8,000 Hamas-led Riot Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

8,000 Hamas-led Rioters at Gaza Border on Friday

Hana Levi Julian

5 Adar I 5779 – February 9, 2019

Photo Credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Office via Twitter

Thousands of Gazans riot at the border with Israel, throwing live grenades and explosives at IDF soldiers and into Israeli territory

IDF soldiers again were forced to hold back thousands of rioting Gazans led by Hamas terrorists at Israel’s southern border on Friday (Feb. 8, 2019) as Hamas led another day of violence.

The weekly — and sometimes daily — violence has been taking place since March 30, 2018 as part of the Hamas-led effort to inspire other Arabs to join its Iranian-backed effort to annihilate the State of Israel.

Some 8,000 Gazans threw live grenades and explosives, rocks and burning tires at the security fence and into Israeli territory as Israeli soldiers stood guard at the border.

Hundreds of Israeli troops were deployed to prevent Hamas terrorists from using the riots as cover for their efforts to infiltrate into Israel to carry out more serious attacks on Jewish citizens living nearby.

The Gaza Health Ministry reported that two rioters were killed in the violence. The report has not yet been confirmed by the IDF.

Miraculously, Israelis living just minutes away stayed safe, and no injuries were reported among IDF troops.

The French Nuclear Horn Rebuilds (Daniel 8:8)

WW3: France to build ‘unstoppable’ HYPERSONIC NUKES to replace ageing nuclear armoury

FRANCE is set to build a state-of-the-art armoury of hypersonic weapons capable of travelling more than 3,800mph, in a bid to upgrade their ageing nuclear arsenal as they fall behind other world military powers.

By Thomas Mackie 16:11, Sat, Feb 9, 2019 | UPDATED: 16:42, Sat, Feb 9, 2019

France is starting to build their own hypersonic weapon (Image: GETTY)

The French Defence Ministry has promised to test a prototype hypersonic glider missile device in just two years time. “We have decided to issue a contract for a hypersonic glider demonstrator,” Defense Minister Florence Parly said during the unveiling of the V-MaX project. France has already carried out studies on propulsion systems for hypersonic flights as part of a £32 billion overhaul of its nuclear arsenal.

Hypersonic gliders would be carried to the edge of the earth’s atmosphere by a launch vehicle and would then “glide” back to a target on the ground.

France’s main nuclear-tipped air-to-surface cruise missile, the ASMP, is capable of flying up to Mach 3, which is 2,300 mph.

To be deemed hypersonic, the new device must be capable of flying at least five times the speed of sound (3,800mph).

However many hypersonic weapons can travel much faster, with Russia’s latest glider reaching speeds of 20,700mph.

Defense Minister Florence Parly said “We have decided to issue a contract for a hypersonic gliders” (Image: GETTY)

The French Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) admitted the country had “relatively little experience” in the hypersonic field.

Hypersonic weaponry is fast becoming the nuclear weapon of choice among the world superpowers.

In March last year Russia unveiled a new range of weapons, including two hypersonic devices, the Kinzhal air-launched missile and the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.

The Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle is capable of flying at least 10 times faster than sound and has been already deployed to the Russian Air Force.

A display of Rusia’s Avangard hypersonic boost-glide weapon (Image: GETTY)

The device can reach speeds of 20,700mph and was successfully tested last year.

The system is launched on top of an inter-continental ballistic missile and works as a delivery vehicle for a nuclear warhead.

China has also carried out a series of successful tests on a hypersonic glider vehicle since 2014.

The device is believed to be capable of reaching speeds up to 7,700mph.

The US has been lagging behind the two superstates in the development of hypersonic gliders but Donald Trump’s administration has recently embarked on a programme to catch up as fast as possible.

Nuclear Posturing in Pakistan (Daniel 8:8)

Nuclear thoughts in Pakistan

The writer is an independent researcher focusing on issues of strategic stability and foreign policy challenges

Pakistan and India and their nuclear postures have always been a cause for concern for international players. In fact, most analyses of the contemporary times in strategic stability involve finding ways to address this problem. Many Western and local intellectuals have offered different understandings to study this problem. These understandings form the basis of comprehension of nuclear strategic stability in the subcontinent. The issues are devoid of indigenous critical conjectures.

