Archive for September, 2013

Events Of The Past 4 Months Are Moving Middle East Under A Nuclear Umbrella!

Thursday, September 12th, 2013

Events of the Last 4 Months are moving Mid-East under Nuke Umbrella

Under Which Non-WMD Conventional War Will Start After Obama Goes!

September 12, 2013



Events of the last four months are moving the Middle East under a Nuclear Umbrella. I have taught this would occur since 1974. Most expositors of the Bible teach there will be a great war with great nuclear inventories being dropped on this planet. I expect a great conventional high tech war will occur, but I have never believed there would be nuclear weapons employed.

I do not expect the final war of the age of the Gentiles to begin while President Obama is still in office, but I do believe it will begin in the next Administration.


June 8, 2002


This is a question I have been asked over and over again for a long time. I was asked again on e-mail recently, and this time, rather than answering the query privately, I decided to make it a prophecy update, so that that in future I could just attach this update to any new query and save myself repeating it again.

The one thing that I learned in the National Security Agency which has been, is, and always will be the motivating factor in any decision made by any country, including the United States, may be simply stated in two words: NATIONAL INTEREST. Many will cry out and say, not so, we did it for humanitarian reasons, we did it to secure justice, we did it out of compassion, we did it out of love, we did it because we love freedom, we did it because we are a great nation: and on and on shall come statements from every realm of society, from “bleeding” liberal hearts to the “hardened” hearts of the extreme right, all giving different reasons as to why this country did something. But the truth of the matter is that, in the end, we always did it for what amounted to NATIONAL INTEREST.

The United States has quick response attack naval and marine forces in position at all times to put down a banana republic type of minor conflict on short notice. But in order to conduct a successful operation again a Jihad the magnitude of the coming attack of many nations against Israel, we would require some time to get enough regular ground troops in place to have a real hope of victory. It took us a very long time to get enough men and equipment into the Middle East to insure success in our victory against Iraq.

The Scriptures indicate that 10 Islamic nations will be led by the Antichrist, and that they will quickly take Jerusalem and drive Israel into the Negev. When Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran come pouring southward on both sides of the Samarian mountains, and the Palestinians break out in all directions internally from within the enclosed buffer zone, chaos will reign supreme from Dan to Beersheva. There will be so much inner mingling of the attack forces of Israel and those of the enemy with the fleeing civilian population that air strikes would kill as many on one side as the other. Since the U.S. is fully aware of the Israel War Contingency Plan to evacuate as much of the population as possible to the Negev if overrun from the north, it will set in shock and indecision until it is too late to do anything except help to evacuate some of the coastal population from Tel Aviv to Haifa into the Negev, and to air lift supplies into the Negev. The aircraft of the Islamic nations will be under orders not to fire on western power’s aircraft unless fired upon, because the one thing they will not want is for the U.S. to get actively engaged with them in an all out war. Once Israel has evacuated as much of its population into the Negev as possible, and the U.S. sees that the Arabs are not going past Beersheva, we will accept the status quo as best for all. Why? Because it will satisfy our NATIONAL INTEREST! How? Israel will be safe and we will still be able to receive Arab Oil shipments

Revelation 12:5,6 – And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all NATIONS with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. [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.

NATIONS in verse 5 is the precedent to THEY in verse 6. This is the beginning of the final 1260 days that lead up to the final battle of Armageddon, and at this time only 10 Arab nations are involved, so nations such as the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada will air lift all sorts of supplies into the Negev for Israel, and the Arab nations won’t do a thing to stop it because they will not want to be involved in a world war at this time.

Revelation 12:14 – And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Seventy percent of the total Jewish population of Israel exists in the narrow coastal strip from Tel Aviv to Haifa. The western powers (symbolized as uncircumcised Philistines) will air lift many from this area into the Negev, flying first toward the west over the Mediterranean, then southeast over the Sinai into the Negev. After 1260 days Israel will storm north, northeast, and east out of the Negev, driving deep into Syria, and across all of Jordan to the Euphrates River, and will thus claim the Abrahamic Land Grant given to Abraham. (See Prophecy Update Number 67)Isaiah 11:14 – [14] But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. (See Prophecy Update Number 71)

Micah 5:6 – 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. (See Prophecy Update Number 67)

Down through the last 200 years we have built up a picture of an antichrist who rises slowly to power over a moderate period of time, then signs a peace treaty that lasts for 3 and ½ years, only to break it at that time to start the final 1260 days of the tribulation period. I agree that he attacks Israel to begin the final 1260 days of the tribulation period, but am persuaded what is pictured before the attack is largely manufactured on misinterpretation of Daniel 9:27, an error of early 1800. The rise of antichrist will be quick, as will be the events that follow his appearance. So I am saying that whenever he comes on the scene it will not be a long, drawn out affair from his appearance until his demise. In Prophecy Updates Numbers 55, 56, 57, and 58 I outlined the view that was held by most theologians before 1830, which is the belief I hold today.

