OBAMA INSHALLAH MEANS “OBAMA, IF ALLAH’S WILLING”!
Islam is hoping ALLAH’S WILL is for Obama to be President!
Syria will not be getting WHAT IT HAS COMING if he’s Elected,
And the Middle East will be turned into an Islamic Sea of Horror
For Israel and her few friends as the world sees a 2nd Holocaust!
The Scriptures indicate that 2/3 of Jews in Israel shall be Butchered,
As Islam sweeps south against Israel and 1/3 escape into the Negev!
October 29, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
The first article from Scripps Howard News Service is right on target as to the only kind of diplomacy Arabs will respond to in a favorable way, as far as deterring them from their determination to destroy Israel and eventually make the western world Islamic.
The second article from the UK Guardian covers what the followers of Allah are hoping for in the November 4th U.S. Election.
My guesstimate is that Islamic forces will viciously attack Israel at some point in time between 2010 and 2015. If I am correct, then based on a forecast population during that period, it means that approximately 4 million Jews will be slaughtered, and 2 million will escape to the Negev Wilderness. The word “therein” in Zechariah 13:8 proves the remnant will not flee to Petra in Jordan, but will remain inside the borders of Israel, which includes the Negev Wilderness. She will remain entrapped there by the Islamic antichrist for three and one half prophetic years. (A prophetic year has 360 days). This three and one-half prophetic year period always refers to the last 1260 days of tribulation prior to the last great battle of Armageddon. It is found in Scripture as 1260 days, or times, time, and half a time, or 42 months.
Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land (Israel), saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left THEREIN.
Revelation 12:6 – And the woman (Israel) 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.
Daniel 7:25 – 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 (1 yr) and times (2 yrs) and the dividing of time (1/2 yr).
Revelation 11:2b-3 – And the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. [3] And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Revelation 13:5 – And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Excerpt 1 from Scripps Howard News Service via World News
Syria gets what it had coming
An editorial
By Dale McFeatters
Scripps
Howard News Service
2008-10-28 00:00:00
Syria was outraged by the U.S. commando attack on its territory that killed a top al-Qaeda operative.
“Criminal and terrorist aggression,” the government said. “An outrageous crime.” What the government in Damascus should not have been is surprised.
The operative, Abu Ghadiyah, was the Syrian-based head of logistics for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organization’s leading supplier of fighters, suicide bombers, weapons and cash. The Syrians knew he was operating on their territory and rejected U.S. requests that they turn him over or at least shut him down.
The question is why didn’t we do it a whole lot sooner. Even the Iraqi government, which is extraordinarily sensitive to the prospect of the U.S. launching raids against its neighbors from its soil, indicated that this raid was a good idea since, according to its spokesman, “This area was a staging ground for activities by terrorist organizations hostile to Iraq.”
Syria is no stranger to such “activities.” It played host to the leaders of the Sunni insurgency against the U.S. military presence in Iraq. It meddles violently in the affairs of neighboring Lebanon, assassinating its leaders and supporting Hezbollah against both Israel and the Lebanese government. And it plays host to Hamas, whose avowed aim is the destruction of Israel.
Since 2003, the Bush administration has tried through pleading and gentle sanctions to get Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stop his support for terrorism in general and Al-Qaeda in Iraq in particular. He was willfully deceiving himself — or not paying attention to Pakistan — if he thought that patience wouldn’t run out.
On Sunday, a U.S. Predator drone killed two Taliban commanders in Pakistan who had been leading cross-border raids into Afghanistan.
It was the latest in a series of stepped up Predator attacks.
These attacks into neighboring countries are a tactic that should be used carefully, both because of the anti-American animus they cause and also because other countries may use the U.S. example to justify reprisals against their own neighbors.
And respect for international borders and law is not an idle principle. The U.S. attacks in Syria -and Pakistan were indeed breaches of sovereignty but that sovereignty had already been compromised when their territory became, willingly or unwillingly, staging grounds for attacks against their neighbors.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service,
http://www.scrippsnews.com
OBAMA, INSHALLAH MEANS “ OMAMA, ALLAH WILLING!
Begin Excerpt 2 from UK Guardian via World News
Obama, inshallah!
Arabs are anticipating a Democratic victory on November 4 with enthusiasm tempered by scepticism, writes Ian Black
Ian Black, Middle East Editor
Guardian.co.uk
Wednesday October 29 2008 00.04 GMT
Getty Images
Like millions of people all over the world, Arabs are awaiting the outcome of the US presidential election with excitement and anticipation to see if the new man in the Oval Office turns out to be any more favourable to their interests than George Bush has been.
