sides unless you want to escalte this further and further..

  13. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    i heard Lebanon chics quite HOT. anyone interested? volunteer required

  14. avatar Hassan says:

    Mohammed Khafi: news flash for you, Israel had ALWAYS broken ceasefires and even UN resolutions. they had ignored countless resolusions by the UN since God knows when. it seems that UN resolutions only apply to the common humans, and not to the ‘chosen people’.

  15. avatar Mohammed Khafi says:

    Asallamu Alaikum Hassan,

    Why would you think that I am ignorant of the history of the Jews? The fact of the matter is that the Jews greatest treachery was that they, who were given Torah by Allah, live their lives by following Talmud, their own interpretation of Allah’s word. The same applies to the Christians who were given Injeel, but prefer to live by the New Testament, again not Allah’s words but the words of men! The same once again applies to the Ummah, who prefer to follow Hadith and Sunnah rather than Al Quran.

    If we all lived by the Pure Guiding Light of Allah’s words, there would be very little room for conflict based on religion. Each to their own, Torah for the Jews, Injeel for the Christians and Al Quran for the Muslim Ummah. They are all the same message:
    “Say: We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered”

    Wassalam

  16. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    “chosen people” yeah right… it’s because the born right, not the divine privilledge. Jesus never said Jews owned the heaven. Jews according to who? Jesus was born Jew, but He is not only for Jews. He came for you too Hassan.
    so it’s actually not about chosen people. it’s about the origin of Human being. The source of life it self. Abba Father dude…

  17. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: well, Jews did rejected Jesus. because the messiah they were waiting for (according to their holy scriptures) was suppose to be strong and will save them from their oppressors (the romans) and will vanquish their enemies. but Jesus, when the Jews offered him to be their leader and king, decided to run away and did not accept that title. why? because he is not the messiah they were waiting for. he will not vanquish the romans because he payed taxes and tributes for the romans, he told the Jews not to fight the romans. that’s why they rejected Jesus as the messiah. he is not that messiah, instead he said that the messiah (the last prophet) is coming and will destroy the pagans (and the romans). guess who’s that man?

  18. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    first of’all you’re wrongly proven the fact dude, Jews never offer title what so ever as king or leader to Jesus. infact, the king of Jerusalem that time which is Herod try to kill Jesus, since the three magi told him about the Birth Sign. offer Jesus a job? maybe you read comic dude, not my Holy Bible.

    I bet in ur Quran, it was written that Jesus run away like a chicken. I don’t know, like I said before, maybe your Quran was expired mate.

    what is the real fact is it is true Jews was expecting Messiah is Strong, Royal Breed and Mighty… sorry mate, your brain capacity just like those Jews people Hassan, you think you can limit God with you tiny brain?

    “instead he said that the messiah (the last prophet) is coming and will destroy the pagans ” I guess it’s John the Baptist is the one you meant to say such thing like this…

    “…but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:…” Matthew 3:11

    the only thing Jesus said about last prophet is sound like this Hassan:
    “Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25) Behold, I have told you before.”

    now you tell me, who’s that man?

  19. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: ahh, but you forgot, john the baptist and Jesus lived in the same time. john even baptised Jesus with the water from the river jordan, didn’t he? they were approximately on the same age. better read your bible again.

    “”¦but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:”¦” Matthew 3:11

    note the word AFTER. Jesus did not came AFTER john the baptist, because he is ALREADY there on that time, living on the same lifetime. now, who came after john the baptist, about 500 years after him?

    so, who’s da man Molisan Tono??

    the Quran was delivered after the bible, now maybe, just maybe, it is the bible that had expired, isn’t it?

    btw, it is a fact that Jesus payed the tithe or tax to the romans. how can he save the Jews from the romans, when he infact submitted to the romans, even told the Jews not to raise arms or fight against the romans?

  20. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: my dear friend (i hoped that sounded honest, hehe!), no answers here, mate?

  21. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    “Jesus did not came AFTER john the baptist, because he is ALREADY there on that time”… where the hell that you get this reference mate?

    read this…
    Luke 1:57 “Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.”

    now this

    Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she (Mary – mother of Christ) should be delivered.

