The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, June 12, 2006

Evidence mounting that Haditha charges are a hoax?

It is no secret I am hoping and praying that the terrible charges of a massacre at Haditha by our marines is false. I have pushed to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. John Murtha in his quest for the #1 spot in the House (correction: under Speaker) if Dems take the majority seems willing to step on our marines to reach his goal.

In the meantime more keeps coming out that is beginning to smell like a hoax. Claurice Feldman writes a piece for the American Thinker called Haditha: Is McGirk the New Mary Mapes. McGirk is the Time reporter who broke the story. He is the same reporter who dined with the Taliban on Thanksgiving Day right after 9/11. In this story he lobbied the Time editors to use the word "massacre" in the story.

Additionally, it is pointed out that McGirk misrepresents a key source for the report. According to Feldman:
A key source for McGirk’s report that US Marines in Haditha had deliberately attacked civilians was Thaer al-Hadithi. whom McGirk inexplicably described as “a budding journalism student”. He is a middle-aged man, and was subsequently described by the AP as an “Iraqi investigator.”
Feldman raises key questions about the camaraman who taped the aftermath of the incident. He claims that he waited to videotape what would occur, but did not tape the incident itself. He watched it from a window having the same opportunity to tape it but did not. There are also questions of the length of time it took to release the tape as well as an odd interview before the release:
The actions of his partner al-Mashhadani are equally puzzling. On December 15, 2005 Mashhadani was interviewed by the Institute for War and Peace which described him as “an election monitor.” In that interview he expressed great satisfaction with the election turnout (which in fact was terribly low in Haditha). Why did he not mention to this apparently sympathetic group one word about the supposed “atrocity” which he claimed had occurred three months earlier?
Feldman then describes inherent issues with the "witnesses" in the incident. There is a doctor who has documented anti-American "animus to the US troops". The other Iraqi witnesses are providing 4 different accounts of the incident. There is also a marine "witness" who was injured and evacuated before he could witness anything. He apparently only spoke of the incident after he was arrested for stealing and crashing a truck when under the influence.

There is a lot more in the article than can be given justice in this post. The fact is that Haditha was a hotbed for the insurgency. The staging of a "massacre" is both possible and supported by sufficient incentive in this area. The more that comes out about this, the more I sense that at a minimum John Murtha and the media jumped the gun too soon. The tendency of the media to think the worst of our soldiers until they are proven innocent is becoming more and more disgusting.

Feldman takes the same conclusion I came to in a previous post. The consequences to the media will be disastrous if our marines are cleared in this matter. This cannot be tolerated by them, so mark my words: if our marines are cleared in this, you can bet the media spin will be that there was a cover up (as they attempt to cover up their incompetence and hatred of our military).


  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Housewife4Palestine 4 بيت فلسطين said…

    I had the opportunity to interview some Iraqi civilians not long after the Haditha, while the Americans are doing their best to cover their behind as far as the Iraqi people what happened that terrible day was a massacre and there is other incidents where American’s have murder innocent people; I do not care that the Americans as usual are trying to hide this under another rug because I am sure they have many bumps in the other rug’s.

    What is happening in Iraq looks exactly what is happening in Palestine by the Israel’s and to many tactic’s by the American’s looks so much like the Israeli’s you would think they trained together, nothing you can say as an American will change the truth; American military are murderer’s and they need to stand up to the fact instead of covering everything up like they have done in the past.

    We in the Muslim world know the truth, so maybe one day I hope the American’s do too and do what is right!

  • At 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    So how many innocent people have you in the Muslim World murdered this year? How many women and children is your "religion" responsible for killing?

    How many women have been mutilated?

    How many young boys have been raped?

    We in the civilized world don't go after women and children as do Muslims. Only a very pathological and sick culture hurts the innocent.

    Your religion murders and you celebrate the killing.

    If our soldiers murder, we arrest, try, and convict them.

    Don't you dare point your finger at us. You lost any moral ground on which to stand years ago.

    And Israel? If Israel had Muslim morals, you all would be dead.