Western political scientists have offered their reasoning based on understanding the problem in terms of implications for global nuclear order. These include an emphasis on India and Pakistan’s outlier status from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), their reluctance in signing the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty (CTBT) and their scepticism of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). They also highlight the inherent difficulty of establishing a confident escalation-control mechanism. These underpinnings are based on their outward thinking about the generalities. The issue is, however, deeply laced with local specifications.

Pakistani and Indian analysts define these concepts through the rationale of their national interest and strategic options. Both countries maintain the doctrinal issue at ‘minimum credible deterrence’ albeit with varying levels of definitions for minimality and credibility. India tries to dominate by highlighting its commitments to NPT without being a member and lampoons Pakistan for its unsafe and extensive use. Pakistan rejects this argument and builds up its position by trying to pin India down as the promoter of the nuclear arms race in the subcontinent. These arguments are all regurgitating of positions that the US, the European elites and the USSR had uttered in the Cold War. This begs the question that does Pakistan define its understanding of nuclear weapons locally or takes its cues from others?

A recent article by Sadia Tasleem and Toby Dalton highlighting the dominance of emulation in Pakistan’s nuclear policy is important in this discussion. Their analysis of the written materials highlighting these topics from 1998 to 2018 shows that Pakistan’s nuclear thinkers have co-opted European policy proposals regarding nuclear issues. Their insights on the policies and postures represent a lack of original thinking in contemporary Pakistani view about nuclear deterrence. The lack of local understandings of the effects of this emulation pattern can only rely on old instances and cases without any critical understanding of the South Asian case.

As the United States has opted out of the consequential Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia, the future of nuclear stability in the world is in question again. This treaty had been hailed as one of the important pillars of nuclear stability between the USSR and the US during the Cold War. The importance of this issue will shade the urgency of Indo-Pak nuclear stability. As the gaze of Western intellectuals turns inwards to their immediate concerns and with the lack of indigenous conceptions about nuclear worries, local innovative interpretations become a necessity.

The local insights regarding stability, deterrence, posturing and retaliation need new thoughts. Furthermore, the thoughts about nuclear weapons are needed to be linked with the emphasis on common geographical regionality, new foreign policy initiatives and common cultural legacy for the subcontinent. In contemporary times, these weapons are not just tools of political and military supremacy, but they are also embedded in the cultural and social discourse of South Asian publics. This uniqueness requires novel vision and new intuitions for an all-embracing policy for these weapons.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 9th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The Sixth Seal: The Big Apple Shake (Rev 6:12)

Big Apple shake? Potential for earthquake in New York City exists

Posted 11:21 PM, April 2, 2014, by Jeremy Tanner and Mario Diaz

NEW YORK CITY (PIX11) – For the last 43 years John Armbruster has been a seismologist with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.  A veteran of what he describes as “a couple of dozen” quakes, he is interested in the seismic activity throughout the Pacific region in recent weeks.

However, does the amount of plate movements around the world in recent weeks as well as years to translate to New York City being more vulnerable, “These earthquakes are not communicating with each other, they are too far apart,” said Armbruster in an interview with PIX 11 News on Wednesday.

Nonetheless, Armbruster added that there are many faults around the area and a few in Manhattan, including on specific fault capable of producing a magnitude 6.0 earthquake, “The 125th street fault.”

What would a magnitude 6.0 earthquake inflict upon the city?

“I think there would be serious damage and casualties,” said Armbruster.  The reason?  Most of the buildings and infrastructure was not constructed  to withstand earthquakes.  This said, what does Armbruster think of the chances of a major earthquake catching New York City by surprise?

“We know that its unlikely because it hasn’t happened in the last 300 years but the earthquake that struck Fukushima Japan was the 1000 year earthquake and they weren’t ready for the that.

U.S. troops have NO future in Iraq

Do U.S. troops have a future in Iraq?

Adam Taylor

President Trump visited U.S. troops in Iraq in December, in his first trip to a conflict zone as commander in chief and shortly after his announcement that he planned to withdraw troops from Syria. (Andrew Hamik/AP)

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Trump offered a defense of two recent and controversial foreign-policy decisions: His attempt to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and the administration’s peace talks with the Taliban, which could lead to a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” he said. Yet, Trump glossed over Iraq, another country where the United States is fighting a seemingly endless war.

