Events do not seem to be panning out all that well at the moment relative to Arab, U.S/Israeli relationships? The Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain has reiterated his country’s support for the Islamic Republic of Iran in case of an Israeli regime’s attack.
The Iranian president Ahmadinejad has quite recently made a statement to the effect of: "We have precise information that America wants to sabotage the Pakistani nuclear facilities in order to control Pakistan and to weaken the government and people of Pakistan."He added, The US would then arm-twist the UNSC "and some other international bodies as levers to prepare the ground for a massive presence (in Pakistan) and weaken the national sovereignty of Pakistan.
"It seems as if Ahmadinejad, whose is facing bit of a rough weather in his political space is now trying to strengthen his position by speaking out against the US. Alternatively, maybe, he is trying to further damage the US-Pakistan relation that has been on the boil ever since, Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
The aforementioned may just have something to do with the recent announcement that by Pakistan that it is going to side with a nuclear Iran? That in itself spells big trouble for the likes of Israel if they ever had any intentions at all of ever attacking Iran?
Wajid Shamsul Hasan told the British The Sun newspaper that “Pakistan would be left with no option but to support Iran if Israel attacks it”.
“We wouldn’t like to be seen as part of Israel’s campaign against any country. If Israel attacks Iran, it will have an impact on Pakistan as well”, said the Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain.“
We will have to safeguard our own interests. We also have a Shia population in Pakistan who will not take it lying down”, he stressed.
The Pakistani official warned Britain to help stop the U.S. “Drone Wars” that are slaughtering hundreds of its innocent civilians. Wajid Shamsul Hasan said that his country’s relations with America are at their lowest ebb.
“Patience is definitely reaching exhaustion levels”, he said. Hasan said Pakistan backs the War on Terror waged by Britain and the US.
But, he urged British Prime Minister David Cameron to condemn US drone attacks on his country dubbing them as “war crimes” and “little more than state executions”.
“We know the damage – destroyed schools, communities, and hospitals. They are civilians – children, women, families. Our losses are enormous,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.“
I think time is running out until the Pakistan government can take a stand. They will have to at some stage take punitive actions to stop them. They have got means to take such actions to defend their own frontier and territories,” Hasan further added.
Hasan urged the British Prime Minister to convince the US that the drone attacks were counter-productive, making the American “the most hated people in the minds of the people in Pakistan.”
Now we have the announcement that Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri has said that Pakistan is strictly opposed to any U.S. attack on Iran and will stand by Tehran if Washington takes this extreme step.
Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai's is also realizing that even though he is a "friend" of the United States... that is actually kind of rough on your life expectancy because Yasser Arafat was a friend of the United States... now he is dead... Saddam Hussein was a friend of the United States... now he is dead... Osama Bin Laden was a friend of the US back when the Soviets were in Afghanistan... now he is dead... Qaddafi was a friend of the US only 2 years ago... now he is dead.
Kharzi's beginning to realize that being a friend of the United States is only good for shortening his life so he is going to be friends with somebody else... and he is going to side with Pakistan... AS WILL China.
Remember... Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state. Accordingly, we can then see that things are really deteriorating for the U.S and Israel. Particularly in the light of recent announcements that The leaders of rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas signed a deal in Qatar on Monday to form a unity government of independent technocrats for the West Bank and Gaza, headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Furthermore, there is also news that the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said last Saturday that the country would announce great nuclear achievements in the next few days. The "silk road directive" was the initial plan to economically isolate Iran.
What we have today, is the development of that plan gone very wrong.
War can break out where-one least expects it, like in Europe where old hatreds are building very rapidly. The Middle East is also on fire; Syria is the next staging ground for final globalist prize that is Iran.
Should either Israel or the United States decided to do the unthinkable and attack Iran, then what we may be looking at is a lot more than some kind of brief conflict in the Middle East? There now seems to be a lot more at stake going on right now than what Israel could ever have imagined with the possibility of a an attack on Iran turning into global event unimaginable more and more probable as each and every day passes by. Come Jesus come.
As the main aim of this site is to take the word of God at its literal meaning, that is where we must go to source out the facts as to whether or not the Rapture doctrine has any Biblical authenticity, or if it is otherwise nothing more than a man made doctrine.
I have searched and searched and yet there is still is really nothing at all that I can find in the word of God that says anything at all about some mysterious event known as the Rapture of the Church.
Therefore, there is no reason to argue over the timing of the rapture as there is never ever going to be a time when I am going to argue over something that does not give scriptural consideration as being truthful and factual.
If there were a Rapture, then those who argue relative to its timing would not have to do so as to its timing as it would be as plain as the nose on ones face. However, as there as there is nothing in the scriptures with which to indicate the timing of an alleged Rapture, there never going to be a Rapture at all when the Bible teaches the Day of the Lord, and not a Rapture.
Please, let us look at the facts as they present themselves without having to make things up as we go along. The "Rapture" is a relatively new doctrine that has not historically held by any reference by any segment of the Church prior to the mid 1800's.
There are so many others who choose to argue over the timing of the rapture (Day of the Lord) should not that be a true enough sort of an indicator that there is something that is quite amiss relative to this whole misguided doctrine.
We do not know when the Lord is going to return there are still those who think they can lay claim to having access to that very privileged information and then label it incorrectly as being a Rapture and then say it is going to be a pre, or a mid or a post Rapture.
There are no doubts at all that Christians cannot agree on the question for the timing of the Rapture. Currently there are three populist views, Pre, Mid or Post Tribulation, mentioned above, so as there is quite obviously so much contention and argument over the timing of the Rapture, it then not that clear if it is even true or not?
There are clear statements in the Revelation and elsewhere that contradicts all three of the theorized periods for a Rapture.
Effectively, what they are suggesting is that there are going to two events, the Rapture of the Church and the Day of the Lord, when that is not the case at all. If that so, then what are the scriptures that refer to Rapture and what are the scriptures that refer to the Day of the Lord, as the scriptures that refer to a Rapture could refer to the Day of the Lord and vice-versa?
That is where the confusion seems to start and for the most part end? Now you can see where all of this argument over the timing of a Rapture is leading everyone, right down the garden path.
If the Rapture of the Church was such an earth-shattering event and was truly a Bible prophecy it then would have been made quite clear by the holy prophets, but as it has not, then it is not a prophecy at all.
One reason often given for why the Rapture must occur is that the Holy Spirit) must be removed from the Earth during the reign of the Beast. No biblical evidence for this view has ever offered, nor can any such view ever be offered because if God's Presence were ever to be withdrawn from the Earth all life would instantly cease to exist, we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts 17:28).
Doctrinally, the idea that Gods presence would have to be removed from the earth is even more problematic because if this view were accurate their would be no one post Rapture that could be be "saved" nor have communion with God (to be directed by Him etc.)
Notwithstanding that fact, the biblical prophets clearly show divine intervention and inspiration throughout the entire final seven-year period of the last days. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were delivered but initially they passed through the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:19).
So too will the fundamentalist Born Again Christians pass through the final Seven Years or serve God's Will as martyrs.
Daniel was also delivered but initially he went through the Lion's den (Daniel 6:16). The House of Judah survived King Nebuchadnezzar but they also initially passed though their Babylonian captivity.
The House of Judah survived the wrath of Haman because Mordecai was inspired to say to Esther: "...who knows whether you haven't come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14).
They went through the experience and HaShem protected them. So too will the Born Again Christians pass through the final Seven Years or serve God's Will as martyrs.
Nowhere in Scripture has that God removed His people in this way. Noah passed through the flood but came out safe and well, and so shall the Christians GO THROUGH THE GREAT TRIBULATION or be martyred in the process.
We shall always pass through the "Red Sea" and continue in His service.
Whether Alex Jones is a Christian or not remains open to debate. However, he is one of the greatest conspiracy theorists out of all of them available on the net. The following article taken from his Prison Planet.com website and may be of some interest to those of us who have been following what is going on the Middle East with the possibility of Iran being attacked by some foreign power. Personally, my belief is that the possibility of Iran ever being attacked seems to be just as remote as ever, as it would be far too dangerous for any power to even contemplate doing so. Russia for example, has warned other foreign powers in quite the harshest of terms that to do so would result in a war of the most serious consequences, and has for some time, so in that sense this is really nothing that there that is out of the ordinary.
Massive joint US-Israeli drill postponed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 16, 2012
The United States has cancelled a joint military exercise with Israel in a move some analysts are saying could represent a reluctance to support an attack on Iran.
“Israel and the United States have postponed a massive joint defense exercise, which was expected to be carried out in the coming weeks, in order to avoid an escalation with Iran,” reports Haaretz.
Although the United States has already sent 9,000 troops to Israel, a move described as a “deployment” rather than an exercise by US Commander Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, the Austere Challenge 12 drill, intended to be a wargame response to missiles fired by Iran, has now been postponed until the summer.
The Obama administration cited “budgetary constraints” as the primary reason for delaying the exercise, although observers suggest the move could be explained by a number of different circumstances, including Washington’s anger at how last week’s assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, all but admitted to have been the work of the Israeli Mossad, was conducted so brazenly.
The postponement could signal that the US is backing off its support for an attack on Iran, but it could equally mean that the attack plans have already been finalized and that the drill was cancelled because it would have coincided with the actual start of hostilities.
“Did the U.S. cancel them to show displeasure to Israel?” asks Richard Silverstein. “And if so, why? Does Obama know something about Israeli intentions we don’t know? Are plans underway to strike Iran? Is Obama seeking to show his displeasure?
Or is he trying to soothe Iran by not going through with a highly provocative military exercise which would’ve placed thousands of U.S. troops in the heart of Israel as a show of solidarity with Israel in its crusade against Iran?”
The Israeli intelligence outfit DebkaFile speculates that the postponement of the drill is another sign that Washington is concerned about the effect tensions in the region are having on oil prices, which would also explain why the EU embargo on Iranian oil has also been delayed by six months.
Whether or not the Obama administration has cooled its support for an attack on Iran, the US military is undoubtedly preparing for turmoil in the region, with three US aircraft carriers now stationed just outside Iranian waters, in addition to 15,000 troops that were sent to Kuwait at the end of last week.
The naval build-up could also be because “the United States intends to beat Israel to the draw and attack Iran itself,” points out DebkaFile.
Even if the Obama administration does not publicly back a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is highly unlikely to stand in the way of Israel. Once Iran retaliates, the US will then claim its interests are threatened and won’t hesitate to become embroiled in the conflict.
In addition, the US has made it clear that should Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil choke point, a “red line” will have been crossed. Iran is currently studying a letter sent by the US concerning the Strait. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said Iran “will respond if necessary.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey is due to arrive in Israel on Thursday for talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and other senior defense and intelligence officials, a meeting at which the US will try to convince Israel to delay any attack until sanctions, which have already crippled the Iranian economy, are allowed to take full effect.
By Philippe Agret
Palestinians wave their national flag in front of the headquarters of UNESCO during a march to mark the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, which led to the creation of the state of Israel, on November 29, 2011 during the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. AFP
RAMALLAH, Occupied West Bank: With peace talks in the doldrums, the Palestinians have fixed their sights on global activism and unity between their rival factions in order to advance their cause.
“We are in a ‘hudna’ (truce) until Jan. 26,” senior Palestinian official Nabil Shaath told reporters at a recent briefing. “But this political cease-fire will end on Jan. 26,” he said, referring to a deadline set by the international peacemaking Quartet, giving the parties 90 days to submit comprehensive proposals on territory and security.
“If on the 26th Israel does not come up with a freeze of the settlements and talks based on the 1967 borders, we will continue our international drive,” said Shaath, a senior figure in president Mahmoud Abbas’ ruling Fatah movement. Palestinian negotiators say they have laid out their proposals and suggestions in response to the Quartet’s proposition and they accuse Israel of failing to reciprocate.
However, Israel is reluctant to show its hand except in the framework of direct negotiations, which they say the Palestinians are “boycotting.”
“The Quartet has called for the resumption of direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. In the framework of those direct talks, the Quartet has specific ideas on how to move forward,” said Mark Regev, representative for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Israel has accepted the route laid out by Quartet, it is the Palestinian side that refuses to meet with Israel in face-to-face negotiations,” he said.
The Quartet’s latest attempt to resuscitate talks was announced on Sept. 23, just hours after the Palestinians submitted a formal request for full state membership at the United Nations.
Both sides welcomed the loosely worded proposal, but with completely different interpretations, prompting each camp to blame the other for the failure to resume talks.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians have low expectations of the Quartet, which groups top diplomats from the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, which they see as dominated by Washington.
And they have little faith in its envoy Tony Blair, who has been accused by Shaath of sometimes talking “like an Israeli diplomat.”
“It’s not a Quartet, it’s a ‘one-tet,’” joked Husam Zomlot, Fatah’s international affairs adviser, slamming Washington’s “total monopoly” on the peace process. “If we don’t snatch it [back] now, the two-state solution is dead,” he told AFP.
“Israel is so keen on sustaining the status quo, in keeping things as they are. For too long, for 20 years, Israel has maintained the status quo.
“This not going anywhere,” he said, referring to peace talks which began in Madrid in 1991 and which led to the Oslo Accords two years later, but which since then, have done little to end the conflict.
It is an assessment shared by many in the Palestinian leadership. “We see the process, but not peace,” say officials at Abbas’s Muqataa presidential headquarters in Ramallah.
“Only the first five years were genuine, until the death of [Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin” who was shot dead by a Jewish extremist in 1995, said Shaath. “Since then, the peace process is dead – there has not been any progress. The settlements never stopped, the grabbing of land never stopped,” he said.
“While negotiating, Israel has deepened the colonization of the land,” Shaath said.
Negotiator Mohammad Shtayeh agrees. “We have been taken nowhere,” he said earlier this month. “The political negotiation has been used to maintain the status quo.”
With peace negotiations deadlocked for more than a year and a keen desire to break the status quo, the Palestinians are doing whatever they can to push for implementation of a two-state solution to the conflict, Shaath said.
“We have no alternative but to go to the U.N.,” he said. “It is the only alternative. All the other options are extending the conflict forever.”
A return to violence and conflict was not an option.
“We Palestinians will never let that happen again because we paid the price in blood. We are not going to allow violence to come back.”
The other top priority was to ensure the establishment of unity between the rival Palestinian national factions under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
One of the toughest challenges is bridging the years-long divide between Fatah and Hamas, the Islamist movement which rules Gaza and which could soon join the PLO – the body which is internationally recognized as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
“The train for reconciliation has left the station,” Shtayeh said. “It’s a bit slow but it will happen. The reconciliation is serious.”
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Dec-28/158092-peace-on-ice-palestinians-set-sights-on-unity-between-rivals.ashx#ixzz1iO2fwiip
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 31, 2011,
By a media trick, Tehran proved its claim that closing the Strait of Hormuz is as "easy as drinking water," debkafile reports.
First thing Saturday morning, Saturday, Dec. 31, Iran's state agencies "reported" long-range and other missiles had been test-fired as part of its ongoing naval drill around the Strait of Hormuz. Ahead of the test, Tehran closed its territorial waters.
For five hours Saturday, not a single warship, merchant vessel or oil tanker ventured into the 30-mile wide Hormuz strait, waiting to hear from Tehran' that the test was over.
Instead, around 0900 local time, a senior Iranian navy commander Mahmoud Moussavi informed Iran's English language Press TV that no missiles had been fired after all. "The exercise of launching missiles will be carried out in the coming days," he said.
For five hours therefore, world shipping obeyed Tehran's warning and gave the narrow waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil passes, a wide berth. They stayed out of range of a test which, debkafile's military sources report, aimed to demonstrate for the first time that Shahab-3 ballistic missiles which have a range of 1,600 kilometres and other missiles, such as the Nasr1cruise marine missile, are capable of reaching Hormuz from central Iran.
The Moussavi statement was not aired on Iran's Farsi-language media. It was not necessary; Tehran had demonstrated by this ruse that it could close the vital waterway for hours or days at any moment.
Friday night, shortly after Tehran reported the missile-firing test was to take place the next morning, Washington announced the $3.48 billion sale to the United Arab Emirates of 94 advanced THAAD missiles with supporting technology.
Like the $30 billion sale of 84 F-15 fighter jets to the Saudi Arabia announced this week, delivery dates were not specified. The first F-15s for Saudi Arabia are due some time in 2015. It must therefore be said that the announced sophisticated US arms sales to the Persian Gulf nations bear only tangentially on the current state of tension in the region around Iranian threats.
The Hormuz missile stratagem has given Tehran three advantages in its face-off with Washington and the Gulf Arab governments:
1. It gave credibility to the threats issued by Iranian military chiefs last week regarding free passage in the Strait of Hormuz and Western sanctions:
On Dec. 29, Navy commander Adm. Habibollah Sayari said it was "really easy" for Iran's armed forces to shut the strait, adding "But today, we don't need [to shut] the strait because we have the Sea of Oman under control and can control the transit."
The next day, Deputy Commander of the Revolutionary Guards Gen. Hossein Salami said the United States was not in a position to tell Tehran "what to do in the Strait of Hormuz. Any threat will be responded to by threat… We will not relinquish our strategic moves if Iran's vital interests are undermined by any means."
2. For Tehran, closing the vital waterway to international traffic without firing a shot – even for a few hours – served to rebut the warning given by US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich on Dec. 29. She said: "Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated."
It also addressed the dispatch of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier through the strait into the Sea of Oman in proximity to Iran's ten-day Velayati 90 naval drill. The Stennis, accompanied only by a single destroyer, demonstrated US confidence in its military muscle against any Iranian threat.
As the Stennis passed through the big US air base at al-Udeid, Qatar, went on high alert.
3. Tehran did not explain why its war game, designated in advance a display of Iranian naval and air control of the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman, suddenly morphed into a ballistic missile test; nor its postponement.
debkafile's military sources report that the Iranians were in fact sending a message to the Gulf rulers and the US bases on their soil that they would not escape missile retaliation for a possible US or Israel attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities or harsh sanctions.
Cynthia E Ayers
On the 15th of December, the English version of the Russian newspaper Pravda published a stunningly accurate portrayal of the results of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack and included a frightening warning: “Does that [an EMP attack] seem like science fiction? It's not. In fact, it may be right around the corner.”
The article proceeded to explain who the target would most likely be:
“. . . it's almost a given that some power or group might get put out with the behavior of the U.S.A. and decide to go this route. . . . If Americans knew about this very real possibility, they might utterly panic. It is up to them to make their government stop angering others, tell the government to mind their own business, take care of the home front and stop interfering all over the globe. . . . Perhaps they ought to close the bases, dismantle NATO and bring the troops home where they belong before they have nothing to come home to and no way to get there.”
In other words, if the U.S. continues in its attempts to fight terrorists and provide support to our NATO partners, we will "provoke" an EMP attack that will kill many millions, potentially end civilization as we know it, and ultimately result in the loss of our sovereignty. This warning is not the first to have emanated from Russia. One of the most notable was described in testimony before a House Armed Services Committee Hearing held on July 22, 2004—a high-level Russian official (Chairman of the International Affairs Committee) had issued a similar threat to two sitting Congressmen while discussing U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
The Russians are not alone. An EMP attack against the United States has been written about and discussed openly within China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as Russia, and is contained within the military doctrine of all four countries. Iran has even practiced launching a missile from a ship in the Caspian Sea, and detonated Shahab-III MRBMs at high-altitude.
These are real threats, from entities who know exactly what our country’s vulnerabilities are. Indeed, the members of our House of Representatives know exactly how destructive an EMP attack on our country would be, as evidenced by the unanimous passage of the Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (GRID) Act in 2010, the establishment of a bipartisan Congressional EMP Caucus, the proceedings of the Congressional EMP Commission (2004 and 2008), and the report of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission. The National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have additionally released reports warning of the need to protect our electric grid. Most recently, the FY12 National Defense Authorization Bill noted a “continued vulnerability of the United States homeland to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events, both man-made and naturally occurring.”
It is therefore baffling that the New York Times would take an obviously partisan stance to a major threat which has been readily acknowledged as such by both parties. Nevertheless, after a recent Republican Primary debate in which former Speaker Newt Gingrich stated that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States was one of the three national security threats that concerned him most, the New York Times ran a highly biased front page story about EMP, authored by William Broad.
After claiming that “a number of scientists” believe Speaker Gingrich's warnings to be “far-fetched” (without naming any, other than Yousaf Butt, who is not an expert on EMP issues, intelligence matters, or terrorism, and whose views were thoroughly rebutted in Space Review [August 2010]), Mr. Broad proceeded to portray Gingrich as pandering to “hawkish audiences.” The unsubstantiated allegations by Mr. Broad’s mostly unnamed “experts” remained unchallenged within the article by facts or evidence—any efforts to locate and consult source material (such as the aforementioned Commission reports) were conspicuously absent from the discussion within the text.
It is equally baffling—and extremely disturbing—to be told that the New York Times refused—that’s right, refused—to print a rebuttal, authored and signed by former Presidential Science Advisor Dr. William R. Graham, former CIA Director James Woolsey, several scientists of world renown and prominent national security experts. Is it considered good journalistic ethics to dismiss the results of scientific studies, as well as the views and support of leaders on both sides of the political spectrum, out of purely partisan considerations? Is it acceptable to mislead and misinform the public on the nature of a truly devastating threat to national security in order to facilitate the character assassination of a presidential candidate? I think not.
In truth, when Speaker Gingrich brought up the danger of an EMP attack, he was speaking of an event that could bring about our collective demise—one that would remove the United States as an actor on the world stage instantaneously and long-term (months to years—in fact, 4 to 10 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences Report for similar grid damage resulting from a great geomagnetic storm). Within the first year following such an event, at least two-thirds of the population would be decimated. Some experts consider a more realistic death rate to be as high as 90%.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Subcomittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities has stated:
“The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the U.S. Military has the appropriate authorities, capabilities, procedures, protections, and force structure to defend against any threats posed by EMP generated by a high altitude nuclear or by a naturally occurring event. As well as response plans for dealing with the aftermath of an EMP event.”
To that end, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to both the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services “on efforts to prepare for and defend against, and remediate after an EMP event, whether natural or manmade.” I, for one, find it hard to believe that a “far-fetched” notion of threat would warrant Congressional and military action to such a degree. The New York Times may want to pretend otherwise for the sake of political expediency, but the American public could end up paying dearly for their intransigence.
Please—access the reports, read the rebuttal to William Broad’s article, and read the warning issued by Pravda; then pay head to what Speaker Gingrich said during the debate—EMP is most definitely a national security threat that we should all be gravely concerned about.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Vice President of EMPact Amercia. She recently retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service, including 8 years at the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership.
Attached to this article is a splendid graphic depicting Tower Bridge being overwhelmed. Click on image for full size.
My wife asked me the other day why I could not spell ‘Armageddon’ as if it was very important because I could not. I said; “Don’t be difficult, it’s not the end of the world just because I could not spell ‘Armageddon". That was just a little bit of my dry humour there folks. But seriously, there is a load of nut cases running around the place and frightening the living day lights out of more reasonable and mature folk by making ridiculous claims about the world allegedly coming to an end sometime in the next 12 months somewhere around the 21st December, 2012.
If there is anything that is more ridiculous then I for one would like to hear of it. There is really nothing at all that readily comes to mind that I can conjure up that seems to be more over the top than that little piece of misguided information.
The reason for this precise date is that it is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year-long cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. That is not to say that there is no one who lives in this house who gives no credence to this eschatological belief whatsoever, lest of all yours truly.
A NASA Scientist Answers the Top 20 Questions About 2012
PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT DOOMSDAY IN December 2012 has blossomed into a major new presence on the Internet. This fear has begun to invade cable TV and Hollywood, and it is rapidly spreading internationally. The hoax originally concerned a return of the fictitious planet Nibiru in 2012, but it received a big boost when conspiracy theory websites began to link it to the end of the Mayan calendar long count at the winter solstice (December 21) of 2012.
Over the past year, many unrelated groups have joined the doomsday chorus, including Nostradamus advocates, a wide variety of eschatological Christian, Native American, and spiritualist sects, and those who fear comet and asteroid impacts or violent solar storms. At the time of this writing there are more than 175 books listed on Amazon.com dealing with the 2012 doomsday. The most popular topics are the Mayan calendar and spiritual predictions that the disaster in 2012 will usher in a new age of happiness and spiritual growth. Quite a few authors are cashing in with manuals on how to survive 2012.
As this hoax spreads, many more doomsday scenarios are being suggested, mostly unrelated to Nibiru. These include a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field, severe solar storms associated with the 11-year solar cycle (which may peak in 2012), a reversal of Earth’s rotation axis, a 90- degree flip of the rotation axis, bombardment by large comets or asteroids, bombardment by gamma rays, or various unspecified lethal rays coming from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy or the “dark rift” seen in a nearby galactic spiral arm. A major theme has become celestial alignments: supposedly, the Sun will align with the galactic centre (or maybe with the Milky Way Dark Rift) on December 21, 2012, subjecting us to mysterious and potentially deadly forces.
Unlike most pseudoscience stories, there seems to be no factual core on which the Nibiru- 2012 hoax has been constructed. This is different from, for example, the claims of aliens and a crashed UFO at Roswell, New Mexico. The alien stories are a fabrication, but the core fact is that an instrumented balloon did crash in Roswell on July 7, 1947. There is no similar factual core to Nibiru—just dubious “predictions” from psychics, or the Mayans, or Nostradamus. The rest is pure fiction.
I answer questions from the public submitted online to a NASA website, and over the past two years the Nibiru-2012 doomsday has become the dominant topic people ask about. Many are curious about things they have seen on the Internet or TV, but many are also angry about supposed government cover-ups. As one wrote “Why are you lying about Nibiru? Everyone knows it is coming.” Others are genuinely frightened that the world will end just three years from now. My frustration in answering questions piecemeal motivates this “Twenty Questions” format to organize the facts and shine a skeptical light on this accumulation of myths and hoaxes.
1. What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in December 2012?
The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. Zecharia Sitchin, who writes fiction about the ancient Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer, claimed in several books (e.g., The Twelfth Planet, published in 1976) that he has found and translated Sumerian documents that identify the planet Nibiru, orbiting the Sun every 3600 years. These Sumerian fables include stories of “ancient astronauts” visiting Earth from a civilization of aliens called the Anunnaki. Then Nancy Lieder, a self-declared psychic who claims she is channeling aliens, wrote on her website Zetatalk that the inhabitants of a fictional planet around the star Zeta Reticuli warned her that the Earth was in danger from Planet X or Nibiru. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was recalculated (a standard procedure for doomsdayers) and moved forward to December 2012. Only recently have these two fables been linked to the end of the Mayan long-count at the winter solstice in 2012—hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.
2. The Sumerians were the first great civilization, and they made many accurate astronomical predictions, including the existence of the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. So why should we not believe their predictions about Nibiru?
Nibiru is a name from Babylonian astrology sometimes associated with the god Marduk. Nibiru appears as a minor character in the Babylonian creation poem Enuma Elish as recorded in the library of Assurbanipal, King of Assyria (668–627 BCE). Sumer flourished much earlier, from about the 23rd century to the 17th century BCE. The claims that Nibiru is a planet and was known to the Sumerians are contradicted by scholars who (unlike Zecharia Sitchin) study and translate the written records of ancient Mesopotamia. Sumer was indeed a great civilization, important for the development of agriculture, water management, urban life, and especially writing. However, they left few astronomical records and they most certainly did not know about Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. They also had no understanding that the planets orbited the Sun, an idea that first developed in ancient Greece two millennia after the end of Sumer. Claims that Sumerians had a sophisticated astronomy, or that they even had a god named Nibiru, are the product of Sitchin’s imagination.
3. How can you deny the existence of Nibiru when NASA discovered it in 1983 and the story appeared in leading newspapers? At that time you called it Planet X, and later it was named Xena or Eris.
IRAS (the NASA Infrared Astronomy Satellite, which carried out a sky survey for 10 months in 1983) discovered many infrared sources, but none of them was Nibiru or Planet X or any other objects in the outer solar system. Briefly, IRAS cataloged 350,000 infrared sources, and initially many of these sources were unidentified (which was the point, of course, of making such a survey). All of these observations have been followed up by subsequent studies with more powerful instruments both on the ground and in space. The rumor about a “tenth planet” erupted in 1984 after a scientific paper was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters titled “Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey,” which discussed several infrared sources with “no counterparts.” But these “mystery objects” were subsequently found to be distant galaxies (except one, which was a wisp of “infrared cirrus”), as published in 1987. No IRAS source has ever turned out to be a planet. A good discussion of this whole issue is to be found on Phil Plait’s website. The bottom line is that Nibiru is a myth, with no basis in fact. To an astronomer, persistent claims about a planet that is “nearby” but “invisible” are just plain silly.
4. Maybe we should be asking about Planet X or Eris, not Nibiru. Why does NASA keep secret the orbit of Eris?
“Planet X” is an oxymoron when applied to a real object. The generic term has been used by astronomers over the past century for a possible or suspected object. Once the object is found, it is given a real name, as was done with Pluto and Eris, both of which were once referred to as Planet X. If a new object turns out to be not real, or not a planet, then you won’t hear about it again. If it is real, it is no longer called Planet X. Eris is one of several dwarf planets recently found by astronomers in the outer solar system, all of them on normal orbits that will never bring them near Earth. Like Pluto, Eris is smaller than our Moon. It is very far away, and its orbit never brings it closer than about 4 billion miles. There is no secret about Eris or its orbit, as you can easily verify by googling it or looking it up in Wikipedia.
5. Do you deny that NASA built a South Pole Telescope (SPT) to track Nibiru? Why else would they build a telescope at the South Pole?
It is with a great deal of interest I noted the following article the other day. What intrigues me the most about this article is not so much the prospect of computers being able to read someone's mind, but that the technology is now in place so that computers will be able to control someone's very thought patterns.
After all, if the computers know what one is thinking, then for sure they are going to be able to control those thought patterns. The Mark of the Beast is an implant and a kind of computer.
What that means is that the implant can be programmed for the wearer to recite that Satan is Lord. If one is to utter those words then the punishment for doing so can only be eternal Hellfire. If there is nothing else that one takes notice of on this blog please take notice of this warning - DO NOT AT ANY COST TAKE THE MARK OF THE BEAST, THE MICROCHIP IMPLANT - OTHERWISE YOU WILL GO TO ETERNAL HELLFIRE.
King James Version: Revelation Chapter 14
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
Now read the attached article and then you will see just what I am referring to.
Homes will also run off 'people energy' and passwords will cease to exist, according to company's 2011 '5 in 5' report
BY Rheana Murray
Mind-reading technology will be more than just a super power featured in science fiction tales if IBM’s latest prediction comes true.
The computer giant released its “5 in 5” list for 2011, an annual report of the biggest tech advances it plans for the next five years — and one of those is to make a computer that can read someone’s mind.
“From Houdini to Skywalker to X-Men, mind-reading has merely been wishful thinking for science fiction fans for decades, but their wish may soon come true,” an IBM spokesperson said in a video that accompanied the report.
The company’s researchers are studying how to link a person’s brain to a device like a smartphone or laptop, “so you would just need to think about calling someone, and it happens,” IBM says.
Also on tap are homes that run solely off “created energy,” which comes from anything that moves.
IBM calls this concept “people power,” and says an entire home, workplace, even a city, will eventually be able to run off of energy created by someone’s jogging motions, the pedaling of a bicycle, or the movement of water through a faucet.
The company also predicts that passwords will cease to exist, too, being replaced by biometric data like retinal scans and voice files.
“Your biological makeup is the key to your individual identity, and soon it will become the key to safeguarding it,” IBM stated.
“You’ll be able to walk up to an ATM machine to withdraw money by speaking your name or looking into the camera.”
IBM also said that junk mail will become priority mail, as computers learn to better absorb a user’s likes and dislikes, and filter that into spam someone might actually read.
“Imagine your phone knowing that your favorite band is coming to town, and to put tickets on hold for you to purchase,” said IBM. “Or that a snowstorm is about to affect your travel plans and you should reroute your plane tickets.”
Within five years, the forecast will affect the entire world, IBM insists, as the current digital divide fades away, thanks to mobile technology.
“It’s cheaper to have a cell phone than [to\] open a bank account or buy a laptop, and because of this communities are able to achieve much more than they have before,” says IBM.
“Members of a village could check weather reports for when to fertilize crops, or know when doctors were coming into town instead of having to wait at the crossroads.”
This year’s report marks the sixth “5 in 5” forecast IBM has released.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mind-reading-computers-land-ibm-annual-list-technological-innovations-watch-article-1.994563#ixzz1hBVGFGHv
There has been some concern from this quarters for some time as to why the current situation with regards to the arrival of illegal immigrants into Australian waters from Indonesia has been allowed to continue on for as long as it has unabated when quite clearly the situation could have been rectified a long time before now.
Once these people arrive in our waters they then become the responsibility of the Australian government, and thus the taxpayers of Australia. (the photograph is of the elitists puppet, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.)
It seems obvious to all asunder that the current situation concerning illegal arrivals here in Australia will continue indefinitely for a specific purpose. Why then has this current situation been allowed to continue for as long as it has unabated when quite clearly it could have been stopped just as soon as it began.
What is then is the rational or reasoning, behind the Australian government or more correctly their political masters, allowing this situation to continue. For the answer to that provocative question, we need to look overseas to the USA and the police state it has now become.
(Just quietly, there are also suspicions the recent capsizing of a detention boat off the coast of Java may not have been an accident after all. As much as it regrets me to have to say this but what has just happened may have been done deliberately by the Indonesians to try and deter further so called refugees from gracing our fair shores, with the possible Hell here on the earth that may soon confront them if this continues on.)
It also seems that exactly the same type of situation that we are now having over here in Australia with the arrival of illegal immigrants has been existent in the US for a considerable period. They also deliberately allowed a greater influx of illegal's into the US when they could have quite easily stopped what was happening when they chose not to.
As that is the case, what they then have going on in the US has really nothing at all to do with open borders (as is the instance in Australia) but instead has everything to do with creating a pretext to set up concentration camps to imprison those who go against the New World Order.
We have not reached that point over here in Australia, just yet. However, there are still definite signs we are heading in precisely the same direction. Once the current facilities over here make the influx of these so-called refugees unmanageable and newer and larger camps begin to be constructed, it will be at that point we shall know for what purpose refugee camps have been specifically designed.
Accordingly, what is taking place now with the government allowing the arrival of illegal immigrants has nothing at all to do with refugees but is everything to do with creating a police state over here in Australia, just as the instance in the USA
Quote; “DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, according to a statement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently directed ICE to develop a national-level mass migration plan. The plan will outline how to address the health care, sheltering, processing, transition and disposition of large numbers of undocumented individuals who might arrive in the U.S. as the result of a mass migration, said ICE on Dec. 13.” Part of the preparations for sheltering and processing an influx of people includes the construction and manning of detention camps. In 2006, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned. Last week we received a leaked memo from a state government employee detailing KBR’s efforts to hire subcontractors to provide services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States, indicating that many of the camps have now been constructed and are ready for use. The construction of new detention camps inside the United States has provoked fears that the facilities could also be used to intern American citizens in the aftermath of a national emergency. Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services. During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.” The National Defense Authorization Act, which could be signed into law by President Obama before the end of the week, hands the government power to have American citizens arrested and detained without trial. With riots and civil unrest breaking out all over the globe, U.S. authorities have been preparing for similar disorder in America. A report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises, which it termed “strategic shock.” “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defence establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.
Quote: In the end, last week’s meeting of Eurozone leaders produced nothing more than an agreement to produce an agreement. Such sophistry, as has been the case several times before, was more than enough to send the stock market soaring. Yet amidst the general ineptitude, there was one defining moment: British Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the deal. Apparently, one leader in Europe still believes in the idea of national sovereignty.
Mr. Cameron was excoriated for taking such a stand. “This is going to cost the UK dearly. They have antagonized everyone,” said one unnamed senior EU official. That feeling was echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “I don’t believe David Cameron was ever with us at the table,” she complained. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy was apoplectic.
It was reported that the French president had to be physically restrained during a contentious ten-hour meeting in which he angrily rejected Cameron’s demand that the City of London and its single market be exempted from EU directives. Cameron wanted veto power over a financial transaction tax that can currently be approved by the EU, even if London financial institutions object. After the meeting ended, a petulant Sarkozy made a point of avoiding Cameron’s attempt to shake hands.
What has Cameron rejected? A treaty that, according to Angela Merkel, is little more than an agreement to “work towards” a series of goals aimed at stabilizing the Euro, and ending forever the debt crisis that has engulfed the 27-member union. The major objectives include a rule instituting deficit limits for all member states, automatic penalties for countries that breach those limits, and last, but certainly not least, a requirement that member states submit their budgets to EU authorities in Brussels for approval before they can be debated by each nation’s parliament.
