1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The Coney Island earthquake of 1884

January 20, 2010

New York City isn’t immune to earthquakes; a couple of small tremors measuring about 2.5 on the Richter scale even struck back in 2001 and 2002.

But on August 10, 1884, a more powerful earthquake hit. Estimated from 4.9 to 5.5 in magnitude, the tremor made houses shake, chimneys fall, and residents wonder what the heck was going on, according to a New York Times article two days later.

The quake was subsequently thought to have been centered off Far Rockaway or Coney Island.

It wasn’t the first moderate quake, and it won’t be the last. In a 2008 Columbia University study, seismologists reported that the city is crisscrossed with several fault lines, one along 125th Street. 

[Headline of The New York Times, August 12, 1884]

With that in mind, New Yorkers should expect a 5.0 or higher earthquake centered here every 100 years, the seismologists say.

Translation: We’re about 30 years overdue. Lucky for us the city adopted earthquake-resistant building codes in 1995.

Drinking the Cup of Babylon the Great

US tried to kill Kim Jong-un with chemical agents: Report

PressTV

Pyongyang has reportedly foiled a plot by the US government and its main ally, South Korea, earlier this year to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un using biological and chemical agents.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) made the claim in an article published on Friday, accusing Washington of using counter-terrorism and the so-called war on terror as a pretext to overthrow governments it deems hostile.

“In May this year, a group of heinous terrorists who infiltrated into our country on the orders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US and the South Korean puppet Intelligence Service with the purpose of carrying out a state-sponsored terrorism against our supreme headquarters using biological and chemical substance were caught and exposed,” the KCNA wrote.

“This palpably shows the true nature of the US as the main culprit behind terrorism,” it added.

The article also said the US “changes its colors” like a “chameleon” to justify toppling governments, especially in the Middle East, adding that Washington interchangeably uses counter-terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to justify its invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

The KCNA cited Iraq and Libya as examples of governments that halted their nuclear programs only to be later attacked by the US.

The Friday article also said North Korea’s commitment to fighting terrorism and said, US meddling is “the main reason international terrorism is not yet annihilated.”
Pyongyang had previously claimed in an official report that, “The US has fully revealed its criminal scenario to make no scruple of using biochemical weapons” to destroy North Korea and take over the world, accusing Washington of developing “Plan Jupiter,” a biochemical operation allegedly designed to overthrow Kim.
The United States and North Korea have been at loggerheads over Pyongyang’s weapons and nuclear programs and Washington’s military posture against the North.

Pyongyang says it will not give up on its nuclear deterrence unless Washington ends its hostile policy toward the country and dissolves the US-led UN command in South Korea. Thousands of US soldiers are stationed in South Korea and Japan.
Tensions have recently significantly risen between North Korea and the US. The two countries have been trading threats of military action against one another, and there is a potential for a real armed conflict to erupt.
US President Donald Trump has taken a tough stance, threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary and calling the North Korean leader names. Kim has responded with threats, and name-calling, of his own.

US warship heading to Korean waters for drills
Amid tensions, the US sent the super-carrier USS Ronald Reagan along with nearly 80 aircraft on board and a nuclear-powered submarine to the Korean Peninsula to join the South Korean military for a joint drill amid heightened tensions with Pyongyang.

US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan departs the Yokosuka naval base in Yokosuka, Japan’s Kanagawa prefecture, on September 8, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

Citing an unnamed South Korean official, Yonhap News agency reported that Washington and Seoul will conduct joint drills to detect, track, and intercept ballistic missiles, in addition to anti-submarine warfare training.

A US commander said the exercise, due on October 20, is aimed at preparing the US military to defend its allies against what he called Pyongyang’s threats.

“The United States has been very clear about leveraging all options in order to get North Korea to change its path,” Rear Admiral Marc Dalton, commander of the USS Ronald Reagan’s strike group, told the South China Morning Post.

This comes amid reports by Russian lawmakers visiting North Korea this week that Pyongyang was planning to test a new long-range missile.

Prior to joint military drill between US and South Korea in August, Pyongyang threatened “merciless retaliation,” saying that the exercises, which it claims are an invasion rehearsal, could lead to an “uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war.”

Pyongyang caused an uproar when it conducted its sixth and biggest nuclear test on September 3. The nuclear test significantly raised already high tensions with the United States, South Korea and Japan.

The North also recently fired two missiles over Japanese airspace, causing further tensions.

North Korea is under growing international pressure over its missile and nuclear programs and has been subjected to an array of sanctions by the United Nations.

