Antichrist Calls For Million Man March

Sadr calls for million-man march to storm Iraqi Parliament over electoral commission row

Baxtiyar Goran

Protesters breach the Green Zone in Iraq and storm the Parliament building. (Photo: Reuters)

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region (Kurdistan 24) – Supporters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Monday vowed to storm the Iraqi Parliament “again” if the term of the elections commission was extended.

In a statement on Monday, the Central Revolution Committee, affiliated to Sadr, threatened to storm the Iraqi Parliament building if the Parliament extended the Independent High Electoral Commission’s (IHEC) term.

Reading the statement during a press conference at Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, Ikhlas al-Uobadi, a member of the Central Revolution Committee, said, “We decided to postpone the demonstrations to give the parliament a chance to elect a new electoral commission.”

“We reject extending the mandate of the current electoral commission for any reason,” the statement said.

“If it is extended, the people will withdraw the mandate from the MPs, and the people will determine their future,” the report added.

Sadr accuses the current IHEC of being under the control of the Iraqi government’s ruling parties and holds them responsible for the violations in the 2014 parliamentary elections.

The Sadr-affiliated committee called upon the people of Iraq to form a million-man march and “fold the page of the parliament to begin a new one.”

On April 30, Sadr supporters stormed the Iraqi Parliament building after the government failed to complete a quorum to vote for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s new cabinet ministers.

Editing by Karzan Sulaivany

Anticipating Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

us russia cold war nuclear war donald trump vladimir putin
Will Kirby


President Trump’s rhetoric has been accused of increasing the risk of nuclear war

Increasing terror threats across the world and the erratic behaviour of US President Trump were touted as reasons for the heightened fears across the world by speakers at the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe in Paris.William Perry, who served as the US Secretary of Defence for three years under President Clinton, said that the US and Russia have entered a “new Cold War”.

He said: “We are beginning a new Cold War, with the worst possible outcome a nuclear war between the US and Russia.

“Relations today between the US and Russia are comparable to the dark days of the Cold War. How could we have let that happen?”

Increasingly hostile relations between the US and Russia, North and South Korea and India and Pakistan have put the world on a knife-edge and with all of those countries possessing nuclear weapons, they could cause devastation at a moment’s notice.

Mr Perry added: “We could have the same number of casualties as all of World War Two, only these would happen in six hours instead of six years.”

Among the other speakers was former prime minister Tony Blair, who branded North Korea “abhorrent”.

He said: “We can threaten military action… But unless there are elements of which I am unaware in either the weakness of the North Korean defences or the strength of US capabilities, it is hard to think of a pre-emptive strike which would not result in catastrophic consequences.”

President Trump is expected to announce this week that he will scrap the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, which could increase global tensions even further.Statesmen at the summit warned the decision not to certify the Iran agreement could make it more difficult to control North Korea’s nuclear ambition, given that Pyongyang are less likely to sign any disarmament agreement if they think Washington can ignore it in the future.

Mr Blair continued: “The sensible thing is to preserve the current agreement.”

He added that sticking to the agreement „means, for now at least, that Iran’s nuclear program can be stalled”.


The news comes after Russia’s foreign secretary Sergey Lavrov told his US counterpart, Rex Tillerson, the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula is “unacceptable”.During a phone call with Secretary of State Mr Tillerson, Vladimir Putin’s right hand man discussed Syria, Korea and Ukraine, the Russian foreign ministry revealed.

Mr Lavrov also told Mr Tillerson Moscow is demanding the US returns Russian diplomatic property seized in 2016 over suspected Russian interference in the general election.

The pair’s phone call came just hours after Donald Trump’s most senior general told the US Army to „stand ready“ for war with North Korea.

General James ‚Mad dog‘ Mattis warned it is impossible to tell what the future holds for the crisis, but urged US troops to be prepared for a confrontation with Kim Jong-un.


He said while Mr Trump is committed to finding a diplomatic solution, the US Army must „standby ready“ to fight.
General Mattis said: „It is right now a diplomatically led, economic-sanction buttressed effort to try to turn North Korea off this path.
„Now what does the future hold? Neither you nor I can say, so there is one thing the US Army can do.
„And that is you have got to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our President can employ if needed.“

A Lack Of Vigilance Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

Faults Underlying Exercise Vigilant Guard

Faults Underlying Exercise Vigilant Guard

Story by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment

Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009

This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.

TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.

When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults.

The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said.

“In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said.

This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.

The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday.

Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director.

“A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault.

Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added.

Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage.

“It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi.

The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added.

“You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said.

Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents.

Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.”

“I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said.

Training concluded Thursday.