In Chapter 38 of Ezekiel, in verses 2 through 6, it identifies the groupings of those peoples who will initially attack Israel from the north. But in verse 13 it identifies groupings of peoples that will not attack Israel at this time.

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?

The closest thing to which I can relate their two questions in today’s modern vernacular is what we would identify as being a “diplomatic protest.”

You may check all reference sources available today as to the location of the descendants of Sheba and Dedan in 600 B.C., when this prophecy was written, and you will find they are almost unanimous that it represents modern day Saudi Arabia. I believe Saudi Arabia will be as surprised as the United States when Israel is attacked. I also believe Egypt, who is attacked by the antichrist after he drives Israel into the Negev, will also be shocked by his attack on Israel, and then on themselves.

Daniel 11:42 – He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

The descendants of Tarshish were sea faring men. According to most historians they first established colonies along the coasts of the Mediterranean, then along the coasts of western and northern France, and finally along the coasts of Denmark and Sweden. As such they could represent what we call Europe, and all the western nations, which were established out of European nations, could be “the young lions thereof.”

So I expect the only part that the United States will play in this war will be to violently diplomatically protest, protest, protest, and then protest some more. I believe we will air lift many into the Negev to satisfy our NATIONAL INTEREST vested in our large Jewish population, and will continue to air lift all sorts of supplies into them for a long time. I believe we will not attack in order to prevent a massive outcry of American motherhood in a fantastic body bag count, which is not in the NATIONAL INTEREST, and the loss of Arab oil would most assuredly not be in our NATIONAL INTEREST.

One day, when I kept banishing around this term we identified as NATIONAL INTEREST in the agency, I was asked, would you define NATIONAL INTEREST. Now, this is not the agency definition, it is mine!


Bittersweet Happy New Year to Israel will have Seen the Sweet Dissappear after Obama Leaves Office!

Friday, September 6th, 2013

Bittersweet Happy New Year to Israel – Part 1

September 6, 2013

Revelation17:12,13,17,18 – And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. [13] 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. [18] And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Begin Excerpt from YNet News

September 5, 2013

European disgrace

Op-ed: After shirking its duty to prevent use of WMDs, Europe has lost its right to lecture anyone – especially Israel

Shimon Shiffer

American President Barack Obama’s decision to postpone punishing the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons against thousands of citizens already allows us to reach some gloomy and pragmatic conclusions about the world we live in; a world which permits, in practice, the use of horrifying weapons which are completely banned by international treaties.

Europe is being exposed here, and not for the first time, for its hypocrisy and disgracefulness. Europe, which has not ceased to criticize Israel’s conduct in the territories, even if we have no reason to be proud of this conduct, has lost its right to lecture anyone – especially us. We have all seen Europe shirk its duty to prevent the use of weapons for mass destruction. The British Parliament tied Prime Minister Cameron’s hands, and other countries in the continent are waiting for America soil its hands

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said several years ago in a conference in Europe that the Europeans are living at the Americans’ expense and waiting for the US to clean the gutters around the world for them. What we have seen in the past few days in Britain and France points to deep corruption and unwillingness to take part in the responsibility to manage world crises.

Israel, which was founded on the ruins of Europe, must remember and make a connection between the millions who died in gas chambers in the concentration camps and the thousands of citizens, many of them women and children, hurt by the chemical weapons launched by Bashar Assad. It is our moral duty to voice our stance clearly and poignantly and denounce the bloody regime in Syria – even if the decision not to intervene in the civil war in Syria is justified. It’s not all about politics.

Another lesson from the recent days’ events has to do with Israel’s stance towards the regimes surrounding us in light of the American conduct. Israel must signal to the US that it favors stable regimes in Egypt and Jordan over alleged “democracies” existing in the West’s imagination and in utopian books based on a collection of assumptions and different nonsense, like the book published by the designated Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, and former Minister Natan Sharansky.

We must convince the American administration that removing the Muslim Brotherhood, which was elected in a democratic process, is a thousand times better for the regional peace and stability than a radical Islamic regime. We should also remind them that Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip in democratic elections. Israel gave in to American pressure – and we are paying the price to this very day.

President Obama’s prestige suffered a heavy blow in the past 48 hours, but make no mistake: America remains the most important world power. If Obama receives the Congress’ approval to strike in Syria and punish Assad, he will fix what he broke.

Damascus, Tehran and the Dahiya Quarter in Beirut are waiting impatiently to see what America will do. I’m willing to guess that Obama will eventually wipe the smiles off the faces of Assad, Rohani and Nasrallah, and that the sigh of relief heard in those places will be replaced with sounds of anxiety in light of the strength of the American war machine

Obama is not looking at our region, but at the legacy he wishes to leave behind. And he has no intention of wasting the recognition he gained as the first black president of the United States.

Begin Excerpts from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert

Expert 1 – Wasbington Post

September 4, 2013

On Syria, Obama Faces a Skeptical Public

David A. Fahrenthold and Paul Kane
On Tuesday, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed significant opposition to a missile strike in Syria. 59% of Americans oppose the idea, while 36% support it. Moreover, 70% said they opposed supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Excerpt 2 – Reuters

U.S. Public Opposes Syria Intervention

Andy Sullivan

A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday that 56% of American say the U.S. should not intervene in Syria, while 19% supported action.