    Jesus did came after Christ… do you understand that mate? mathematically event dumb ass knew 1 come after 2 okay. there’s luke 1 than luke 2, do you understand that mate?

    again…. “”¦but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:”¦” Matthew 3:11 —

    references…

    Matthew 3:13-15 “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”

    pay attention to this “But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?”…. what does it mean? John knew he is nothing compare to Jesus. and no body else knew about that in jordan river site. only John and Christ know what has to be done.

    and you’re trying to make connection between “500 years after me”?

    have you ever heard AA Gym said something against Government like “you should not pay taxes?” is that what you learn in mosque mate? not paying taxes?

    this is the big different between you religion with my belief. your religion ask you to fight… in your term is Jihad…. most Jihad… correct me if I’m wrong, most Jihad was taken measure with violence and casualties.

    in Christianity, there’s no such revenge… revenge is belong to God. that’s why we looks so lame isn’t it?

  22. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan: john the baptiser said that “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” because he thought that Jesus was THE messiah (last prophet and saviour). john heard about the man from nazareth and his miracles but he did not know whether he is the messiah. but the fact is “3-16 and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” Jesus was baptised by john, not the other way around. why did the superior be baptised by the inferior? god being baptised by a human?

    “3:17 and lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” there is two individual, the father talking about the son. note the word TWO. if the father and Jesus is one, then god is talking about himself?

    lastly, john the baptiser was only 6 months older than Jesus. the word AFTER in prophetic language (words of Prophecy) usually meant a time of several hundred years, not six months!
    and the only time that john could say “”¦but he that cometh after me is mightier than I” was when before he was 6 months old. otherwise he would say “he that is with us NOW is mightier than I”. check your history, if Jesus WAS known to be able to speak when he was a baby, john the baptiser was not known to speak as a baby.

  23. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: you are mistaken, you said “most Jihad was taken measure with violence and casualties.”

    jihad meant to struggle, to struggle to wake yourself up to pray at 4 o’clock in the morning that is jihad. to help others in need, that is also jihad. and yes, defending the faith against aggressors is also jihad. but you see, jihad is not synonimous with violence and casualties.

    what is happening now is that extremists in our religion is trying to dominate the interpretation of jihad.

  24. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    Hassan my friend, i dont know which institute you went to learn english mate. I think you are mixed up or wasted…

    read carefully from what you wrote to me:

    Hassan Says:
    September 13th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
    … because he thought that Jesus was THE messiah (last prophet and saviour). john heard about the man from nazareth and his miracles but he did not know whether he is the messiah. but the fact is “3-16 and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water” Jesus was baptised by john, not the other way around. why did the superior be baptised by the inferior? god being baptised by a human?

    this is what I called pick and choose… you pick what you wanna hear and you choose what you want people think it was.

    let me correct your point…
    you wrote John heard about man from Nazareth… do you understand that Jesus and John is cousin from their mother bloodline?
    Luke 1:36 “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age:…”

    Jesus knew who John is and it happen the other way… they are cousin… now about Jesus divine being…

    Luke 1:41-43 “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

    now to finalize my point, you read this…

    Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
    (16) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
    (17) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    … for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness…

    now you tell me with all you limited english… you may write me in Indonesia if you find it difficult to understand english… why one earth they talk like that?

    and now, need how many time i explain to you about Trinity Hassan? you missed verse 16 anyway… it says “…Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:”

    FYI, on starting chapter 4 the book of Luke, Jesus soon start His Minister to human after being “verify” by Spirit of God and Abba Father voice claim who He is.

    now to close your crazy comment… listen carefully what you wrote to me…

    “lastly, john the baptiser was only 6 months older than Jesus. the word AFTER in prophetic language (words of Prophecy) usually meant a time of several hundred years, not six months!”

    i answer you this… you’re right about the time lenght of prophecy… check this out… Isaiah 53… the book of Prophet Isaiah were written hundred years before the time of Christ… so talking about prophecy….

    and this…. Luke 3:3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

    simple isn’t it? if you need my translation please send me a comment.

    and your last comment about jihad, I assume that your religion is wash out your hands from those extrimist action and its cause i see… so yeah, I understand what you meant.

  25. avatar Hassan says:

    I didn’t try to wash any hands, that is the interpretation of jihad commonly accepted by the majority of Muslims.

    jihad = strictly about violence and holy war is the term popularized by Al Qaeda. you’re not trying to use that as a refference point now do you??

