Thursday, September 05, 2013
News for today
Most of us prophecy watchers, over time, as we focus on current events can forget to reflect on the amazing accuracy of Jesus' prophecy for 'end times'. A quick read of Matthew 24 will reveal this fact. Taking just one such prophecy, Jesus informed us that there would be wars and rumors of war. Considering that the news over last several months has been dominated by 'rumors of war' quickly reveals this fact.
Egypt. Libya. Iran. Syria. Gaza. Lebanon. Name a spot in the Middle East in close proximity to Israel and you will find abundant 'rumors of war'. Looking through the lens of biblical prophecy, as directed to the end of this age and Jesus' words come alive:
Russia is warning that a US strike on Syria’s atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe and is urging the UN to present a risk analysis of such a scenario.
The warning comes from Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich. He said in a statement Wednesday that a strike on a miniature reactor near Damascus or other nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity, adding: “The consequences could be catastrophic.”
Syria said on September 4 it was mobilizing its allies against a possible US-led military strike over a suspected gas attack and would never give in, even if a 3rd world war erupts.
In an exclusive interview with Agence France-Presse, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Muqdad said Syria had taken "every measure" to retaliate against a potential strike, but refused to provide any clue as to what that might mean.
He also insisted that Russia had not wavered in its support for its long-time ally, despite comments by President Vladimir Putin suggesting a more conciliatory tone towards the West.
"The United States is currently mobilizing its allies for an aggression against Syria," he said, adding that Damascus was therefore doing the same and that its allies were "offering it all sorts of support."
"Iran, Russia, South Africa and some Arab countries have rejected this aggression and are ready to face this war that the United States and its allies, including France, will declare against Syria", he said, without elaborating.
"The Syrian government will not change position even if there is World War III. No Syrian can sacrifice the independence of his country."
World leaders will gather in St Petersburg on Thursday for what has transformed into an international showdown with Vladimir Putinthreatening to send a missile shield to Syria if the US launches an attack without the authority of the United Nations.
The G20 summit, hosted by Putin, had been expected to focus on the world economy and growth, but will now be dominated by the Middle East crisis, even if the formal agenda remains fixed on the slowdown of growth in emerging markets.
Putin, in an interview published on Wednesday, said it was too early to talk about what Russia would do if the US attacked Syria but added: "We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise. We have our plans."
He then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defence missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient", he said: "If we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."
The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia cancelled a few years ago under strong US and Israeli pressure.
Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.
A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”
By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.
But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.
The key points of the report have been given as follows:
• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;
• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;
• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”
The findings of the report are “extremely specific,” as they mostly consist of scientific and technical data from probes’ analysis, the ministry stressed, adding that this data can “substantially aid” the UN investigation of the incident.
While focusing on the Khan al-Assal attack on March 19, in which at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers were killed, and 86 more were injured, the Russian Foreign Ministry also criticized the “flawed selective approach” of certain states in reporting the recent incidents of alleged chemical weapons use in August.
This, then, is why McCain succeeds with his policy of going to war on behalf of the mysterious “moderates” in Syria. We have a media that are afraid of telling the truth about the senator when he makes bone-headed comments that have no relation to reality.
McCain’s preference for “moderates” in Syria would be laughable, were it not so serious and coming at a time when America is on the verge of going to war.
Spencer writes, “McCain’s appalling ignorance and Obama’s ongoing enthusiasm for all things Muslim Brotherhood, including the Syrian opposition, are leading the U.S. into disaster.”
This is not necessarily news to those who have been following our reports about McCain’s praise of the Al Jazeera terror television network and his appearances on that channel. This is the same channel that has just been closed down in Egypt for inspiring violence and terrorism. But the media persist in conveying the impression that McCain knows what he is talking about and has some mastery over Middle East events.
In a commentary for the London Center for Policy Research, Jed Babbin says Obama may get a war resolution from Congress because “the Republican ‘leadership’ of national security affairs—at least the only ones who get media attention—is comprised of Obama’s most dedicated allies in Congress, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.”
The key phrase is “the only ones who get media attention.” This is why Obama invited these two to the White House after he announced plans to go to Congress. It was a careful strategy designed to create the impression of Republican support for Obama. McCain and Graham (R-SC) are assigned the roles of providing Republican cover for Obama’s policy. They have performed the same function in regard to his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
But whether Assad used the chemical weapons or not, McCarthy argued, “It diverts attention from the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad himself has been.”
Senators on Wednesday tried to write a tight resolution authorizing President Obama to strike Syria under very specific circumstances, but analysts and lawmakers said the language still has plenty of holes theWhite House could use to expand military action well beyond whatCongress appears to intend.
“Wiggle room? Plenty of that,” said Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former long-time expert for theCongressional Research Service on separation of powers issues.
The resolution drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez and Bob Corker, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, grants Mr. Obama power “to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria” — but only in relation to that nation’s weapons of mass destruction.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a modified war resolution Wednesday afternoon by vote of 10–7 with one member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), voting present. The committee's action allows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring the measure to the floor as early as Monday, following a break for the Jewish holidays. That would allow a vote by the full Senate as soon as Wednesday, giving the Senate a chance to pass a war resolution before the House has a chance to craft and pass a resolution of its own.
But some GOP Senate offices are upset with what they see as a rush by Democratic leadership to pass the war authorization outside the rules that govern how legislation goes through the committee process.
“This is a rush to war behind closed doors,” one senior GOP Senate aide said. “We were told there was a need to have a thoughtful and public debate about how this nation goes to war, but this seems to be about simply getting a resolution done to cover the president.” •
# posted by Missygirl : 11:46 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