  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Housewife4Palestine 4 بيت فلسطين said…

    It always makes me laugh how you hater’s full of deception like to hide behind word Anonymous especially when you no nothing about the Muslim world and as for any of your other comment’s I find them to laughable because you have no idea what your talking about!

  • At 12:35 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    Well, I won't hide behind the word anonymous. And I'll gladly state that it is the Muslim world who has a problem with the truth. Is it true that Muslim suicide bombers will receive 72 virgins in paradise? Is it true that military combat should include the purposeful targeting of civilians? Is it true that military combat should be carried out by non-uniformed men, women, and children? Is it true that Allah calls for the destruction of anyone who believes in another god? Is it true that Muslims should slaughter American civilians because much of American society is plagued with immorality? Is it true that destruction of the twin towers and the wounding of the pentagon were glorious victories in the cause of Allah? I could go on and on with questions about the truth, but I need not.

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    housewife, in response to your first comment I wonder who you had the opportunity to interview. If they are not an eyewitness, especially in a different part of Iraq, then their comments are hearsay.

    If they are from Haditha, then I am confident you will be able to find many there that are in support of the insurgency and are biased against the US troops.

    It may be that you might think they would not lie because the are Muslim. I would not make a claim that a person is not lying because they are Christian. While most I know are honorable a few have been known to lie.

    I tend to think that a religious faction that justifies the targeted murder of innocents for the sake of their religious zeal would have no problem lying for their religious zeal. Why would they draw the line at lying when they blow past the line of taking innocent life?

    I agree that Iraq is beginning to look a lot like the Israel/Palestine conflict. However, you and I disagree on perspective there and the same is true of Iraq.

    As for the other comments, I'll stay out of that for now.

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Housewife4Palestine 4 بيت فلسطين said…

    R2w as for not hiding, I thank you because a coward hides and you speaking directly to me I find this commendable.

    As for the Muslim world like I have seen in the West and I have stated this in many places numerous of times that all cultures has their good and bad in regards to people. But usually the people I know and eal with directly are honorable people otherwise, I have nothing to do with them and it doesn’t make any difference who they are.

    As for your questions:

    Is it true that Muslim suicide bombers will receive 72 virgins in paradise?

    Islam doesn’t condone suicide in any form, it is a well known fact that suicide bombings is done out of desperation due to the fact they do not have the weapons that the ones they are fighting against for example the Palestinians fighting Israel. As for the 72 virgins in Paradise because you did such an act, suicide you will see hell not Paradise. The only time I have seen this phrase is from people in the West and I have never fully understood where some of the Western ideas come from.

    Is it true that military combat should include the purposeful targeting of civilians?

    Again, in Islam we are not allowed to hurt common civilians but in a war situation I am sorry to say in some accounts this is said to be happening, but I am yet to understand why the Western media doesn’t show how many non-civilians are dying? I do not think you know that like Israel, they have a standing army, that from they time they are youth’s they go through a kind of military program which is a fore runner to being put in mandatory military at 18.

    Iraq is no different they are people that is fighting what they consider a full military invasion of their country by the American’s.

    Is it true that military combat should be carried out by non-uniformed men, women, and children?

    I do not fully understand this question. Otherwise, I would be able to answer you and I am sorry for this.

    Is it true that Allah calls for the destruction of anyone who believes in another god? No

    Is it true that Muslims should slaughter American civilians because much of American society is plagued with immorality?

    One shouldn’t slaughter as you put it anyone, while I do not agree with the immorality going on in your country because it is infecting the world; it is God Himself in the end that will make the judgment call on this not the Muslim people.

    Is it true that destruction of the twin towers and the wounding of the pentagon were glorious victories in the cause of Allah?

    Many Muslim’s myself included like the American’s was in shock and tears over what happened to you and we to have many questions to what really happened. As for a victory of any kind, no! I wonder if you American’s know we mourned too, over what happened to you? As for Osama bin Laden, he has been a question in the Muslim world and is not reprehensive to the Muslims as a whole.

    What is happening between the American’s and the Muslim world is a very sad situation and many on your side as well as mine wish this wasn’t happening. As I know many good American’s as well as people who are Muslim, we are suppose to live in peace and care about each other and what is happening is a crime, not just to us but you American’s because we the common people have been lied to and throwing mud at each other will not help; we need to solve the problem between ourselves so this unrest stops.

    And I for one would rather call you friend then my enemy!

  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger Housewife4Palestine 4 بيت فلسطين said…

    AICS, I to hope the comment I made to r2w helps you and as for the word,"insurgency," that is a word that I am beginning to really question because of the Geneva convention. Also,this word is not used in the Muslim world.

    Also, like I have expressed in previous post I deal in facts or truth not hearsay, because that is Haram (sin).

    Anything else please let me know.

    As for us being on different sides, one thing I will admit I am appreciative of you in a few ways and I would hope we would one day both have peace by chance maybe even like each other as friends.

  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    housewife, regarding my comment on truth, I tend to think you believe the things you state. I am confident that the information conveyed to you was truthfully conveyed to me. I simply asked if the sources you received the information from were in a position to know or potentially in a position to think lying is acceptable?

    I don't like the term insurgent. I prefer terrorist, but it artificially promotes an inflamatory tone that can interfere with the debate.

    Since we came to a better understanding of each other our dialogue has been pleasant even when we disagree. That is why I stayed out of the other comments as they were on a different tone than I prefer to dialogue with you.

  • At 3:01 PM, Blogger Housewife4Palestine 4 بيت فلسطين said…

    I do except what was said to me as reliable information, not someone bent on slandering anyone or lying.

    We as people on both sides are having to weed through a lot of what I like to call propaganda trash and this is making it very hard for you as well as me to find the truth. And it is very hard work to root out truth from lies, please believe me.

    As for terrorist that is another word that should be put in the same basket as insurgent, because I question the use of it as I said before because of the Geneva convention. While American’s call many Muslim's terrorist, that same word I have to admit is flying in the other direction too.

    I will have to admit at time‘s, some people get on my nerves and I know this is a weakness of mine that I am working on to correct because it is not acceptable to me. By the way, this is apart of Jihad. Because Jihad in its highest form is to learn to be the best people we know how to be in God’s eyes.

    I am generally a very nice person and I have spent my whole life tying to make this world a better place. As for our disagreement’s, I came to the idea one day because we live in two very different cultures and have to live on different sides of the fence on this thing because you being American and me Palestinian doesn’t mean we can not be nice to each other.

    I have always felt that many of the worlds problems could be solved through talking not arguing or hurting each other. Otherwise, come in have a nice cup of coffee around a table and let’s solve the problems like good people not bad.

  • At 7:40 PM, Anonymous therightwingagenda said…

    Poll: Zarqawi Death Has Little Impact
    Most Americans Still Say War's Going Badly; Bush's Ratings Remain Low

    Finally the Red State Inbreds see the monkey show for what it is...a little to late. I bet Georgy Porgie and his chubby Evil Pal Rove expected a bounce from getting this Dirtbag. Didn't pan out!!! Seems the low IQ morons of Red State America no longer buy Bush's brand of Red,White and Blue BS Lies.

    Watch for those poll numbers to keep headin South...hahahahaaaa!!!!

    Where is WHO WOULD JESUS KILL with input???

  • At 10:45 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    Are you seriously going to claim that the red states are full of "inbred" and "low IQ" people? Don't forget that in many of those red states, the votes were very close in the last election (which means there are a lot of people in those states who agree with your political ideals). What a shame that you write them all off as a bunch of uneducated bumpkins!

  • At 11:22 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    rightwingagenda, this is actually a good sign. Conservatives are cracking down on Bush and not settling for Zarqawi's head on a platter. Bush's numbers can only go up significantly if he signs a real border enforcement bill that does not reward illegals AND if he begins to get serious about getting spending in check. He will get a minor boost if gas prices come down a bit.

    As for WWJK, I assume he has been sulking since I would not simply accept as fact his simply making a statement. He views that as childish behavior on my part. It was also a bit rough on him when he accused me of not having my facts straight and he ended up with the wrong facts.

  • At 4:25 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    We don't seem to get a lot of information about the Haditha "massacre" in Australia. But, from what I can glean, it bears striking resemblance to the vindictiveness against soldiers after the Vietnam War. All those taunts of "baby killer" and such...

    But yes, I agree with you on this one AICS. Unless the marines are tried and convicted for the alleged crimes, I too will afford them the benefit of the doubt.

    And r2w... grow up. Seriously, if you can't offer anything intelligent, then you can just keep out of otherwise intelligent dialogue. You sound like Senator McCarthy's supporters shrieking about communists back in the 50's.

  • At 1:56 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    If you would be so kind, please explain how I sound like a shrieking McCarthy supporter from the '50's. I'm evidently too unintelligent to figure out how my comments about red states containing more than just ardent Bush supporters sounds anything like McCarthy dealing with communists. Or, if you are referring to my comment about many in the Muslim world having a problem with the truth, when Americans were accused of falling for deception and the American military was accused of being murderers, I still am too unintelligent to see the connection to the McCarthy era.

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Merete said…

    Well, I was shocked to hear about Abu Graib too. Couldn't believe it was true, that so many people in uniforms could behave that badly.

    So I would not be surpirsed if this is tue as well. War does something to people.

    Men and women we know as nice guys can totally freak out when going to war. And specially when the enemy is so invicible as down in Iraq. You get totally and utterly paranoid, think anybody is out to get you.

    A soldier always thinks it's Them or Me. Many times they don't have the time to think things true before taking a decision in a blink of an eye. Many times they have made the wrong decisions like shooting women and kids in cars on road blocks while they assumed they shot dangerous terrorists.

    We can hardly put ourselves in their shoes and know what they possible are going through. So much death and destruction, I guess any sane person would go insane.

    So I don't think Abu Graib was an exception and even if the story about Haditha is true or not, we have all heard that there is something completly wrong with the mentality of the American soldiers in war.

    Why else do they give the whole US troops ethics training now?

  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Merete said:
    Couldn't believe it was true, that so many people in uniforms could behave that badly.

    The use of the words "so many" for Abu Graibh is not accurate. A few in uniform shamed themselves by behaving that way. This was not supported or tolerated activity. A few yokels acted stupidly and photographed their activities for the world to see their stupidity. Their actions do not represent the 99.9% of our servicemen.

    So I don't think Abu Graib was an exception and even if the story about Haditha is true or not, we have all heard that there is something completly wrong with the mentality of the American soldiers in war.

    Your description of war and the quick decisions that need to be made is accurate. However, the leap that wrong decisions are the norm or above and beyond "the exception" is not accurate. Our soldiers have extensive and continuous training to make good decisions. In situations where civilians act in ways that force a decision does not mean a soldier has made a wrong decision. The most common situation is the road block where civilians insist on driving when signalled to stop. To shoot is a correct decision if the civilian does not stop. The blood of these people is not on our soldiers heads it is on the heads of the terrorists who send explosives in cars at checkpoints.

    What is never really reported is how many wrong decisions get a soldier killed. How often does a soldier withhold firing for too long and is killed?

    While the fog of war can be a mitigating factor when judging the actions of the soldiers it must not be used as an excuse after the fact to go on a rampage. Sorting through it all to discern what happened can be a tough business. This is why Murtha's rush to judgment to score cheap political points is so irresponsible.

    Also, i may write a whole post on this next point, but here is the short version. I find it quite illogical that liberals keep using post war actions to judge the legitimacy of going to war. This is quite backward, but most are not intelligent enough to see it or they don't care because they already agree.

    Prior to going to war almost all factors were considered:

    - We would sustain casualties
    - The war would be costly
    - There would be civilian casualties
    - There would be the exceptional renegade soldier to commit wrong acts.

    You get the idea. When weighed against the risks of not going to war a decision was made to go to war. To then later point to events after the decision as points against going to war is backwards, ridiculous and requires the 20/20 vision of hindsight which nobody has prior to the decision.

  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    So many people, desperately WANT this to be true. Murtha does, Pelosi does, Kerry does. et al.

    But I, like many, just want to know the truth. And in order to know what that was, we cannot presume to know, either way. We have to wait and find out. There are conflicting reports as ther almost always are.

