Ghazni, a city about 150km south of Kabul, had a morning of intense fighting earlier this month between Afghan and Taliban forces: the explosion of three car bombs near the offices of the police and secret services was followed by three hours of violent clashes, with heavy artillery. The EMERGENCYFirst Aid Post (FAP) in the city was damaged, but is still open; the staff have treated 43 people, all with superficial wounds.
Our hospital in Kabul received the most serious casualties, brought from the FAP in the EMERGENCY ambulance or sent there from the provincial hospital of Ghazni. There’s also been fighting in Sirobi, to the east of the capital; two women with bullet wounds came to us from there. The situation in Afghanistan is getting steadily worse.
View original post 111 more words
September 23, 2014
In mostly any discussion in between Christians about the Crusades, somebody usually objects that the Crusades were unbiblical because of Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places
Well I have done a video dealing with this very issue, showing that Ephesians 6:12 does not in any refute the concept of Christian holy war, but in fact, supports it:
It must be remembered that all of the Church’s battles are spiritual, even if they do involve physical fighting. And the purposes of these wars are not to kill, but to advance God over evil. While Paul said that we do not fight against flesh and blood, when forty Jewish bandits came to kill him, he did not quote Ephesians 6:12 and say, “oh don’t worry…
View original post 838 more words
In the words of Omar from The Wire, “you come at the king, you best not miss.” The New York Times came for the queen, that would be the one and only Shonda Rhimes, and they missed royally and now they must pay – which in this day and age means publicly apologize.
Let us recall the chain of events shall we? Alessandra Stanley wrote an article in The New York Times where she called Rhimes an “angry Black woman” in the opening sentence. Rhimes called Stanley out on Twitter, not only for the mislabel, but for also having her facts all the way wrong. Times readers then demanded an apology from the newspaper and called the article racist. So, then came an apology. Only, it took the form of the typical ‘I’m sorry, not sorry’.
The New York Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan first…
View original post 536 more words