Excerpt 3 – Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Air Strikes
Pew Research Center

By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, according to a new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1.

Excerpt 4 – Reuters
Putin: Russia May Agree to Syria Strike If Assad Used Chemical Arms

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia may approve a military operation in Syria if evidence shows that Damascus carried out chemical weapons attacks, but only if the operation is conducted with UN approval.

“Only the UN Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other approaches, means, to justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state, are inadmissible.”

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:

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

Widespread Muslim Brotherhood Movement Is the Khawarij of This Age!

Thursday, September 5th, 2013

Widespread Muslim Brotherhood Movement is the Khawrij of this Age

And will be a driving force behind 10 toes/horns uniting for a last War

In Middle East when Antichrist rises among them after Obama Departs

September 5, 2013

Begin Excerpts from Wikipedia

Kharijites (Arabic: literally “those who went out”;[1] singular, Khārijī ) is a general term describing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, then later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century, concentrated in today’s southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiia Muslims. With the passing of time the Kharijite groups fell greatly in their numbers and their beliefs did not continue to gain any traction in future generations.

From their essentially political position, the Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death. The Kharijites were also known historically as the Shurāh literally meaning “the buyers” and understood within the context of Islamic scripture and philosophy to mean “those who have traded the mortal life (al-Dunya) for the other life [with God] (al-Aakhirah)”, which, unlike the term Kharijite, was one that many Kharijites used to describe themselves.

The differences between the Sunni, Shiia, and the Kharijites are the following:

!. Sunni Muslims accept Ali as the fourth rightly guided Caliph, and also accept the three Caliphs before him, who were elected by their community.

2. Shi’a Muslims believe that the imaamate (leadership) was the right of Ali, and the rule of the first three Rashidun caliphs (Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar bin al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan) was unlawful.

3. Kharijites insist that any Muslim could be a leader of the Muslim community and had the right to revolt against any ruler who deviated from their interpretation of Islam.

One of the early Kharijite groups was the Harūriyya; it was notable for many reasons, among which was its ruling on the permissibility of women Imāms and that a Harūrī, Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, was the assassin of Caliph Alī.

The origin of Kharijism lies in the first Islamic civil war, the struggle for political supremacy over the Muslim community in the years following the death of Prophet Muhammad. After the third caliph (Uthman ibn Affan), a struggle for succession ensued between Caliph Ali and Mu-āwiyah, the governor of Syria and cousin of Uthman, in league with a variety of other opponents.

In 657, Alī’s forces met Muāwiyah’s at the Battle of Siffin. Initially, the battle went against Mu āwiyah but on the brink of defeat, Mu-āwiyah directed his army to hoist Qur’āns on their lances.[2] This initiated discord among some of those who were in Alī’s army. Mu-āwiyah wanted to put the dispute between the two sides to arbitration in accordance with the Qur’an. A group of Alī’s army mutinied, demanding that Alī agree to Mu-āwiyah’s proposal. As a result, Alī reluctantly presented his own representative for arbitration. The mutineers, however, put forward Abu Musa al-Ash-ari against Alī’s wishes.

Muāwiyah put forward ‘Amr ibn al-‘As. Abu Musa al-Ash-ari was convinced by Amr to pronounce Alī’s removal as caliph even though Ali’s caliphate was not meant to be the issue of concern in the arbitration. The mutineers saw the turn of events as a fundamental betrayal of principle, especially since they had initiated it; a large group of them (traditionally believed to be 12,000, mainly from Banu Hanifah and Banu Tamim tribes)[ repudiated Alī.

Citing the verse “No rule but God’s,” an indication that a caliph is not a representative of God, this group turned on both Alī and Muʿāwiya, opposing Muʿāwiya’s rebellion against one they considered to be the rightful caliph, and opposing ʻAlī for accepting to subject his legitimate authority to arbitration, thus giving away what was not his, but rather the right of the people. They became known as Kharijites: Arabic plural khawārij, singular Khārijī, derived from the verb kharaja “to come out, to exit.”

Alī quickly divided his troops and ordered them to catch the dissenters before they could reach major cities and disperse among the population.[ Alī’s cousin and a renowned Islamic jurist, Abdullah ibn Abbas, pointed out the grave theological errors made by the Kharijites in quoting the Qur’an, and managed to persuade a number of Kharijites to return to Alī based on their misinterpretations. Alī defeated the remaining rebels in the Battle of Nahrawan in 658 but some Kharijites survived and, in 661, one Kharijite ultimately assassinated Alī. They are said to have organized simultaneous attempts against Mu-āwiya and Amr as well, as the three men were in their view the main sources of strife within the Muslim community, but were only successful in assassinating Alī, who did not keep bodyguards.


Al-Shahrastani defines a Khariji as:

Anyone who walks out against (seeking to overthrow) the true appointed Imam (leader) upon whose leadership the majority is in agreement is called a Khariji. This is the case, despite whether the walking out (against the Imam) occurred in the days of the Rightly-Guided caliphs or other than them from the Tabieen.[3]

Begin Excerpt from MEMRI

Middle East Media Research Institute

Saudi Prince About Kingdom’s Muslim Brotherhood Movement: They Are The Khawarij Of This Age

Special Dispatch No. 5425

August 28, 2013

In a June 30, 2013 article in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, Prince Mamdouh bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz Aal Sa’ud, a half-brother of the Saudi king, attacked the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement worldwide and especially in Saudi Arabia, and criticized several Saudi sheikhs who are associated with the MB and with political Islam, namely Salman Al-‘Odeh, Muhammad Al-‘Arifi, Nasir Al-‘Umar and ‘Aidh Al-Qarni. Calling these leaders by the epithet “Khawarij,” he claimed that they presume to speak in the name of Islam when they are not well-versed in it, and that they mislead the Saudi people into thinking that they are sincere people and reformers when, in fact, their only objective is to seize power in the kingdom. Aal Saud invited the Saudi MB to participate in a debate in which their ideology will be pitted against that of the Saudi regime, “in search of the truth,” and the loser of the debate would adopt the ideology of the victor.

The following are translated excerpts from the article:

Prince Mamdouh bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz Aal Sa’ud

The MB “Object[s] In Advance To The Truthful Words Of Allah And The Prophet”
“From the time I [first] became aware of what is stated in the Qur’an and the Sunna and until this very day, I never encountered a greater deception and hoodwinking – not only of the common people but of the elite – than this [act of] pulling the wool over the eyes of most people [and] causing them to view the MB [as a movement of] reformists and decent people. Far be it from me to pose as a judge or theoretician… but I have lived enough years to understand [and express an opinion], in an attempt to do some good…

“I am convinced that many members of this group [the MB], who object in advance to the truthful words of Allah and his Messenger… are uninterested in the truth, but only in what conforms to their whims… as stated in the Quran [23:71]: ‘And if the truth had been in accordance with their desires, verily, the heavens and the earth, and whosoever is therein, would have been corrupted! Nay, We have brought them their reminder, but they turn away from their reminder…’

“Over 20 years ago, Satan ensnared in his net the hearts, minds and tongues of the [MB] members, who appeared in our midst and established themselves in the years 1405-1415 [i.e., 1984-1994]. [This group] attempted to overturn everything that Allah had bestowed upon our country and its inhabitants, who were living in pleasant unity, harmony and agreement and in total loyalty to Allah and his Messenger. [The MB did] this only in order to plan how to impose the rule of the Qutubiyyin,[1] the Surouriyyin[2] and the MB over the country and its people. This became quite clear in recent years, when a group appeared in our midst upon whom Satan and his helpers conferred the name “Al-Sahwa” (“Awakening”)[3] – as though we and our country had been slumbering and [deaf] to the words of Allah and his Messenger – when, [in fact], this group was nothing but Khawarij.

“In this way, [the MB] defrauded the people. My father and your father, my grandfather and your grandfather and my mother and your mother were mostly following the straight path, but, unfortunately, [this group managed] to draw many people to it, [and this] for two principal reasons. First, that Muslims tend to instinctively follow anyone who purports [to speak] in the name of religion. Second, that the state and its clerics allowed [the movement to operate], because they thought well of it. This is similar [to the hadith about the second] Caliph ‘Omar [bin Al-Khattab]… who thought [well] of [Malik] Al-Ashtar, drew him close, and appointed him to educate the [young] generation, [and following his death] this Al-Ashtar started a fitna [war] against [the fourth Caliph,] ‘Ali [bin Abu Talib], and the latter killed him.”

The MB Is “Interested Only In Opposing The Rulers Under The Pretext Of [Seeking] Freedom and Justice!”

“In all honesty, [take] everything that the so-called Al-Sahwa [movement] has said, from [the time of its establishment] more than 30 years ago until today, and put it to the test of Allah’s verses and the Sunna of his Messenger. By Allah, any decent and knowledgeable man will not pronounce them anything but Khawarij!… Cite me a single case of opposition to a ruler in the course of history that produced something good or put an end to something evil. By Allah, [this occurred] in very few cases… that were outwardly interpreted as opposition [to the ruler] but [in fact] were not.”