In order for this grand bargain to be realized, the remaining 26 nations must vote to approve it, a process that could take as long as three months. This seemingly undermines the original premise of the summit, billed as a necessity to quickly address the EU’s debt crisis. Furthermore, while most countries can likely steamroll approval through their legislatures, it remains to be seen if Ireland requires a public referendum to get on board.
Irish voters rejected two previous EU treaties in 2001 and 2008, delaying ratification of those treaties for years. Complicating the issue is a 1987 Irish Supreme Court ruling requiring direct ratification by the public for any treaty that would “alter the essential scope or objectives” of EU institutions. The inevitable legal hair-splitting, exacerbated by the fact that the latest agreement remains a work in progress, will do nothing to move the process along in a timely manner. Neither will the fact that two other non-Eurozone countries, the Czech Republic and Hungary, have expressed “caution” regarding the deal.
The other big decision emerging from the meeting was the replacement of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). This newest permanent bailout fund was supposed to be activated in 2013, but the timetable has been moved up to July 2012. It will be capitalized with at a maximum level of $666 billion, but will not get a banking license due to German opposition.
And then there’s the International Monetary Fund (IMF). EU leaders agreed that $268 billion in bilateral loans should be provided to the IMF to address the crisis, with 75 percent of the money coming from the 17 countries that use the euro. Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist, is pleased with the move. “The commitment to give us 200 billion euros makes a major difference in the sense that we can now go out and talk to other countries and say, ‘the Europeans have given us money, can you help?’” he contended.
What “other countries”? Not the United States, if one is to believe both the president and Senate Republicans. “Europe is wealthy enough that there’s no reason why they can’t solve this problem,” said Mr. Obama at a White House press conference last Thursday. “It’s not as if we’re talking about some impoverished country that doesn’t have any resources.”
Twenty-six Senate Republicans concur. On Friday, led by Jim DeMint (R-SC), they introduced the “No More IMF Bailouts Act.” The bill has three objectives: rescinding a $108 billion line of credit to U.S. funds given to the IMF in 2009, forcing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to veto future IMF bailouts, and stopping a proposed doubling of U.S. dues to the IMF.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) cut right to the heart of the issue. “Forcing American taxpayers to bail out bloated welfare states in Europe is unconscionable and immoral. It is bad enough that Congress refuses to make hard choices within our budget,” he said. “We don’t need to enable European governments to do the same. A bailout will prolong, not ease, Europe’s burdens.”
Who else is remaining on the sidelines? The European Central Bank (ECB). Last Thursday, ECB President Mario Draghi expressed ”surprise” that people assumed the ECB would make large purchases of EU debt. Diane Swonk, senior managing director and chief economist at Mesirow Financial, described the ECB’s non-committal position as “brinksmanship” designed to extract as many concessions from individual EU governments as possible before making any further large-scale bond purchases.
Yet who is kidding whom? Despite all the pie-in-the-sky pronouncements, coupled with threats of “isolation” aimed at Britain for daring to resist the “superior wisdom” of EU elitists, nothing has been done to address the immediate liquidity crisis affecting both European banks and governments. The ultimate arbiter of this latest agreement will be the worldwide markets, specifically the bond markets.
They will ultimately reveal whether investors, as they were last Friday, can be sold yet another pig in a poke masquerading itself as yet another grand bargain.
As for Britain, what David Cameron did is best expressed by Telegraph columnist Janet Daley. “What just happened, after all?” she writes. “We jumped off a bus that was hurtling toward a brick wall….The crash, when it comes, will be truly dreadful, and all the more tragic because a delusional European elite refused to accept its inevitability.”
David Cameron has. And on a continent currently threatened by financial Armageddon much as it was threatened with military Armageddon during WWII, a British Prime Minister remains the last defender of democracy. Who says history doesn’t repeat itself? End of Quote
I not am naming David Cameron as being the Beast of Revelation, as there are just too many other possible candidates on the horizon for me to take that pronouncement. However, with the latest debacle within the EU with Britain being the only nation that would not agree to the tighter fiscal measures at the recent EU summit what has just happened is a treaty within a treaty.
That set of circumstances makes me believe that the Antichrist is not going to come to power necessarily through human intervention, but through the mighty power of the enemy, Satan.
That, because of circumstances concurrently being implemented through these series of treaties he will brilliantly manoeuvre into such a position that he will readily be accepted as being the New Age Messiah.
This will happen not so much as a matter of chance, but because there is going to be no one who is going to deny him the presidency of the E.U.
In other words, because of a set of circumstances he will simply just fall into that role, but will not of necessity be appointed by anyone, or any organization, after that he then goes on to become the Beast of Revelation.
Cameron was the only leader out of the 27-member nation participants that would not go along with what the propositions put forward at the recent EU summit, which as a matter of chance makes Britain one out of the box, or extremely isolated, relative to the rest of the EU.
All of what has just taken place within the EU now coincides perfectly with the recent announcement that the EU and India have just laid the groundwork for a further treaty on Climate Change, with climate change treaty being nothing more than just a pretext for World Government.
What if what we are now witnessing is nothing more than a precursor to the covenant of Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27, or is the covenant of Daniel?
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Time is now really beginning to run extremely short so it may be best if we were to get that message of salvation out before it is too late.
Events do not seem to be panning out all that well at the moment relative to Arab, U.S/Israeli relationships? The Pakistani High Commissioner to Britain has reiterated his country’s support for the Islamic Republic of Iran in case of an Israeli regime’s attack.
