The Times Online has an interesting article today wherein Iraq claims to have reached a milestone in which its war on terrorism can finally be claimed as an irreversible victory now that a major success has been scored in Mosul:
"American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country [i.e. Mosul] in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.
...Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had 'defeated' terrorism."
To better explain the above, the title in another Times article (also dated today) says it all: "Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand." This abrupt turn of events comes just when Bush wants the best deal he can muster in keeping an American presence in Iraq? Might not Iraq be in a good position now to say it doesn't need the Americans anymore, that the war's about over, just a bit of mopping up to do, and we can handle it ourselves, thank you Mr. Bush, it has been swell knowing you?
I read a few days ago that Hamas, though based in Gaza (western/Mediterranean Israel), was attempting to overtake the West Bank (of the Jordan river) politically. I decided not to write on that topic here until some evidence came in that it was true. In Today's Jerusalem Post, we read that the "[Israeli Defence Forces] shuts 3 Hamas charity facilities in Nablus raid." The prophecy that relates to this situation is in Luke 21, where Jesus tells of Jerusalem's surrounding by armies prior to it fatal ambush. The West Bank includes the east side of Jerusalem, but stretches to the north of the city (Nablus is about 30 miles north). Palestinians are attempting to take the West Bank as part of their own state.
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS: Wake Up. The Telegraph (UK) reports that Iran is secretly producing weapons-grade material faster than the conventional method:
"The work is aimed at developing the blueprint provided by Dr AQ Khan, the 'father' of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who sold Iran details of how to build atom bombs in the early 1990s.There we can see a very good reason for Iran to buy time at the moment with the appearance of wanting to discuss UN proposals. There we can also see why it's a key advantage for American troops to be in the Middle East at the moment, especially as some are reporting that Israel cannot successfully carry out the strikes on it's own. One advantage is that European nations would likely wink should the U.S. strike Iran's facilities. One problem is, Iraq will not allow Americans to strike Iran from Iraqi soil. Perhaps there will open up the option of an en masse relocation of the American military to Afghanistan, perhaps with exaggerated reports of increased Taliban successes. There is no clear-cut clue for predicting the outcome at this time under Bush, and no telling what Obama might do with the military.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which has overall responsibility for the country's nuclear programme, has set up several civilian companies to work on the programme whose activities are being deliberately concealed from the United Nations nuclear inspection teams.
The companies, based on the outskirts of Tehran, are working on constructing components for the advanced P2 gas centrifuge, which can enrich uranium to weapons grade two to three times faster than conventional P1 centrifuges.
...According to recent intelligence reports, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, personally ordered the Revolutionary Guard to set up companies for the secret manufacture of components for P2 centrifuges this year.
Russian president Medvedev said at the G8 meetings now underway that he opposes a nuclear Iran. No comment, from me, for now.
The following is hot off the Reuters press today, telling that the Iraqi Prime Minister wants the Americans to go:
"'Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,' Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates."
'One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time.'"http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Either way, Bush doesn't want this, and moreover the article indicates that SOFA is aparently dead before it's born. Clearly, the great success this year against the Insurgents is working toward an unexpected American pull-out from Iraq, with or without American Democrats pulling them out. We'll need to wait and see what sort of "understanding" Maliki's government works out with Bush, if any, but I don't think he has long, as Americans may need to be pulled out by December 31st if no deal is achieved.
This development, that no one would have predicted for 2008, may solve the problem that Obama's16-month-minimim withdrawal plan creates for the prophetic timetable that's presented here. In order for Gog to become the leader/ruler of Iraq by roughly the fall of 2009, I've been expecting the Americans to be out of Iraq by then (Obama's plan, and his latest statements, suggest that Americans could be in Iraq deep into 2010). The crushing of the Insurgents, and the stabilization of the Iraqi military and government, now places the withdrawal ball into the hands of Iraq. If the Insurgents don't make a significant come-back, which may now be their calculated strategy, Iraq will give the Americans their notice. Bush knows full well that the Insurgents will crop up again, somewhere.
In the meantime, between now and when the Americans leave, what can we expect al-Qaeda and the ex-Saddam loyalists to do when drawing up their Plan B? Is this the time that they accept a deal with Gog? The months ahead represent the period that Gog should find advantageous for entering the political sphere of Iraq. The Insurgents can promise him their political support, and persuade other Iraqis to do the same. Remember, Insurgents double as Iraqi citizens.