    And sadly, many are very naive at just what lengths the jihadists will go to, to win the propaganda war. They do lie, they are not obligated to tell the truth to infidels, and they don't.

  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    So many people, desperately WANT this to be true. Murtha does, Pelosi does, Kerry does. et al.

    Very true. They are so willing to step on our military to get the political power that they crave back. I too want the truth, but even if proven to be true it would say nothing about the 99.9% who serve honorably. They are willing to trash them too.

    And sadly, many are very naive at just what lengths the jihadists will go to, to win the propaganda war. They do lie, they are not obligated to tell the truth to infidels, and they don't.

    I tend to think housewife has good intentions. I commend her for her comments on the suicide bombers and their destiny. I realize it is tough to think of a member of our faith as bad apples, but all religions have their share. Christianity has their televangelist phonies, phony healers, liars, judgers and many other shortcomings.

    In Iraq, there are zealots against infidels and against other Muslim factions. I think I saw the Zarqawi replacement claiming to go after the infidels and Shiites. The Sunni's have gone from power to political minority. There is plenty of motivation to lie about these events.

  • At 9:08 PM, Blogger FKAB said…


    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but was that you who anonymously left that venemous anti-Islam diatribe? You were just lumping Muslims into one homogenous group, shooting your mouth off about something you had scarcely a clue about. You were pointing the finger, making baseless accusations and childish remarks, and it reminded me of McCarthy's antics.

    If indeed it wasn't you who left that comment, I offer an apology.

    Is it true that Allah calls for the destruction of anyone who believes in another god?

    So does the Christian God.

    Exodus 22:20
    "whoever sacrifices to any God, other than the Lord alone, shall be devoted to destruction"

  • At 11:07 PM, Anonymous r2w said…


    I have never posted an anonymous comment on this or any other blog, so I accept your apology, and now I understand why I couldn't figure out your McCarthy comparison. My comment that directly followed that anonymous one was really in response to housewife's statement about anonymous commentors, and I do not endorse what anonymous said. As for your quote from Exodus, it was the Israelite government who was responsible to punish a Hebrew who had left the true God and sacrificed to another. The question I posed, though maybe not worded how I intended it to be, was whether Muslims were commanded to murder members of other faiths because of their belief in other gods.

  • At 3:48 AM, Blogger FKAB said…


    Oops... mistaken identity! A deficiency on my part - I need to read the comments more thoroughly.

    As far as my understanding goes, the Koran (or Quran, whichever) does mention killing the "infidels." As abhorrent as this is, I find it funny that many Christians are unaware that their Bible tells them to do the exact same thing. As for the rationalisation, I'm going to disagree. If we are prepared to say that this particular law is a human-made Israelite law bound to the constraints of time and context, then what is there stopping me from applying this same logic to the Creation story or Noah or the Ten Commandments or laws against homosexuality, for example? Moreover, why would irrelevant laws be included in god's 'holy book'? The implications of your statement are too many to dismiss.

    But yeah... sorry for going off topic. Carry on.

  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…


    I find it funny that many Christians are unaware that their Bible tells them to do the exact same thing.

    Please cite for me where the Bible commands Christians to kill infidels.

  • At 11:13 AM, Anonymous r2w said…


    In my study of the Bible, I have found nowhere that God commands Christians to kill infidels. In fact, Christians are commanded to do one basic thing when it comes to infidels - share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them. In the Old Testament, there were times when God commanded the Israelites to conquer nations and possess their land. But that is very different from what you claim as a command for Christians to kill infidels. As for Creation, Noah, homosexuality, etc., you must understand the context of what you read in the Bible. Certain things are universal in nature, and other things are intended for the Hebrews to set them apart from the rest of the world. (For instance, Christians today do not follow the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament because they were not intended for gentile nations who had turned to God. The New Testament makes that clear.) As far as the Koran goes, I was not asking the question based on a knowledge of the book. I have not studied it and don't intend to. I actually posed some of the questions I did in order to make the point that radical Islamists are probably misinterpreting or misrepresenting their sacred book (much like many Christians do with the Bible.) But if you say that a command to kill infidels is in there, I'll take your word for it for the sake of this discussion, though I might trust more the word of an expert in the Koran.

