The Turkish Regime is Now Turning into an Iron Toe,
Before it is Crushed by Daniel Great Mountain Stone,
It Will Prophetically in the END Give Israel Much Woe!
Turkey’s rising as a crescent moon like horns on a Rib!
I Warned about TURKEY in Prophecy a LONG Time Ago!
October 26, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Daniel 2:42-45 – 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 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. [45] Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
Begin Archive Special Prophecy Update Number 121C
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 121C
May 28, 2003
The Historical Geographical Shifting of Antichrist
The Shifting Homeland of the Ten Toes or Ten Horns
A lot of water has passed under the bridge in the more than 2600 years that have elapsed since Daniel wrote his prophecies. And a vast number of men, incorrectly identified as being the antichrist, have been carried away by it. The prospective of his nationality, and where he will arise, has shifted with the tides of what nation or nations have been in power at different times in this 2600-year period.
Daniel 7:7,8 – After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
[8] I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
There has been historical agreement among most biblical interpreters that the fourth beast represented the Roman Empire, which was still future when Daniel wrote his prophecies, and virtually all say that the little horn is the antichrist, which was to arise in the latter day out of a revived Roman Empire. However, during this 2600 years, the question has been: out of what part of the ancient Roman Empire will he arise, and what part of it will contain the ten horns, which represent ten nations? The southern flank of the old Roman Empire took in portions of all the following countries:
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel (Palestine), Iraq, Iran, and the Sudan. I have never believed that Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia would be among the ten toes, but I have always believed the ten toes would come out of the southern flank, and the antichrist would be the Assyrian of the fifth chapter of Micah. I have made my case for where he would arise in the whole numbered Ezekiel Prophecy Updates 27 to 33, 35 & 36, in the whole numbered Micah Prophecy Updates 62 to 69, and in 54 & 74B. You will find a description of his exploits in whole numbered Prophecy Updates 71 to 75 from Daniel.
Early biblical interpreters had no trouble putting out this interpretation, because the rise of the Islamic Empire occurred in the southern flank of the old Roman Empire beginning in 635 AD, and it was quite easy to get Europe to believe the antichrist would come out of this new religion. When the Prophet Muhammad died, Moslems chose a religious and political leader called a Caliph. They expanded their territory through many wars known as Jihad, or holy war. In conquering Lebanon, the Moslems fought the Christian armies of Byzantium, whom they called Roumis. The Byzantines were defeated, and retreated further north. Islam became the Law and official religion of the conquered lands. The Moslems split into two groups in 661 AD – Shiites and Sunnites. The head of the Sunnites, Muaawyah, became Caliph, founded the Umayyad Dynasty, and set the capital of his Empire in Damascus. Following the conquest of Morocco in 1147, when the last Almoravide king was taken from the throne, the Almohades seized the reigns of government, and then invaded Europe.
By 1150 they had defeated the Christian armies of Spain, and Spain became a Moorish Islamic extension of faith, with the building of the great Mosque of Seville in 1183. By the thirteenth century Ibn described Morocco as the Baghdad of the West. The Empire, reunited by Muhammad I, expanded victoriously under Muhammad’s successors Murad II and Muhammad II. All of southeastern Europe west of Italy, and the northern coastal states of Africa, came under the control of Islam by 1541. The southward plunges of the Crusaders made it easy for the Christians of these early eras to believe the interpretation of the antichrist arising out of the southern flank of the ancient Roman Empire, and for his 10 horns to be out of Islam. However, the situation began to reverse itself in 1683 when a huge Islamic army, under Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, was initially driven back from Vienna by John III of Poland, and then by the subsequent campaigns of Charles the Fifth of Lorraine, Louis of Bagden, and Eugene of Savoy. As European countries and their leaders became increasingly more powerful, coupled with the rapid decline of a fading Islamic Empire, the focus of the Christian interpreters, who were looking for the 10 toes and the antichrist, began to shift from the southern to the northern flank of the ancient Roman Empire, namely, western Europe.
The rise of Napoleon to power was the beginning of the geographical shift of the biblical interpreters to the new power base – Europe. Many came to believe that Napoleon was the antichrist. During the Napoleonic Wars from 1792 to 1815, his army was said to be the world’ s mo
st feared weapon
of mass destruction. Many Baptist preachers after 1800 began to move away from the antichrist coming out of the Islamic southern flank, and a gradual shift toward the European northern flank began. The arrival of Wilhelm I (1797 to 1888), who was King of Prussia from 1861 to 1888, and Emperor of German from 1871 to 1888, caused more and more interpreters to look away from the Islamic flank. He appointed Otto von Bismarck Prime Minister in 1862, and he suppressed all opposition to Wilhelm I and himself. Prussia then began a long series of military triumphs, winning the Danish war in 1864, the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, and the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. Upon the surrender of Napoleon III, Bismarck had Wilhelm crowned Emperor of a united Germany. This period was critical in modern history, for it saw the rise of Germany as a great European power. The idea that Wilhelm I or Bismarck was the antichrist arose. But when the grandson of Wilhelm I, Wilhelm II, came to power, he made a dandy candidate for antichrist. His overbearing character caused him to dismiss Bismarck in 1890, and he was the dominant force in German affairs until 1918. His colonial, naval, and commercial aspirations antagonized Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States. His support of Austria’s Balkan policy was a direct cause of World War I, which led him to be exiled to the Netherlands by the Allied Forces after the war.