Do you believe it when you read that "top U.S. military leaders have concluded that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are as strong as they have been since the United States invaded Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001?" I'm not so sure. With the real possibility that Americans in Iraq must soon leave, wouldn't Bush want them to re-position in Afghanistan as the best option available? Couldn't it explain why, all of a sudden, Afghanistan needs more US troops, and that the U.S military says it doesn't have any, except those in Iraq? And what's with Obama? Is he developing into a war president, since, "If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan." That's in today's Herald Tribune. What if al-Qaeda in Mosul moved to Afghanistan in the past month, and that when Obama sends troops to Afghanistam, the same al-Qaeda will move back to Iraq? Can we see that happening?
Questions to American Democrats: Where did the 550 tons of uranium come from that was recently shipped, by an American ship, from Iraq to a Canadian buyer, at the request of the Iraqi government so that terrorists would't get a hold of it? What do you suppose Saddam was planning to do with it since the country has no power plants? Did you ever stop to think that Bush knew a little more about the realities than you did, but couldn't disclose certain things to the public for various reasons? Story below.
Airport officials say that someone matching the physical appearance of Hillary Clinton was spotted working under the tail of Obama's airplane, before it took off. The mechanic was wearing dark overalls, dark glasses, and carrying a small toolbox. After turning a bolt under the tail, the mechanic's grin grew so large that they knew he was a woman. A man with grey hair approached her in a rental van; upon seeing him, she began to duck repeatedly, as though taking cover from sniper fire. The driver could be heard laughing and saying, "Ha, who needs the super-delegates, baby."
I found a May 2006 article (by Ryan Mauro) today laying out an interview of Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir, an expert in al-Qaeda structuring and activities. He says that Iran has supported al-Qaeda ever since it entered Iraq. On the topic of Russian support for the Taliban, he says:
"What I said was that Russia is covertly supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The spokesman of the Afghan Interior Ministry, Lutaffulah Mashal, told me in September 2005 in Kabul that the Taliban are getting modern Russian-made weapons...The Taliban are receiving weapons from Al-Qaeda also, which are being smuggled in from Iran."
This is the first hint I've seen that Russia is supporting al-Qaeda in any way, but of course the evidence is hardly strong in this one piece alone. Hamid is then asked about his belief on Osama acquiring crude nuclear weapons, and says:
"At least two Al-Qaeda operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America...I am very careful when speaking about Al-Qaeda's nuclear capabilities. I've met many people in Al-Qaeda who have claimed that uranium and nuclear bombs were smuggled to America, and I'll quote them in my book. However, when I speak for myself, I don't rely on claims by Al-Qaeda. I rely upon my own investigations...[the book] will be a biography of Osama Bin Laden in which I will disclose his future plans and details of his nuclear designs.
...They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000
...no Al-Qaeda leader has ever admitted that they are working with Iran. I also think that, maybe, the Iranians will organize some attacks inside America and you will accuse Al-Qaeda."
Perhaps this explains why there has not been another major attack on the U.S. to the present. They are waiting to build enough bombs to seriously cripple America all at once. It could be that the dirty nukes are insufficient for such a crippling, and that al-Qaeda is waiting on better weaponry, perhaps from Iran. The alliance between Iran and al-Qaeda, if it does exist, is of primary importance to me at this time, as it's my prediction based on prophecy. Hamid's understanding that Russia is supporting al-Qaeda interests in Afghanistan also aligns with expectations. It makes me theorize that Gog might be a part of the Afghanistan theater as we speak. Is that not logical? Gog and al-Qaeda building raport right now in Afghanistan?
Should we fear? I don't think so. I think God will bring on the great tribulation of Israel before America is attacked critically. Jesus said people will be buying and selling and living the ordinary life right up until Armageddon (Matthew 24). I should add that the views of Hamid Mir may be based on disinformation fed to him by the terrorists that he's interviewed.
This past June 26, the Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, when speaking on the growing strength of the Taliban the past few months (concurrent with al-Qaeda's reduction in Mosul), said: "Any further increase in NATO's military presence (in Afghanistan) will not solve the problem,' he said, adding that the only way out for NATO was 'the creation of a battle-worthy Afghan army and police force'" (The Russian Courier). Hmm, I wonder if Putin was ultimately responsible for putting that directive -- for no incease in Western troops in Afghanistan -- on the ambassador's lips.