Nearly 16 years after the United States invaded Iraq, there remain about 5,200 U.S. troops stationed there. When Trump visited them in December, in his first trip to a conflict zone as commander in chief — and shortly after his unexpected announcement that he planned to withdraw troops from Syria — it was seen as a reinforcement of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Trump confirmed no immediate plans to withdraw from Iraq. “In fact, we could use this as the base if we wanted to do something in Syria,” he said during his stopover. But while the president and his national security team may want U.S. troops to stay, his words and actions seem to be decreasing the country’s tolerance for hosting American forces.

That point was highlighted this week after Trump suggested the U.S. presence in Iraq could be used to “watch” Iran. “We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran, because Iran is a real problem,” Trump said in an interview with CBS on Sunday.

As The Post’s Tamer El-Ghobashy and Mustafa Salim reported Monday, Iraqi President Barham Salih rejected the idea outright. “We will not allow this,” he said. “Iraq does not want to be a party or axis to any conflict between multiple countries.” The Iraqi president, whose office is mostly symbolic, added that American forces were allowed into the country only to fight terrorism.

The next day, Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi offered his own pushback. “When it is said that the mission of these [U.S. forces] is to fight a neighboring country, like Iran, for example, we reject that notion. The constitution itself prevents us from such approaches,” he said, according to the Iraqi Kurdish news site Rudaw.

Although the United States had an extensive military presence in Iraq for years following its invasion in 2003 — troop levels peaked at more than 170,000 in 2007 — the Obama administration withdrew U.S. forces after the United States and Iraq failed to reach an agreement that would govern American deployments. The last U.S. units left in December 2011.

However, after the Islamic State spread across Syria and Iraq, seizing large areas of northern Iraq in 2014, Baghdad turned to Washington for help. U.S. forces returned, but strictly for anti-terrorism purposes — a fact U.S. officials have acknowledged. “Our military mission on the ground remains very focused on the reason that the government of Iraq asked us to come there,” U.S. Army Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.

The two nations have not signed a new Status of Forces Agreement outlining the terms of the U.S. presence, meaning American troops are in Iraq only at Baghdad’s request.

For Trump, U.S. bases in Iraq may seem like a logical place from which to watch or counter Iran. The administration’s Iran policy is, after all, focused on containing a country that is “a source of potential danger and conflict,” as Trump said. But the Iraqi government’s calculations are more complicated.

In general, Iraq’s new government has tried to avoid being in the middle of a tussle between Washington and Tehran, its much more powerful neighbor. Abdul-Mahdi, the new prime minister, is viewed as willing to seek compromise; he is backed by Shiite politicians led by populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a critic of both the United States and Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, left, speaks with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi in Baghdad during a trip to the Middle East. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Reuters)

In painting Iraq as an American listening post, Trump has done his cause few favors. Writing for Defense One, Katie Bo Williams outlined how the president’s words played into Baghdad’s parliamentary politics. “Trump’s remarks come as a variety of anti-U. S. political blocs are urging the parliament to vote on legislation that would curtail American military activities in Iraq — or even oust U.S. troops entirely,” Williams wrote.

Worse still was Trump’s failure to meet Abdul-Mahdi when the president visited Iraq in December, in a break from his predecessors. “Visiting a military base in Iraq and not meeting any Iraqi officials is a good way to increase the risks that we don’t have much of a military presence at all in Iraq for very long,” a senior official in the anti-Islamic State coalition told The Washington Post at the time.

Michael Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, told Defense One that the United States has two strikes against it. “If there’s a strike three,” he said, “we’re out.”

If Iraq ejects U.S. troops, how would Trump react? It’s tempting to say he would not care. Trump has long been a critic of what he calls “endless wars” and U.S. military deployments. “I think we should have gotten out a long time ago,” he said during an interview with CNBC in August 2011, months before the Obama administration completed its withdrawal from Iraq.

However, it seems more probable that the Trump administration is finding out, as it did in Syria, that its numerous Middle East foreign-policy goals — limiting the U.S. presence abroad, fighting the Islamic State, containing Iran — often do not align.