  26. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: hehe, i see that my “I don’t ring any bells” statement had offended you (and your english), now you choose to insult my english instead. i admit i often made grammatical errors and that my english is far from perfect. but i can assure you that it’s not that bad. look who’s talking dude? your english is absolutely and flawlessly perfect, i presume..

    i realized that zachary, the father of john, is the brother of mary’s father. when I said “john heard about the man from nazareth and his miracles” the emphasis was the miracles. so what I meant was that when john heard about the miracles he had performed, john asked Jesus whether he is THAT messiah. and he answered no.

    see, the problem with multiple authors (which happened to be humans) was that they tend to make mistakes in interpretation.
    “for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him” that answer could mean yes, or indeed no. but the bible authors chose to interpret it as a ‘yes, I am’.

    as for Luke 3:3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” actually you’ve been indoctrinated that “the Lord” the verse meant MUST be Jesus. it couldn’t be anyone else.

    infact it maybe Jesus, or it may not. it could mean that john (and Jesus) is preparing the way for another person, hence Jesus statement was “for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness”. maybe it was the duty of both of them (for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness) to do that. ever wondered why of all abrahamic religions only Christians is expecting a son of god, while both Jews and Muslims insisted that it was the last prophet?

    you do know that before the nicene council, most Christians did not believe that Jesus is the son of god, don’t you? the nicene council deitify him (made him to acquire Godly properties). make some research tono, don’t swallow everything your priests told you.

  27. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    Hassan Says:
    September 15th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
    i didn’t try to wash any hands, that is the interpretation of jihad commonly accepted by the majority of Muslims.
    jihad = strictly about violence and holy war is the term popularized by Al Qaeda. you’re not trying to use that as a refference point now do you??

    — no I don’t Hassan, it’s your people who did that —

    oh I’m sorry Hassan, which ring a bell???
    you know what i found funny from you Hassan? you’re really die hard smart ass. everytime you’re proven wrong, you always seek other ways to prove me not. so, yes, I believe you are.
    I never claim I have excellent english, but i do understand every word I’m reading, and i even know how to use “comma” and “dash” and “period”.

    Hassan Says:
    September 15th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
    ….actually you’ve been indoctrinated that “the Lord” the verse meant MUST be Jesus. it couldn’t be anyone else….

    funny though… and if it could be someone else, why would it be from decendant of egyptian? Jesus is Jew, John too, but you great prophet Mohammed? he is from his ancestor Hagar which is egyptian maid. (please excuse if it may sound racist). we are talking about promises of God. just like you Hassan. infact next coming “messiah”, which is anti-Christ is also Jew. this crazy guy is opposite of Christ.

    let say, you parent is dying. and they are sharing their legacy, and all the sudden, my name appear as your subtitute. what a suprise huh? you probably think who the hell is Molisan Tono anyway. same thing apply to Christian, don’t you think it’s bizzare that we believe Lord of Israel is Messiah Himself and all the sudden, Mohammed show up as the savior? hey dude, Mohammed is not Jew. Messiah is Jew decendant.

    and now please give me your reference from what you’re saying…
    “see, the problem with multiple authors (which happened to be humans) was that they tend to make mistakes in interpretation.
    “for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him” that answer could mean yes, or indeed no. but the bible authors chose to interpret it as a ‘yes, I am’.”

    being indoctrinated? we believe Jesus is Lord, part of Trinity, so which part makes you to conclude that we are being indoctrinated? research? to gain understanding? or to get wasted like you? I believe in Christ, I don’t give a sh*t with nicene council. they blinded people faith.

    by the way, i pray and I read my bible, I don’t swallow things… i chew.

  28. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: when we were talking about the messiah as strong leader and vanquisher who will free the Jews from their oppressors you blamed me for thinking like the Jews. when i gave you proof that Jesus were offered by the Jews tobe their king and he refused it, you blamed me for that too, for using the Jews pattern of thinking.

    and now? you of all people decided to use the Jews pattern of thinking. tono, ishmael is half Jew because his father abraham was a Jew, and his mother was an egyptian. Muhammad (pbuh) is a direct descendant of ishmael, so technically he is a semit (peope with abraham’s bloodline). God promised abraham that his descendants will inherit His kingdom on earth, basically it could mean isaac’s descendants or ishmael’s descendants.

    by using your analogy, if your parents died then both you and your half brother could inherit the house that you lived in, right? it depended on your parents, whether they wanted to inherit it to you or your half brother, as long as the child have their blood in his body. so, it is up to God to decide to give that kingdom to ishmael’s sons or isaac’s sons as long as that person have abraham’s blood in his body.

    you cannot say the messiah must be a Jew, because you will sound like those Jews and using their pattern of thinking. it should be said that the messiah must be from abraham’s bloodline, as God promised abraham (and not the Jews or isaac) that He will give that kingdom to his bloodline. the messiah is not necesarily a Jew descendant, he could be from any of abraham’s childrens (descendants). abraham’s bloodline includes Jesus, and also Muhammad (pbuh).

