No pertinent news this morning except Iran's missile tests for the second day in a row. I'd say that Iran has successfuly warded off America for the remainder of the Bush presidency, with Israel hoping that I'm wrong. The oil card that Iran is flashing before the world is a strong tool now that Bush has little-to-no authority in Iraq. The only way to deal with this card is to conquer the entire country of Iran, and control it's oil industry, but hardly anyone is prepared to support this right now. I don't think that nuclear bombs will be used by Iran or Russia in the invasion of Israel, except to deter the West from ruining Gog's Middle-East takeover.
The nuclear threat and the oil card should become the two major factors for Gog's success. How else can we explain a take-over of the Middle East and a successful invasion of Israel unless the hands of the West are tied somehow so as to be unable to stop Gog? Although the West has refrained from further Middle-East invasions due to the dire consequences posed on world economies and global relationships, Gog will be a madman and do just what others are too sane to do. The current saber rattling with Israel and the United States on the one side must be irking Gog at this moment. In seeking his identity, I'm waiting for a Russian breathing out threats bolder than Ahmadinejad. The silence from Russia produces no candidates. Even Putin is silent.
Well, after doing a bit of outdoor work today, I came in for a coffee and checked the Drudge Report to find that Iran altered this missile photo. In that case, how can outsiders know what truly took place in Iran yesterday and today? Photo from this New York Times article. Should we expect the missile tests fo continue tomorrow, or will the Iranian leader crawl into his den for a few days to lick his over-blown ego? Coffee break's over.
As there's not been much new news today, and it's 10 pm, I may as well discuss the problem of a Gog alliance with al-Qaeda: Osama bin-Laden had actively opposed the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Still, that was many years ago. If Gog wants to seize Iraq, he'd do better to have Osama as his partner, and if Osama would have resisted a partnership with a Russian in the past five years, he would certainly re-consider now that he's been put down. The loud-mouthed Zhirinovsky has been silent on the American situation in the Middle East. It seems wholly unlike him, but I think Putin made it clear to him not to say anything publicly about Russia's designs on Iraq. That is, if Russia had no designs on Iraq, Zhirinovsky would be mouthing off, at least a little, against the United States.
I haven't wanted to pre-maturely mention Zhirinovsky in these updates. I thought the best approach was to just wait and see who Gog turns out to be. Besides, as things are now in Russia, I find it next to impossible to understand how he could become the ruler of Iraq. When Bush invaded Iraq, "Zero" opened his mouth to say that it was a great opportunity for Russia, the implication being that Russia could seize Iraq from Bush, or after Bush had left Iraq. That's the last I've heard from Zhirinovsky on that topic. The silence seems a bit ominous. On the other hand, he turned out to be a bit of a clown, and this has me looking for someone else, more serious, to fill the boots of Gog.
I've searched many times for Zhrinovsky stories that might apply to the seizure of Iraq, or his contact with the Insurgents, but found nothing. In fact, in 2006 he said he had become "pro-Israel" and that he wanted to see a Russia partnership with Israel and the United States. No one is taking him seriously on those items (i.e. that he truly has feelings for Israel and the U.S.), but it does align with the policies of Putin and Medvedev in seeking an EU-Russia-US global partnership (when U.S. Democrats are in power).
Yawn, it's been one of those days. Good night, and God watch over you.
July 11
Israeli Defence Minister (Ehud Barak) has scheduled a special meeting in Washington in three days, to be followed up a week later by a Washingtom visit from IDF's Gabi Ashkenazi. Barak's meeting concerns Iran. He's going to be on his knees asking the United States to help do something before it is too late. Try begging Jesus, Barak; He doesn't fail. If He says, "I'll do it," it'll be done. Invoking the name of Jesus immediately when in danger, because it comes natural to you in that you have a sincere faith, assures an immediate Response. I have never been disappointed. It's as though the Spirit of God is everywhere, always in touch with me, seeing everything.
So what do we think Bush and the American military will say to Barak? Before you come up with an answer, couple the situation with the report in the Jerusalem Post today that Israeli war planes flew by night through Jordan into Iraq, landing, and then doing drills from, American bases in Iraq. If this is true, it begins to appear like more than saber rattling. The report was made by the Iraqi Defence Ministry (snitch snitch). If true, then Israel already has the permission of America to be in Iraq.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330937574&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Again, what could be happening is that a strike on Iran is really an American proposal to Israel, using Israel as the face of the act so as to keep oil prices from ballooning. It needs to be made to appear that the United States is not a part of the strike, or even that the U.S. counselled Israel not to strike. With Pentagon officials leaking Israeli strike-prep activities, it was made to appear that the U.S. is not a part of the activities. If Iran, due to the Israeli strikes, can be made to retaliate on American ships or bases, it could then be said that Iran started the war with the United States. Now that Iraq has snitched on Israeli jets flying into Iraq, the Americans must either deny it, or confess it and give explanation. If they confess it, then the plan, as described here, would likely be cancelled, for now.