“There’s no doubt that Satan will cause some of his loyal [followers]… to attribute these statements of mine [to a desire] to protect my family [i.e., the Saudi royal family]. So be it! But is it legitimate or not [for me to say it]? That is the important criterion. How am I to understand the words of the Prophet, who said that the Khawarij were pious but [also called them] the most wicked of men…[?] Imam Ahmad wrote in his collection of hadiths: ‘When the [severed] heads of the Al-Azariqa[4] were placed on the road to Damascus and [the Prophet’s Companion] Abu ‘Umama arrived and saw them, his eyes filled with tears and he said: “These are the dogs of hell. They are the worst of the slain who have been killed under the heavens, and those whom they killed are the best of the slain.” When I [Imam Ahmad] asked him why his eyes had filled with tears, he said, “[It was] out of pity for them, because they were Muslims.” We asked him: ‘Do you call them ‘dogs of hell’ based on your own opinion, or did you hear this from the Prophet?”‘ He responded: “I am indeed blunt, but I heard this from the Prophet not once, not twice and not thrice…”‘

“Whoever so desires is invited to search the [hadith collections of] Al-Bukhari and Muslim and all the correct hadiths, [and see what they say] about the path and characteristics [of the Khawarij], and let him then cite even a single word that does not apply to the Khawarij of the present age [i.e., the MB and the other streams of political Islam]. By Allah, the Khawarij of the time of the [fourth Caliph] ‘Ali [bin Abu Talib] were more pious and God-fearing and more courageous [than the Khawarij of today]. By Allah, even if I hadn’t belonged to the social stratum in which Allah has placed me, [that is,] if I had been a commoner rather than a member of the [royal] family, I would have not have listened to a single word [uttered by] these Shi’ites, the MB and the secularists, who are interested only in opposing the rulers under the pretext of [seeking] freedom and justice! Anyone who follows them will become convinced – should he live – of their deception, and [will see that] they are causing religion and the world to dissipiate and flounder, but by then it will be too late.”

The MB Members Are “Faithful Disciples Of Global Freemasonry, The Daughter [Movement] Of Zionism. [Just] Read ‘The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion'”

“What is liberty? What is justice? Show me [that these values exist] in your MB masters in Egypt and in any [MB] general guide. By Allah, they are interested only in reining over this world and know nothing of the world to come. [They are engaged] only in inciting people against one another. They are the faithful disciples of global Freemasonry, [which is] the daughter [movement] of Zionism. [Just] read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and read about the global Freemasons movement, and read the book Sir Al-Ma’bad by Thawrat Al-Khirbawi[5] – who is one of them – as well as the book Al-Jaysh Wal-Ikhwan by Mustafa Bakri,[6] who supports them to the hilt, and ask Sheikh Dr. Imam Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan.[7] [The MB members] know nothing of monotheism beyond what simple people know. In fact, [any] child amongst the children of monotheism [can teach] their senior officials – such as Salman Al-‘Odeh, Muhammad Al-‘Arifi and Nasir Al-‘Umar, and their general guide ‘Aidh ‘Al-Qarni, among others – the meaning of genuine monotheism, not only in words but in deeds. From [the day] they took a prominent position in our country with their rotten ideas – which they sometimes clad in an Islamic [mantle] and sometimes in [whatever mantle] pleases people – they have not produced even a single Muslim religious scholar.

“Oh members of the Islamic faith, oh Saudi people, have you not noticed that the topic of the Khawarij is taboo for Salman Al-‘Odeh and his band, and they never let [any word about it] pass their lips? If this is not the case, give me [an example of] a single word they have said against the Khawarij from the time they emerged [in Saudi Arabia] until today.

“By Allah, they flatter the Shi’ites in Iran and even Hizbullah… Despite the torrent of words, plans, writings, etc., [produced by] the great general guide Salman Al-‘Odeh, we didn’t hear a single word [from him] when the Shi’ites insulted the Prophet Mohammed and called his wife [‘Aisha], the Mother of the Believers, an ‘adulteress’… at the festival that took place three years ago in London and lasted over a week. A long while later, Al-Qarni published a number of stanzas in which he praised ‘Aisha without cursing those who had cursed her… As for Al-‘Arifi, Mursi praised him yesterday, saying: ‘The Islamic preacher Al-‘Arifi is currently receiving the general guide [of the Egyptian MB], Dr. Mohammed Badi’, [who is visiting Saudi Arabia], and is renewing his oath of loyalty to [Badi’] amidst cries of ‘Allah Akbar’ and cheers by senior [MB] officials.’

“In conclusion, oh [MB members in Saudi Arabia], come present your [ideology] to the nation in a clear fashion, and let us present ours to [the nation] as well… Choose any Salafi you want [to represent you]. We are ready for the duel… We want to [clarify] the truth. If [the truth] is on the side [of the MB], we will adopt [their views], and if it is against them, we will teach [the truth] to them and their supporters, who deviate from the true path, and the Islamic nation will arrive at the truth. Why aren’t you interested in the truth?”


