blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Old Saying: LIAR, LIAR, Skirt ON FIRE!

OH! WHAT A TORTURED LIFE WE LEAD,

WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE,

IS AS APPROPRIATE TODAY AS IN 600 B.C.,

WHEN APPLIED TO ISRAELIS SPIRITUALITY!

IT IS WORSE NOW IN HALLS OF CONGRESS!

SO WHAT WILL WE DO IN THE END THEREOF,

BECAUSE U.S. MAJORITY LOVES TO SEE IT SO!

Jeremiah 5:27-31 – As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.

[28] They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. [29] Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? [30] A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; [31] The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

May 15, 2009

Begin Excerpt from Wall Street Journal

Congress and Waterboarding

Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to ‘torture.’

By Karl Rove

Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here’s what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee’s ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn’t comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a “congressional source familiar with Pelosi’s position on the matter” and summarized that person’s comments this way: “The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage — they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice — and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.”

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA “did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true.” She had earlier said on TV, “I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used.”

The Obama administration’ s CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr.

Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi’s account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA’s 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.” Note the past tense — “had been employed.”

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and “on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission.” He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi “questioned whether we were doing enough” to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi’s top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended

the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded. Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or

the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when

? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it

?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn’t she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA’s use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation

?

Senate Judiciary Chairm an Pat Leahy w

ants an independent investigation of Bush administration officials.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers feels the Justice Department should investigate and prosecute anyone who violated laws against committing torture.

Are these and other similarly minded Democrats willing to have Mrs.

Pelosi thrown into their stew of torture conspirators as an accomplice?

t is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced. She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans. It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance underst anding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Three things mankind can’t Do:

1. Humanly Change its Carnality,

2. Shake off the shackles of History,

3. Change the prophecies of the Bible.

I Am Happy TO SEE Obama’s Arab Plan,

It will create the prophesied false Peace,

And the Middle East War Which Follows It,

Man refused God’s peace on his 1st Advent,

And Man Has Fought Man Since He Ascended,

Jesus Said Wars Would Continue till His Return,

True Peace & End Of Wars Comes At 2nd Advent.

Jeremiah 17:9 – The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jeremiah 13:22,23 – And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and

thy heels made bare. [23] Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Matthew 23:37-39 – O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! [38] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. [39] For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 10:21,34-36 – And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. [35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [36] And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, AS TRAVAIL UPON A WOMAN WITH CHILD; and they shall not escape. [4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Micah 5:3-5 – Therefore will HE GIVE THEM UP, UNTIL the time THAT SHE WHICH TRAVEILETH HAD BROUGHT FORTH: THEN the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. [4] And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. [5] And THIS MAN SHALL BE THE PEACE, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. (SEE ARCHIVE PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBERS 62 TO 69 FOR EXPOSITION OF MICAH)

God used the Pharaoh of Egypt in his dealings with the children of Israel and I do believe God is now using President Obama. God delivered them from the Pharaoh of Egypt and, because of failing to claim his promised land, they wandered in the Negev for 40 years. Israel is now on the verge of giving part of the promised land to the Palestinians, and once again they are going to spend some time in the Negev, but this time it will only be for three and one-half years before the Second Advent.

Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Revelation 12:6 – And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Zechariah 13:9 – And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

I never dreamed when I was a young man that I would one day be jumping for joy to see things happening which assured me the last war of the Age of the Gentiles was on the near horizon, a war which would be terminated by the final great battle of Armageddon. But I can truthfully say this is the best time of my life, and I am now overjoyed that Obama was elected President last year. It is all finally happening, and I am having the privilege of seeing it all come together.

Now I can go to my grave knowing my soul will not have to wait long to return for its changed body. So if you hear of my demise, sing no sad songs for me, for I received an early catching out, and you will still be waiting in all this current political mess.

Don’t come to my funeral, I won’t be there.

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

May 14, 2009

Begin Excerpt from THE TIMES via World News

The Middle East peace plan must shake off the shackles of history

The first lesson is that nothing will be achieved without America

Michael Levy

May 14, 2009

Michael Levy

When we look at the history of peace negotiations in the Middle East one of the more surprising lessons is that we shouldn’t look at the history. Previous attempts to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict have become bogged down in arguments over past injustices. To be successful, this latest attempt must start with a clean page.

On that page is the opening question: how can we move forward for the benefit of all people in the region? This was the real thrust of the Pope’s message when he called yesterday for a sovereign Palestinian homeland even though some in Israel may interpret it differently.

It helps that we start with a new US President.

What history does teach us is that nothing will be achieved without America.

So it is encouraging to see President Obama making the right moves.

He was right to bring in George Mitchell and to appoint an envoy on the ground. That he is going to Cairo to make a key address on June 4 and meet regional leaders is very interesting. That he is not going to Israel is significant. Only the US can move the peace process forward and if the man in charge makes it clear that he wants a deal, the people on the negotiating front line are far more likely to succeed.

But to end a conflict that has raged for more than 60 years will require determination and tenacity. Does the US have the will to see this through? From the White House

the need to deal with the Taleban might seem a higher priority.

But if President Obama’s team genuinely fears war in the Middle East within the next 12 months, as King Abdullah of Jordan suggested in The Times, priorities may shift.

King Abdullah described his role in helping to bring the parties together. There are a lot of them to corral. A solid deal will require the agreement first of Israel and the seemingly leaderless Palestinians. It must include President Mubarak of Egypt, the King of Saudi Arabia, President Assad of Syria and the Lebanese. Beyond the Middle East, Russia, with its links to Syria and Iran, must have a role. So too must the EU, which has shown its willingness to pay up in support of progress in

the past. Of all the interested parties,

the UN is probably the least relevant now.

The number of issues to be agreed is legion.

First there is security, then there are borders, then Jerusalem, then refugees… the list is long. The most President Obama can hope to do with his peace plan is to sort out the macro issues and a solid framework that all parties will agree and adhere to. The micro issues will take generations to resolve.

Lord Levy was Tony Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East, 1998-2007

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Hamas has an absolutely wonderful Plan,

Two-State Solution With A TEN YEAR Truce,

An Excellent Way for False ‘Peace & Security,’

To prophetically descend on 12 tribes of Israel,

Followed by ‘Sudden Destruction’ trip into Negev,

And 1260 days of very troubled waiting for Messiah,

Before Israel Returns To Claim Abraham’s Land Grant!

Regardless of How False Peace Finally comes into Being,

The following series of Scriptures describe what follows It!

May 14, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

THE FALSE PEACE

I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that

that day should overtake you as a thief.

THE SUDDEN DESTRUCTION

Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

THE TRIP AND STAY IN THE NEGEV WILDERNESS

Revelation 12:6 – And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

THE 3 AND ½ YEARS OF TROUBLE IN THE NEGEV

Zechariah 13:9 – And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is

refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

THE LAND GRANT GOD PROMISED TO ISRAEL, THE SEED OF ABRAHAM

Genesis 15:18 – In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

MESSIAH (THIS MAN) DESTROYS THE ASSYRIAN (ANTICHRIST) TO LEAD ISRAEL TO COME UP FROM THE NEGEV AND TAKE THE LAND GRANT AND ESTABLISH THE MILLENNIAL REIGN OF MESSIAH.

Micah 5:5,6 – And THIS MAN shall be THE PEACE, when THE ASSYRIAN shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. [6] And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Begin Excerpt from The Buffalo News

Charles Krauthammer: The Hamas ‘peace’ gambit

Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post Writers Group

Updated: 05/11/09 10:47 AM

WASHINGTON—The New York Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they’re offering a peace plan with a two-state solution.

Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide — Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

Westerners may be stupid, but Hamas is not.

It sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe beginning to accept Hezbollah.

It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel — universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government’s ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel.

No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palest

inians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. Netanyahu’s own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine. The Palestinian response was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who’s been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It’s called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions— social, economic and military—to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, worshiped at the shrine of a two-state solution. He made endless offers of a two-state peace to the Palestinian Authority—and got nowhere. Why? Because the Palestinians have never accepted the idea of living side by side with a Jewish state.

Meshal’s gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal’s innovation? Ten — then blood.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

57 Islamic State Solution will Lead to A War,

After it the 57 Islamic States will be a Caliphate,

And it Will Stretch East from Morocco to Indonesia!

The Caliphate will be the Revelation Beast of the East,

Until Christ comes to destroy the beast at his 2nd Advent!

I have taught this for many years while most watched Europe

For the Rise of Antichrist, But He Will Rise in the Vast Middle East,

And drive Israel into the Negev, where she will stay for 3 & ½ Years!

Middle East war is likely to begin at a point in time twixt 2010 and 2015!

May 13, 2008

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

What I am about to say in the next paragraph will probably make many of the readers of our Web Site angry, but I will not go to my grave without writing it. So if it offends you, so be it. We are approaching a time when those who interpret God’s Word at least need to examine again what they teach on end time events. I have tried to be honest with myself and God for the last 35 years on what I teach about end time events.

I have changed my mind on some things by constantly reexamining what I believe about prophecy.

I’ve taught for 35 years that the final Empire of

the Antichrist would be an Islamic Caliphate, and that the initial war which produced it would consist of 10 Islamic nations who would be led by Antichrist. I have seen nothing to change my mind up to the present time. It is past time to get off the European Antichrist theory – It is a dead horse. It is time to get off the first-of-the-week position – It is a dead horse. It is time to get off the belief we have a full seven weeks left in Daniel’s 70 weeks – We only have three and one-half. It is time to start believing the three “he’s” in Daniel 9:27 represent Jesus Christ, not Antichrist.

THIS IS A STATEMENT I HAVE INCLUDED IN SOME OF MY RECENT BLOGS

CALIPHATE NATIONS OF ANTICHRIST CALIPH!

BEFORE Antichrist’s call for the nations to come and help him finish off Israel in the Negev at Armageddon, I believe MOST of the following countries will have rapidly join his 10 toed Caliphate AFTER he drives Israel into the Negev and conquers Egypt. The MOST likely candidates for the 10 toes, when he attacks Israel are in ALL CAPS.

Afghanistan, Albania, ALGERIA, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bruner, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, IRAN, IRAQ, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, LEBANON, LIBYA, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, MOROCCO, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, SUDAN, SYRIA, Tajikistan, TUNISIA, TURKEY, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Western Saharia, and Yemen.

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM A 2005 TEACHING

The coming Empire of Antichrist will cover most of the known world at the time John wrote the Book of Revelation in about 95 A.D. It will not cover the known world of today. It will be a Caliphate.

When Muhammad died, Muslims faced the challenge of creating institutions to preserve the community. Muslims believe that the revelation was completed with the work of Muhammad, who is described as the seal of the prophets. The leaders after Muhammad were described only as caliphs, or successors to the Prophet, and not as prophets themselves. The first four caliphs were companions of the Prophet and their period of rule (632-661) is described by the majority of Muslims as the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. This was an era of expansion during which Muslims conquered the Sasanid (Persian) Empire and took control of the North African and Syrian territories of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. The Muslim community was transformed from a small city-state controlling much of the Arabian Peninsula into a major world empire extending from northwest Africa to central Asia.

A caliphate is an Islamic federal government representing the political unity of the Muslim world despite theological differences, with the Caliph, as the head of state, representing the heir of Muhammad’s political authority.

From the time of Muhammad successors until 1923, it gave varying degrees of unity among the diverse nations that adopted Islam. A caliphate is the only form of government that has full approval in early Islamic theology, and “is the core political concept of Sunni Islam, according to the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries.”

The caliph, or head of state, was often known as “Commander of the Faithful”, or more colloquially, the leader of all the Muslims. Each member state (Sultanate, Wilayah, or Emirate) of the Caliphate had its own governor (Sultan, Wali or Emir). The Land of Islam was referred to as any land under the rule of the caliphate. A land populated by non-Muslims and land not under rule of the caliphate was referred to as the “Land of Non-Islam,” even if its inhabitants were Muslims, because they were not citizens under Islamic law.

The first capital of the Caliphate after Muhammad died was in Medina. At times in Muslim history there have been rival claimant caliphs in different parts of the Islamic world, and divisions between the Shi’a and Sunni parts.

Caliph is the head of state in a Caliphate, and the title for the leader of the global Islamic nation. It is a transliterated version of an Arabic word which means

“successor” or “representative”. The early leaders of the Muslim nation following Muhammad’s (570–632) death were called “Khalifat ar-rasul Allah”, meaning the political successor to the prophet of God (referring to Muhammad). Some academics prefer to transliterate the term as Khalif. It is also found as a personal name in some countries (Amir or Aamir).

(Caliph also became the term used to designate the head of a Sufi order.)

After the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib), the title was claimed by the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Ottomans, and at times, by competing dynasties in Spain, Northern Africa, and Egypt. Most historical Muslim governors were called sultans or amirs, and gave allegiance to a caliph, but at times had very little real authority. The title has been defunct since the Republic of Turkey abolished the Ottoman caliphate in 1924.

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM A 2007 BLOG

ISLAM IS DETERMINED TO ESTABLISH A CALIPHATE EMPIRE

November 9, 2007

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I find it very disturbing that a great number of Americans and citizens of many other countries, having only small percentages of Muslims in their native populations, still do not understand the impossibility of true peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the governments under the control of Muslims are under the control of the Laws of Allah, and any occupant or visitor in that country who is not a Muslim is classified as an infidel. Please carefully read the following paragraphs, which were extracted from the MEMRI article, which follows our heading.

BEGIN QUOTE

The following are excerpts from an interview with Abu Bakr Ba’shir, spiritual leader of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya in Ind onesia, which aired

on Al-Arabiya TV on October 26, 2007.

“Democracy Runs Counter to Islam, Because it Emphasizes the Sovereignty of the People, Whereas Islam Emphasizes the Sovereignty of Allah”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “The path taken by many political parties in their effort to establish an Islamic regime is not the right path, because these parties adopt democracy. Democracy is not an Islamic means. Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of

the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: ‘We hear and obey.’ In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them.

Herein lies the flaw.

Therefore, as long as the Islamic political parties endeavor to adhere to Islam by means of democracy, they will not achieve their goal.”

We Are Duty-Bound to Establish an Islamic State, and the Muslims Are Duty-Bound to Live in an Islamic Country”

“I do not accept their concept of independent judgment, unless

the bombing is carried out in the countries of the infidels who declared war against the Muslims, such as America. America has declared war on the Muslims, and

therefore, we are permitted to carry out bombings there, because they are the ones who declared war against the Muslims. Herein lies the problem.”

We are duty-bound to establish an Islamic state, and the Muslims are duty-bound to live in an Islamic country. Muslims are forbidden to live in an infidel country. Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims to live in the countries of the infidels. That is why we are committed to establishing an Islamic state. The path that the Prophet Muhammad bid us to take is the path of preaching and Jihad. Waging Jihad is the proper conduct. That is why it is essential to establish an Islamic state by means of preaching and Jihad. We have tried to do this in Indonesia, by committing ourselves to Islamic preaching.”

END QUOTE

The principles of Democracy are an abomination to Allah, because the Islamic faith gives all sovereignty to Allah, and any principle practiced under democracy, which conflicts with the Laws of Allah is judged and dwelt with by Islamic religious leaders. The reason a massive caliphate does not now cover most of the globe is because democracy has been the stronger world force, but Islam is growing stronger day by day.

There can be no other solution to the conflict short of global war, which just happens to be exactly what the Bible predicts must eventually break out.

Begin MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute)

Special Dispatch Series NO. 1761

November 8, 2007

Leader of Indonesian Jama’a Islamiyya Abu Bakr Al-Ba’shir: I Support Bombings in America, But Not in the Muslim World

The following are excerpts from an interview with Abu Bakr Ba’shir, spiritual leader of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya in Indonesia, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on October 26, 2007.

“Democracy Runs Counter to Islam, Because it Emphasizes the Sovereignty of the People, Whereas Islam Emphasizes the Sovereignty of Allah”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “The path taken by many political parties in their effort to establish an Islamic regime is not the right path, because these parties adopt democracy. Democracy is not an Islamic means. Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: ‘We hear and obey.’ In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them. Herein lies the flaw. Therefore, as long as the Islamic political parties endeavor to adhere to Islam by means of democracy, they will not achieve their goal.”

We Are Duty-Bound to Establish an Islamic State, and the Muslims Are Duty-Bound to Live in an Islamic Country”

“I do not accept their concept of independent judgment, unless the bombing is carried out in the countries of the infidels who declared war against the Muslims, such as America. America has declared war on the Muslims, and therefore, we are permitted to carry out bombings there, because they are the ones who declared war against the Muslims. Herein lies the problem.”

We are duty-bound to establish an Islamic state, and the Muslims are duty-bound to live in an Islamic country. Muslims are forbidden to live in an infidel country. Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims to live in the countries of the infidels. That is why we are committed to establishing an Islamic state. The path that the Prophet Muhammad bid us to take is the path of preaching and Jihad. Waging Jihad is the proper conduct. That is why it is essential to establish an Islamic state by means of preaching and Jihad. We have tried to do this in Indonesia, by committing ourselves to Islamic preaching.”

The following are excerpts from an interview with Abu Bakr Ba’shir, spiritual leader of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya in Indonesia, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on October 26, 2007.

To view this clip visit: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1598.htm

“Democracy Runs Counter to Islam, Because it Emphasizes the Sovereignty of the People, Whereas Islam Emphasizes the Sovereignty of Allah”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “The path taken by many political parties in their effort to establish an Islamic regime is not the right path, because these parties adopt democracy. Democracy is not an Islamic means. Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: ‘We hear and obey.’ In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them. Herein lies the flaw. Therefore, as long as the Islamic political parties endeavor to adhere to Islam by means of democracy, they will not achieve their goal.”

[…]

“Jihad should be waged in places where there is war. Bombings in places where there is no war is not a good thing.”

Interviewer: “So you are against bombings in Arab and Islamic countries, as well as Western countries, if they target civilians?”

We Are Duty-Bound to Establish an Islamic State, and the Muslims Are Duty-Bound to Live in an Islamic Country”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “In my opinion, it was wrong to carry out the bombings in Morocco, for example. I am against the bombings in Indonesia, particularly in Bali, because Indonesia is not in a state of war. In my opinion, one should be fighting the infidels in Indonesia by means of Jihad of the tongue – by preaching. Nevertheless, I’m still convinced that [the bombers] are mujahideen, not terrorists, but I believe they were wrong in their judgment.”

[…]

“I do not accept their concept of independent judgment, unless the bombing is carried out in the countries of the infidels who declared war against the Muslims, such as America. America has declared war on the Muslims, and therefore, we are permitted to carry out bombings there, because they are the ones who declared war against the Muslims. Herein lies the problem.”

[…]

“It is a duty… We are duty-bound to establish an Islamic state, and the Muslims are duty-bound to live in an Islamic country. Muslims are forbidden to live in an infidel country. Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims to live in the countries of the infidels. That is why we are committed to establishing an Islamic state. The path that the Prophet Muhammad bid us to take is the path of preaching and Jihad. Waging Jihad is the proper conduct. That is why it is essential to establish an Islamic state by means of preaching and Jihad. We have tried to do this in Indonesia, by committing ourselves to Islamic preaching.”

[…]

“I Support Osama bin Laden, as Long as he Wages Jihad For the Sake of Allah”

Interviewer: “So in fact, you support Osama Bin Laden?”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “I support Osama Bin Laden, as long as he wages Jihad for the sake of Allah, in order to implement the law of Allah.

At times, I may disagree with his independent judgment regarding bombings.”

Interviewer: “Bombings where?”

Abu Bakr Ba’shir: “In places where war is not being waged, where people who have nothing to do with these things may be harmed.”

Begin Excerpt from The Australian

Richard Beeston and Michael Binyon, Amman

May 12, 2009

Article from: The Australian

WASHINGTON is putting the final touches to a hugely ambitious peace plan for the Middle East, aimed at ending more than 60 years of conflict between Israel and the Arabs, according to Jordan’s King Abdullah, who is helping to bring the parties together in a “57-state solution”.

UN urges Israel on settlements

The United Nations calls on Israel to change its settlement policies and prove its commitment to a…

The Obama administration was pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II said.

The Israeli Government has rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, but the king insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state.

“We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms,” said the king.

“The future is not the Jordan River or the Golan Heights or the Sinai; the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize.”

In a direct appeal to the Israeli public, the king said they could either do a deal that would lead to peace or they could maintain “Fortress Israel” for another 10 years, which would be a calamity.

“If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12 to 18 months,” he said.

Details of the plan are likely to be thrashed out this month, chiefly at US President Barack Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington next Monday. The initiative could form the centrepiece for Mr Obama’s much-anticipated address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4.

A peace conference could then take place involving all the parties as early as July or August.

Such an ambitious project has not been attempted since 1991, when the first Bush administration assembled all the parties for a peace conference in Madrid.

“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the king, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month.

If Israel procrastinated on a two-state solution, or if there was no clear American vision on what should happen this year, Mr Obama’s “tremendous credibility” in the Arab world would evaporate overnight.

“All eyes will be looking to Washington,” the king said. “If there are no clear signals and no clear directives to all of us, there will be a feeling that this is just another American government that is going to let us all down.”

As an incentive to Israel to freeze the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a key step in any peace process, Arab parties may offer incentives, such as the right for El Al, the Israeli airline, to fly over Arab air space and visas for Israeli tourists to Arab states.

Mr Netanyahu told the Israeli cabinet on Sunday, however, that he had no intention of leaving the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.

Syria, which only last week was accused by Washington of being a state sponsor of terrorism, presents a huge challenge. King Abdullah, who visited Damascus yesterday, insisted that the Syrians could be brought in from the cold.

Last night, after a meeting with the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Mr Netanyahu said he hoped “in the coming weeks” to resume peace talks with the Palestinians.

“We would like to extend peace first of all with our Palestinian neighbours,” he said.

“We would like Israel and the Palestinians to live with prospects of peace, security and prosperity. The three things go together, and not one at the expense of the other.”

King Abdullah said he was prepared to believe what Israelis have told him — that a right-wing government in Israel is better able to deliver peace than the Left.

He sidestepped reports he had been asked by the US to clarify the Arab proposals on making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state and the Palestinian right of return, the two most contentious issues in Israel. Mr Netanyahu has said these are not negotiable.

“I was very specific in carrying a letter on behalf of the Arab League highlighting the Arab peace proposal, their desire to work with President Obama to make this successful, their commitment in the peace proposal in extending the hand of friendship to the Israelis,” the king said.

Jerusalem was not an international problem but an “international solution”, he insisted. A symbol of conflict for centuries, it was desperately needed to become a symbol of hope.

And hinting at the Arab demand for international control of the old city, he said that Islam, Christianity and Judaism should make it a “pillar for the future of this century”.

He said he sensed a lot more understanding in these times of cultural and religious suspicions that “Jerusalem could be the binder that we need”.

The Times, AFP

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Islamic EXTREMIST Ideology & Strategies CONFUSE Obama,

Intellectual Diplomatic DIALOG WILL Not CHANGE Extremists,

Intellectuals OFTEN END UP BEING KILLED BY ARAB Extremists,

They THINK Extremists Are Made Up Of Moderates & Extremists,

Moderates do not exist in Extremist groups bent on Islamic Jihad,

The Extremist Groups Within Islamic Culture Love Diplomatic Dialog,

Because they believe foes will not use it except when losing a Battle!

Excerpt which follows details Obama’s mistake from an Arab Viewpoint!

Obama’s diplomatic dialog outreach will lead to a future Middle East War!

May 13, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from MEMRI

Middle East Media Review Institute (MEMRI)

Special Dispatch Number 2353

May 12, 2009

Criticism in the Arab Press of U.S. Administration’s Initiative to Reach Out to ‘Moderates in the Taliban’

Shortly after taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his government’s new policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In a March 6, 2009 interview with The New York Times, President Obama stated that the U.S. was open to reaching out to “moderate elements within the Taliban.” Several weeks later, he announced that his government’s policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan would be focused on increasing the defense capabilities of the Afghan police and military forces; this would be done in conjunction with increasing humanitarian and material aid to Pakistan and establishing a “liaison team” in cooperation with the U.N. which would include Iran and Gulf states. Obama warned that should Afghanistan once more fall into the hands of the Taliban, it would again become a base for terrorists and for attacks against the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

In late March 2009, during the International Afghan summit in The Hague on Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the U.S.’s new policy towards the Taliban.