If an Iran strike/war does occur, we would expect an official comment from Russia. In 2006, Zhirinovsky said that Iran should not be attacked by Israel due to the dire consequences that would result. This is a remark wholly expected if Russia and Iran are working together to seize Iraq after the Bush term, and indeed Putin's official position has always been for the West not to attack Iran.
It's later in the day and, sure enough, the Israeli Derfence Forces claims that the report of Israeli jets in Iraq are groundless. What's strange is that the Iraq Defence Ministry also denies the report, even though the report was initially from sources in the Iraqi Defence Ministry. The article below now claims that the report came to the sources via the second-hand information of "former military officers in the Anbar province." Perhaps the sources wished to ruin Israeli's strike. Or are they are involved in mind games to make Iran believe that a strike is about to take place...just as Ahmadinejad is to sit down (as early as next week) with Javier Solana?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330937574&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In CNN's poll of polls this week, Obama has nearly 50 percent of registered voters, with McCain in the 40 range (and the rest undecided). It's not as though Obama has a struggle on his hands to beat McCain. I regret to say, it appears he's going to win by seducing a significant number of "Christians," and perhaps even some Christians. It's even possible that he'll get more than 2/3 the votes, if his Christian imagery works for him.
Obama, along with several other Democrats, just voted for a surveillance bill that Bush wanted, and that's going to be the law (69 Senators for, 28 against). Funny that, that if Democrats have the White House, snooping on Americans is just dandy, but if Bush has the power to snoop, it's the mark of a dictator. Yes, I'm suggesting that the large number of Democrat Senators voting for the bill is, at least in part, due to their belief that they will have the White house in a few months. Those Democrats who resisted voting for the bill probably did so to avoid hypocrisy, since they have in the past been opposed.
Obama has issued his reason for voting for it (because it was half needed while being half bad), but if he becomes the president, he will be responsible for "correcting" the law in tune with Democrats crying foul of Bush. Do you think Obama will have the integrity to do it? This generation's Democrats are the only ones in the country who don't know that Democrats are hypocrites. I never knew hypocrisy until I saw the behavior of Clintonite liberals seeking political power. I'm not trying to be needlessly critical. It's simply hard to believe that the anti-Christ, whom the Bible says will be a deceiver, can be worse than post-Clinton Democrats seeking the White House.
Can anyone count the number of accusations lodged against Bush by those Democrats? Is Bush really that bad, or are Democrats scoundrels who falsely accuse their own president...while the world watches in disbelief. Dems like to blame Bush for America's low global image of late, for Dems can hardly believe that they could be responsible for it. This is not off topic. Democrats and the anti-Christ will be cut from the same black cloth. I'm not saying this because I support the military attitude in the Iraq war. I'm not saying it because I love or support Bush, for I do not support him. Nor do I have any special regard for the Republican party.
A godly attitude gives a leader latitude before criticising; it applies understanding, and there is a godly way to disagree with a leader, and to ask for re-considerations of issues. Bush promised to reach out to Democrats, but they, like a pack of wolves, bit his hand off immediately, and then accused him non-stop to this day for failing to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans. You can't win with such impish people. They are truly the lowest sorts of humans I have ever witnessed, aside from murderers, and they will only get worse as the spirit of Satan becomes more furious.
I fully understand the idea that fanatical Muslim murderers must be stopped, and unfortunately a point is reached when men use military force to defend themselves. Why can't Democrats understand this position without demonizing it? They do understand it, yet they are bent on accusing a Rebublican administration no matter what position it takes. How can a country improve or earn the respect of the world with an official opposition like that? Isn't it childish at best, more like sibling rivalry rather than wisdom and maturity at work?
Yes, Bush understood that war in Iraq would bring a rise in Muslim anger, and more killing, but he believed it best to take that punishment first, in return for the final reward of crushing the enemy hard for many years to come. If not for the nuclear threat, the Bush administration might not have entered Iraq...and I tell you that the only thing capable of shutting the filthy mouths of Democrats these past few years was a nuclear explosion from terrorists, anywhere in the world. Had the terrorists succeeded in doing to America anything less than a nuclear explosion, Democrats would have blamed Bush for making the terrorists angrier.
The time has come when Dems can finally see the nuclear threat of the terrorists clearly, and now they will need to make up their minds how best to fight this animal. Beast versus beast, that is how God kills two birds with one stone. Only, in the case of Armageddon, he will kill many with one stone. And, finally, the impish will be minimized in the earth, and hypocrites will go into hiding, as it should be. Let this be your hope in life, that a sane world drenched in security and joy (is that word too old-fashioned for you?) is on the horizon of this present darkness. That's what Armageddon means to me.
For people who do not believe in God, or in the God of Israel, a controversy about a little piece of land on the east-Mediterranean coast (i.e. Israel) should hardly lead to an Armageddon scenario. If all of Israel were to be wiped away by an invader, it should hardly lead to a world war. Yet, the fact that an Armageddon scenario -- with fiery-destructive capability, even -- is apparent even to non-believers, and that Israel is in the direct center of it all, screams the veracity of Biblical prophecy, and that the God of Israel does exist. If then all the details of Biblical prophecy can be shown to occur in relation with the build-up to an Armageddon scenario, every human being on the face of this planet would be a fool not to believe. But this is why Armageddon is coming at all, because the earth is filled with fools (I don't know of a more-accurate term) denying the five witnesses of God: prophecy, creation, Jesus' first coming, the Holy Spirit in the world, and the survival of the Faith to this day. I was such a fool; I no longer am.
Liberals believe that Bush is leading the world to Armageddon. Not so. Liberals believe that a stoppage in the Bush machine will save the world from the crisis now on the horizon. Not so. To understand the cause of Armageddon, prophecy needs to be appealed to. Armageddon is the invasion of Israel as phase one, and the destruction (by God) of those who invade Israel as phase two. Bush is not invading Israel, and therefore is not the cause of Armageddon. Iran and the terrorists are seeking to destroy Israel. Therefore, the Bush machinery is, while seeking to cripple those responsibe for Armageddon, either delaying Armageddon to the Appointed Time, or hastening it to the Appointed Time.
As you have seen, the Arab nations are impotent, and cannot eradicate Israel on their own, even though they unite as best they can. The Appointed Time will come when God introduces Gog as their helper. At that time, Gog will enter into the Arab covenant, strengthen it mightily, and the end will then come quickly. I do not know if the Bush war is pushing Gog's Iraq entry into the future, or hastening it, nor am I sure whether the Bush war has weakened or strengthened the anti-Israeli Arab forces. It has made them more zealous, and quite likely Gog despises Bush right now as much as American Democrats do. I simply don't know whether Bush is incidental to God's end-time plan, or acting with a special purpose from Him. It makes sense that Bush is in Iraq to corral all anti-Israeli forces there so that Gog can enter among them and leash them to himself all at once, every one zealous for military victory. If you thus wish to view Bush as the instigator of Armageddon (since nothing less will make liberals happy), you'll have to blame God as much as you blame Bush.
What good is it to share Hell with other liberals complaining about God's cruelty? What good is it to be in Hell with the murderous Muslims? How will you satisfy yourself in that setting? In what will you find joy? In your anger and your hatred? If the time is short, reason differently, and see the good side of Armageddon. Join God in what he is about to do; resist the coming anti-Christ system, and give God some thanks for a change. The Doctor is about to cut the cancer from the planet with seething heat.
If you're saying, "just give us the Iraqi news and cut the preaching," then perhaps you don't appreciate that the lead-up to Armageddon constitutes the signs of His return intended to convert many. Blessed are those who get scared when reading this. Cursed are those who have no fear of God. Blessed are those who overcome their fear of Armageddon because they trust in God. The forgiveness of sins in Jesus will never mean more than at the brink of Armageddon. Woe to the Muslims, who believe that the God of Israel is Allah, and who honor a "prophet" of the sword.
July 12
Today is a good day to explain al-Qaeda in Caucasia, as this region was the home of ancient Gog. The article below reveals many things on this topic, but of special interest to me is that: 1) Putin opposed al-Qaeda in Chechnya and nearby regions such as Abkhazia/Georgia and Daghestan, and, 2) these fled to Afghanistan and Pakistan (before and after 9/11) where they were trained by Osama's machinery. Under the scenario that modern Gog will be a Russian from Caucasia, as this makes sense to many prophecy writers, we might indeed expect him to be in Afghanistan/Pakistan now.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004893.php
Point 1) underscores the difficulty of expecting a Russian alliance with al-Qaeda. Point 2) possibly eradicates problem 1) if true that Russia has been arming the Taliban, for one can then assume that Russia is hoping for both the Taliban and it's al-Qeada allies to defeat the American-made Afghan government. In short, Russia may be siding with al-Qaeda to undo all that America has done in both Afghanistan and Iraq, by which I mean to say that Russia fears/hates al-Qaeda, but fears/hates the U.S. (and the West) even more.
I do not understand the logic for Osama's large expeditures in the Chechen rebellion against Russia. If his problem has truly been the American tentacles in the Middle East, why would he start a war with an anti-American, anti-Israeli Russia that could only drain his men and resources in vain? I didn't emphasize this Caucasian situation in my book because I expected it to go away.
To expect that Gog will worm his way to a high seat in Europe makes the political take-over of Gaza by Hamas, or the recent obtainment of veto power by Hezbolah in Lebanon, pale by comparison. Yet the point is that no one, not many years ago, would have predicted a Hamas government in Gaza, or a Lebanese government filled with Hezbolah agents by design. I cannot easily imagine how Gog can rise to a European seat of power, and yet it must be true if he is the little horn of Daniel 7. Otherwise, what would the point be of Daniel's connection of the little horn to the Roman empire? In fact, Daniel 7 reveals the little horn as a king of the Roman empire. How possibly could a Gog allied with al-Qaeda rise to lead Europe? My only solution, some 10 years ago, was to have an American president lift him to that seat of power, in an attempt to stave off an Armageddon scenario.
The question is, therefore: can we imagine Democrats partaking in the lifting of Gog to a European seat of power in an effort to quell the crisis now building? Assuming that I am correct in this assessment, I expect Gog to be a capable politician that can, on the spin of a dime, change from rogue to somewhat of a global sensation. The method by which he wins the hearts of the world is already revealed: he'll openly despise the God of Israel, and Christians. This is why the Democratic movement in America, over the past generation, is part of this topic, for it has become anti-Christ to the bone.
I was involved in the drug scene in my youth: I saw my peers latch onto every falsehood that cropped up, often Satanic in nature, until we no longer thought or lived straight. Jesus took me out of it, but imagine those who went on unchanged for decades to follow. They are today's liberals in charge of governments, corporations, educational channels, you name it. They don't think as normal people should because they've been influenced by countless erroneous ideas all their lives, and they have passed their errors to their children, a generation worse than mine in that regard.
There's no shortage of Russian politicians, Vladimir Zhirinovsky included, who oppose the rebellions of Caucasia. There are politico-military men neck-deep in Caucasia, seeking to secure the separatist states within the Russian fold. I wondered years ago whether this situation was coincidentally occurring in time alongside my expectations for the rise of Gog in Iraq, or whether it is the key to the rise of Gog. I still don't have an answer, and the Bible does not apparently give a single solid clue. "Caucasia" is said by some to mean, Gog-Asia, while the "Asi" portion of the term likely refers to the As/Assi/Assir peoples who were cousins, if not brothers, to the Tocharians. My theory that Gog is in contact with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is not necessarily in conflict with a Gog rising out of Caucasia, though the truth may turn out to be that Gog has contact with neither.
A point making Zhirinovsky fit the part all the more is his previous ties to Saddam Hussein. Daniel 11:23 has the Saddam loyalists joining Gog. In verse 37, we have the phrase "not the desire of women," which some take to mean that the anti-Christ will be a homosexual. Consider the following quote in a 1995 article I found while googling "Zhirinovsky" and "Afghanistan":
"Zhirinovsky invited me [Slava Mogutin, a gay Russian progressive-activist writer] to join him at the restaurant of the Central House of Architects. There he pursued two teenage boys, fifteen or sixteen years old, and asked me to invite them to our table: 'They can be good party members! I bet they will look great in military uniforms.'"http://www.slavamogutin.com/writings/writings_06.htm
Mogutin operates also in the United States and is a disgusting man pushing queer issues in provocative ways. His article goes on to say that 1) Zhirinovsky asked him to be his press secretary before Zhirinovsky's rise to Russian political fame in 1993; 2) that Zhirinovsky is definitely a homosexual bent on "progressive" politics that includes the legalization of drugs, and; 3) that "a significant part of [Zhirinovsky's] 12.3 million voters were gay.".
Sound familiar? Zhirinovsky is the liberal agenda of America. How could the Democrats not love him as he comes out spewing clever anti-Christian slogans? In fact, Russian authorities chased him out of the country due to his liberalism, and America gave him amnesty (1995) just because he was persecuted by the Soviets for his queer orientation. Imagine that, that an atheist country might fare better on the day of Judgment than America! The man is back in Russia now, accepted much better by the new "democratic" Russia. Isn't Obama, according to his own words, of the Democrat "progressive" movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_Mogutin
The website below gives several statements made by Zhirinovsky when he believed he was a rising star in Russia, one of which is this: "I would bomb the Japanese. I would sail our large navy around their small island, and if they so much as cheeped, I would nuke them." Moralistically bankrupt, to say the least, but I use this "cheep" quote because Isaiah 10:14 has the following first-person statement made by end-time Gog:
"...I also gathered all the earth/land...and there was not one moving a wing, or opening a mouth, or one chirping."
The world will have a maniac on its hands who has no thought for the destruction caused, and he may even make Osama's crew look moral. A thought that comes to mind is that the Muslim head-slicing that took place for a limited period a few years ago may have been instigated by Gog, for Gog is also said to behead people (Revelation 20). Therefore, Gog and al-Qaeda may have been in contact from a time previous to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Arab behind the beheadings. Zarqawi settled Afghanistan not far from Iran, and, still before 9/11, he came into contact with Osama bin-Laden. He was in Afghanistan building an al-Qaeda terrorist camp after 9/11, and thereafter settled in Iraq to fight the Americans. Assuming that Gog was his inspiration for beheading the enemy, it would stand to reason that Gog had contact with Afghan terrorists. It may even be that while Gog resisted al-Qaeda at that time, he chose to work through Zarqawi instead.
As Zarqawi was the leader of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," one can see how Gog can arise through that organization after Zarqawi's death. The successor to Zarqawi has been reported as the al-Qaeda foreign operative, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. Hmm, isn't that interesting, since Daniel 11 reveals Gog's invasion into Egypt to be supported by back-stabbing Egyptians (no doubt jihadists) eating with the Egyptian leader? Verse 26 reads: "Indeed, those who eat his food shall break him, and his army will overflow. And many will fall down slain."
Al-Masri is/was a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. "The organization's original primary goal was to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic state." Hmm. Already the EIJ has attempted to assassinate the current Egyptian leader (Hosni Mubarak), who might just be the leader in Daniel's prophecy. Al-Masri was later in Afghanistan (before 9/11) and there he became a part of Zarqawi's movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad
The Egyptian Islamist Jihad merged with bin-Laden so closely in forming al-Qaeda that one may view the EIJ as al-Qaeda itself. The EIJ has been led for many years by Ayman al-Zawahiri, "who worked with the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda." That in a nutshell brings Iran into the al-Qaeda picture, supporting the reports that Iran had acted as a middle ground for terrorist movements from Afghnaistan toward the west, and vice versa. Gog, if he is/was involved with Afghanistan's groups, should be found contributing to the interplay between Iran and Afghanistan's terrorists.
On 10 September 2002...Vladimir Zhirinovsky...said Russia should remain neutral in the United States's counter-terrorism operations, during a round-table discussion in Moscow. Zhirinovsky said Russian troops should not go into Afghanistan because doing so would 'grant [the] Taliban the right to invade Central Asia.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_counter-terrorism_operations_of_Russia
This statement can be read in two ways, as Zhirinovdky the prudent man (i.e. as he intends it to be read), or as a spokesman for the Putin government seeking an excuse to keep from helping the United States get the upper hand in Afghanistan. In fact, the article goes on to say that Zhirinovsky claimed "the U.S. wanted Russia to go to war with the Islamic world." It's then easy to imagine that Russia assisted the Taliban (against the U.S.) as soon as it could find ways to do so secretly enough. The fact is, Russia has been woefully listless in Bush's war, and is expected to be coveting the Iraq and Afghan theaters. Yet, Zhirinovsky's new tune was mesmerizing. Russian journalist and columnist for the Washington Post, Masha Lipman, wrote:
"Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the notorious ultranationalist monster of Russian politics, has once again attracted the attention of the press and the public -- this time by appearing as a lover of America. He praised the American operation in Afghanistan. Russia and America are partners, he said, the Cold War is over, and Russia belongs in the same civilization as Europe and the United States.It appears that this abrupt turn by one of the most passionate enemies of the West is more than another of Zhirinovsky's surprises. It signals important shifts in Russia's public sentiment and its politics."
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5622-8.cfm I wouldn't say that it reflected Russia's public sentiment, but rather Putin's strategy. At the time (late 2001), Russia was only coming up for air in its drowning, and Putin needed American support if he could get it. Besides, Bush had said to him that thing about looking into his eyes. Contrast the quote above with Zhirinovsky's statements of just a year ago (July 30, 2007) "that American diplomacy is increasingly concentrated on the destruction of other countries, specifically Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Libya." Hmm, that sounds more like the truth on Zero's feelings.
http://www.kommersant.com/p-11129/r_500/foreign_relations/Evidence that Zhirinovsky has been working with terrorism of some kind is below. It concerns a "house [that] was bombed in the town of Volgodonsk [northern Caucasus]...And there is a nuclear power station in Volgodonsk." One thinker says:
"If the speaker of the State Duma [i.e. Zhirinovsky] was able to announce on 13 September 1999 an explosion that did not happen until 16 September 1999, he must have received, and accidentally published, an advance notification of an event planned by a person of some rank in official circles. No investigation of this matter was ever carried out."http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html
The quote-writer believes that the Russian government was responsible for the blast, apparently to feign a Chechen-terrorist bombing in justifying the invasion into Chechnya coming immediately afterward. Zhirinovsky, in order to get such top-secret information about a blast before it happened, must have been an insider on government war plots, at least in Caucasian war plots. Might he even be a director or co-director of the plots? If so, couldn't he be appointed to oversee the seizure of Iraq since he's as passionate about that realm as he has been about Caucasia?
The nature of Zhirinovsky is to lie. He really is like the devil. One never knows when he is speaking the truth, and he may perhaps never speak it. Therefore the following Pravda clip of 2003, prior to Saddam's capture, needs to be assessed with caution:
"We would like to report further details and information given by Zhirinovsky's closest associate in the Liberal Democratic Party, Alexey Mitrofanov: About 1,000 high-ranking officials of the former Iraqi regime are underground, hiding on the territory of Iraq. According to Mitrofanov, the Liberal Democratic Party [founded and headed by Zhirinovsky] is maintaining contact with these people (he didn't specify how exactly). So, in his words, Saddam is safe and sound" (round brackets not mine).http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/9830_zhirinovsky.html
Assuming that Zhirinovsky did have contact with Saddam and his loyalists after Bush's invasion, I can't imagine who could make a better King of the North for filfilling Daniel 11:23.
I've been adding these things here because today was not a good day for pertinent news...until now. The Russia News Service had two articles of concern, the first that Russia "welcomes" the new Lebanese Cabinet -- which gives Hezbolah veto power -- and the second article on Iran's setting up of missiles on a Lebanese peak. I investigated the second one, to find the disturbing quote below from the DEBKA File:
"In the past few weeks, Hizballah at the behest of Iran and Syria has commandeered the 7,800-foot Mt. Sannine [Lebanon], a strategic asset capable of determining the outcome of the next war, as DEBKA-Net-Weekly 356 revealed.Radar-guided missile positions and an early warning station have since been deployed on its summit, which are capable of monitoring and threatening US Sixth Fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean and Israel Air Force flights.
This development was serious enough for Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak to repeat three times in as many days that the IDF is keeping a close watch on events in the northern front, especially the deepening ties between Syria and the Lebanese Hizballah. Barak travels to Washington this week.
...[Mt. Sannine's] takeover on behalf of Tehran places Israeli security at a grave disadvantage....
This development was kept under tight wraps by [Israeli] prime minister Ehud Olmert, the defense and foreign ministers and the chief of staff. Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.
DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that military movements carried out in the last two weeks by Hizballah in conjunction with Tehran and Damascus can only be interpreted as preparations for war. Lebanese sources have been saying openly that Syria, Iran and Hizballah are now in position for a new Middle East confrontation.
Senior IDF officers told DEBKAfile: If the new military facts on the ground in Lebanon are allowed to stay in place, the next war Hizballah launches with Syria and Iran will find Israel’s ground, sea and air forces at a grave strategic disadvantage" (underscore mine).
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1357
The rush of Israel's defence department to visit Washington on Monday is herein explained. It's hard to assess whether news media are exaggerating at times, but in this case it does seem as though war is about to break out. All sides seems to be getting into position for war, anyway. It may explain why Russia decided to bring war ships off the Syrian coast recently, and to cause wakes in other Mediterranean seas.
Add to this picture that al-Qaeda's Fatah al-Islam is in the Gaza Strip as of earlier this year, suggesting a multiple-pronge attack on Israel is in the building. Also in Gaza is the al-Qaeda group once under Zarqawi. These two pieces of information (which were unknown to me until now) were obtained from the Debka File (an Israeli based media). Apparently, Fatah al-Islam, in being roughed up in Lebanon (mid 2007), re-deployed in a Zarqawi-paved district of Gaza. As this was at the end of 2007, it explains why bin-Laden came out with a message for attacks against Israel in early 2008. In that message, he rebuked Hezbolah's leaders for not using all their resources against Israel.
http://www.debka.com/section.php?cid=6
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1327An Israel Today article of July 8 says: "An obscure Israeli Arab terrorist organization calling itself the 'Galilee Liberation Brigades' has threatened to unleash an unprecedented wave of violence against the Jewish state." Debka says it's part of Hezbolah. The Galilee Liberation group claimed responsibilty for the recent (yesterday, I believe) police shootings in Jerusalem. Woe to Israel if home-grown Arabs start to arise all at once with "many" covenanted outsiders eating away on its borders. I do not believe that the start of the 70th Week can begin until Gog acts against Egypt, however.