[1] Those who espouse the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, a senior MB operative in Egypt who became the movement’s most important ideologue following the assassination of its undisputed leader Hassan Al-Banna in 1949. He himself was executed in August 1966.
[2] Those who espouse the ideology of Muhammad Surour, a former Syrian MB leader who moved to Saudi Arabia during the 1960s and taught at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Al-Buraidah, where one of his most prominent students was Salman Al-‘Odeh. In Saudi Arabia he became a Salafi-jihadi and encouraged young Muslims to embark on jihad in Afghanistan. From Saudi Arabia he moved to Kuwait and from there to London. Currently he resides in Jordan and disseminates Salafi-jihadi doctrine from there.
[3] The Saudi Al-Sahwa Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Awakening) movement was founded in the 1980s by a group of Saudi religious scholars including Salman Al-‘Odeh in Al-Buraidah, ‘Aidh Al-Qarni in Abha, Safar Al-Hawali in Jeddah, and Nasir Al-‘Umar and Sa’d Al-Buraik in Riyadh. Its ideology combines Wahhabi Salafi Islam with the socio-political doctrine of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The movement was also influenced by thinkers such as Muhammad Qutb (brother of Sayyid Qutb) and Muhammad Al-Rashid. As long as the movement did not oppose the Saudi regime, it enjoyed vast influence within Saudi society and particularly in schools and universities. In the early 1990s, the movement shook up the political system by promoting protest actions and demonstrations calling for reform and in particular the establishment of a Shura Council. The movement’s activity was halted in 1995. Its many successors include Al-Qaeda.
[4] the Azariq were the followers of Nafi’ bin Azraq, the most extreme of the Khwarij. Bin Azraq viewed anybody who remained loyal to the ruler instead of joining him as an infidel, and killed him. He did not even shrink from killing people in mosques.
[5] Thawrat Al-Khirbawi is a former senior MB official who also represented the movement in the Egyptian Lawyers Union. Since he left the MB, in 2002, he has often attacked its modes of operation. He writes in the Egyptian papers Al-Dustour and Roz Al-Yousuf, and has authored two books in which he criticized the MB: Qalb Al-Islam – Makhakim Taftish Al-Ikhwan (“The MB’s Heart—The MB Inquisitorial Courts”), published in 2010, and Sirr Al-Ma’bad – Al-Asrar Al-Khafiya Li-Jama’at Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimin (The Secret of the Temple – The Hidden Secrets of the Muslim Brotherhood Organization), published in 2012.

[6] Mustafa Bakri, a former independent member of the People’s Assembly, is the editor-in-chief of the Egyptian weekly Al-‘Usbu’ and hosts the program “Muntaha Al-Saraha” on the Al-Hayat satellite channel. He has authored many books, the most recent of which is Al-Jaysh Wal-Ikhwan – Asrar Khilaf Al-Sitar (“The Army and the Muslim Brotherhood – Secrets behind the Scenes”), published in 2013.
[7] Sheikh Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a renowned Saudi Muslim scholar, is a member of the Council of Senior Clerics in Mecca and of other prominent religious forums.

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:

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.

Current Syrian Civil War Activities Shall Not IMMEDIATELY Create The Final War Of The Age of the Gentiles!

Wednesday, September 4th, 2013

Syrian civil war activities won’t immediately create final Gentile War.

After Mass Confusion And Civil Wars in The Middle East, A Cold War,

Under Nuclear War Umbrellas, will be put in Place over the Mid-East,

And Any Conflicts Under It Will Not Allow the Use of WMD Munitions.

I don’t think Mid-East War will Begin until after Obama leaves Office

He’s sheduled to Leave the Office of US President January 20, 2017

And I believe the Final War will Begin during the next Administration

September 4, 2013


Begin Excerpt from YNet News

USS Nimitz carrier moves into Red Sea

American aircraft carrier edges into Mideast, ‘prudent planning’ in case of Syria strike. Five destroyers in Mediterranean wait possible strike.


September 2, 2013

The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other ships in its strike group moved into the Red Sea early on Monday, US defense officials said, describing the move as “prudent planning” in case the ships are needed for military action against Syria.

The officials said the Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 am EDT (1000 GMT), but the strike group had not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, where five US destroyers and an amphibious ship remain poised for possible cruise missile strikes against Syria.

Related stories:

Obama seeks Syria support from former foe McCain
Syria: Israeli interests will dictate Congress decision
More than 110,000 dead in Syria conflict

Moving the Nimitz into the Red Sea was aimed at putting more US assets in place if they are needed to support what US officials still describe as a limited attack against Syria after it used chemical weapons against civilians.

“It does place that strike group in a position to respond to a variety of contingencies,” said one official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The nuclear-powered Nimitz is accompanied by the Princeton, a cruiser, and three destroyers – the William P. Lawrence, Stockdale and Shoup, according to the officials.

They said there had been no change regarding six US Navy ships now in the eastern Mediterranean, but military planners were reassessing the situation given a delay in the cruise missile strikes that had been expected this past weekend.

President Barack Obama on Saturday backed off imminent strikes by five destroyers off the coast of Syria until Congress had time to vote its approval. Defense officials said the delay gave them more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region – and whether some may be allowed to leave. Congress returns to Washington Sept. 9.

The US Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean in the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region.

The destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number.

Reuters reported Sunday that officials had rerouted the Nimitz carrier group, which was due to sail east
around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.
Officials said the USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship, remained in North Arabian Sea, and there were no plans to move the ship into the Red Sea.

The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.

