Doesn't change anything. God still offers His covenant to all, Jews and Gentiles alike. Maybe not to Pharisees, but they are self-excluding. The Book of Hebrews was written particularly for evangelism among the Jews.
I accept that this makes sense if you are also rebuking the person I was rebuking. Otherwise, I am puzzled.
No, it is the habit of people to think in terms of collective attribution ("the Jews") instead of each person individually. Like casually referring to all Germans as "Nazis." Or all Russians as "Communists." Or all Argentines as "Peronistas." Or all Italians as "Mafia." If you want to be a collectivist, you have to recognize your fellow-feathers.
You are reading your own prejudice into the Bible. What was Jesus, if not a Jewish rabbi? Who were the Apostles, if not Jews? Who were the members of the congregation of the original Church of Jerusalem if not Jews? The New Testament was very truly meant for Jews and Gentiles alike. If excluded the Jews, how do you explain the divine conversion of St. Paul?
It is gratuitous nonsense to claim that "they" (all the Jews that ever were) murdered God's prophets and Jesus. And words spoken against the Pharisees are only spoken against them. No word of God is ever erased, though it may be superseded if there is a new covenant. There has been no divine condemnation of "the Jews."
I've never found him to be on the wrong side of an argument, though I will agree he is probably too choleric for the job. He certainly recognizes who the right enemies are. Aside from "I don't trust anyone," what would be your basis for mistrust?
It wasn't a Sarmat at all. What you read is wrong, though the Sarmat can be equipped with hypersonic penetrators. The Russian code name for what they shot is "Oreshnik" and it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Patriots are not designed to intercept these things, though they might try. The more appropriate defense system would be THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense).
Ordered to participate in an undeclared---thus unconstitutional---war? And did not resign? Our military is too damn complicit in a long string of things they should have refused.
Nuclear-armed ICBMs do not have a terminal dive maneuver. Not needed for any reason. Fuzing is accomplished by altimeter. The guidance system is designed to result in a target dispersion error well within the blast radius of the weapon. (It's a tradeoff between accuracy and weapon yield. My old motto: "When in doubt, add more yield.")
However, if you are using a conventional warhead, you are far more sensitive to target dispersion errors and need to reduce them as much as possible. This leads to a vertical terminal maneuver, as it nullifies any lateral error resulting from projection of a height error. This is used in conventional guided bombs of the JDAM variety. It may be that this "Oreshnik" missile has such a terminal maneuver, especially if it has a terrain-recognition seeker.
Incorrect information has fast feet among anons. The Gateway Pundit is not be regarded as a reliable technical source. The missile was not an ICBM---and could never have been. Ukraine is too close for any ICBM to target (reason having to do with physics and ballistics). It was an intermediate-range missile ("Oreshnik"), as explained by Putin's people in a briefing to the U.S. prior to the shot.
Patriots have never been able to intercept RS-28 "Sarmats". That is a full-fledged ICBM and has a terminal velocity much higher than Mach 10.
It might be a great show if Mark Levin were to be appointed. He spits nails.
That seems plausible and I hope it is true.
Yes. Confirmed that it was NOT an ICBM. As the article stated.
The low-information learning of most of these comments is depressing. The news article clearly identified the missile as being "intermediate range" not "intercontinental" (IRBM, not ICBM). What's the difference? The ICBM range is too great for a close shot. It is why you cannot shoot someone with a cannon if they are standing only 6 feet away (the cannon barrel is too long).
And the article also stated that Putin (or his delegates) had briefed the U.S. in advance of the shot. Which was not a "warning shot," as it was targeted at military assets.
So, all the panicky comments could have been avoided if folks had simply read the news, and not depended on seriously misleading posting headline.
There is nothing special about NATO interoperability. Military weapons worldwide are built according to NATO standards or Russian standards. Take your pick. It is true that NATO winds up being a big customer base, but there are other vendors in that market. Sometimes they fight against each other (e.g., the Falklands War).