  29. avatar Hassan says:

    Molisan Tono: proof of the bible’s mistakes because it was written by multiple authors? i can give you some, just some basic mistakes that the book of God should have never made.

    do you have your old testament tono? then open it,
    1. in Ezra Ch. No. 2, Verse No. 65, it says”¦There were 200 singing men and women – Nehemiah Ch. No. 7, Verse No. 67″¦’There were 245 singing men and women.’ Were they 200 – or were they 245 singing men and women?

    2. in the 2nd Kings , Ch. No 24, Verse No 8, that”¦’Jehoiachin was 18 years old, when he began to reign Jerusalem , and he reigned for 3 months and 10 days. 2nd Chronicles , Ch. No 36, Verse No 9, says that”¦’Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign and he reigned for 3 months, 10 days. Was Jehoiachin 18 years when he began to reign, or was he 8 years old? Did he reign for 3 months, or did he reign for 3 months 10 days?

    3. in the 1st Kings , Ch. No 7, Verse No 26, that”¦’In Solomon’s temple, in his molten sea, he had 2000 baths. In 2nd Chronicles , Ch. No 4, Verse No 5, he had 3000 baths. Did he have 2000 baths or did he have 3000 baths?

    4. in the 1st Kings, Ch. No. 15, Verse No. 33, that”¦ ‘Basha, he died in the 26th year of reign of Asa.’ And 2nd Chronicles Ch. No 16, Verse No 1, says that”¦’Basha invaded Judah in the 36th years of the reign of Asa.’ How can Basha invade 10 years after his death?

    5. the Bible says in Job, Ch. 26, Verse 11, that”¦’The pillars of the Heaven will tremble.’Not only do the Heavens have got pillars – Bible says in the first book of Samuel, Ch. No.2 Verses No.8, as well as the book of Job Ch. No.9, Verse No.6, and the book of Psalms Ch. No.75, Verse No.3, that”¦ ‘Even the earth have got pillars.’

    6. The New Testament Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 – It says that”¦ ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs – In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents – And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed – And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test – In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer.

    if you are a true believer can you speak new languages tono? and can you drink poison without any harm befall you??

  30. avatar Molisan Tono says:

    this is to answer your first post Hassan…

    I’m not blaming you for the way how you think Hassan, it just that what you think is not right and i must correct you. that’s it.

    and this will answer you wonder…
    Genesis 17:15-22
    “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.”

    got it Hassan? it’s my holy bible who say it, not me.

    now, to answer your second post…

    i wonder where institute you are learning english my friend…

    1. in ezra ch2:65… it is written 200, and Nehemiah 7:67… indeed written 245 is singing. now read each chapter header on the verse 1.
    in ezra 2:1 “Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity,…”
    in Nehemiah 7:1 “Now it came to pass, when the wall was built,…”
    those situation obviously different, and you expect the same? now you tell me if you are not pick and choose?

    2. I have no idea why both verse in english, one can miss “teen” for “eightteen”; I guess it’s a li’l misprinted here. both verses in Indonesia indicate 18 years old. you can check them out.

    3. first, he build the molten sea for 2000 baths in his palace (house)… second, he build the molten sea for 3000 baths in mount moriah… so, both molten sea are actually different, not the same phisical molten sea.

    4. in 1 kings 5:15; I didn’t find “basha died in 26th years old Asa”… could you please refer to me which one is it? or maybe you were mistaken perhaps…

    5. first, it’s actually (job 26:11) “The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.” not Heaven as you mentioned earlier… btw, what’s wrong with pillars anyway? sounds like “before rice (nasi), it was rice(beras), it was started from rice (padi)”…

    6. Jesus always talk in pArable. you can’t interprete things the way it sound.
    i do speak tongue which not many people understand, this language it your language to God, not human to human, although in some occasion human can understand that too…, I’ve casted out devils, I’ve killed a snake by crushing it’s head, and no I don’t drink poison yet. you don’t tempted God by planning drink poison dude… drinking poison is not such a bright idea. if you got poisoned, accidentally, it will not harm you. that’s what it actually mean.

    may all this can help you to understand Christian better Hassan…
    GBU

Comment on “Protecting Lebanon”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-15
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact