blog.Tribulationperiod.com

DANIEL TOES ARE GENUINE FOES

IT SHALL TAKE THE POWER OF GOD

TO HOLD SUNNI & SHIITE CLAY & IRON

TOES IN ANY BOND FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD

DUE TO MANY CENTURIES OF INTENSE HATRED!

PART 3

September 13, 2010

Daniel 2:43,44 – And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Revelation 17:13,17 – These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan will not be among the 10 toes/horns that initially attack Israel, but they will fall to the Antichrist who leads the 10 toes, and will be a part of his Caliphate Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and many who side with them will be just as surprised as Israel and the United States when a counterattack by the 10 toes in Daniel 11:40 is successful in driving the Israelis out of the land from Dan to Beersheba.

Ezekiel 38:13 – Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?

Verse 13 mentions three other descendants which were not mentioned previously as being among the horde that attacked Israel, namely, Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish. Sheba and Dedan settled in the land we know as Saudi Arabia, later colonizing across the Red Sea in the horn we know today as Ethiopia. Tarshish is much harder to nail down to a specific location. The descendants of Tarshish were sea merchants who became the peoples of the Mediterranean Sea coast. The headquarters of the descendants of Tarshish is now generally accepted by most biblical authorities as a district in the south of Spain where the city of Tartessus once existed. The merchants of Tarshish scattered their descendants in village settlements along most of the coastal sections of Europe. I am persuaded that Europe represents the descendant offspring of Tarshish. It is quite possible that God may look upon the rest of Western Civilization as being the offspring (descendants) of Europe (“the young lions thereof”). The countries of the New World became the “melting pot” of Europe. It is very interesting what Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the rest of Western Civilization have to say to Gog about his attack on Israel: “Art thou come to take a spoil? Hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? To carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?” This is no more or less than the perfect description of a diplomatic protest to Gog’s actions. When the anti-Christ and his armies roar south into Israel in a blitzkrieg lightning strike, the rest of the free world will protest, protest, protest – and do nothing about it.

The Anti-christ will take Jerusalem within three weeks of his initial strike in the north, and within five weeks most of Israel will have fled into the Negev Wilderness south of Beersheba, where she will remain for some three and one-half years. Jerusalem will fall and only one-third of Israel’s population will make it safely into the Negev.

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.

Zechariah 14:1,2 – Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. [2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

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.

Begin Excerpt from an Article in IMRI via THE HUDSON INSTITUTE

(CONTINUED FROM PART 2)

The Shiites of Saudi Arabia

by Joshua Teitelbaum

Published on Saturday, August 21, 2010

Current Trends in Islamist Ideology vol. 10

Hudson Institute, Inc. 1015 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005

www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-shiites-of-saudi-arabia

During the 1990s the nature of the relations between the Saudi regime and the Shiites changed from confrontational to accommodating.

The Shiite opposition turned its attention to a search for cultural authenticity, a creative and less violent way to relate to the Saudi state.

This change stemmed from a realization that confrontation provided limited or no results, and that a revolutionary stance had little chance of success. They therefore tried to find another way to give expression to their Shiite identity while demanding social change. To this end, the organization changed its name to al Haraka al-Islahiyya (the Reform Movement), and in 1991 it began to publish al-Jazira al-Arabiyya in London and Arabian Monitor in Washington. The journals were moderate in tone and tended to highlight human rights abuses. They called for a progressive agenda in the kingdom and addressed non-Shiite issues. Until the Sunni Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) began publishing in 1994, these Shiite publications were the only overseas voice of the Saudi opposition.17

The Shiite opposition tried to open avenues of communication with some of the Sunni opposition during the 1990s, but, as could perhaps be expected, they were rebuffed.

The Saudi regime noticed and welcomed the shift in Shiite tactics and apparent goals, for it faced a more radical and more threatening Sunni opposition. In the autumn of 1993, and after negotiations carried out by the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ghazi al-Qusaybi, several members of the Shiite opposition returned to Saudi Arabia.18

For the Saudi government, accommodating the Shiite opposition seemed a relatively easy way to temper a serious conflict, even at the cost of angering radical Sunni fundamentalists at home.

Saudis already owned most of the international Arab press, and for a small price they could shut down two major opposition publications. Moreover, Saffar’s group appeared to have settled for a separate deal with the Saudis, accepting commitments to improve the situation of the Eastern Province Shiites and agreeing not to press their demands for general reform and human rights domestically. Compared to the tougher and potentially more dangerous demands of groups such as the CDLR, reaching a separate modus vivendi with the Shiite opposition was a small price to pay and also prevented a temporary but potentially damaging alliance between the opposition movements.

Tawfiq al-Sayf, a leader of the Saudi Shiite opposition in exile, led a large delegation to Saudi Arabia in October 1993 to meet with King Fahd and other Saudi officials. According to the few press reports available, Fahd instructed his son, Prince Muhammad, governor of the Eastern Province, to carry out Shiite demands, which included allowing the practice of Shiite religious rites previously outlawed, returning canceled passports, allowing exiles to return, and guaranteeing that those who returned would not be arrested or questioned. As a result of these cont

acts, the authorities released scores of Shiite prisoners and issued travel documents previously denied to Shiite activists.

In a development the Shiites perceived as highly significant, the Saudi regime reportedly reissued a school text that had referred to Shiites as one of the heterodox sects.

The new edition mentioned that there were now five Islamic madhahib (schools of jurisprudence) in Saudi Arabia: four belonging to Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamaa (Sunnis) and one belonging to the imamiyya or ithna ashariyya (Shiites). The Shiite publications al-Jazira al-Arabiyya and Arabia Monitor published their last issues in August 1993.

Both sides kept the news of the agreements fairly quiet;19 the Saudi domestic and overseas press ignored it, and opposition activists suddenly assumed a very low profile. This reaction probably resulted from a mutual understanding that too much publicity would draw the fire of radical Sunni fundamentalists, who were troublesome for both the Saudis and the Shiites.

Both the government and the Shiite opposition seemed to greatly desire some arrangement, although it appeared that the Saudi authorities emerged victorious, successfully silencing several of its major critics. There was no evidence that certain other key Shiite demands had been met, including the official recognition of Shiism as a Muslim madhhab and the right to implement Shiite law accordingly; recognition of the rights to build and to worship in Shiite holy places-husayniyyas and mosques-and to repair graves destroyed by the Saudis in the al-Baqi cemetery in Medina; freedom to hold Shiite religious celebrations; an end to discrimination against Shiites in government and in universities; and general improvements in the Eastern Province.20 Additionally, not all Shiites accepted the new accommodation with the regime, and some members of the overseas opposition did not return.

Shiite activists led by Saffar accepted the principle of engagement as the best way to achieve Shiite rights and inclusion in Saudi society.

Saffar and his followers tend to accept the religious leadership of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites, but distinguish between religious and political leadership. Like Sistani, Saffar does not accept the principle of wilayat al-faqih, the rule of the jurist.21

But one organization accepted neither Saffar’s policy of engagement nor the accommodation with the Saudi regime.

This was Hezbollah al-Hijaz, known also as Saudi Hezbollah and Ansar Khat al-Imam (Followers of Imam Kho meini). They follow the marjaiyya of Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader (rahbar) of Iran, and they are politically loyal to him. Unlike Saffar’s group, they accept wilayat al-faqih.22 These two remain the major trends in the Shiite population today.23 Hezbollah al-Hijaz came out strongly against the accommodation of 1993 and treated Saffar’s group like traitors, although it profited from the arrangement. “Let the cowards leave and let the people choose and pave the way, which will lead to the emergence of sincere and committed men.”24 It is this group that is usually held esponsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran in 1996, which killed 19 American servicemen.

The attack was carried out with Iranian support.25

FAIR USE NOTICE: Th is 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.

DANIEL TOES ARE GENUINE FOES

IT SHALL TAKE THE POWER OF GOD

TO HOLD SUNNI & SHIITE CLAY & IRON

TOES IN ANY BOND FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD

DUE TO MANY CENTURIES OF INTENSE HATRED!

PART 2

September 12, 2010

I believe the initial 10 toes/horns the Antichrist will lead are Morocco, Algeria, Iran, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Iraq.

But many Arab countries will be overthrown as he conquers the glorious land from Dan to Beersheba and Egypt. Many will be overthrown from within by the Shiite minorities within them, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Daniel 11:40,41 – And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

[41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown:

The king of the south is the leader of Israel – The king of the north is the leader of the 10 toes – The glorious land is Israel – The overthrown countries are those who did not join Syria and Iran and the other 8 in the initial counterattack by the king of the north against the king of the south.

Daniel 2:41-44 – And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. [42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall n ever

be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Revelation 17:13,17 – These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan will not be among the 10 toes/horns that initially attack Israel, but they will submit to the Antichrist who leads the 10 toes, and will be a part of his Caliphate Kingdom.

Begin Quote from “Accuracy in Medias” By Paul R. Hollrah, April 11, 2007

Sunnis constitute the large majority (90 percent) of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. They reside primarily in Asia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, North and East Africa, and more recently, in Western Europe and North America.

The word “Sunni” is derived from the Arabic word “Sunnah,” which means, roughly, “customary practices,” and refers to the oral history and traditions of what the Prophet Muhammad said or did during his lifetime. Sunnis regard themselves, as opposed to Shiites, as the “keepers of the true faith.”

Shiites, a distinct minority in the Muslim world, comprise some 89% of Iran’s population and 60% of the Iraqi population.

They are also a majority in Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, and there are sizeable Shiite communities along the east coast of Saudi Arabia and in Lebanon.

The Lebanese guerilla organization, Hezbollah, is Shiite.

Shiites are descended from Muhammad’s daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali. In the years that followed Ali’s assassination in 661 A.D., leadership of Islam was claimed by the Ummayad dynasty, a Sunni sect. Nevertheless, Ali’s followers continued to claim his son, Hussein, the Third Imam, as the rightful heir. After years of bitter dispute, Hussein and his Shia followers migrated north from the Arabian Peninsula into Iraq.

In 680 A.D. Hussein found himself surrounded by Ummayad forces at Karbala, in present day Iraq. With only a handful of supporters to defend him, Hussein and 72 of his men were captured and beheaded, and their women taken captive. The battle was a defining moment in the split between Sunnis and Shiites.

Ashoura, the holiest day of the Muslim calendar, marks the martyrdom of Hussein at Karbala. To this day, Shiites celebrate Ashoura by flagellating themselves with chains and slashing their bodies with swords in grief over Hussein’s death. And they’ve never forgotten who it was that beheaded him.

Sunnis and Shiites lived in relative harmony for nearly a millennium and few challenged the Sunni assumption of superiority. However, with the coming of modern communications and transportation, the drawing of national boundaries, and the establishment of major cities, Sunnis and Shiites were suddenly thrown together in close proximity and memories of old unsettled scores resurfaced.

Many of today’s most militant Islamic terror cells, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, are members of a fundamentalist Sunni sect called Wahhabi. Since the earliest days, Wahhabis have been particularly hostile toward the Shiites.

During the early 19th century, Wahhabis attacked and destroyed Shiite shrines at Mecca, Medina, and Karbala, accusing

the Shiites of worshipping idols.

In 2004, a Kuwaiti sheikh, Hamed al-Ali, condemned Shia as “the world’s biggest display of heathens and idolatry,” while the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, once said that “the Shiites are a more pernicious enemy than the Americans, and the best strategy for… Sunnis is to ‘strike their religious, military, and other cadres.’ ” The Saudis still maintain official discrimination against Shiites and vilify them in children’s textbooks.

Then, just as I thought I was beginning to gain a little understanding of Islam I stumbled onto a discussion of “The Twelve Imams” and I noted that, between 600 and 900 A.D., ten of Shia’s first twelve Imam’s died of food poisoning. Then I heard of a Wisconsin Muslim who gouged out both of his wife’s eyes because she refused to obey him. Under Sharia law, that is his right. And then we hear of insurgents in Iraq carrying children in the back seat of explosives-packed automobiles so that they can pass through American and Iraqi checkpoints before blowing them up… children and all

Begin Excerpt from an Article in IMRI via THE HUDSON INSTITUTE

(CONTINUED FROM PART 1)

The Shiites of Saudi Arabia

by Joshua Teitelbaum

Published on Saturday, August 21, 2010

Current Trends in Islamist Ideology vol. 10

Hudson Institute, Inc. 1015 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005

www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-shiites-of-saudi-arabia

It is impossible to arrive at an exact determination of the number of Saudi Shiites. They constitute between ten and fifteen percent of the population, and about thirty-three percent

of the population in the Eastern Province.

They reside primarily in the eastern Province, where Saudi Arabia’s oil is located, with a small number living in Medina.

While the most important Shiite centers have always been Iran and Iraq, the eastern part of Arabia has always held significant Shiite populations.

Prominent historical Shiite mujtahids include Ibrahim al-Qatifi (sixteenth century), Ahmad Zayn al-Din al-Ahsai (d. 1801), and Ali al-Khunayzi (d. 1944). Until the Saudi occupation of the Eastern areas, Shiite mosques and husayniyyas (community centers) were allowed to develop.

Learning centers, known as hawzas, were allowed to exist until the mid-1940s. The connection of Saudi Shiites to Iraq is a strong one. Upon the closing of Shiite learning centers in Saudi Arabia, most religious studies students went to Iraq.7

Deep in Shiite historical memory rests their persecution by the Saudis during the18th and 19th centuries.

Expanding into Iraq in the early 19th century, Saudi warriors famously destroyed the tomb of Imam Husayn in Karbala and the tombs of the Prophet’s companions (the sahaba) in Mecca and Medina, demonstrating the extreme enmity the Saudi Wahhabis held towards the Shiites. For the Wahhabis, grave worship was the paramount act of shirk, or polytheism, a severe accusation, so its practice by the Shiites became a source of constant suffering.

The Shiites of Saudi Arabia do not represent a threat to the government or

the state. They are too small in number and too unpopular with most Saudis. But what they do, and how the Saudi government reacts to and treats them, are important for both domestic and foreign policy.

Saudi Shiites have never felt part of the state, and the government has rarely given them reason to. There are several factors influencing the government’s treatment of the Shiites: Wahhabi ideology, pressure from and response to the Wahhabi ulama, the presence of the Shiites in the sensitive oil region, and the government’s relations with Iran. These four factors have combined to influence the fate of the Shiites in Saudi Arabia throughout their history.

Modern Saudi Arabia is the result of an 18th century alliance between the Saudi family of Najd in Central Arabia and an extremist shaykh of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab.Wahhabism was a powerful and fanatic ideology that served the regime well in mobilizing the disparate tribes and casting the Shiites in the role of the quintessential “Other.” Muslims who were worse than Jews or Christians. To Sunnis in general, the Shia are known as rawafid, those who reject the first three “Rightly Guided” Caliphs in favor of Ali and the Prophet’ s Hou

se, known as Ahl al-Bayt. But for the Wahhabis, they are worse than rejectionists: they are associationists and polytheists (mushrikin) who associate people (such as Ahl al-Bayt) and objects with God. Many Shiite beliefs and practices stand in stark contradistinction to the Wahhabi creed, with its strong emphasis on tawhid, or the uncompromising unity of the Divine.

The Saudi ruling family’s legitimacy is religiously based.

The family claims to rule in the name of Islam, as interpreted by the Wahhabi clerics. The commitment of the Saudi family to Wahhabism has often been measured by the way they treated the Shiites under their control. Throughout their history, the Shiites have paid the price of the Saudi family’s quest for religious legitimacy. And religious legitimacy has been the maidservant of political aspirations and expansion.

The modern misfortunes of the Shiite community of Saudi Arabia began in 1913, with the capture of the eastern oasis of al-Hasa by the recently resurgent Saudis. They were subject to depredations and persecutions under the rulers of the governors of al-Hasa, the Jiluwi family, relatives of the Saudi royal family. Many Shiites were killed by Ibn Saud’s Ikhwan warriors when they refused to convert.8

Religiously and socially, the Shiites were marginalized by the emerging Saudi state. Sunni merchants were encouraged to settle in al-Hasa and take over traditional Shiite commercial ventures, such as the trade in dates.9 Shiite critics would later complain that the traditional interdependence between Najd, the Hijaz, and al-Hasa had been violated by the Saudis, who made all regions dependent on Najd.10

Shiite religious practices and institutions were severely curtailed. In 1927, the Wahhabi ulama published a fatwa calling upon the Shiites to “convert” to Islam. Some Shiite notables complied, while others left the country.11 The publication and distribution of religious texts was forbidden, the Shiite call to prayer was outlawed, and centers of religious studies were dismantled. Specific Shiite customs such as grave visitation (ziyarat al-qubur) were forbidden, as were the Ashura commemorations.12 The Shiites have been vilified in textbooks, and generally have been made to feel like outcasts.

Economically as well as socially, the Shiites have rarely been treated or led to believe that they are part of a common Saudi experience. For example, in the 1950s there were labor riots

in the oil fields run by Aramco, where most of the workers were Shiites. At the time, the ideologies that were gaining ground in the Arab world, such as socialism and communism, seemed attractive to many Shiites who felt discriminated against by the Saudi authorities. The Shiites felt that they were not part of the wealth that was beginning to flow to the kingdom as a result of the oil industry. 13 These riots were put down very harshly by the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In 1979 and 1980, encouraged by the success of the Iranian revolution they again rioted in demonstrations which became known as the “Intifada of the Eastern Province.” These riots were firmly crushed as well. The government did not hesitate to use helicopter gunships against the demonstrators.14

Many leaders of the Shiite community went into exile or were arrested following these protests.

Fouad Ibrahim, a Saudi Shiite scholar and former activist, relates that the main Shiite opposition body, the Organization of the Islamic Revolution (Munazzamat al-Thawra al-Islamiyya), was established by Shaykh Hasan al-Saffar, a Shiite cleric, in December 1979, following the first burst of rioting. Saffar, who participated in the uprising, was inspired by the revolutionary reading that the Iranian Ali Shariati gave to the battle of Karbala. The group functioned as a political and religious outlet for feelings of oppression and insult.15

Shaykh Saffar was echoing the thought of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini when he wrote:

We are genuinely part of the realm of the downtrodden [mustadafun] while the despots of Al Saud.are genuinely part of the realm of oppressors.and colonizers. The ongoing battle is now between these two realms.. Our struggle against.tyrannical rule is a cycle of a long chain of a universal revolution which will, inevitably, lead to the collapse of imperialistic superpowers and the rise of the world of the downtrodden.16

After the uprising Saffar found asylum in Iran; his organization established offices in Tehran, London and Washington, where it was concerned primarily with the publication of al-Thawra al-Islamiyya.

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.

DANIEL TOES ARE GENUINE FOES

IT SHALL TAKE THE POWER OF GOD

TO HOLD SUNNI & SHIITE CLAY & IRON

TOES IN ANY BOND FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD

DUE TO MANY CENTURIES OF INTENSE HATRED!

PART 1

September 12, 2010

The friction and religious hatred between the Sunni and Shiite clay and iron toes has kept them from uniting against the infantile Gentiles since the Umayyad Empire fell apart in derision by the sword.

Daniel 2:41-44 – And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, for asmuch

as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. [42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and

partly broken. [43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the k ingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break

in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Revelation 17:13,17 – These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. [17] For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan will not be among the 10 toes/horns that initially attack Israel, but they will fall to the Antichrist who leads the 10 toes, and will be a part of his Caliphate Kingdom.

Excerpt from an Article in IMRI via THE HUDSON INSTITUTE

The Shiites of Saudi Arabia

by Joshua Teitelbaum

Published on Saturday, August 21, 2010

Current Trends in Islamist Ideology vol.

10

Hudson Institute, Inc.

1015 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005

www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-shiites-of-saudi-arabia

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the ensuing alteration of the regional balance of power in favor of Iran, Saudi Arabia has looked at the world through an Iranian and Shiite prism. This prism affects the way it views its neighbor across the Gulf, its position in the Arab and Islamic world, and its own Shiite population.

Saudi Arabia’s current regional political troubles are nearly entirely connected to the rise of Iran and the Shiites in the region. Saudi Arabian involvement in the West Bank and Gaza-and in particular in the agreement to establish a national unity government, signed on February 8, 2007 by Fatahand Hamas-was meant to lower the flames in the region in order to limit Iran’s influence. Saudi involvement in Lebanon also stems from this desire to check Iran, as do several meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials and the revival of the Saudi initiative for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As the Saudis move to restrain the rising strength of Iran and the Shiites outside the kingdom, they keep an ever-watchful eye over their own Shiite population.

The ascendancy of the Shiites in Iraq and Lebanon has given rise to a feel

ing of empowerment amongst the Shiites of Saudi Arabia.

They are proud of the accomplishments of their brethren. At the same time, they are cautious in what they hope for and how they express themselves, because much of the Wahhabi ulama in Saudi Arabia fears the rise of Shiism, and vocally opposes it. The Saudi Shiites expect the government to condemn anti-Shiite fatwas, and act as a protector, but the government has not done so.

The Saudi government, in fact, has its own concerns.

Its base of support is amongst the Wahhabi, anti-Shiite majority. It is a religious state that derives its legitimacy from a form of Islam that is, almost by definition, anti-Shiite.

Indeed, there is a long history of Wahhabi anti-Shiite polemics.2 The Wahhabi majority expects the Saudis, as the leaders of the Sunni world, to put the Shiites, led by Iran, in their place. The government therefore cannot be seen as trying to plac ate its own Shiites

at this time.

The Shiites of Saudi Arabia have the misfortune of outside forces-be they the Saudis of Najd or the Persians of Iran-always determining their fates.

The Saudis and the Iranians have a long history of enmity, punctuated with periods of good relations. Saudi Arabia’s Shiites have often found themselves caught in the middle.

They have been both the object of Saudi persecution and disdain and the subject of Iranian recruitment to subvert the Saudi regime.3 Historically, their response has moved between dissimulation, accommodation, attempted reconciliation, and terrorism.4 They reject the official narrative of Saudi history, which portrays the capture of the area where most of the Shiites live-al-Hasa-as a mythological “unification” of the Arabian Peninsula.5 For many of the Shiites, their homeland has been occupied since the capture of al-Hasa by Ibn Saud in 1913.

There are two important political elements that constantly impact the fate of Saudi Shiites.

One is internal-the Wahhabi ulama and their rank-and-file followers. The other is external-Iran, Saudi Arabia’s main political and religious rival across the Gulf.

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.

Obama doesn’t care much about the traditional ties between US & UK

And Secretly Wishes the US didn’t have such Strong Ties with Israel

But for Better or for the Worst he is stuck with US traditional Allies

Quite frankly, I love having the British and Israelis as my Friends

Since they are NOT the ones who flew planes into us on 9/11

I Worked With the British, Israelis, And Arabs In The Military

I love having the British and Israelis as my war Comrades

I’m NOT Islamophobic, Just an Old fashioned US Realist

As well as an ancient albatross who is a Conservative

Waiting For The RETURN of MY Commander-in-Chief

To take me home to my permanent Home Address

Translated as “conversation” in Philippians 3:19

Greek meaning is “Permanent home Address”!

September 11, 2010

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Two Excerpts from Middle East Online Article

Middle East Online

The End of an Affair

2010-09-10

By Jean-Claude-Sergeant

Begin Excerpt 1 from Article

Churchill initiated the Anglo-American affair, but now Obama doesn’t care much about the traditional ties between the United States and the United Kingdom, writes Jean-Claude Sergeant.

The term “special relationship” is usually attributed to Winston Churchill who used it in a speech in Fulton, Missouri, on 5 March 1946. (In the same speech he first referred to the “iron curtain” that would bisect Europe.) But others before had celebrated this bilateral relationship, strengthened in both world wars.

Arthur Balfour, then foreign secretary, declared in 1917: “We both spring from the same root … Are we not bound together forever?” Almost a century later, Tony Blair emphasized a different aspect, telling Britain’s ambassadors, gathered in London on 7 January 2003: “We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share the same values.”

Begin Excerpt 2 from Article

How to exit Afghanistan

Today leaders on both sides of the Atlantic seem to be thinking more about the best way of exiting Afghanistan than about the illusory search for a military advantage. Obama already indicated late last year that the withdrawal of US troops could start by July 2011. This put Britain, which had been very careful not to fix a timetable, on the spot. The UK’s official line was to make its withdrawal subject to the capacity of the national Afghan forces to ensure the safety of the population. David Cameron, and Parliament, were still insisting on this on 21 June, after the death of the 300th British soldier was announced.

Commentators could not help comparing the balance sheet of the Iraq intervention, which cost 179 military lives, to the almost daily casualties in Afghanistan, in the name of a less and less credible objective. Cameron specified in a Sky News interview during the Toronto summit (before his meeting with Obama) that he was not obsessed by timetabling but hoped most of the British contingent would be back home by 2015 (before the next UK elections).

The new UK government, which is imposing a drastic austerity plan, is aware that public opinion will not accept a level of losses in Afghanistan proportionately higher than those of US forces. The British defense secretary Liam Fox was skeptical about the possibility of transforming Afghanistan into a democracy, an objective very different from that originally assigned to the military operation: drive the Taliban out of power and deprive al-Qaida of its Afghan sanctuaries. In an interview with The Times on 21 May 2010 Fox said: “We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened.”

For the United States, the British government’s eurosceptic position — its most vocal supporters are William Hague in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Liam Fox at the MoD

— does not strengthen its status as favored ally.

According to Eric Edelman, formerly at the US Department of Defense, the disappearance of the generation that adhered to the concept of the special relationship defined by Churchill has led the new British elite to look more towards Europe. In defense and security matters, this vision seems over-optimistic.

The UK actively denounced the Brussels treaty (1948) that created the Western European Union; and the Cameron government envisages withdrawing the UK from the European defense Agency (EDA).

Michael Clarke, director of the strategic think tank, the Royal United Services Institute, suggests that the best way of advancing UK interests with US leaders, and especially

with Congress and US government agencies, is for British leaders to be viewed as catalysts for change in Europe, starting with defense and security issues.

The US president wants a Europe determined to take on resp

onsibility for these areas while remaining ready to respond to any call for solidarity that he might issue via NATO.

When Cameron declared in September 2006 that the relationship between a future Conservative government and its US ally would be “solid” without being “slavish,” he meant to mark a difference from the Blair-Bush relationship. Brown had insisted on distancing himself from the US leader, then failed to find a way of relating to Obama that went beyond diplomatic decorum.

Observers noted that Cameron did not go to Washington to get presidential backing before the May 2010 UK elections — as Blair had done before the 1997 elections. Perhaps Obama’s entourage still remembered the explicit Conservative support for the Republican candidate during the US presidential elections in 2008. That might also explain the tensions during the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama called the oil slick caused by the explosion of the rig operated by BP (whose UK operations and assets exceed its US ones but not by much) “an ecological 9/11.” Under public pressure, he fiercely attacked BP and summoned its CEO Tony Hayward to appear before a House of Representatives committee. Obama and his aides systematically referred to BP as “British Petroleum,” a name that the company officially abandoned in 2000 in favor of “BP.” This insistence offended many people in Britain because it implied that the company’s Britishness was linked to the irresponsibility of the rig’s operators. There seemed to be an Anglophobic impulse that overlooked the fact that 40% of BP’s capital was held by US pension funds.

The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who was born in New York, told the BBC on 10 June that he was worried about anti-British rhetoric: “It starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the international airwaves.” Business and media were worrying about the collapse of BP’s share price, which lost half its value in 12 weeks, and the repercussions of this on British pension funds (which all have London Stock Exchange preference shares in their portfolios). A phone call between Obama and Cameron before the G20 summit could have thawed relations.

Other discrepancies on economic policy appeared during the Toronto summit. The United States w anted

an agreement that would limit the effects of

the austerity policies in Germany and the UK.

The new chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, had set out his emergency budget to the Commons on 22 June. For the United States, the priority was to safeguard the beginnings of an economic recovery a few months before the US mid-term elections. For the Europeans, especially

the British, the priority was to reduce budget deficits as well as national debts. Neither side budged. That did not stop Cameron, back in the Commons, from boasting about G20 support for his program to clean up public finances.

Such a program means a 20% reduction in m

inisterial budgets. The defense budget will probably be spared to some extent, but this amputation — and the renunciation of the principles of “liberal interventionism” dear to Blair — will influence how the United States evaluates its relationship with the UK.

As Douglas Hurd, foreign secretary under John Major, observes: “The survival and success of the partnership depends on

the usefulness of Britain to the United States as an efficient ally. We are sometimes deceived on this point by the courtesy of the Americans in their appearing to regard the Anglo-American partnership as crucial to the United States when in fact it is not.” — translated by Tom Genrich

Jean-Claude Sergeant is professor emeritus at the Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris 3) University, Paris.

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.

O JERUSALEM, IF I FORGET THEE!

I’M NOT A TRUE JEW IN THE FLESH

BUT I AM A 100% JEW IN THE HEART

AND I WAIT FOR A MILENNIUM TEMPLE

WITH A HEART CIRCUMCISED BY CHRIST

September 11, 2010

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Romans 2:28,29 – For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Psalm 137:5,6 – If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. [6] If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Psalm 138:1-8 – A Psalm of David. – I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee. [2] I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

[3] In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.

[4] All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O Lord, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

[5] Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the Lord: for great is the glory of the Lord. [6] Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off. [7] Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me. [8] The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

Colossians 2:11 – In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Philippians 1:6 – Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

John 12:34 – The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man

must be lifted up

? who is this Son of man?

HE IS THE SON OF DAVID AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

Ezekiel 37:24-28 – And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. [25] And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. [26] Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

[27] My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[28] And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Begin Excerpt from Aretz Sheva

Heart-Wrenching Holiday Pilgrimage to the Temple Mount

by Chana Ya’ar

September 9, 2010

The family of Yitzchak and Talia Imas made a special pilgrimage up to the Temple Mount on Tuesday in lieu of the murdered couple, their parents, who traditionally made the trip on the eve of each holiday

Temple Mount police commander Avi Biton accompanied the couple’s family and friends on their heart-wrenching journey.

Also in attendance were Temple Mount activists Rabbi Yisrael Ariel and Yehuda Glick.

As always, all participants in the event first prepared themselves by immersing themselves in a mikvah, a ritual pool.

The participants then followed up with prayers and Torah study.

Seven days ago, Yitzchak and Talia were brutally shot to death in a terrorist ambush on Highway 60 at the Bani Nayim junction in Judea, located between Pene Hever and Kiryat Arba/Hevron. Talia was nine months pregnant.

In addition to the Imas couple, who left six children behind, Kochava Even-Chaim (who left behind a 10-year-old daughter) and Avishai Schindler, newly married, were also murdered.

All were residents of nearby Beit Hagai. The Six members of the Hamas terrorist cell that murdered the four Beit Hagai residents were arrested by Palestinian Authority security forces, it was announced late Tuesday. The same terrorists were allegedly responsible for a second shooting attack that took place some 27 hours after the murder, also on Highway 60, near the Rimonim junction. The spot is located about 15 minutes north of Jerusalem, in the Binyamin region of Samaria.

Rabbi Moshe Moreno was shot, but survived. His wife Shira, who was also in the car, was injured when the car overturned and landed in a ditch.

The Imas family vowed to continue the tradition of going up to the Temple Mount, despite the tragedy.

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.