The shooting began at about 1330 (1930 GMT) on Thursday at a personnel and medical centre at Fort Hood – the largest US military base in the world, home to about 40,000 troops.

The commander of the base, Lt Gen Robert Cone, told NBC News that, according to eyewitnesses, Mr Hasan had shouted the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar!” [God is great] before opening fire.

He was shot four times during the attack and is currently being treated in hospital under armed guard.

Reports suggested that he had been increasingly unhappy in the military and that his work at his previous post – Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC – had been the subject of concern.

The New York Times said the FBI had been investigating internet postings by a man called Nidal Hasan that appeared to back suicide bombings – but said it was not clear whether it was the suspect.

How can we respond to such acts of terrible violence? Recently, Gary, a young man with a family living in Canada, faced an attack of his own: A package bomb left on the back steps of his home. Not knowing what the package was, he picked it up, and it exploded in his hands. Read Gary’s story of his survival, and how he was able to respond to an act of senseless violence.

If you are grieving or dealing with disappointment or despair, please contact us today to talk about it, we’re always here to listen.

Image credit: Daniel Greene, used with permission, Creative Commons 2.0 License.

The Central Wisconsin parents convicted in their daughter’s death will not go to prison but will spend ten years on probation and some time in jail.

A judge sentenced Dale and Leilani Neumann Tuesday afternoon for the death of their eleven-year-old daughter Kara. She died of complications from untreated diabetes while her parents prayed over her instead of seeking medical attention as her condition worsened.

Both parents spoke to the judge at their sentencing hearing, calling Kara’s death an act of God, reading Biblical passages, and saying the only thing they’re guilty of is following their faith. “Dale and I acted with love toward our daughter to the best way we could have, in the best way we could, because we love her,” Leilani Neumann testified.

Judge Vincent Howard asked, “Did God say, ‘Well, Kara, come to me,’ or when Kara arrived did he ask, ‘Why are you here 70 years too soon?’” (Source: WBAY)

Although Mark 5:26 tells how a woman suffered at the hands of doctors, Jesus never said anyone was wrong for seeking medical attention. He seemed to have a positive view of doctors in general when he said “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” (Matthew 9:12, et al). Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, was himself a doctor (Colossians 4:14) So with no clear mandate against doctors, and positive examples of doctors, we should take any necessary medical precautions available, in addition to faithful prayer, so that tragedies like this are not repeated. Does it show lack of faith to visit a doctor and pray? No, because don’t forget that God in his compassion has given us many ways that we might be healed, including our own incredible immune systems and wonderful new medicines.

See our previous post, Should Christians Expect Healing? for more on this topic, or contact an online mentor if you have questions, concerns, or prayer requests.

Forty years ago today, man stepped on to the moon for the first time.

Can you imagine what it must have been like?  Science fiction is filled with those who want to go “where no man has gone before”.  For these guys and the other 24 Americans who have either flown to, or walked on, the moon, it is no fiction.  I wonder how you go back to your regular life after something like that?

In article written for Wired in 2004 Xeni Jardin recalls going on a zero gravity flight with Buzz Aldrin.  During the flight Aldrin mentions that he has taken up scuba diving “because he grows homesick for floating”.  I wonder if it was more than just gravity that weighed on him after his return to Earth?

Does the whole world would seem a little duller if you’ve been to a place you could never return to?  Imagine all of the years of training and preparation, the excitement of those perfect days of actually being there, and then suddenly you know for sure that this incredible experience will never be repeated.

No one has stood on the moon since 1972.  For most of us, the moon is simply a familiar feature in the sky.  But for two dozen Americans it is something else entirely.  For them, the moon is a dream that came true once when the whole world was watching.

Do you have a dream that feels as far away as the moon? Try our Life Lesson “Living with Significance”.

Image courtesy of Pareeerica. Used with permission under a Creative Commons 2.0 license

The G8 leaders summit

US President Barack Obama is heading the Major Economies Forum, attended by all eight G8 nations (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States) as well as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. These nations are responsible for approximately 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions:

Despite the G-8 leaders’ pledge to cut emissions, developing nations may not follow suit — and G-8 leaders stopped short of calling on them to set specific targets.