The South Korean Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

The North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un conducted its sixth underground nuclear test early this September – which Pyongyang claims as its first test of a hydrogen bomb – and in late August and again, two weeks later, the hermit kingdom launched a ballistic missile directly over the territory of Hokkaido in northern Japan. Now, the U.S. and its key allies in the region – primarily South Korea and Japan – look ahead to the anniversary of the founding of North Korea’s communist party on October 10, which may yield yet another nuclear provocation from the rogue state.

For both Tokyo and Seoul, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea is undeniable, yet neither Japan nor South Korea – rich and technologically capable developed countries – possesses their own nuclear deterrent against Pyongyang or the long term threat posed by rising Chinese military power in the region. The reasons for this are varied, but at the end of the day, one stands out: The U.S. nuclear umbrella. For both countries, the reassurance of the United States that it will retaliate in kind to a nuclear attack on either ally is the lynchpin holding them back. However, as Pyongyang closes in on developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to the U.S. mainland, some wonder whether Washington would really be willing to trade Los Angeles for Seoul in a shooting war.

If North Korea does develop a functional nuclear ICBM, could South Korea and Tokyo consider developing their own nuclear deterrent, and what ramifications could that have on regional stability?

Beyond the security of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, there are significant political and historical factors preventing America’s two primary east Asian allies from developing their own deterrent, particularly in Japan. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II showed the Japanese people in livid detail the horrors of nuclear war. As a result, says Kuni Miyake, President of the Foreign Policy Institute in Tokyo, voters have developed a “nuclear allergy based on the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” This “allergy” played a major role in the creation of a powerful peace movement in Japan and contributed strongly to the strength of the Anpo Toso – protests against the mutual security treaty with the U.S. in 1960, which became the largest mass movement in modern Japanese history and upended the ruling government. In Miyake’s mind, this anti-nuclear sentiment, combined with the budgetary cost of developing and maintaining nuclear weapons, means that “Japan is not likely to go nuclear as long as the U.S. extended deterrence is guaranteed.

However, says Thomas Cynkin, a former U.S. diplomat in Japan, this is only part of the story. While the development of a Japanese nuclear capability is certainly deeply unpopular, “Japanese leaders have also preserved Japan’s nuclear option both by carefully and consistently articulating their policy in this regard, and by nurturing Japan’s actual capacity to produce and deploy nuclear weapons.” The Anpo Toso protests in 1960 largely nixed the plans of then Prime Minister Nobosuke Kishi – current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s grandfather – to rearm Japan after the war and possibly develop an independent nuclear capability. However, Japanese policymakers have never fully left nuclear weapons off the table. Instead, they have cultivated a nuclear “latency option,” while pursuing a strictly non-nuclear official policy. Boasting an advanced civilian nuclear industry, Cynkin says the country is estimated to have “9 tons of plutonium, enough for over 1,000 warheads,” as well as an advanced space industry, which provides easy access to ballistic missile technology. The end result is a non-nuclear Japan with the capability to rapidly become nuclear if the U.S. guarantee is undermined.

These dynamics are quite different in South Korea. There, the concept of developing a domestic nuclear capability is far more openly discussed, especially as North Korea’s nuclear program accelerates. According to a Gallup Korea poll, 60 percent of South Koreans support developing their own nuclear capability, while 68 percent want to see U.S. nuclear weapons, which were removed from the peninsula by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, redeployed there. In fact, says Admiral James ‘Sandy’ Winnefeld, Cipher Brief Expert and former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as recently as August 2004, “Seoul owned up to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to having done some nuclear weapons research.” In addition, experts believe South Korea could develop its own nuclear arsenal in as little as 18 months.

There are several key factors holding Seoul back, however. First, if South Korea develops its own nuclear arsenal it would have to leave the NPT, this would put it in league with North Korea, which withdrew in 1993. In addition to this diplomatic dent to South Korea’s reputation, an independent nuclear deterrent could prompt other regional powers – including Japan – to develop their own capabilities. More importantly, it would almost certainly provoke an aggressive reaction from Pyongyang and China, and it would alienate the United States, which insists that the security of South Korea is guaranteed under the nuclear umbrella and has strongly pressured South Korea to remain non-nuclear throughout its history.

For these reasons, it is unlikely that the South Korean government, and especially its relatively pacifist President Moon Jae-In, would pursue their own capability in the near future. Instead, says Winnefeld, hints “from a nation like South Korea that they are considering developing their own weapon would…likely stimulate further reassurances that they do not need to because we have their back…it is possible that such hints are merely designed to gain such reassurance.”

This strategy is very close to what Cynkin describes as Japan’s “policy of preserving a latent nuclear option” as a means to keep the United States nuclear guarantee rock solid. After a period of uncertainty in the early days the Trump Administration about the U.S commitment to its east Asian alliance system – during the presidential campaign Trump said that U.S. allies should pay more for their security and suggested that Japan develop its own nuclear weapons – American security assurances now seem to be on better footing. In June, for instance, Trump promised to protect South Korea with “the full range of United States military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear.”

This is a positive sign. The possibility of either Seoul or Tokyo developing their own nuclear arsenals would both deeply strain their alliances with the United States and dangerously provoke North Korea and China. However, a North Korea ICBM capable of reaching the United States will almost certainly bring this issue back to prominence. If that capability is real, it means that a decision to retaliate against North Korea for an attack on South Korea, Japan, or any other U.S. ally would risk the destruction of an American city. When that happens, the Trump Administration will need to make sure that its nuclear guarantee is reliable if it wants to prevent its east Asian allies from considering their own nuclear options.

Fritz Lodge is an analyst at The Cipher Brief. Follow him on Twitter @FritzLodge.

The Terrorism of Pakistan (Daniel 8)

pakistan, paksitan terror, pakistan military, hafiz saeed, Milli Muslim League, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Lashkar-e-Tayba , JEM, nawaz sharrif, pakistan nuclear program 

Mainstreaming Terror | The Indian Express

Written by Khaled Ahmed | Published:October 7, 2017 12:20 am

 

The non-state actors have returned from Pakistan’s covert war to trouble a state that has lost its writ to their localised tyranny.It is now certain — unless Pakistan’s powers-that-be intervene — that the process of “mainstreaming” or deradicalising of Pakistan’s proxy warriors recommended by retired military officers figuring on TV talkshows has been shipwrecked. The Foreign Office under PMLN foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has decided that Hafiz Saeed’s Milli Muslim League (MML) should not have taken part in the NA-120 by-polls bagging 5,822 votes and beating at least one mainstream party, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party.

The Foreign Office has followed up on the letter of the Interior Ministry under PMLN Minister Ahsan Iqbal in answer to the query sent by the Election Commission of Pakistan on whether the MML should be allowed to take part in the by-election. The Interior Ministry said: “There is evidence to substantiate that the Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT), the Jamaat ud Dawa and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) are affiliates and ideologically of the same hue, and [therefore] the registration of the MML is not supported”.

This was new in Pakistan. The line to take heretofore was that Lashkar-e-Tayba had miraculously metamorphosed into Jamaat ud Dawa that only did education and charity work. This was accepted by Pakistan’s judiciary and no one could hint otherwise without being reprimanded or threatened. Hafiz Saeed and his “charity” organisations including hundreds of schools and colleges are the prime example of “mainstreaming” of an outlawed organisation by Pakistan. Its negative fallout was also endured, like the running of private courts under “Islamic law”. What has been highlighted by a lame-duck PMLN government is the negative consequence of what is called “mainstreaming”: Instead of de-radicalising the declared terrorists the process further radicalises society and undermines the power of the state.

It was said on TV talkshows that PM Sharif had heard of mainstreaming and had even received a proposal but sat on it till he was kicked out of office. His fear was genuine. But why did he balk at mainstreaming whenhe had allowed it in Punjab to the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba? It appears he had decided to take a stand because appeasement had not yielded good results: Mainstreaming simply allowed more space to the offender.

But his rump party, still ruling, wanted to retain the populist tinge of anti-Americanism as it bucked the jihadi state. Pakistan’s “consensual” foreign policy response to President Donald Trump’s critique of its terrorist “safe havens” is based on the presumption of a “fatal foreign policy blunder” — that of joining America’s war against terrorism. When General Zia joined the “deniable” war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, no one thought it was a blunder. When America went to the UN on the issue, it found India missing. That was enough for Pakistan: India was left out of the most powerful consensus against the existence of the Soviet Union.

The general-president in Islamabad got the free space to push forward Pakistan’s “nuclear programme” that had become the central point of its India-centric nationalism. From Pakistan’s control of the anti-Soviet covert war in Afghanistan sprang the covert jihad of Kashmir. It was not a “blunder” to have joined “America’s war”; it was a boon.
No one but Pakistan is to blame. Least of all America, on whose money Pakistan got back the equilibrium it had lost by overturning democracy and killing an elected prime minister. The non-state actors have returned from Pakistan’s covert war to trouble a state that has lost its writ to their localised tyranny. It “mainstreamed” Sipah-e-Sahaba by renaming it Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat in South Punjab and let ex-ISI chief Hamid Gul “mainstream” the rest through the Defence of Pakistan Council now in the control of a “charity” warlord on the UN’s list of wanted terrorists.