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

Image result for new york earthquake

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

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.

What would a magnitude 6.0 earthquake inflict upon the city?

“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.

The Nations Stir up Hatred Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Hamas Nazi swastika flag flying on the Gaza border with southern Israel

Hamas-led Gaza Rioters Flying Nazi Swastika with a Palestinian Authority Flag

Hana Levi Julian3 Av 5779 – August 4, 2019

Photo Credit: IDF via Twitter

Iranian-backed, Hamas-led Gaza rioters flew the Nazi swastika fastened on to the Palestinian Authority flag this past Friday as they gathered at the security fence along the border with southern Israel.

“The Nazi swastika flag, a symbol of murder and sheer hatred raised yet again at a Hamas riot inside Gaza,” the IDF wrote in a post describing the incident on the Twitter social networking site. “In the face of this hatred stand IDF soldiers, alert and determined, ready to defend lsrael.”

Some 6,000 Gazans were involved in this Friday’s weekly violence at the border with southern Israel. As usual, the rioters burned tires and hurled rocks and homemade explosives at IDF soldiers stationed along the security fence.

In what is a fine example of true “fake news,” Israel’s Kan public broadcast authority reported that some of the rioters managed to “break through” the checkpoints anyway, despite the so-called “checkpoints” set up by Gaza’s ruling Hamas terror organization.

Those “rushes towards the border” by Gazan rioters are, in fact, entirely organized and led by Hamas operatives.

No Israeli soldiers were physically injured in the violence. According to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, 51 rioters were injured on Friday, including 24 who were hurt due to gunfire. It is not possible to independently verify the data, however.

Iran Seizes an Independent Oil Tanker

Iraq denies ties to tanker seized by Iran for ‘oil smuggling’, as Tehran warns of further action in the Gulf | The Independent

Iraq has denied any connection to an oil tanker seized by Iran for allegedly smuggling fuel, in the latest escalation of a diplomatic crisis gripping the Gulf.

It is the third foreign tanker that Iranian forces have detained in less than a month near to or in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The British-flagged Stena Impero was seized on 19 July, also for so-called “marine violations” and remains under Iranian control.

On Monday Mohammed Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, threatened legal action against the UK over the tanker, accusing Britain of “piracy”.

Iranian media initially reported that the Iraqi ship was intercepted for diesel smuggling near Farsi Island, north of the Strait, where the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have a naval base. Iranian officials claimed some 700,000 litres of fuel were on board.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards publish purported exchange with British warship

However, Iraq’s oil ministry has denied links to the ship.

“The ministry does not export diesel to the international market,” it said in a statement.

Two Iraqi port officials said initial information pointed to the fact it was a “small ship” run by a private shipping company which was owned by an Iraqi private trader.

Iranian state media claimed the Iraqi ship was attempting to smuggle fuel “for some Arab countries”.

Guards commander Ramezan Zirahi told Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency it was carrying 700,000 litres of fuel but did not elaborate on the nationalities of the detained crew.

“The boats of the IRGC navy were patrolling the area to control traffic and detect illicit trade when they seized the tanker,” he added.

It comes amid soaring tensions between Iran, the west and its allies, that first erupted in May when the United States unilaterally pulled out of a 2015 nuclear agreement which curbed the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme in exchange for the easing of sanctions.

Furious with the additional sanctions, Tehran decreased its commitments to the deal which it has threatened to leave, and promised to block all exports through the Strait of Hormuz, if countries heeded Washington’s calls to stop buying Iranian oil.

It then captured Panama-flagged MT Riah in the Strait for allegedly smuggling fuel. The crew were finally released.

But shortly afterwards the Guards seized British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the same area for alleged marine violations. It came two weeks after British forces captured an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar accused of violating sanctions on Syria.

The UK has now sent an additional warship to the Strait to escort British ships and has called for the formation of a European task force to patrol the waterways, further ratcheting up tensions.

On Monday Mr Zarif accused Britain of “piracy” and being complicit in “US economic terrorism”. He threatened legal action over the alleged violations the Stena Impero committed.

“[The] Gulf will never close [its] eyes anymore … Iran is responsible for the security and safety of the Strait of Hormuz and the region,” he said in a televised speech broadcast by state media.

He also vowed to completely leave the 2015 deal “if necessary”, and called “on Europeans to accelerate their efforts to shield Iran’s economy from US sanctions”.

The Arrogance and Ignorance of the White House

Bruce Blair, Jon Wolfsthal: Pretending we could ‘win’ a nuclear war is a dangerous fantasy

By Bruce Blair, Jon Wolfsthal

Special to The Washington Post

For nearly six decades, the Cold War nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union threatened to unleash a devastating nuclear war at almost any time. The worst danger came when officials on both sides argued that a nuclear war could actually be fought, and sought the means to win such a conflict. Alarmingly, the idea of nuclear warfighting is back in vogue under the current administration and must again be rejected.