Instead, they “called upon major emerging economies to undertake quantifiable actions to collectively reduce emissions significantly below business-as-usual by a specified year,” the White House said. (CNN)

Are you concerned about the environment and climate change? Do you think that meetings among world leaders such as the G8 summit are effective, or are different measures required to cause real change?

Related reading: Can you be an atheist and an environmentalist? – Sure, but the harder question is why?

Around the country and the world Friday, legions of grief-stricken fans of the King of Pop mourned the sudden death of Michael Jackson with spontaneous flower-laden and candlelit memorials and emotional tributes, as the autopsy to determine the cause of his mysterious death was scheduled to begin in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Medical Examiner’s Office was to start the autopsy before 11 a.m. Eastern time Friday, but toxicology results were not expected for days, perhaps six to eight weeks. A former family lawyer gave interviews about his recent concerns of Mr. Jackson’s deteriorating health, and indicated that prescription drugs might have been a factor in his death Thursday at age 50. (New York Times)

In later years, Jackson’s enormous musical success was in many respects overshadowed by legal, financial, and personal troubles. His planned comeback tour, scheduled to begin this summer, will remain unfulfilled.

What was your reaction to hearing about Michael Jackson’s death? Does it matter to you at all, and if so, in what way?

Image credit: Pierre Éthier

“The world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not. … This is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran. This is an issue of the Iranian people.”

The election in Iran, where previous president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was retained power in the country, have resulted in calls for a recount, protests, and violence in the country. Threats (and acts) of violence against protesters of which Mr Obama elsewhere said “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” Obama said in a written statement. “Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” (CTV)

Recently, “Iran expelled the BBC’s correspondent in Tehran yesterday and accused Britain of pouring agents into the country to sabotage the election.” This came after Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called “Britain the “most treacherous” of the Western powers that were fomenting unrest in Iran.” (Times Online)

As the unrest and violence in Iran continues, what role should other countries play? What response should we have as individuals and nations when we hear about injustices in the world?

Image credit: marctonysmith

The Toronto Star reports:

Twenty years ago on June 4, 1989, between 800 and 1,000 people died here, when the government ordered soldiers to turn their tanks and guns on their own people to put down a democracy protest by students and workers. In the two decades that have passed, the event haunts the ruling Communist Party still. But there was no mention of it in any of China’s official media today.

The Age news in Australia notes:

The Chinese Communist Party left nothing to chance for yesterday’s 20th anniversary of the June 4 massacre, inundating Tiananmen Square with hundreds and probably thousands of security men. At midday yesterday, tourists in and around the square were outnumbered by blue-uniformed police and green-uniformed armed police.

Do you remember hearing about this event when it happened, or did you or someone you know experience it themselves? What lessons do you think this sad event has to teach us today?

Related reading:
Overcoming Grief and Tragedy
Personal story: The Power of Forgiveness

There is significant precedent for doing this. From the mid–1980s to the early 1990s, in response to the terror bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the growth of terrorist threats to Americans at home and abroad, the U.S. military made a series of efforts to bring moral philosophers and theologians into dialogue with the military officers and civilians involved in policy planning or holding command responsibility. The Naval War College and the Army War College took the lead in this, each providing the venue for various events aiming at such dialogue. Over time the focus shifted to a broader context, culminating in a conference on legal and moral constraints on low–intensity conflict held at the Naval War College in 1992 and the publication of a book in an NWC–sponsored series three years later. The dialogue carried on in this way has, however, not been continued since. We need to renew these conversations. In dealing with terrorism and with international affairs in general, the seven years from 1992 to the present is a long time. Policies go out of date; personnel charged with interpreting and implementing them change; the shape of military readiness alters; the sources and nature of terrorist threats shift. Indeed, while Cardinal O’Connor is right to call special attention to the need for the government to initiate such a dialogue, the discussion should be broadened to include the American people as a whole. In a democracy such as ours, informed public support is a necessity for any effective policy. It is especially important to have such support for action against terrorists, because of the moral complexity and public nature of terrorism and counter terrorism.

No doubt some Americans are inclined to say that in the war against terrorism, anything goes. Understandable as this is when Americans, Kenyans, and Tanzanians are blown apart by car bombs, it is not the attitude Americans should take toward the struggle against terrorism. Such an attitude is in fact the mirror image of Osama bin Laden’s declaration, contrary to the normative traditions of Islam, that all Americans are equally worthy to be targeted in his putative holy war against the U.S. A judgment that “anything goes” in dealing with him and other terrorists would equally violate our society’s own normative traditions.