Polls conducted from May to August in six predominantly Muslim countries showed interest in who wins ranging from high in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon to very low in the Palestinian territories and Pakistan. Those who did express a preference preferred Barack Obama to John McCain by margins of at least two to one.
Reports of the slogan “Obama, inshallah”, or God willing, appearing in the Gaza Strip – and even some organised telephone campaigning for the Illinois Democrat – look like vivid but untypical examples of active mobilisation on his behalf.
Still, even a brief survey of comments from across the region underlines the sense of qualified hope that, should he win, Obama will turn out to be different – even if the only certainty is that he could not be worse than Bush. Feelings of indifference and cynicism about the result are harder to register.
McCain recently provided a painful reminder that Arab expectations of America begin from a very low base when he defended his opponent against the charge that he was not “an Arab” but “a decent man” – as if the two categories were somehow mutually exclusive.
But if US citizens are uneasy at electing a black president whose middle name is Hussein and who was brought up partly in Indonesia, others see huge potential for transformation. “It’s easy to demonise Bush’s America if you are a Muslim,” commented one pundit. “Less easy if America is led by a black man with a Muslim middle name who grew up in the world’s largest Muslim country.”
Probably the biggest immediate hope in the Middle East is that Obama, emphasising diplomacy and dialogue, will be more likely than McCain to avoid war with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, has explicitly backed the Democrat “because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy [towards Iran] will not change that much”.
Endorsements of this kind do not necessarily help Obama. Yet McCain can hardly be pleased by the support he received via an Islamist website from an al-Qaida supporter who said a Republican victory on November 4 was desirable because likely continuity with Bush’s policies meant that the “failing march” of the “war on terror” will go on.
Obama’s stance on Iraq – having opposed the 2003 invasi
on he now backs an ambitiously speedy withdrawal – is distinct from that of McCain, though he shows no signs of any second thoughts about Afghanistan.
Strikingly, even some of America’s fiercest Arab critics acknowledge that Obama’s big theme of “change” is a powerful one. Colin Powell’s endorsement of him had nothing to do with political party, commented the London-based paper al-Quds al-Arabi, but came about because he is simply the best candidate to fix past “bloodthirsty” mistakes. “It is the choice of a large portion of Americans who want change and to see their country liberated from the slavery of those who hijacked its decision-making and led it toward the devastation we are currently witnessing.”
For most Arabs there is no doubt that the biggest long-term question is whether Obama will be able to crack the nut of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and optimism is hard to detect. Observers wearily note his unblemished voting record for Aipac – the powerful pro-Israeli lobby he addressed immediately after winning the Democratic nomination. Then he was quick to warn those who were enthusiastic about his candidacy not to be “confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security”.
And Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate, is a self-described “Zionist” who believes that there can only be progress in the Middle East when “the Arab nations have known that there is no daylight between us [the US] and Israel.”
It may be that energy and commitment – of the kind shown far too late in the day by Bill Clinton – will matter more than any substantial shift in policy.
The appointment of a high-profile, heavyweight Middle East envoy could be one way of demonstrating this (though it will help a great deal if the centrist Kadima party rather than the rightwing Likud wins the Israeli elections and the Palestinians can resolve their own bitter divisions).
Another key factor could be Obama’s promised new approach to Syria, coaxing Bashar al-Assad in from the cold as he cleans up his act in Lebanon and resumes peace talks with a new Israeli government. This weekend’s US special forces raid across the Iraqi border – lambasted by Damascus as more of Bush’s “cowboy politics” – felt like the end of an era. Still, Syria’s support for Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine seem no more likely to end than its close relationship with Iran.
But if Assad had a vote on November 4, it too would go to Obama.
Beyond the specific issues on the table there has been much positive comment about the new atmosphere Obama could conjure up. The Arab-American blogger Ghassan Michel Rubeiz described a dream for the future in which the Democrat could be a “catalyst” for a more favourable climate and trigger a cycle of virtuous events that could actually resolve the Palestinian issue.
“For the US to vote in an African-American progressive liberal would certainly mark a departure from the hyper and violent conservatism of the Bush-McCain camp,” observed Al-Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara.
“The rest of the world would certainly embrace a less fearful and more open post-9/11 America,” according to the Egyptian intellectual Mona Makram Obeid. “Choosing Barack Obama, a symbol of hope, would do more to restore the image of the United States in the world than anything else.”
Sensibly, some have hinted too at the danger of exaggerated expectations.
“It is only natural for Arabs to lean towards supporting a black candidate with roots in Africa on the basis that he understands the concerns of the developing world and is aware that there are other nations who have a right to live,” wrote Mohammad Salah in the pan-Arab paper al-Hayat. But beware, he said, of “rosy dreams that the solutions to Arab problems will come from the next US president if he is black and a Democrat”.
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.