The statement didn't come out in a vacuum, for indeed the build-up of military in Afghanistan looks like the coming thing. Somewhere in Afghanistan there should exist the evidence that Russia is working covertly with al-Qaeda, but even if Bush knows it already, he won't announce it to the public, for he wouldn't want Russia to know that he knows.
In the last verses of Daniel 11, we see Gog becoming mad/suicidal when he sees his demise approaching from the east and north of Israel (Revelation's "kings of the east"?). At that Appointed Time, "he will go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction." The Revelation-17 prophecy actually reveals his burning Europe with fire, and it's perhaps due to Bush knowing of a Russian plot to nuke Europe that he seeks east-European nations -- smack beside the Russian border -- to agree to the setting up of a U.S. "missile-defence shield" (supported by NATO).
The Russian Courier said recently: "The U.S.-proposed European missile shield will eventually spread along Russia's borders and may neutralize Russia's nuclear potential by 2012-2015, a Russian political analyst [Leonid Ivashov] said on Wednesday..." Russians are attempting to demonize this U.S. effort, wherefore the 2012-2015 date is likely exaggerated (i.e. sooner than the reality will be). Under my current timetable and prophetic view, Gog will send nuclear bombs into Europe in 2016, and at that time YHWH (via Revelation's "kings of the east"?) will send fire into Magog (Ezekiel 39:6).
Ivashov continued: "Russia must also warn the European countries that...in case of a potential military confrontation...capitals, large cities, industrial and communications centers of the countries hosting elements of the U.S. missile shield will inevitably become the primary targets of [Russian] nuclear strikes." This issue has become so important to Russia that the current Russian president brings it up regularly and forcefully. NATO has invited Georgia into it's club, and Russia is furious, though not more furious than at NATO's invitation to the Ukraine. One can see why Russia would never join a global pact, with the United States included, so long as Bush is in office, and as McCain has recently called for ousting Russia from the G8 (what does he know that we ought to?), it's obvious that Russia's eagerness for an EU-Russia-US pact is with Obama in view.
Just after I wrote the paragraph above, I checked in with the Drudge Report (where I get many of my leads), and saw that they were featuring a Times (UK) article entitled: "Russia threatens military response to US missile defence deal." We read
"Russia tonight threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer.
The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.
...'We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,' the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement."
Did anyone say that Reagan had ended the cold war??? Didn't he and his fellow democracy-pushers hasten it into the hot war about to take place [later, at Armageddon]? If you hit a bear when it's down, it will remember when it becomes healthy.
With this Russian threat coming down the pipes in the middle of the Iranian affair, the two affairs might be related. That is, the U.S. might know that Iran's threats are Russian-based and Russian-backed, so that Bush in response is building a sky fence on the Russian border. The Democrats might not have been so hard-nosed in the face of such strong Russian opposition. Pravda online writes:"The missile defense plans may find themselves in a wastebasket in the event Barack Obama is elected president of the United States." As this promises to become a major story, we should hear from Obama, on his position, soon.
I think the world has entered a stage where every saber-rattling and political move is critical. The closet-KGB Russians have been very angry ever since the east-European nations left her, but to watch them all go over to NATO, and then to see them give the green light for American star-wars programs, it's just unbearable. Poland seems to be next on the list. Could these very systems have anything to do with the False Prophet raining down fire from the sky before the anti-Christ (Revelation 13)?
In the above article, Mrs. Rice speaks on the proposed NATO membership of Georgia, and pokes Russia in the eye with this: "Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one. I want to make very clear that the US commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity is strong." What will Gog think, and do, when he gets wind of this?
The growling of Russia at America is promising to make Obama's visit to Berlin, later this month, more difficult, and yet if I have learned anything from Obama, he will make it a positive. A Times article out today says this: "The plan, Obama advisers have told Der Spiegel magazine, is to use the [Berlin] visit on July 24 to signal an imminent improvement in the transatlantic relationship." "Transatlantic" is code word for the proposed EU-Russo-American pact. The article goes on to say: "If, as expected, Mr Obama is going to deliver a phrase in German (the insider tip is: 'I can listen!' — 'ich kann zuhoeren!') and fling out his arms in the direction of Russia and Central Europe, then this surely is the place [to do it]." The article points out that Germans overwhelmingly despise Bush and want Obama to be the next president, explaining why his campaign team has chosen for him to give a speech there. If Obama succeeds in Europe, his image in the United States could grow Aryan tall and leave McCain in the dust.
Will Obama embrace Russia and promise to cancel the missile shield as Bush wants it? Russia has sought to become a partner with Bush on another missile-shield plan and location, in Azerbaijan, for example, but Bush has, reportedly, ignored Russia on that topic. Might Obama, in order to be-friend Russia, make a statement to the effect that he will build missile-defense shields in complete partnership with her???
Aside from the Joshua Generation Project, we now have the Matthew 25 Network, "a concerted effort to prise off a chunk of a Christian vote that has long been regarded as the more or less exclusive preserve of Republican presidential candidates." The Network is funding ads telling of Obama's conversion to Christ 23 years ago. It is going to be difficult for true believers to hear all that these groups are about to say; expect a bitter rivalry to develop between pro- and anti-Obama Christians.
The CIA released a secretly-taped telephone conversation today of Hillary Clinton with Bill: "Don't worry honey, we'll get him on his flight to Europe. This time, you turn the screw, in the right direction."
On the Israeli front, more pertinent news from the Jerusalem Post:
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will convene the Security Cabinet for an unscheduled session on Wednesday [tomorrow] morning.
The cabinet will hear security assessments on threats to the North and the home front posed by the rearming of Hizbullah and weapons smuggling from Syria, Israel Radio reported."
The phrase, "unscheduled session" sounds like "emergency session." It sounds as though Hezbollah has already been caught re-arming. Do we get the impression that all fronts have unstoppable wheels in motion? How would the situation be different if Bush was respected? Didn't Republicans say time and time again that Democrats attacking Bush's character and his war strategy would embolden the terrorists? Bush wanted them to be afraid of America, but they are not. They mock him openly to his face. And they carry out their conspiracy in the open, each emboldening the other. Don't the Dems know that when America goes down, Dems go down too? Or do they have a mental disorder?
Is there not one Obama supporter wise enough to know that a pro-gay American president will never get God's help in anything? If you're prayers aren't being heard, Democrats, it's not because He doesn't exist, but because of the social positions you take. Take His positions, and you will have One stronger than Obama to live by. Alas, the bulk of Democrats will side with the anti-Christ instead.
"Now is the time to disarm Hizbullah, Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni said...'Hizbullah must be disarmed,' she said. 'We now have an opportunity to disarm Hizbullah, and we must not lose it… if we do not do it now, it will be much more difficult later on'" Livni did not of course explain how Hezbollah should be disarmed now. More mere saber rattling? Perhaps not. I doubt that she is speaking only a personal conviction. It may be that her fellow Israeli leaders, knowing that they can't attack Iran at this time within its borders, can do the next-best thing by attacking Hezbollah. If true that Syria has provided Hezbollah weapons, then that can be used as justification for attacking Lebanon now.
The Herald Tribune reports today that "the U.S. military says it is sending extra air power [to Afghanistan] by shifting an aircraft carrier [the Abraham Lincoln] away from Iraq." Once again, the report is from an anonymous source, but we know it's not just fine to leak military secrets so long as the source is unknown. The reality appears to be that the Bush administration is leaking messages intended for Iran, as though the US and Israel were preparing for a strike on the country. The Abraham Lincoln is being re-positioned into the gulf of Oman, which is on the southern Iranian border, wherefore it may appear all the more to Iran that this is America moving in for to start a war.
It's a good thing it rained today, so that I've gotten the day off, as there is much in the news today to report. My direction now, while waiting for Gog to appear, is to seek evidence of an Iranian alliance with al-Qaeda. "Kenneth Katzman, the terrorism analyst for the U.S. Congress, said, 'I think you have an 'atomic bomb' brewing between bin Laden, Hezbollah and the Iranians. If these two huge forces are married, either could set off the spark. Sooner or later you are going to see more from these people.'"
That's exactly the prediction from prophecy, but where is the evidence that Iran and Osama are working together? The article below is a strong case for the alliance even before 9/11:
"'In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers,' the [September 11 Commission] report said. ...After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda."
None of this proves that the current Iranian government has ties with bin-Laden, and in any case the present government may be voted out in the next election if Bush has his way. The real leaders of Iran are the Muslim gurus who survive elections. Apparently, they were able to tolerate their religious differences with bin-Laden to the point of forming a jihadist alliance. It could certainly be the same today and into the near future.