Like Cardinal O’Connor, I would argue that the reference point for thinking morally about responses to terrorism should be the just war tradition. This tradition is the collective record of Western culture’s attempt to think morally about the use of military force in the service of an orderly, just, and peaceful world, and its influence can be seen broadly in recent debate. The issue is how this tradition is relevant to the problem of responding to terrorist activities.

For a war to be just, Thomas Aquinas argued, three things are necessary: sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention. Even today these concerns remain central. The requirement of sovereign authority in Thomas and throughout just war thought speaks to two issues. First, it means that the resort to force must be undertaken as a public act, on behalf of a political community that has been wronged in some serious way. Second, it means that there is no superior authority to which a wronged party can appeal to receive justice and settle a dispute. One can find these considerations behind the right under contemporary international law to use force in self–defense against armed attack. Put simply, any country targeted by terrorist acts is justified in a military response, both morally and by the terms of international law.

But Thomas also brought into focus a specific concern of his own time, one raised today by the phenomenon of terrorism: the obligation of every sovereign authority to curb and punish lawless people who strike at the order, justice, and peace that are the core purpose of political community. Terrorism by its nature aims to undermine and erode these goods and thus attacks all people who benefit from them. While the tradition has allowed for the possibility of a war between two states both seeming, because of the complexity of the issues involved, to be just, the kind of violence we today call terrorism is evil in its very nature, because it attacks the foundations of political community itself. The authority to use force to curb and punish terrorism is thus the same authority that seeks to protect the goods of the political order as such. There is no justice in terrorism, only injustice.

In just war terms, there is just cause when force is used to defend against attack, to retake something wrongly taken, or to punish evil. Much recent moral thought has focused on only one of these, the use of force in defense. Contemporary international law also has restricted the allowable use of force to self–defense, but in response to the realities of international order the customary behavior of states has effectively expanded the idea of defense to include the other traditional justifications. It is not necessary when thinking morally (or legally) about the use of force in counter terrorism to restrict such force to after–the–fact response to particular violent acts; nor is it necessary to deal with terrorist activities on a tit–for–tat basis, though the use of force would be justified in such cases. Let me be clear: a strategy that involves the use of military force to prevent terrorist acts is just and moral.

Right intention, in historical just war theory, had both a negative and a positive meaning. Negatively it meant the avoidance of the desire to bully or dominate, to take something for one’s own benefit, to inflict harm out of hatred or what Augustine called “implacable animosity.” While the moral requirement of right intention cautions U.S. policymakers not to fashion uses of force against terrorism that amount to riding roughshod over other states and peoples, it also draws attention to the fact that frequently terrorist self–justifications give evidence of a fundamental hatred for all that is American—an “implacable animosity.”

Positively, the just war requirement of right intention historically meant that use of military force should aim at restoring or creating a just peace. Contemporary theorists typically count peace separately, rather than folding it into right intention. However this concept is conceived theoretically, it is fundamental to the formation of moral policy in thinking about how to deal with terrorism, whether by military or other means. One problem with ad hoc, after–the–fact, tit–for–tat reactions to particular terrorist acts is that in themselves they look backwards to those acts, not forward to the establishment of a just and well–ordered peace in which terrorism no longer threatens. How to conceive and bring about such a peace is, indeed, the greatest challenge for a policy against terrorism.

Thinking about terrorism in just war terms requires taking certain prudential concerns into account: Is the good accomplished proportional to the means used? Are there any other means of dealing with the problem that have a reasonable prospect of succeeding? Is there a reasonable hope of success? Both historically and logically, these concerns are secondary to those termed “necessary”; yet they are nonetheless important additional guidelines for moral policy and decisions regarding potential uses of force. In particular, these prudential criteria remind us that the use of military force is neither the preferred nor the only option for dealing with terrorism. As awesome a weapon as the cruise missile is, for example, its availability does not diminish the importance of other weapons in the struggle against terrorism: policies aimed at cutting off terrorist capabilities, removing their support, eliminating conditions in which they tend to flourish, gathering and sharing intelligence about individual terrorists and terrorist organizations, and bringing them to justice. A moral policy on dealing with terrorism should incorporate such approaches along with the possibility of resort to military force.