Begin 7 Excerpts from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert

September 2, 2013

Excerpt 1 – Institute for National Security Studies – Tel Aviv University

A U.S. Attack on Syria: Implications for Israel

Amos Yadlin and Avner Golov

The most important Israeli interest in the context of an American attack is the unequivocal clarification that there is a high price to pay for the use of nonconventional weapons. From a broader perspective, it is important for Israel that the U.S. reestablish its strategic influence in the Middle East and improve its credibility and deterrence in the region, which have eroded over the past three years. Restoring American deterrent power would strengthen the standing of U.S. allies, including Israel, in the struggle between the region’s moderates and radicals.

In the long term, it is very important to Israel that the fighting in Syria not end in a victory for the Tehran-Damascus-Hizbullah alliance. When the civil war in Syria ends, it is important for Israel that a liberal, pro-Western state be established that abandons its Iranian patron and ceases its support for terrorist organizations. Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence, is director of the INSS, where Avner Golov is a researcher. (Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv University)

Excerpt 2 – Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Striking Syria: Lessons from the Israeli Experience

Michael Herzog

Since Bashar Assad assumed power in 2000, Israel has carried out several surgical airstrikes in Syria. To be effective, even a limited strike must destroy some of Assad’s significant assets, and Syria has plenty of chemical, military, command-and-control, and regime targets of this nature.

In Israel’s experience, Assad has proven to be a rational (if ruthless) actor. He was deterred from responding to recent and past strikes because he did not want to invite the consequences of Israeli military might. Therefore, the U.S. has a good chance of deterring him as well. To do so, however, Washington should be prepared to revisit Syria militarily if Assad escalates following an initial U.S. strike. Assad must believe that he will pay a more painful price if he does not heed deterrent messages. Brig. Gen. (res.) Michael Herzog, formerly head of IDF strategic planning, is a fellow of the Washington Institute. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

Excerpt 3 – Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Frustration and Disgust: International Inaction over Syria

Amb. Alan Baker

Over one thousand innocent civilians were cruelly murdered in Syria on August 21, 2013. Thousands more were seriously wounded. Faced with all this, one may ask where are the UN Security Council and General Assembly? Where is the European Union? Where is the UN Human Rights Council? Where are the international bodies that are so quick and eager to condemn any and every action by Israel? Where are the BDS activists who appear blind to situations of genuine cruelty and lawlessness in the world?

Where are those hypocritical jurists and academics who turn a blind eye to genuine, blatant, and glaring violations of international law that have no connection to Israel? It is evidently much easier to bash Israel for little or no cause, than it is to react to the brutal chemical murder and ruination of the families of thousands of Syrians. The writer is former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry and ambassador of Israel to Canada. (Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

Weak World Response on Syria Boosts Chance of Strong Israeli Action on Iran

Excerpt 4 – Jerusalem Post

Herb Keinon

Whether or not Israel decides to act against Iran could be determined in large part by how the world acts now against Syria. “Trust us,” the world – led by the U.S. – has urged Israel for years on Iran. “We will deal with Iran, we will not allow them to get nuclear weapons.” Really? One could not blame the Iranians for calculating what action they could expect if they run at full speed to nuclear capability. The British will vote military action down in Parliament, and Obama will bring the matter to Congress for a vote if Congress is in session.

Besides, if this is how the world acts when 1,429 people are gassed, how should we expect it to act if Iran just crosses the nuclear threshold but doesn’t kill anybody yet? If the response is not harsh enough, or swift enough, or serious enough, the Iranians may very well conclude that they would face a similar situation and proceed with their nuclear program at full speed.

Israel, too, may conclude that if the world’s response is not harsh enough, or swift enough, or serious enough, then they too will feel that they have a green light to take action to stop the Iranians. The lack of a strong international response in Syria might compel Israel to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace. (Jerusalem Post)

Excerpt 5 – YNet News

Decision to Delay Strike against Syria Sends Dangerous Message

Ron Ben-Yishai

President Obama blinked. This sends an encouraging message to cruel, unrestrained regimes that possess or don’t possess weapons of mass destruction. The American president’s delay is a message. In the case of Iran, which is developing nuclear weapons and is preparing to achieve nuclear “breakout” capability, such a delay could be fatal from Israel’s standpoint.

On the other hand, according to leaks published in the American press, the U.S. will attack the facilities of Syria’s military industry, which produces M-600 missiles for Syria and Hizbullah, as well as a host of other weapons. Should Congress approve an attack, President Obama will not be as limited as he is now with regards to the scope of the attack and the damage it will cause. (Ynet News)

Excerpt 6 – Times of Israel

Obama Unleashes Horror in Jerusalem

David Horovitz

The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria. It is profoundly concerned that the president has set a precedent that may complicate, delay or even rule out credible action to thwart Iran’s drive to nuclear weapons. Obama has given Assad more time to ensure that any eventual strike causes a minimum of damage, and to claim initial victory in facing down the U.S. At the very least, too, Obama has led the Iranians to believe that presidential promises to prevent them attaining nuclear weapons need not necessarily be taken at face value.