Putin will never agree to NATO membership for Ukraine. Absent a peace deal, Russia is on track to take all of Ukraine and manage it as a protectorate, until it installs a new government. They might even invite BRICS members to come in with pacification troops as a gesture of openness.
Since today. The whole response was "Trump". You need to stop looking at Rorschach blots.
You are just peeved. You have no idea whether any missiles are overpriced or not. Yes, they are being wasted from a U.S. inventory standpoint, but they are being used to facilitate the Ukraine war resistance facade and provoke Russia, which is the ulterior motive. Military leaders don't have input to political objectives; they serve them. And do you really believe Joe Biden is running this show? He is just the mouthpiece---but he probably has a huge personal stake in avoiding disclosure of his corruption with Ukraine.
If the "military leaders" had any shred of faith and honor, they would have refused all of this as being an unconstitutional engagement in war with Russia, and arrested both Biden and Harris (or resigned in protest and taken their witness to the press). Which suggests to me there is a Deep State "fifth column" present in the armed services.
In a way, I'm not too surprised. There are people who buy Jag XKs and people who buy Corvettes. They do not overlap. They cut off the people who wanted an XK, and someone who wants a Corvette does not want a Jaguar. If they bring back an XK counterpart, that may be a good thing.
I wasn't aware that it was. Upon looking into it, it seems that it had come to that phase of its model life cycle where it needed a complete revamp (hard to imagine, but it happens) and the going-forward vision was go make it an electric model. This approach apparently soured during the development process, so the concept was abandoned. (I'm not surprised. The required battery would increase vehicle weight by about a ton or so, and that would be poison to the performance and handling desired.) And, with it, the XJ per se was abandoned, as Jaguar thought it didn't comport with their vision. Quite a downfall. I've driven one, once, and it was great. I think you honestly get most of the way there with the XF. The XF station wagon was a dream machine, but apparently no one buys station wagons any more.
Jaguar may be great, but maybe short of genius. I had thought they could have captured a lot of BMW customers with a convertible version of the XE. That would have made up for the discontinuation of the XK8, which was a grand tourer. The supposed replacement was the F-Type, but it was a Corvette-beater, not a touring car. Seats and suspension far too hard for cruising comfort. I drove one, too, and was disappointed by the discomfort.
Well, I think it is simply fear porn. No imagery of actual things. The 100 MT yield comes from the Tsar Bomba program. The Tsar Bomba was about 2 meters in diameter, which is larger than the speculated Poseidon torpedo. One cannot miniaturize nuclear weapons arbitrarily, as their yield is a function of the amount of materials required for the detonation.
One can suppose such a system using a 1 MT warhead. The effects would be more predictable and less of a throwback menace to the Russians themselves.
They are not expected to do well in a heavily defended context. Kind of like not expecting a .50 caliber machine gun to do well against a tank. But not the same thing as saying a .50 caliber machine gun is worthless against other targets. It has already been pointed out that it does exactly as intended against less-defended targets---targets that are worth destroying. You have a perfectionist attitude that is completely invalid in weapon engineering.
Would you get rid of all our military firearms because they may not kill an enemy soldier with one shot? I guess so. When nothing is perfect enough, what do you propose to use?
"That advert"? The airhead advert? Why would you mistake me for an airhead?
Nukes are as real as death. I spent a good chunk of my career in designing advanced strategic defense systems against them. My father personally saw the ruins of Nagasaki after the end of World War II. My colleagues had fathers who worked at Los Alamos and gathered samples of trinitite. My company built nuclear bombers and ballistic missiles as delivery systems.
You devout Jew-haters always like to spread the sins of the Pharisees across all the Jews. In Revelation 3, He is speaking to the Church of Philadelphia:
9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
He says nothing of Israel. He does not condemn the Jews who are Jews. Just as Satan quotes scripture, so do you.