"...during the trial of another alleged Hamburg cell member, Abdelghani Mzoudi, prosecutors produced a last-minute witness, Hamid Reza Zakeri, who said he was a former officer of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Zakeri testified there was a meeting at an airbase near Tehran on May 4, 2001, between top Iranian leaders—including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani—and one of Osama bin Laden's elder sons, Saad, at which plans for 9/11 were discussed.
Zakeri also reportedly claimed he had earlier helped arrange security for a January 2001 meeting between Saad bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's principal deputy. He also claimed that he met with a CIA officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, in July 2001 and passed on a warning to the United States about the forthcoming 9/11 attacks."
If this is all true, Bush knew already in September of 2001 that Iran was a main element producing success on 9/11. It then easily explains why he didn't go after bin-Laden with as much fury as some think he should have. The capture of bin-Laden would have created more pressure for the U.S. to leave the Middle East, but what Bush wanted was to stay in Iraq awaiting the opportunity to stab Iran fatally. Or so I think. The reason that it's not been apparent that Bush wants to stab Iran is that he smartly doesn't let on. He has the inner strength, and might I add integrity, to take repeated political punishment in favor keeping quiet for winning his war.
One report (see below) claims that Saad bin-Laden (Osama's son), who fled into Iran at the start of Bush's war, was discharged in 2006 by the Iranian government to Lebanon to build terrorist cells in co-operation with Hezbollah. In this picture, Saad becomes a special link betwen Iran and his father. "Despite this, there is no reliable confirmation of Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda. Rather, the consensus among analysts and officials is that this move could represent a temporary alliance between two enemies..." No co-operation, but a temporary military alliance instead? That's good enough to fulfill prophecy.
Until I found this article, I had no proof that Osama was actually concerned about an Israeli invasion. If his son is involved in the Palestinian problem, even if he was forced to be by Iran, it explains why Osama recently came out and started changing his military tack, toward an Israeli invasion. The article below by a Lebanese journalist claims that Saad was discoverd by the Lebanese government, in May of 2007, as being alias, "Shahin Shahin, a Fatah al-Islam military commander." The article reveals many details of al-Qaeda groups in Lebanaon and Syria, which have been there for many years, apparently. As al-Qaeda in Lebanon faught against the Lebanese government, it would seem that it played a role in weakening that government so that Hezbollah now finds itself a major part of it. Any animosities between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda in Lebanon would serve to keep the Israeli invasion to the future, until the Appointed Time.
If you're interesting in reading up on an in-depth evaluation of Iran, see Iranian State Sponsorship of Terror.
It's been a long day, and still I cannot find sign of who Gog might be.
Israeli leaders have become the laughing stock of its own people. The leaders agreed to a resolution with Syria at the end of the Lebanese war two years ago, and then went on to seek an impossible peace deal with Syria. Now Syria has been caught doing what the wiser Israeli people knew all along would happen: providing weapons to Hezbollah. Lift up your drawers, Israel, and tighten the belt. Tuck in that shirt, and put on your glasses if you're blind without them. Stop listening to George Bush, and to the Quartet, and start calling on Jesus, your own Savior. Your success would be so instant if only you would. But you won't.
The Jerusalem Post has an article today on the resumption of fighting in Lebanon's Tripoli region between its Sunni majority and Shiites in favor of Hezbollah. My understanding is that these Sunni groups have been militerized by the Lebanese for the purpose of weakening Hezbollah's influence. One can then realize that Iran dispatched Saad bin-Laden to Lebanon to start a Sunni movement in alliance with, or even under the authority of, Hezbollah. Saad was probably sent against his will by means of threats of some kind for misbehavior, but it stands to reason that his true purpose will become to support a Sunni agenda instead.
Yet this Saad development, if it did occur, seems like an act of God, though I wouldn't want to put words in His mouth that are untrue. It's just that I expect Osama to be the Ruler of a Covenant bringing many divided groups together for an Israeli invasion, while on the other hand I view the final Israeli invasion as an act of God.
There's no way to explain all this without getting into a few complicated details; please forgive the length of these updates. I should add that not all believe Saad to be alias "Shahin Shahin" of Fatah al-Islam, but in any case this new group (founded 2006) seems a good candidate for identfying Osama's movement at Israel's immediate north, for it's known to be allied to al-Qaeda. But there's more: "Fatah al-Islam was led by a fugitive militant named Shaker al-Abssi...A Palestinian refugee who was born in Jericho in 1955..." (other details below).