If a formidable U.S. strike does ultimately come, some of that damage can yet be undone, the Israeli leadership believes. If there is no strike, the U.S. – hitherto Israel’s only dependable military ally – will be definitively perceived in the region as a paper tiger, with dire implications for its regional interests and for Israel. (Times of Israel)

Excerpt 7 – Jerusalem Post

Obama’s Strategy


Jerusalem Post

The West’s reaction on the Syrian front shouldn’t be perceived as a litmus test regarding how we can expect the U.S. and other Western countries to react if and when Iran is on the verge of attaining nuclear weapon capability. A nuclear capability would embolden Tehran to seize control of the Straits of Hormuz and unleash a nuclear arms race. Possessing a nuclear bomb would radically augment Iran’s political influence – and the influence of its terrorist proxies – as well as making it nearly impervious to international pressure. The West has a clear, vested interest in preventing this from happening. In contrast, the ongoing civil war in Syria is primarily a humanitarian crisis. (Jerusalem Post)

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:

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.

Middle East Actions Now Will Lead to the Final War of the Gentile Age Beginning After Obama Leaves Office!

Monday, September 2nd, 2013

It Will Take Time for Middle East Terrorists to Prepare for Attack,

That shall Drive Woman (Israel) Into The Vast Negev Wilderness.

Middle East actions Now Will Lead to Final War After Obama Exits.

When is Democracy Not Democracy? When it’s Islam Democracy!

Assad does not understand a Democracy reluctance to go to War

Bashar and Saddam Hussein had no compassion for their Subjects

And are like the near sighted people who don’t Comprehend Mercy!

September 2, 2013

There is too much division between the different Islamic governments and between many different terrorist groups that infest them, for a successful attempt to be made to drive Israel into the Negev, and they know it considering the times Muslims have waged war against Jews.

Islam will spend the rest of Obama’s time in office to prepare for a Middle East war to begin after he leaves office.

Please note the word “AFTER” in Daniel 7:24 – It is translated “AFTER” in almost every translation ever made of the Bible, including the Received Text, the KJV.

Daniel 7:24,25 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise AFTER them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. [25] And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The 10 Muslin horns will arise BEFORE the Islamic Mahdi Antichrist in Greater Syria, and he will unite them into the flesh & blood military force
that drives Israel into the vast 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.

I have taught for more than 35 years that the most likely Muslim countries to make up the 10 horns (10 toes) are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya Sudan, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

It will take time for them to unite into a force with the Islamic Antichrist in leadership of the descendants of the wild man Ishmael and the sons of Keturah.

I Do Not Expect to See Israel Fleeing Into the Negev Until AFTER Obama Leaves Office!

Begin Excerpt from YNet News

Op-ed: Syrian president misinterpreted American inaction after first two chemical attacks by his army

Guy Bechor

August 30, 2013

Bashar Assad is misinterpreting the American messages, just as Saddam Hussein had in July 1990. Dictators apparently have a hard time identifying sources of force and weakness in democracies. After meeting US Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie, Saddam concluded at the time that the US would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait, so he was shocked when America waged war against him. Years later Saddam admitted during his interrogation that he would not have invaded Kuwait had he known the US would oppose it.

Assad has also misinterpreted some of the US’s messages. When he saw that Washington was not intervening after more than 100,000 people died in the Syrian civil war and after he used chemical weapons twice, and when he saw that the US was not intervening in Egypt, where the military regime killed some 1,500 civilians, Assad assumed he had a green light to expand the use of chemical weapons. From the perspective of the regime in Damascus and the Alawite minority, it is a matter of life and death, so all means are legitimate, and will remain so in the future. If they do not annihilate their enemies, they will be annihilated themselves.

Bashar Assad was very surprised when the Americans and the West turned the most recent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army into a “smoking gun.” The reason was visibility. The previous chemical attacks were not seen in the West, but numerous images from the recent attack were uploaded to the Internet.

However, Bashar Assad does not view himself as the Syrian version of Saddam Hussein. What’s more, in the first Gulf War President Bush (the father) decided to keep Hussein in power. In addition, the Gulf War included a massive US ground operation, while there are no such plans for the campaign against Syria. The regime in Damascus assumes it will be hit, but not too hard, and it can live with that. Obviously, Syria would rather avoid this ballistic-aerial attack, and this is why it is threatening everyone, including the strong State of Israel. But any attack will be a measured one. The Syrian regime has been through far worse over the past two and a half years.

There is another difference between the first Gulf War and the current crisis: Back then, shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was only one superpower in the world, while today Russian and China are also strong superpowers, and they both support Assad. This situation, in which there are a number of superpowers, is preventing the international community from “going wild” in Syria.

Will Syria follow through on its threat to strike Israel in case it is attacked by the Americans? It would not benefit Assad to drag Israel into the military campaign against him, because this will obviously weaken him. Israel will attack, forcefully, and he is interested in ending the conflict with the US as quickly as possible – not expand it. But in the Middle East, which is becoming more dangerous by the day, logic is not the only factor at play. Vengeance, hatred, score settling, lost pride and many dark emotions – all these are an inseparable part of the conflict.

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:

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.