Justified force, if used, should directly and intentionally target only the guilty, and the means used should be such as to avoid harm to others so far as possible. Michael Walzer has it right, I believe, in arguing that the moral principles governing the use of force imply a special care to protect innocent parties from “collateral damage” due to force aimed at the guilty. Since it is a preferred tactic of terrorists to shelter themselves among innocent people and to use the fabric of normal life as a cover for their own activities, this is a particular problem for any policy against terrorism, and it may be the hardest to resolve. For—as Walzer makes plain—the effort to avoid harm to the innocent may require taking more potential danger onto oneself. The most moral military approach against terrorists may require risking the lives of American military personnel and accepting the losses that may come of this. This is not to argue that counter terrorist policy should focus on commando raids and larger military expeditions in preference to cruise missile strikes; rather, it is to say that a morally adequate policy for dealing with terrorism cannot be limited only to the relatively easy options.

The actual contours of moral debate over policy on dealing with the ongoing problem of terrorism remain to be determined. Like Cardinal O’Connor, I believe we should carry on that debate with the purpose of shaping policy that is adequate morally as well as politically and militarily. Moral reflection is not doing its job when it is employed only in retrospect, in response to particular terrorist acts.

Many of these acts have been carried out by the members of Islamic Jihad, while others are part of an international network of terrorists. Claire Sterling argues in The Terror Network that many of the terrorists were trained and equipped by KGB agents from the former Soviet Union.

Terrorism has become the scourge of democratic governments. Experts in the field estimate that less than 1 percent of terrorist attacks occured in the Soviet Union, but according to Rand Corporation expert Brian Jenkins, nearly a third of all terrorists attacks involve Americans.

Democratic governments, accustomed to dealing within a legal structure, often find it difficult to deal with criminals and terrorists who routinely operate outside of the law. Yet deterrence is just as much a part of justice as proper enforcement of the laws.

Democratic governments which do not deter criminals inevitably spawn vigilantism as normally law-abiding citizens, who have lost confidence in the criminal justice system, take the law into their own hands. A similar backlash is beginning to emerge as a result of the inability of Western democracies to defend themselves against terrorists.

But lack of governmental resolve is only part of the problem. Terrorists thrive on media exposure, and news organizations around the world have been all too willing to give terrorists what they crave: publicity. If the news media gave terrorists the minuscule coverage their numbers and influence demanded, terrorism would decline. But when hijackings and bombings are given prominent media attention, governments start feeling pressure from their citizens to resolve the crisis and eventually capitulate to terrorists’ demands. Encouraged by their latest success, terrorists usually try again. Appeasement, Churchill wisely noted, always whets the appetite, and recent successes have made terrorists hungry for more attacks.

Some news commentators have been unwilling to call terrorism what it is: wanton, criminal violence. They blunt the barbarism by arguing that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” But this simply is not true. Terrorists are not concerned about human rights and human dignity. In fact, they end up destroying human rights in their alleged fight for human rights.

Terrorism has been called the “new warfare.” But terrorists turn the notion of war on its head. Innocent non-combatants become the target of terrorist attacks. Terrorist warfare holds innocent people hostage and makes soldier and civilian alike potential targets for their aggression.

Terrorism will continue even though war has never been formally been declared and our enemy is not a single identifiable country. Instead we are being victimized by an international terror network bent on crippling American morale.

Government and war

First, we must define a terrorist. Is a terrorist a common criminal? If terrorists are only common criminals, then biblically speaking, they should merely be dealt with by their host governments.

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul says, “he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”

This passage of Scripture helps us make an important distinction we will use in our analysis of terrorism. The Apostle Paul’s teachings on government shows that criminals are those who do evil and threaten the civil peace. Any outside threat to the existence of the state is not a criminal threat but an act of war which is also to be dealt with by the government.

In other words, criminals threaten the state from within. Foreign armies threaten the state from outside. In the case of seeking domestic peace, the Apostle Paul outlines how governments will approve of good works, but that governments should bring fear to those who are wrongdoers.

Evildoers should live in fear of government. But in the case at hand, terrorists do no live in fear of the governing authorities in the countries where they live. Their governments do not think of them as breaking civilian laws and thus do not prosecute them.

