Third Horn Of Pakistan Ready To Become Armed (Daniel 8:8)

Taliban’s attack on school a wake-up call for Pakistan


PESHAWAR, Pakistan — It has been three weeks since terrorists stormed a school here and slaughtered at least 148 people, nearly all of whom were children. The Pakistani Taliban took responsibility for the massacre, saying it was in retaliation for army action in the Taliban stronghold of Waziristan.

Pakistan reacted with revulsion to the school attack. There was almost unanimous consensus among political parties and civic groups that this act broke the patience of the nation. Pakistanis are demanding, in a loud and clear voice, that the government tackle the menace of religious terrorism.
Although most of the country is united in this demand, the conduct of religious political parties has been anything but reassuring. Most of these parties condemned the massacre, but claimed it was a reaction to what the Pakistani army has been doing to the Taliban and their families in Waziristan. They are speaking from both sides of their mouths.

Pakistani religious parties have a checkered history. They opposed the creation of Pakistan on religious grounds. Since the creation of the country in 1947, they have been trying to turn Pakistan into a theocracy where power will shift to the mosques rather than rest with state institutions.
And while they do not talk openly about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, controlling these weapons fits with their dream of global dominance.

Whether the Pakistani Taliban function in concert with other terrorists is open to conjecture. Although its sympathies are with terrorist outfits such as Islamic State, it is not part of a global network.
Some prejudiced people blame the teachings of Islam for the terrorist activities of some Muslims. An occasional beheading of a Western man by ISIS aside, most religious violence has been directed against Muslims themselves. In the Taliban’s narrow and self-serving interpretation of Islam, anyone who does not subscribe to its version is not a Muslim.

The seeds of militancy and terrorism in Pakistan were sown during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan starting in 1979. Pakistan was pushed into becoming a front-line state during the decade long conflict.

American and Western foreign aid flowed into the country. So did Arab petrodollars and the puritanical Wahhabi version of Islam.

Thousands of religious schools sprang up in border areas of Pakistan, where poor boys were indoctrinated in virulent Wahhabi Islam and sent to fight the Soviet infidels across the border in Afghanistan.

The United States and Saudi Arabia promoted this culture of religious intolerance. The Soviets were eventually forced out of Afghanistan, but the culture stayed.

The lure of fighting a religious war brought thousands of young men from around the world — including the United States — to Pakistan. After the war, many of these young men, who were not wanted in their countries of birth, married and settled in tribal areas of Pakistan. A second generation of foreigners is working with the Pakistani Taliban to wreck havoc on the country.

The toll on Pakistan has been enormous. Since 2001, close to 50,000 people — including more than 15,000 army personnel — have been killed by terrorists in Pakistan. The economic losses have been substantial.

Why haven’t Pakistani governments tackled this menace? They fear religious parties that have twisted government intentions as anti-Islamic.

For many years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has urged Pakistan to clean up sanctuaries in Waziristan, from which Afghan Taliban fighters attacked NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan. Because of its appeasement of the Pakistani Taliban and its long-term interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan did not follow through.

It has taken the massacre of innocent schoolchildren to wake Pakistanis up.

Dr. S. Amjad Hussain is a retired Toledo surgeon whose column appears every other week in The Blade.

Contact him at:

India Will Have To Contend With The Four (Pakistan) and Ten Horned (China) Beasts Of Daniel

India should be ready for a nuclear war: Chief of Integrated Defence Staff

ChinaIndiaborder  New Delhi, January 5, 2015 | UPDATED 19:51 IST
Air Marshal PP Reddy Air Marshal PP Reddy has said that India will have to be prepared for a war on two fronts as the country is surrounded by two nuclear-capable adversaries–Pakistan and China.  
“We are in a difficult neighbourhood with two nuclear armed adversaries. Our primary external security challenges arise from our immediate neighbourhood that is to the north and west. And to some extend neighbourhood in areas of terrorism,” he said in a ASSOCHAM function.
He also raised question on military cooperation between Pakistan and China.

“China’s growing assertiveness and cooperation with Pakistan complicates external security environment and we have to be prepared for a two front war,” he said.

The comments came amid the ongoing skirmishes between India and Pakistan forces along the International Border.

Pakistan on Monday resumed heavy mortar shelling targeting scores of Border Out Posts (BoPs) and civilian areas along International Border (IB) in Samba and Kathua districts, killing a BSF jawan.
“Pakistan Rangers resorted to heavy mortar shelling on BoPs and civilian areas along IB in Samba and Kathua sectors around 2 PM today,” a senior BSF officer told PTI, as the fresh ceasefire violation by Pakistan triggered another round of heavy exchanges.