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger FKAB said…


    Well, the Bible details many accounts of people going about murdering towns for various transgressions, and old Yahweh never battered an eyelid.

    But Exodus:22:20 clearly tells Christians to murder non-Christians. The word infidel is not used, but it implies the same thing really.

    Assuming you are a Christian, Lasunsett, how come you haven't committed any non-Christians to death?

  • At 10:42 AM, Anonymous r2w said…

    blasphemer (still known as),

    Exodus 22:20 does not say what you interpret it as saying. To say this verse commands Christians to kill non-Christians is senseless since there were no "Chrisitians" (followers of Christ) until after Christ actually came to earth. I challenge you to find a quote from Jesus Christ or any of His followers or New Testament writers, commanding Christians to kill unbelievers

  • At 2:53 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    r2w said:
    Exodus 22:20 does not say what you interpret it as saying. To say this verse commands Christians to kill non-Christians is senseless since there were no "Chrisitians" (followers of Christ) until after Christ actually came to earth

    I use the term 'Christian' in the sense that the Old Testament is still in effect. All the crazy laws, all the commandments, all the grossly barbaric punishments and all the stupid social customs still apply.

    As for your challenge, Christians (in theory) are called to follow the Old Testament's laws exactly the same as the New Testament.
    Jesus is quoted as saying:

    "do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
    Matthew 5:17

    So no, the Old Testament is clearly still valid. So, if you truly believe in your god, then you'll have no qualms with following ALL of his laws, and not just the ones you agree with.

    Such is the folly of a religion based on the customs of Middle Eastern tribesmen who thought the earth was flat.

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    You are too versed in the Bible to not know the context of that verse. Christ fulfilled all things. This is later shown when Peter has his vision of the unclean animals and is told to go kill and eat.

    It is also clarified that we are not under the ceremonial law when Paul denounces the legalists.

    As for commands to take life within the country for things like adultery and sodomy (capital punishment) and without the country (at war). These are for the theocratic government of Israel. Israel is not even today a theocracy.

    You are too well versed in the Bible not to know that the context of statements and the audience of statements drastically affect the meaning of the words in the Bible. I sense a purposeful ignoring of such to drive home a point.

    If you were not aware of these rules of interpretation, then you have now been told. Now "go and sin no more" ;)

  • At 12:37 AM, Blogger FKAB said…


    Again the old context argument. As reasoned as your argument is, I'm afraid I will stand by the literal meaning of "until heaven and earth pass away." Heaven and earth has not passed away. So, either Jesus was lying or his dad changed his mind. Which is it?

  • At 12:39 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Now "go and sin no more" ;)

    Sure you wouldn't rather burn me at the stake or something? XD

  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger Timothy D. Kazee said…

    I would like to comment on Blasphemers post. One thing that you need to understand before you go bashing the bible is the fact that things that were said in the bible were said at a specific time to a specific people. Additionally, the law has NOT been abolished and as Jesus said, it will not be absolished until the world is gone. The part that you didn't read, and that your good buddy on, whom gave you the ammunition to argue this point is that there are two forms of judgement in the bible. You see, those who have not claimed Christ as their Savior will be judged by the law. So, the law has not been abolished. Go ahead and read Romans 3:20. Paul claims that no one will be declared rightous by the law, rather, the law is there so that we can become conscious of sin. If you continue on, 3:23-24 states, in paraphrase, all fall short and all have sinned, (24) all are justified FREELY by His grace through the redemption of Jesus Christ.

    So as we see here, your friend, Chris, on is correct when he states that the law still exists, rather, those who are saved by God's loving grace will not be judged by the law, but rather judged by grace.

    You too can be be judged by grace, that is if you take Christ up on His offer. That is up to you though. If you want to be a man adn give it a chance, then I challenge you to do so right now. Good luck to you, and I hope that you see Jesus differently than just a Hollywood hoax, but rather One who gave you grace, hope and promise un-ending and unequalled to any promise that has ever been given. God bless you!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home