Coping with the Iranian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:3)


Commentary: A former Iranian diplomat on what Trump needs to know about Iran

Seyed Hossein Mousavian
With the fate of the Iran nuclear deal at stake, Donald Trump has until October 15 to tell Congress if he believes Tehran is complying with the seven-nation agreement. Many expect that the U.S. president will decertify Iranian compliance with the deal — returning U.S.-Iran relations to a state of overt hostility.

Not all in the administration seem to agree with Trump’s harder-line approach on Iran. Defense Secretary James Mattis has publicly stated that Trump “should consider staying” in the deal, while Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has reportedly argued against decertification. Speaking after his first meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Tillerson also seemed to indicate a willingness to take a longer-term view when he told a media conference that the Washington-Tehran relationship had “never had a stable, happy moment in it.” ”Is this going to be the way it is for the rest of our lives and our children’s lives and our grandchildren’s lives,” he asked.

Tillerson’s remarks evoked an encounter told to me by Mohsen Rafiqdoost, a former Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander, of a 1982 meeting he had with Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic.

Rafiqdoost recalled suggesting that the U.S. embassy grounds in Tehran be converted to a Revolutionary Guards base. Ayatollah Khomeini rejected the idea, asking “Why would you go there? Are we not going to have relations with America for a thousand years?”

It’s clear that decades of estrangement have led to a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran in Washington. Notwithstanding the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations, every U.S. administration since the 1979 Iranian revolution has failed in its declared objective to contain Iran.

If Trump wishes to free future generations of anxiety over U.S.-Iran tensions, he should pay careful attention to five points in formulating his Iran policy.

First, American officials need to stop speaking about Iran in threatening and insulting terms. The Iranian people are proud of their thousands of years of history and above all else view mutual respect as integral to their foreign relations. However, Foreign Minister Zarif told me that Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month was the “most insulting speech of any American president toward Iran since the revolution” and that it “made any potential for dialogue with the United States meaningless.”

Second, U.S. regime-change policies have been self-defeating. The principal reason for lasting Iranian distrust of the United States since the revolution has been U.S. policies aimed at undermining and overturning the Iranian political system. In June, Tillerson openly declared that U.S. policy towards Iran included regime change — a statement not heard from a senior U.S. official in years and which marked a sharp departure from conventional U.S. rhetoric of seeking Iranian “behavior” change.

In stark contrast, Barack Obama told the UN that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” Consequently, he was able to diplomatically engage Iran on its nuclear program, and reach the July 2015 nuclear deal. The respectful letters exchanged between Obama and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei helped set the process in motion. This would not happen today even if Trump made a similar overture, as the key to successful negotiations with Iran is to first drop regime-change policies.

Third, since the 1953 U.S.-led coup that overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iranians have resented U.S. interference in Iran. The political landscape of conservatives, moderates, and reformists in Iran is in many ways similar to the competition between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. As such, any agreement between Washington and Tehran must be negotiated in a way that transcends the partisan divide in each country — or else it would be inherently fragile. The challenges the nuclear deal has been subject to in Washington by the Republican Party is testament to this need. With respect to Iran too, negotiations must be carried out in a way that respects Iran’s political makeup and hierarchies.

Fourth, the Trump administration needs to accept that Iran, as a large country with immense natural resources and an educated population, has legitimate security concerns and interests in its neighborhood. Washington must recognize that U.S. policies aimed at isolating Tehran and refusing to accept a legitimate Iranian role in the region have only seen Iranian influence grow in countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon while U.S. influence wanes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. From Iran’s perspective, its post-1979 foreign policy has been driven by the aim of deterring foreign aggression and securing the country’s borders rather than the pursuit of regional hegemony. After the revolution, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and, for much of the past decade, chaos on its thousands of miles of borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – all factors that have compelled it to play a regional role. If the United States wants to avoid scenarios where regional states aggressively compete for power it must encourage the creation of a regional security system involving the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries along with Iraq and Iran.

Finally, the record of U.S.-Iran negotiations shows that “dual track” policies of pressure and diplomacy are destined to fail. While Trump appears to be trying to bring Iran to the negotiating table in a position of weakness, Iranian policymakers tend to respond to pressure by retaliating in kind.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, former Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted how by the time he entered into negotiations with Iran, after years of sanctions, Iran had “mastered the nuclear fuel cycle” and built a uranium stockpile large enough to make 10 to 12 bombs. “In other words, Iran was already a nuclear-threshold state,” wrote Kerry.

The lesson for Washington here is that if push comes to shove, Tehran will develop its own bargaining chips — not capitulate in the face of whatever threats are made when Trump delivers his next policy speech on Iran.

About the Author

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University and a former head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council.