By the time Hitler arose in Germany, and Mussolini arose in Italy, the only question that remained in the minds of many biblical expositors was narrowed down to a single choice – which one is it? The idea that the antichrist could come out of the southern flank was virtually thrown into the prophetic trashcan after World I.
After World War II ended, an excellent young writer noticed that six of the European nations had formed what was identified as the European Common Market. It was made up of West Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy. It 1957 it became known as the European Economic Community, and was created by the signing of the Treaty of Rome. This young writer gained worldwide attention by predicting that these were the first six horns of Daniel’s fourth beast, as well as the first six toes of Daniel’s great statue in Chapter two.
Daniel 2:42 – 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.
The young writer indicated that soon there would be ten toes, and the antichrist would be the eleventh. His books and movies attracted the worldwide attention of many who had never had an interest in prophecy. Most of the TV evangelists accepted his thesis, and soon all eyes were focused on Europe. I do not believe any other commentator has ever had more of an impact on prophetic teaching that this young man. His books have sold in the multimillions, and he is perhaps the most sought after expert on prophecy in the world. In 1973 the first six were joined by Great Britain, Ireland, and Denmark, so the prophetic world waited for number ten to come on the scene, and then something happened to cloud the mix – three joined in 1981 – Greece, Spain, and Portugal, and then there were twelve toes.
But the prophetic world was assured that three would soon be subdued, and the antichrist would be identified. However, Switzerland joined in 1986, followed by Finland and Austria in 1995. We then had a fifteen-toed statue. Recently, several more nations have joined, and within a few years we will have a twenty-one toed statue. Many continue to ride this horse of a European antichrist leading ten European nations against Israel. I never rode it – I never mounted it.
I have always believed the bible interpreters before the Napoleonic Wars of 1797 to 1815 were correct in bringing the antichrist out of the Syrian area, and the ten toes or ten horns out of the southern flank of the old Roman Empire. I don’t believe we should ever have discarded that idea! I believe the antichrist is most likely to arise out of Syria. He could come out of Lebanon, extreme southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, or extreme northwestern Iran. I believe the ten most likely candidates for the toes or horns are the following nations – Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.
Begin Excerpt 1 from Al Jazeera via World News
Rise of the Turkish crescent
By Ahmed Janabi
October 24, 2009
Since the Israeli war on Gaza last January, Turkey’s role in Middle Eastern politics has become significantly more prominent.
When Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development (AK) Party took office in 2002, it pledged that it would not forsake its historic, religious and cultural bonds with other Muslim countries.
During the Gaza c onflict, the party made good
on its promise. Turkey’s government did not hesitate to voice its displeasure at Israel’s military actions, which it said were targeting the civilian population of Gaza.
Last week, the Turkish government demonstrated its loyalties again, banning Israeli warplanes from participating in an international military air exercise.
The Anatolia Eagle exercise has been held since 2001 under the auspices of a Turkish-Israeli military agreement signed in 1996. The war-game usually involves Turkish, Israeli and US troops, and has been seen by Israel as a golden opportunity for its pilots to practise over a much larger air-space than usual.
Istanbul’s decision raised eyebrows in Israel, where Turkey has long been seen as an ally, and has prompted concerns about future relations between the two countries.
It raises the question: What direction is Turkish policy taking, wondered Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, after Turkey’s decision was made public.
Revived role
Observers believe that Turkey’s new attitude
toward Israel is part of a plan to revive the role it believes it should play as the leader and guardian of the Muslim World.
“The new Turkish policy is interesting, in terms of trying to regain its ties with the Arab and Muslim world,” said Mounzer Sleiman, the director of the Centre for American and Arab Studies.
“It is not the first Turkish government that has tried to do this, but the aspiration to join the EU was an obstacle. This government realises that the road to the EU is rough and complicated, so it chose to go with its strategic plans in its Muslim environment instead of waiting indefinitely.”
Turkey also believes it is traditionally and historically linked to the rest of the Middle East – Turkish Ottoman Empire ruled large parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe for almost five centuries, until its defeat in the First World War.