Following these statements, articles were published in the Arab press criticizing the Obama administration’s willingness to pursue dialogue with “moderate elements within the Taliban.” The articles included claims that the West in general, and the Obama administration in particular, had misunderstood the ideology and strategies of the extremist Islamic movements; that the Obama administration lacked a clear strategy except for an eagerness to conduct dialogue; and that such an approach would only encourage extremism even among moderate elements – which might conclude that it is only extremism that attracts the U.S. administration. They cl aimed further th

at such a step would be counterproductive, as it would ultimately streng then

the Taliban. They also asserted that ultimately Obama would understand that there is no alternative but to treat extremists with a strong hand.

The following are articles published by the Saudi London dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat:

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: “Excessive Leniency Is a Mistake No Less Dangerous than Extremism”

Tareq Al-Homayed, editor-in-chief of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that the West did not realize that excessive leniency constitutes a grave danger – one no less serious than that posed by extremism itself: “In light of the talk in the U.S. regarding the need to open up to the ‘moderates’ within the Taliban, and claims that there is no choice but to coexist with Islamic radicals, and in light of British declarations [that Britain must] show openness to the ‘political’ [branch] of Hizbullah, we can now expect openness towards Al-Qaeda [as well].

“This is not sarcasm… After igniting fighting in our region in response to Al-Qaeda’s extremist terrorism of 9/11, the West has now decided to treat extremism and extremists hastily. Just as Bush erred in tackling every problem using conflict and weapons, the West now wants to deal with every problem involving extremism and extremists with leniency and a call for openness. They forget that excessive leniency is a grave mistake, no less dangerous than extremism…

“Dialogue is necessary… However openness for the sake of openness makes the situation more complicated and sends the wrong message.” [1]

Al-Hayat Columnist: The Message of a Policy of Dialogue “Is That Extremism is the Most Effective Way to Attract the U.S.’s Attention”

Khalil Al-‘Anani wrote in the London daily Al-Hayat that the Obama administration’s pragmatism knew no bounds: “The message that others can infer from the ‘diplomacy of dialogue’ pursued by the Obama administration is that extremism is the most effective way to attract the U.S.’s attention, and to compel them to conduct dialogue.

[But] this message spells an unhappy outcome for the U.S.

“On the one hand, [America’s] foe will incur no loss by consenting to dialogue with the U.S. government on their own conditions – because the dialogue will begin with American weakness and an urgent need to cooperate with its foes. [In such circumstances,] it would be only natural for them to raise the price of the dialogue – which the U.S. United States will be forced to pay – as is indeed happening with Iran, Syria, and the Taliban…

“The Taliban sees Obama’s call for dialogue with moderates as proof of the U.S. failure in Afghanistan, and emphasizes [their resolve] not to retreat until ‘the U.S. is defeated’ – as did the Afghani Mujahideen to the former Soviet Union…

“Obama’s desire to appease his foes, especially the radical Islamists, will be construed by the moderates as an incentive to radicalize, since this is the most effective way of getting Obama’s attention…

“[Right now, it might seem] extremely farfetched that the Obama administration would seek a dialogue with Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, even through a third party – today the most usual way of dealing with Hamas

and Hizbullah. But Obama’s pragmatism knows no bounds: Be it with the devil himself, there will be dialogue – in line with the principle of ‘the more extreme you are, the more [willing we are] to talk to you.'” [2]

Al-Hayat Columnist: Extremist Groups View Openness Towards Them As The West’s Defeat

In an article titled “Are There Any Moderates in Taliban?” in the London daily Al-Hayat, columnist Elias Harfoush contended that the West’s view of the Islamist groups is mistaken, since the West does not realize that these groups see Obama’s attempts at openness towards them as defeat:

“President Barack Obama says that he wants to open dialogue channels with the ‘moderates’ inside the Taliban movement, as did General David Petraeus, who set up the tribal awakening councils in Iraq. These councils have eventually proved their ability to confront Al-Qaeda there and to weaken their hegemony in the Al-Anbar Sunni areas…

“There is no more obvious proof of the failure of any attempt to lure moderates from the Taliban into a political settlement than what the Zardari government in Pakistan did recently. The Pakistani regime released the members of the Pakistani branch of the Taliban, as it believed that they can be dealt with, in an attempt to regain control of the Swat province.