This is foreign to the American mindset. If an anti-Syrian terrorist group were based in the United States, we would prosecute those terrorists as enemies of the state. A U.S. based anti-Syrian terrorist group would be illegal in the United States. And they would be illegal since they’re carrying out activities reserved for Congress and the President. Only governments have a foreign policy and war-making strategies. But Middle Eastern governments do not prosecute terrorists the way we would. Why? Because terrorists often carry out policies and desires of such host governments.

Middle Eastern terrorists, far from fearing the sword of the governing authorities, instead are often given sanctuary by such governments. Governments who give sanctuary and even give approval have often adopted the attitude that terrorists do them no harm so why should they move against the terrorist organizations? In fact, they are not seen as a threat because terrorist groups are acting out the host government’s policies.

In conclusion, both the terrorist groups and their host nations are truly enemies of the American government when they capture and kill U.S. civilians for military and foreign policy purposes. This is not civilian murder, but military warfare.

Military action

Based upon the Apostle Paul’s teaching of government in Romans 13, terrorists should be classified as common criminals in their host countries. But they are not prosecuted by host countries and are often carrying out the military policy and foreign policy of that country.

Thus, when terrorists attack, we should not view them as criminals but as foreign soldiers who attempt to threaten the very existence of the American government. Whether or not the terrorists have the firepower and strategic wisdom to actually undermine the U.S. government is not the issue. At issue is how to deal with a new type of military aggressor.

Terrorists are not common criminals to be tried in American civil courts. They are military targets who must be stopped since they are armed and military enemies of the American government who are on attack. Yes, America has other armed enemies, but they are not on the attack as terrorists are.

In the same way that it took traditional armies some time to learn how to combat guerilla warfare, so it is taking Western governments time to realize that the rules for warfare have also been revised in the case of terrorism. Diplomatic efforts have failed to convince Middle East governments to help the United States in bringing terrorist groups to justice. Meetings and negotiations haven’t been able to strike fear in terrorist’s hearts.

When we fight terrorism we need to realize we are talking about war. Military warfare is different from civilian peacekeeping. In civilian peacekeeping, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A citizen can be arrested and detained before trial, but must be released unless guilt is proven.

Military warfare is different. A trial is not held for each military action. In a sense, in a just war, a “trial” of sorts is held before any action is taken. Discussion and debates among congressmen and senators usually occur before war is declared. Factfinding studies, presentations, testimonies, and other kinds of forethought go into a declaration of war. In a sense, when the use of the military is involved, the trial period comes before anyone is confronted or arrested. But once war is declared, there are no more trials until the enemy is defeated. And every one who aids and abets the enemy is guilty by association.

At present, terrorism is a one-sided war that the United States is losing. American soldiers and citizens are being killed in the war. Unfortunately, the United State is not treating terrorism like war. The limited war powers granted to the President by the Congress are not enough and aren’t used in a systematic way to defeat the enemy.

If we are to win the war against terrorism, we must realize that it is war. Until we see it as military aggression, we will be unsuccessful in ending terrorism in this decade.

Constitutional issues

Terrorist groups are not living in fear of their host governments. Instead, law-abiding citizens live in fear of terrorist groups. In one TV interview a Middle Eastern terrorist was quoted as saying, “We want the people of the United States to feel the terror.”

The ability of these groups to carry out their agenda is not the issue. The fundamental issue is how U.S. government leaders should deal with this new type of military strategy. Terrorists have held American diplomats hostage for years, blown up military compounds, and hijacked airplanes and cruise ships. Although some hostages have been released, many others have been killed and the U.S. has been unsuccessful at punishing more than a small number of terrorists.

Although international diplomacy has been the primary means used by the United States against terrorism, we should consider what other means may also be appropriate. In the past, American leaders have responded to military aggression in a variety of ways short of declaring war.

The U.S. Constitution grants the following powers to Congress: “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Terrorist acts fall into at least two of the Congressional provisions for dealing with attacks on the nation. They are: (1) to punish offenses against the law of nations, and (2) to declare war.

In either case, there are strong Constitutional grounds for taking action against terrorists. The difficulty comes in clearly identifying the enemy and being willing to risk offending many Arab nations who we consider allies. Congress must identify the enemy and call that group a military target. Once that has happened many of the other steps fall into place with less difficulty.