There we have it, a Palestinian even, who must harbor a main goal in life to see Israel defeated. He was in Iraq fighting alongside Osama's top leaders, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. His roots are from a Palestinian militant group in Libya, a conspicuous point in that Lybia is also in the Ezekiel list of Gog's allies. Al-Abssi took some of Osama's men from Iraq to Lebanon, in 2005, and he dug in there, seeking to grow. This argues in favor of the report that Saad was sent to Lebanan in 2006, and that he was discovered as a supporter of Fatah al-Islam.
Their true Lebanese agenda seems a contradictory or undecided one to outsiders looking in. As Shiite-supporting Syria has opposed Fatah al-Islam, it should explain why Gog invades Syria en route to Israel. However, the Wikipedia article above argues that Syria came to support al-Abssi, which in my mind shows the balancing act that Saad is required to keep, on the one hand making appearances of cooperation with Hezbollah, and on the other hand fighting for Sunni causes.
Apparently, even the Bush Administration has supported Fatah al-Islam for the purpose of weakening Hezbollah, this showing again that Bush considers the Iran-Hezbollah axis as a greater threat than al-Qaeda. But as some have suggested, this particular support for Fatah al-Islam will backfire...which is what can be expected if al-Qaeda comes to form a covenant with Hezbollah. It seems simple to imagine that, when Gog defeats Syria and then shows resoluteness to conquer into Israel, all anti-Israeli groups will align purposes despite their various differences.
More saber rattling today as:
"the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were reported Wednesday [today] to have test-fired nine missiles, including one that Tehran claims has the range to reach Israel.
...The missile tests were reported after the Group of 8 leaders urged Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Moreover, Iran displayed its military capability just a day after the United States and the Czech Republic signed an accord to allow the Pentagon to deploy part of its controversial ballistic missile shield..."
Iran is either suicidal, or it knows it has Russian backing. The most backing Saddam ever got from his Russian allies was a statement by Putin that Bush was making a big mistake to invade Iraq. Iran must have Russian backing because it is acting more confidently that Saddam ever did when Bush started to threaten Iraq. When (today) "Hossein Salami, a commander of the Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying: 'Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy...The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance," does the word "our" include Russian surveillance?
Obama's response to this was to criticize Bush more than to criticize Iran. He implied strongly that Bush is the problem for not talking diplomatically with Iran. Therein we see his blind spot. He has been conditioned to believe, as are other Democrats, that since Bush is wrong in everything he does, the correct way to deal with Iran is the opposite of what Bush does. Democrats think that Iran is motivated against the United States because of Bush's aggression. The truth is, Iran has been seeking the downfall of America -- "The Great Satan" -- since 1979, long before Bush, and that Bush has correctly understood the need to weaken Iran's Muslim movement before it acquires nuclear capability. Bush also realizes, correctly, that mere diplomacy with Iran will give precious time for the capability to become reality. Obama says he wants an incentive package i.e. to buy Iran's compliance to U.S. wishes, which is of course a grave risk since Iran could continue it's nuclear program while taking America's money.
Late today (the 10th in Israel), two young Arabs, both Israeli citizens, were the center of a Jerusalem Post article entitled, "Police: We exposed Israeli al-Qaida cell." It's not much, but it's a start to malicious al-Qaeda activities expected in Israel from this point onward. The two men confessed and shared some pertinent information: that they were helping al-Qaeda set up a bombings at important Israeli sites. One of them "provided information on where terrorists could enter Israel via the West Bank, and where they could hide out in the desert after an attack." If the two men were lying, then what al-Qaeda was planning to do was worse than they confessed to. If they were telling the truth, then the West Bank is the al-Qaeda objective. That's where Jerusalem sits i.e. the West Bank includes Arabic East Jerusalem (but not the Israeli western part).
Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab Zarqawi claimed responsibility for a missile strike against Israel at the turn of 2006, and stated on a webiste that it was the "beginning of a welcome operation to strike deep in enemy territory, at the instructions of Osama bin Laden." Nothing more came of it, though a massive missile attack from Hezbollah came later in 2006. The world was surprised at that time at how consistent Hezbollah was in sending missiles into northern Israel. Is it a coincidence that Saad bin-Laden was released by Iran in late July, and instructed to support Hezbolah, at just the time of the Hezbolah attack on Israel, which started in mid-July and ended in mid-August? It was reported by the New York Times that Saad was inside Lebanon in early August. Can we not imagine Iran ordering Hezbollah to accept Saad, and to work with al-Qaeda?