I now bring back to the fore Gog's attack on the Egyptians. After being successful, he will return to his own land gloating (Daniel 11:28). I had reasoned that he returns by way of Syria, for he would soon afterward be opposed by "ships of Kittim" (Daniel 11:30) in his second invasion into Egypt. Kittim is thought to have been a city on the island of Cyprus, wherefore read this mid-2007 quote:
"For the first time since the fall of the Iron Curtain, Russia plans to re-operate the Tartus and Latakia ports in Syria as permanent bases for the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean basin, according to recent western media reports."http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3434145,00.html
Tartus is on the Syrian coast directly across from Cyprus.
By the way, in my large work on finding the roots of the Biblical dragon, I had traced the Ladon dragon cult, which belonged to a Hebrew-Rus peoples identified with the mythical dragon of Ares, back to the island of Arados, what was also called Arvad (Biblical Arpad). In other words, the Varangian Rus who used a dragon symbol, and who evolved into modern Russians (along with other Rus), trace back to Arados. The point is, Arados is just off the coast of Tartus, and moreover the seven-headed Lotan dragon was associated with those same Mediterranean waters. Also, as the Ladon dragon was identified (by me) with Laz Caucasians, they may have founded Latakia. I know for a fact that the Ladon dragon was in Harbiye of Syria, what was later re-named, Antioch, by king Seleucid I...he being the precursor to the end-time anti-Christ according to Daniel 11 in conjunction with Daniel 8.
I'm amazed. Ares' mate, Aphrodite (also "Kyprus"), was made (by myth writers) to be born on Cyprus, meaning that the (non-Israelite) Hebrew peoples (= the Kabeiri) whom she represented dwelt on the island. I had traced Ares to the Aras-river junction with the Harpasus river (Caucasia), the latter looking like the makings of "Arpad." I still haven't decided whether to seriously consider a trace of Arpad elements to "Arab," but this makes some sense to me. I see logic in identifying Arpad elements in Arphaxad's Assyria and on the Harpasus river. It would be revolutionary to find evidence for tracing "Arab" to Arphaxad, grandfather to Eber, founder of Hebrews (Israelites were merley one tribe of many pagan Hebrew tribes).
This is my day off, explaining why I've gone on long. Hope it wasn't too much. Stay clear of that dragon.
July 13The biggest story today is that Bush has, according to a report obtained by the Sunday Times, given Israel the green light to attack Iran. This is "according to senior Pentegon officials," who call it an "amber light," though what they say amounts to a green one: "'Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready,' the official said.". Then he went on to say that the U.S. cannot help in the attack, and that Israel cannot use Iraqi bases.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330945390&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullThis could be more psychological warfare against Iran on the part of the Americans. The way in which the report is worded sounds too flippant, as though totally unconcerned with the dire consequences of the strike that others are predicting. In fact, the article states that Bush has given Israel the go-ahead "regardless of the possible economic and political repercussions of such a strike." On the other hand, in assuming that it's not a mere head game, it could be that Bush is allowing this latest leak to send the world a message that the U.S. has no part in the strike, even though it does.
On the pull-out topic, Bush has said that another troop withdrawal will be considered in September, but by the sounds of it, the withdrawal is indeed more a re-deployment in Afghanistan. My present assumption is that Gog's military act against Israel, found in Daniel 11:28, is to occur in the spring of 2010 (220 days after the start of the Week in the fall of 2009); the way things are developing on the Israeli front, this timing seems more than feasible. Where verse 28 is fulfilled in the spring of 2010, verses 25-26, the fall of Egypt, must occur by that time, say very-early spring at the latest.
The biggest problem is the speed of the Iraqi pull-out. Gog's got to take Iraq, or at least the richest parts of an Iraqi province (verse 24), before he attacks the Egyptians. I don't know how long it might take him/them to seize a principal part of Iraq, but as he re-inforces a covenant (with the Insurgents) that is to last the entire seven-year Week, the military seizure of Iraq should occur no earlier than the fall of 2009 (= Week's start).
Reuters is reporting today: "U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal [SOFA] security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favor of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior U.S. officials." We can expect the details of a timetable for the pull-out to be kept top-secret by Bush so that Insurgents don't know. Some days ago, the Iraqi government said that the Americans could stay until 2011 or later, but the statement seems a reach.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTKM00295920080713?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=trueThat is, the Iraqis are insisting on such an interim deal that, for one, gives American soldiers no immunity from legal prosecution, wherefore Bush, who strongly opposes this change, won't want to stay in Iraq until 2011. We can be more sure that Obama won't either, especially as the American commanders won't be able to act on their own initiative or authority. The immunity protection ends on December 31, 2008. The Times reports today that Britain has decided to pull its entire military by mid-2009...if nothing requires a longer stay.