At this point military strategy must be deployed which can hunt down small groups of well-armed and well-funded men who hide within the territory of a host country. We must also develop a political strategy that will allow us to work within a host country. We must make it clear how serious the United States takes a terrorist threat. American citizens are tired of being military targets in an undeclared war.

Through diplomatic channels we must make two things very clear to the host country. First, they should catch and punish the terrorist groups themselves as civilian criminals. Or, second, they should extradite the enemy soldiers and give them up to an international court for trial.

If the host country fails to act on these two requests, we should make it clear that we see them in complicity with the terrorist groups. But failing to exercise their civil responsibility, they leave themselves open to the consequences of allowing hostile military forces within their borders.

Just punishment

Although diplomacy has its place, it is easy to see that diplomacy and negotiation do not strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. Yes, American hostages in Iran were eventually released after 444 days. But other American hostages like Lt. Col. Williams Higgins were killed by Lebanese Shiite terrorists. In most cases, diplomatic efforts have failed to bring terrorists to justice.

We have shown above that Romans 13 gives government the right to bear the sword to protect its citizens from criminal threats from within the country and military threats from outside the country. We have also shown that military action is also sanctioned “to punish piracies and felonies” and to punish “offenses against the law of nations.”

With this as background, we should now focus on the issue of just punishment which is described in Exodus 21. The principle here is that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. A judge could not chop off a man’s hand merely because he scratched another man’s hand in a fight. The punishment was to be: burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe. Excessive punishments were forbidden. Punishment was swift and sure, but it was also fair and proportional.

Just and proportional punishments have been the model for both criminal and military punishments. Not that all nations have followed this rule. But the United States should establish the moral tone by following this biblical principle.

In the context of our discussion on terrorism, I believe that we should apply proportional punishment to terrorists and host countries. First, this means that we should not apply too severe a punishment. Calls for bombing cities of host countries in retaliation for terrorist actions should be rejected as inappropriate and unjust.

But this also means we should not apply too light a punishment. Host nations who harbor terrorists and refuse to punish or extradite terrorists should be pressured by the United States. Punishment could come in the form of economic embargoes, import- export restrictions, severing diplomatic relations, or even military actions. But the punishment should be proportional to the terrorist act. Excessive reaction or retaliation will not only be unjust, but it will fuel the fires of anti-American sentiment.

In some cases, an American strike force of counterterrorists might be necessary when the threat is both real and imminent. This should be the option of last resort, but in certain instances it may be necessary. In 1989, for example, Israeli special forces captured Sheik Obeid and no doubt crippled the terrorist network by bringing one of their leaders to justice. In 1985, U.S. planes were able to force an Egyptian airliner down to prevent the escape of another terrorist leader. These are admittedly acts which should be done rarely and carefully. But they may be appropriate means to bring about justice.

In conclusion, I believe we must recognize terrorism as a new type of military aggression which requires governmental action. We are involved in an undeclared war and Congress and the President must take the same sorts of actions they would if threatened by a hostile country. We must work to deter further terrorist aggression in this decade.

© 1992 Probe Ministries

Today the Toronto Star provided a helpful list of questions and answers about Swine Flu:

Q: What can I do to prevent myself from getting the flu?
A: Wash your hands and cough in your sleeve. “If you don’t have access to soap and water, use an alcohol gel,” advises Dr. Richard Besser.

Q: Should I get a seasonal flu shot, and if so why?
A: The seasonal flu shot will not protect against swine flu.

Q: Can you get this swine flu from handling or eating pork products?
A: No. “It is perfectly safe to eat pork because that’s not a means of getting swine flu,” Dr. Andrew Simor says. (Read the rest of the Toronto Star’s Q&As)

One question not addressed by the Toronto Star is how does a person know if they have it? The symptoms are very similar to regular flu symptoms, and include fever, cough, headache, general aches, and fatigue. Others who have swine flu also report nausea, runny nose, sore throat, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Are you worried about Swine Flu? Do you have feelings of fear for yourself and your loved ones? Please feel free to share your concerns with us in the comments section, by contacting us privately, or consider Dr Muriel’s article Why Worry Yourself Sick?