One BSF jawan was martyred in the shelling, he said, adding the force was retaliating in equal measure.

The Saudi Horn Helped Babylon Open The First Seal (Revelation 6:2)

Politicians push to declassify censored 9/11 reports

On Wednesday, the former co-chairman of the panel that produced the heavily-redacted 2002 report will hold a Capitol Hill press conference calling for its complete release. Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham will join Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), as well as 9/11 families, to demand President Obama shine light on the entire blanked-out Saudi section.

Graham claims the redaction is part of an ongoing “coverup” of the role of Saudi officials in the 9/11 plot. He maintains the Saudi hijackers got financial aid and other help from the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and the Saudi embassy in Washington, as well as from wealthy Sarasota, Fla., patrons tied to the Saudi royal family.

Jones and Lynch say they will reintroduce their resolution urging Obama to declassify the information in the newly seated Congress. The bipartisan bill has attracted 21 co-sponsors, including 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats, since first introduced 12 months ago.

President George W. Bush claimed he couldn’t release the information because it was too sensitive and could jeopardize the War on Terror. But Obama has declared both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over, making his reluctance more curious.

Meanwhile, organizers have launched a letter-writing campaign to encourage senators to sign the resolution, including Sen. Charles Schumer, who in 2003 led a group of 46 senators in penning a letter to Bush.

Schumer (D-NY) at the time said, “The bottom line is that keeping this material classified only strengthens the theory that some in the US government are hellbent on covering up for the Saudis.”
Lawyers for the Saudi government have repeatedly denied connections.

Last summer, 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton also came out in support of declassification.

“I’m embarrassed that they’re not declassified,” Hamilton said.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Babylon The Great And The Russian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7 and Rev 17)

US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry
Russian nuclear-powered submarine at Murmansk naval base
A Russian nuclear-powered submarine at the Murmansk naval base. Photograph: Fedoseyev Lev/Itar-Tass Photo/Corbis
Julian Borger, diplomatic editor | The Guardian
Sunday 4 January 2015 13.00 EST
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring back a dangerous rivalry between the world’s two dominant nuclear arsenals.
Tensions have been taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in Europe after a 23-year absence.
On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the first of two experimental “blimps” over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander, General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced “some significant challenges” in countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.
Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying nuclear warheads.
The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually increased last year, and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his country’s nuclear arsenal and declared other countries “should understand it’s best not to mess with us”.
The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet regime, published an article in November titled “Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato”, which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.
“The Americans are well aware of this,” the commentary said. “They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it’s too late.”
Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military doctrine, published on 25 December, left its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which “would put in danger the very existence of the state”. It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike, as some in the military had proposed.
However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia’s nuclear weapons, reflecting Moscow’s renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.
The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month Russia announced it would re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.
There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking shipping container until the moment it is fired.
However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.
At a contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the administration’s leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for continuing to observe the INF treaty.
Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile “about a dozen times” with her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.
The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.
McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.
“We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go down that path,” McKeon said. He later added: “We don’t have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one option to explore.”
Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the Russian missile.
The US military has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as “boomers”, and attack submarines that are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in 2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily rebounding and reasserting its global reach.
There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.
“They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically designed to deliver cruise missiles,” Jacoby told Congress.
Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at least once or twice a year.
“The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas … It normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It will have nuclear-capable missiles on it,” he said.
Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland, which triggered a Nato submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.
He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. “They go across to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].
“It’s something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern about the American ability to … track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on.”
The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
On any given sortie, Roberts said, “it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped”.
A Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.
The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile numbers.
Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of Russian nuclear forces, said: “The bottom line is that we don’t know, but it’s safe to say that it’s quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and founding publisher of, believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack submarines with nuclear weapons.
“For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they have,” Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.
The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin’s strategy of “de-escalation”, which involves countering Nato’s overwhelming conventional superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict “tailored damage” on an adversary.
Lewis argues that Putin’s accentuation of Russia’s nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.
“The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: ‘I’m going to go ahead and invade Ukraine and you’re going to look the other way. As long as I don’t call it an invasion, you’re going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don’t want to push this,’” he said.
With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of “deepening military competition”.
He added: “It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both sides.”