The new policy, aimed at placing Ankara at the centre of Middle East’s geopolitics and regaining Turkey’s former power and influence over the region, makes conscious reference to the country’s imperial past. The trend is even known as Neo-Ottoman, a term coined by Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister and architect of the policy.
It is a popular approach. Erdogan says that the decision to exclude Israel from Anatolia Eagle drill was based on Turkish public opinion.
“Anyone who exercises political power has to take account of public opinion … It is a question of sincerity… I want people to know that Turkey is a powerful country which takes its own decisions,” he said. “We do not take orders from anyone.”
Erdogan believes the Turkish people back his goals to use the country as a counter weight in relations between Israel, the West and the Muslim World. This viewpoint is shared by many observers.
“Anyone who looks at the Turkish press and listens to people in the street would realise how much the Turkish public opinion is in support of the government’s new approach toward Israel,” says Yousef al-Sharif, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Turkey.
“Also, the nature of the current Israeli government, which consists of conservative figures like Netanyahu and [foreign minister Avigdor] Lieberman, makes it easier for Erdogan to take such a tough approach against Israel.”
History matters
Since it took office, Erdogan’s government has been keen to show that Israel is no longer the only serious power in the region. During the Palestinian intifada uprising in 2000, Turkey condemned the Israel’s use of force and cancelled a proposed water deal with Tel Aviv.
By the end of 2008, the neo-Ottoman doctrine was more advanced. When Tel Aviv launched a war on Gaza in late December 2008, Erdogan squarely blamed the Israelis.
But he also invoked the shared history of Jews and Turks to make his point: “We are speaking as the grandsons of Ottomans who treated your ancestors (Jews) as guests in this land (Turkey) when they were expelled from Europe,” he said.
But such references will also remind Israel that the cash-strapped Ottoman Empire turned down an offer by the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl to cede Jerusalem to the Jews in return for huge loans and a personal reward for Sultan Abd al-Hamid II (1842-1918).
Erdogan’s coded historical message was clear: Turkish policy toward the Middle East is no longer led by political expedience, but by principle.
Regional mediator?
Until recently, political analysts and observers characterised the relationship between Turkey and Israel as one based on mutual interests.
Israel needed a strong regional Muslim ally, and Turkey needed the Jewish lobby in the US to prevent Greek and Armenian groups from securing a congressional condemnation against Turkey for its alleged role in the deaths of more than a million Armenians in the early 20th century.
Some observers, however, now believe that Erdogan’s current Middle East approach could jeopardise the delicate balance of power in the region.
Elter Turkmen, a former Turkish foreign minister, warned earlier this year that the short-term benefits may be outweighed by the long-term disadvantages. “I do not think Turkish-Israeli relations would reach the point of clash,” he said.
“Both sides will lose, Israel will lose a reliable partner and Turkey would lose the backing of Jewish lobby in Washington.” Still, others question whether Istanbul still needs the US Jewish lobby.
Turkey and Armenia signed a landmark peace accord earlier this month, pledging to restore ties and open their shared border after a century of hostility stemming from what Armenians said was the mass killing of their people by Ottoman forces during the First World War.
Some believe that Israel and the US will nevertheless continue to need Turkish help in brokering indirect talks between Israel and Syria, widely seen as a crucial but difficult step in the Middle East peace process.
In June 2008, and after years of diplomatic effort, Turkey succeeded in kick-starting indirect Syrian–Israeli talks. In Iraq, Turkey maintained balanced relationships with almost all Iraqi factions. The culmination of that successful policy was the visit of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leader of the Mahdi Army, in May 2009.
Turkey also played a pivotal role in brokering a strategic deal between al-Sadr, the Iraqi government, the UK and the US. Mahdi Army militias laid down their arms and released US and British hostages they had been holding since 2007.
In return the Iraqi government stopped the arrest campaign against the al-Mahdi Army and released some of its jailed leaders such as Abd al-Hadi al-Darraji, in 2009.
Middle East powerhouse
Bashir Nafie, a Palestinian historian specialised in Turkish politics, believes that Ankara is adopting a multi-directional policy, simultaneously resolving conflicts directly linked to its history (rapprochement with Armenia and resolving its Kurdish problem), and tackling the tensions in the greater region.
He said: “Turkey has realised that its future not only with the EU, but more importantly with its Arab, Muslim and Caucasian neighbours. It also realises that Western arrangements imposed after the First World War is the core of many problems the region is suffering, and it is willing to solve the problems of that heavy heritage.”
Hasan Koni, a former adviser to the Turkish National Security Council agrees that Turkey is likely to play an increasingly important role in Middle Eastern politics in coming years.