If that's the reality, then Hezbolah and al-Qaeda have been somewhat working together since the summer of 2006. At that time, Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire agreement in the form of UN Resolution 1701, part of which included the disarming of Hezbollah. Any ordinary normal person realized right away that Hezbolah would not disarm, but unfortunately the UN decision-making machinery seems to consist of dreamers, ideologists reaching far too high.
The meeting that Israeli leaders held today stressed that Hezbollah's weaponry had tripled to 40,000 missiles during the past two years. It is nothing new to find terrorists not abiding by their agreements, but this time something seems different. Hezbollah now holds political strings of Lebanon, and can move more freely about in carrying out its agenda. It can harbor more fighters safely. Remember, the Ezekiel list of allied forces come into Israel like a cloud covering the land; that's more than a few thousand fighters enlisted with Hezbollah. Can we expect Hezbollah to dig its claws deeper into the Lebanese government so as to secure more assuredly the passage of Gog's armies through the country?
Do Democrats understand why al-Qaeda has not attacked the United States again? It's because Bush took out his big Texas fist and hammered al-Qaeda immediately, and then parked his big Texas butt in Iraq next to terrorist-supporting nations and said, "go ahead, make my day." I can assure you that both Syria and Iran have practically begged Osama bin-Laden not to attack the United States in a big way at this time. Why? It's obvious. Bush would instantly attack Syria and Iran, with the world's backing, and Russia won't be able to do anything about it unless it wishes to lose it's position in globalism.
So, what are the terrorists waiting for? Two things. A mit-ful of nuclear bombs, and an anti-war American president. If per chance Obama turns out to be a closet Muslim-sympathizer, it will taken as an Allah-send by Iran.
I would rather expect a large-scale al-Qaeda attack against a Canadian city, Toronto being a likely place. But not until Gog has become like God in the eyes of the Muslims. How is this related to my topic? I'm saying that a soft approach against the present terrorist wave won't appease it or change its agenda, but will instead give it opportunity to come on in very destructive ways. Moreover, I'm saying that God wants liberal elements of the West punished because it has indeed become the Great Satan. Therefore, if it's true that He's raising Muslim murderers as His tool against liberalism, I'd expect Him to allow a global evil spirit to make Western leaders soft on terrorism and in other ways foolish.
Obama, instead of defining liberalism in the way mainline Christians define it, is now defining it as "progressive." That's his current excuse for being a Democrat rather than a Republican. To what is liberalism progressing to? Is perpetual change a good thing? The only one who changes things continually is the one who can't ever get it right. Liberals are into change and progress because their many attempts at social engineering never produce a satisfactory result. The one who learns from experience, and thereby finds the right way, doesn't change anymore because changing from what works is likely to produce disappointment and adversity.
To be conservative is to live by time-tested lessons, and to maintain the same road once success has been achieved. A man and a woman in a marriage is a time-tested success, if both spouses live by time-tested attitudes. Muslims make life difficult for their wives by suppressing them, but liberals have arranged for women to be sluttish before marriage, and "assertive" (= bossy or worse) when married. God does not change for the reason that he is a master of perfection. Liberals have so violated His perfection that they have produced a nation despised even by Muslim murderers, and, frankly, the Creator can only take so much. So, He's sending the Plague to the West, a sudden destruction. But not until after the False Prophet becomes partnered with Gog.
As you can see, I prefer to lose readers who insist on being mockers. If you have even an inkling of respect for God, what I've just said shouldn't bother you. Believe it or not, some readers are giving me a thumbs up...because they believe the same. The war in the Middle-East is minor compared to the Soul War. Terrorists are killers of the body, but Western liberals are killers of the soul. Liberalism wants you to jump into their soul-destroying train, which is far worse than Muslim men forcing their wives to hide their faces in public. God can appreciate a people who go too far in attemtping to practice morality, but a people who do their very best to be immoral He cannot tolerate. The Last Days are days of decision. Decide what side you're going to be on. Are you pro-American or pro-Israel but anti-terrorist? Not good enough. By all means be and do good to your country, but don't love it when it builds and/or facilitates roads to Hell. Religion is higher than politics, as Heaven is higher than the earth, as God is higher than mortals.
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage, see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the