“But what was the result? More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people who returned after the truce assuming that stability was restored.

More decapitated bodies of singers and artists and people whom the Taliban accuse of ‘indecent’ activities; more attacks on female school teachers, including throwing acid in their faces on their way to work or threatening them with murder if they persist in their professions. As a result, many schools had to close down, while the whole Pakistani province [of Swat] relived the worst days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan before 9/11 and the American invasion…

“The way in which these organizations perceive the West’s new approach towards them also highlights the lack of understanding that the West has of these Islamic movements, as it classifies them into ‘moderate,’ and ‘radical,’ and into ‘political wings’ and ‘military wings.’ In the eyes of these movements, their actions and ideas are completely correct.

Hence, they view the West’s openness as a ‘defeat’ of the Western forces that are now seeking dialogue…

“Taliban leaders… responded to Obama’s attempt to lure the ‘moderates’ by urging him to declare his defeat in Afghanistan and to withdraw.

“If political decisions are built more on wishes than on facts on the ground, they will often backfire… It is true that the Obama administration wants to solve the Afghan problem… but this solution [i.e. dialogue with the Taliban ‘moderates’] might be counterproductive, in that it could strengthen the Taliban …” [3]

Al-Hayat Columnist: The Obama Administration Lacks Consensus and Strategy – Except for One Issue: Dialogue

Al-Hayat reporter and columnist Raghida Dergham, who resides in New York, also criticized the Obama administration’s eagerness to conduct dialogue at any cost, claiming that it has no clear strategy:

“The Obama administration is preoccupied with ‘divorcing’ the Bush administration – and in its eagerness to do so, it is blind to the dangers inherent in its foreign policy…

“The ideas held by the U.S. administration and by the circle of well-wishers who surround it are truly odd… Everyone interprets things as he pleases. This is very dangerous, [since as a result] the Obama administration lacks consensus, determination, and strategy – except for dialogue.

“They speak about a dialogue with the moderates within the Taliban, with a view of segregating the radicals, as if the Taliban were some kind of philosophy or research institute rather than a group of lunatics – ideologically, politically, and as rulers…”

“These ideas may be a natural part of the transition in Obama administration’s policies, reflecting temporary tactics until comprehensive strategies are consolidated.

Thus, it may be too early for the moderate forces in the Arab and Muslim world to put up their hands and surrender in the face of this American partnership with radicalism.” [4]

Al-Arabiya TV Director: “I Expect Obama to Return to the Policy of Bush” vis-à-vis Al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea

Al-Arabiya TV director-general ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, who is also the former editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that he believed Obama would wise up and realize that there is no other way than treating extremists with a heavy hand:

“In addressing his people in his last speech, the U.S. president said that some had believed that electing ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ – that is what he said – would in itself solve the country’s problems. Obama himself must have thought that things would be simpler if he would only distance himself from his predecessor George W.

Bush. However, he [now] sees with his own eyes that the situation is more critical…

“The problem is [indeed] serious… Obama has done a lot of good things, but to no avail. He began his term by releasing Muslim prisoners from Guantanamo, and preventing military tribunals; he spoke to Muslims as if they were the top nation in the world; he appealed to the Iranians with a conciliatory message; he committed to withdrawing from Iraq sooner than [was stipulated by] George W. Bush’s plan; and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, announced that there was no such thing as the ‘war on terror’ in U.S. foreign policy. Despite all this, violence has increased…

“I expect Obama to return to the policy of Bush [despite the latter’s] notoriety – because in the war against Al-Qaeda, in the struggle against Iran, and in restricting North Korea he will find no other option.

“I reiterate that there is no other option, since none of these [extreme] elements have changed their positions – despite everything Obama has done since assuming the presidency. Every step that [Obama] takes towards [his foes] will only prompt them to challenge him to continue taking steps, without any reciprocation.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.