“Given the fact that there are no more neo-cons in the White House, and that the new US administration is attempting to get out of Iraq, the US will need Turkey to stand against Iran in Iraq and the Middle East in general,” he says.
“Turkey is qualified to play that role since it is a Muslim state that maintains ties with both Israelis and Arabs.”
Begin Excerpt 2 from THE UK GURADIAN via WORLD NEWS
‘Iran is our friend,’ says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan
We have no difficulty with Ahmadinejad – Erdogan
Warning to Europe not to ignore Turkey’s Strength
Robert Tait in Istanbul
The Guardian,
Monday 26 October 2009
With its stunning vistas and former Ottoman palaces, the banks of the Bosphorus – the strategic waterway that cuts Istanbul in half and divides Europe from Asia – may be the perfect place to distinguish friend from foe and establish where your country’s interests lie.
And sitting in his grandiose headquarters beside the strait, long the symbol of Turkey’s supposed role as bridge between east and west, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had little doubt about who was a friend and who wasn’t.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s radical president whose fiery rhetoric has made him a bête noire of the west? “There is no doubt he is our friend,” said Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister for the last six years. “As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all.”
What about Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who has led European opposition to Turkey’s bid to join the EU and, coincidentally, adopted a belligerent tone towards Iran’s nuclear programme? Not a friend?
“Among leaders in Europe there are those who have prejudices against Turkey, like France and Germany. Previously under Mr Chirac, we had excellent relations [with France] and he was very positive towards Turkey. But during the time of Mr Sarkozy, this is not the case. It is an unfair attitude. The European Union is violating its own rules.
“Being in the European Union we would be building bridges between the 1.5bn people of Muslim world to the non-Muslim world. They have to see this. If they ignore it, it brings weakness to the EU.”
Friendly towards a religious theocratic Iran, covetous and increasingly resentful of a secular but maddeningly dismissive Europe: it seems the perfect summary of Turkey’s east-west dichotomy.
Erdogan’s partiality towards Ahmadinejad may surprise some in the west who see Turkey as a western-oriented democracy firmly grounded inside Nato. It has been a member of the alliance since 1952.
It will be less surprising to Erdogan’s secular domestic critics, who believe the prime minister’s heart lies in the east and have long suspected his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development party (AKP) government of plotting to transform Turkey into a religious state resembling Iran.
Erdogan vigorously denies the latter charge, but to his critics he and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather: devout religious conservatives from humble backgrounds who court popular support by talking the language of the street. After Ahmadinejad’s disputed presidential election in June, Erdogan and his ally, the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, were among the first foreign leaders to make congratulatory phone calls, ignoring the mass demonstrations and concerns of western leaders over the result’s legitimacy.
Talking to the Guardian, Erdogan called the move a “necessity of bilateral relations”. “Mr Ahmadinejad was declared to be the winner, not officially, but with a large vote difference, and since he is someone we have met before, we called to congratulate him,” he said.
“Later it was officially declared that he was elected, he got a vote of confidence and we pay special attention to something like this. It is a basic principle of our foreign policy.”
The gesture will be remembered when Erdogan arrives in Tehran this week for talks with Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that will focus on commercial ties, including Turkey’ s need for Iranian natural ga
s.
Ahmadinejad has voiced his admiration for Erdogan, praising Turkey’s recent decision to ban Israel from a planned Nato manoeuvre in protest at last winter’s bombardment of Gaza.
Since the election, Iran has witnessed a fierce crackdown on opposition figures that has resulted in activists, students and journalists being imprisoned and publicly tried. Detainees have died in prison, and there have been allegations of torture and rape. Some of those alleging mistreatment have sought refuge in Turkey.
But Erdogan said he would not raise the post-election crackdown with his hosts, saying it would represent “interference” in Iranian domestic affairs.
He poured cold water on western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, saying: “Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only.”
Erdogan has overseen a dramatic improvement in the previously frigid relations between Turkey and Iran, which was viewed with suspicion by the pro-secularist high command of the powerful Turkish military. Trade between the two countries last year was worth an estimated £5.5bn as Iran has developed into a major market for Turkish exports.
Erdogan’s views will interest US foreign policy makers, who have long seen his AKP government as a model of a pro-western “moderate Islam” that could be adopted in other Muslim countries. They will also find an audience with President Barack Obama, who signalled Turkey’s strategic importance in a visit last April and has invited the prime minister to visit Washington. They are unlikely to impress Israel, which has warned that Erdogan’s criticisms risk harming Turkey’s relations with the US.
Erdogan dismissed the notion, saying: “I don’t think there is any possibility of that. America’s policy in this region is not dictated by Israel.”
He insisted that the Turkey-Israel strategic alliance – which some AKP insiders have said privately is over – remains alive but chided the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who he said had threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza.
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.