As if to verify that Iraq isn't ballooning its desire to see the Bush people go, the Times also reports today that Ali Dabbagh, the Iraqi government’s spokesman, "said this weekend the [Green Zone] enclave should revert to Iraqi control by the end of the year...The American soldiers should be based in agreed camps outside the cities and population areas.'" This is a boot if ever I saw one. However, I do understand Iraq's position in wanting the degree of American visibility decreased in decision-making sectors, especially in the capital city. I think Bush understands. What he has a problem with, and what the Iraqis are blind to at this time, is the successful resurgence of the Insurgents.
Some American polls showed yesterday that McCain and Obama are suddenly tied. Newsweek gives credit to a massive swing of independent voters from Obama to McCain. While this could be the result of Obama's catering to the Christian right, it could also be due to the saber-rattling going on, for McCain would do better in a security threat. Both Russia and the Insurgents realize that a low-key approach until after the U.S. election is the way to go, in order to have Obama elected. One can then hypothesize that all hell will break out under Obama's term, as a period of restraint is predictably followed by a period of power. The question is, will Russia and/or the Insurgents be able to restrain themselves? Russia has become more outspoken in the past week, ever since the missile-defence deal was signed.
I have noted and reported to you that, while the Insurgency in Iraq is losing steam, a build up on the Israeli front is occurring. Could the plan be to invade Israel shortly after Obama is elected? How much would that invasion go "better" if it's started after Obama has withdrawn all Iraqi troops? Obama has promised a full pull out in less than 16 months beginning in January 2009, a schedule having all troops out by the spring of 2010, the time that I've considered as the start of the 2300-day invasion of Israel (Daniel 8). I'm not necessarily predicting, as a prophet would, that all troops will be out of the Middle East by then, but this is definitely something to watch and consider if you want to time your trib retreat well.
I'm not sure where the Times got their figure, but today it writes: "Obama committed to a rapid withdrawal over the next 18 months." That lands in the fall of 2009. Obama promised one to two brigades per month so that 16 months total is the maximum. There will be about 15 brigaes in Iraq after this month, so that all troops could be out by the fall of 2009 where two brigades per month are pulled out. This scenario better fits my timetable. Plus, it seems a certainty that later this year Bush will re-deploy Iraqi troops in Afghanistan, descreasing the time span of Obama's promised pull-out.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4322521.eceNote in Daniel 8:9-10 that the little horn (from the Seleucid kingdom) becomes great for the 2300-day invasion. It's the same theme as Daniel 11:23, where we see Gog rising from a small force but becoming large in the time frame of the Iraqi seizure, or at least by the Egyptian invasion. Note in Daniel 8:9 that his growing armed forces spread up into the "bountiful" land, which prophecy interpreters have long identified as Mesopotamia, the river region between the Euphrates and Tigris leading from Baghdad to Syria.
Could it be that Gog spreads from Mosul to Syria and parks himself in the old Seleucid capital (Antioch) before launching his Egypto-Israeli plots? Is that why Russian ships are now being sent (reportedly, anyway) to the Syrian coast?
The reason that the bountiful land is thought to be Mesopotamia is that most prophecy writers read the little horn of Daniel 8 as the Seleucid king, Antiochis IV. While I can perhaps concur that the prophecy outlines the Seleucids, whose initial capital was in Babylon (near Baghdad) before founding their Syrian capital, and who did in fact attack both Egypt and Israel upon settling in Syria, I strongly favor the double-fulflllment view where the end-time anti-Christ also fulfills the details of the prophecy. There has to be a reason that God made a comparison between the Seleucids and the end-time dragon.
Perhaps a little horn stationed in Syria can better explain why the little horn of Daniel 7 is the king of end-time Rome a few years after arriving to Syria. Perhaps that little horn will be a Russian leader, that is. For the moment, the finger points to Putin, for he's slated to be the Russian president in 2012-16 (Gog's Roman authority, for 42 months, doesn't begin until 2013 in the scheme I'm proposing). But what if Putin's team makes a great mistake between now and then? Who might the 2012 Russian president then be? I'd say Gog. This thought has not crossed my mind before, that whatever Russian leads the insurgents successfully to Syria, and then defeats Egypt, ought to become the Russian president in 2012. That would then allow him to step into the UN or EU leadership position.
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
Updates Index
The 2016 prediction for Armageddon (from my human intellect and therefore subject to retraction) is explained here.
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
Table of Contents