Nuclear catastrophe was avoided then largely because Washington and Moscow both eventually recognized that if an opponent had nuclear forces that survived a strike, they could respond to a nuclear attack with their own and inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor. This was the essence of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and the cornerstone of true deterrence. It is why President Ronald Reagan declared in his 1985 State of the Union address that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” — opening the door to real arms control and nuclear reductions with Russia that are now very much at risk.

Now, as then, nuclear believers like those in the Trump administration looked for ways to eclipse MAD with capabilities for fighting and winning a nuclear war. Key to these nuclear warfighting mindsets is the idea of “escalation dominance,” where one side thinks it can use nuclear weapons but somehow prevent the other side from doing the same. This conceit increasingly drives U.S. nuclear policy. President Donald Trump and his advisers have strongly embraced this risky set of policies and seek new, so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons to make these threats easier to carry out.

These concepts of escalation dominance and nuclear warfighting are dangerous fantasies. It is illogical and baseless to believe that a U.S. nuclear weapon could be used first against another nuclear-armed country without provoking a catastrophic nuclear counterattack.

For a brief 11 minutes (out of 300) during the two Democratic presidential debates this week, moderators addressed the critically important issue of nuclear war. CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday why she supported ending the dangerous Cold War idea of threatening to use nuclear weapons first. Warren, and a growing number of Democratic leaders in Congress, want to rule out first use of nuclear weapons because they want to make clear that fighting and “winning” a nuclear war is impossible. In reality, any first use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear-armed nation would yield a devastating response that vastly outweighs any perceived benefit of attacking first. That makes deterrence via retaliation the only credible role for U.S. nuclear weapons – pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons globally. The hard tasks of fighting and winning wars must remain in the conventional and other nonnuclear arenas. Far from providing security, increasing our reliance on the first use of nuclear weapons makes nuclear conflict more likely. Getting rid of first use would make us safer.

Adopting a nuclear No-First-Use (NFU) policy would be a straightforward way to nip this resurgent warfighting idea in the bud, enhancing U.S. and allied security and global stability. Calls for such a policy — one that clearly states that the United States will never be the first to use nuclear weapons — are growing. Warren has endorsed NFU, and former vice president Joe Biden championed a sole-purpose pledge that would make deterrence — presumably by retaliation and not first use — the only mission for U.S. nuclear forces. Making such a policy law over the objections of any president is probably politically impossible, but opinion surveys show NFU enjoys overwhelming public support. The fact that the issue came up at the debate shows that an overdue policy discussion about reducing the threat of nuclear weapons has cracked open.

Threatening the first use of nuclear weapons is not necessary, beneficial or credible. Russia and China possess secure second-strike forces capable of absorbing any first strike and retaliating ferociously against the United States or its allies. North Korea’s reliance on mobile missiles and underground tunnels means it would probably be able to respond to even a large-scale attack. And the reality is that the United States and its allies in NATO and East Asia can rule out nuclear first use because our conventional military forces can defeat any nuclear or nonnuclear adversary. For proof, look at how Russia has invoked nuclear threats in the face of our conventional capabilities. Moscow does not doubt our nuclear capabilities; they doubt their own conventional forces and compensate by issuing nuclear threats.

A thoughtful president would not even consider nuclear first use unless he or she was certain that the underlying intelligence supporting an attack was foolproof, that only nuclear weapons and not conventional or cyber weapons could do the job, that losses to innocent civilians would be “acceptable,” and that first use would not escalate to cataclysmic proportions. Perhaps some armchair strategist can spin up such far-fetched conditions, but in the real world, it just doesn’t hold up.

If the United States were to use nuclear weapons to respond to nonnuclear attacks, it would also lose the ability to rally global support to punish the attacking country. Even our staunchest allies would rightly be horrified. There are no credible contingencies where the first use of nuclear weapons would serve the immediate and long-term national security interest of the United States or its allies.

No one can say with 100 percent certainty that the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation in response to chemical or biological attacks might not inhibit an adversary from using these weapons. Neither can anyone claim conclusively that without nuclear threats, such weapons would be used more widely. But the theoretical possibility that nuclear coercion against chemical or biological threats might work must be weighed against the real, quantifiable and significant risks of threatening nuclear first use – and the dire humanitarian, environmental, economic, strategic and moral consequences of actual use. Policy should flow from that analysis, not imaginary scenarios resting on fantastical assumptions meant to minimize the risks and maximize the potential benefits.

A small but influential sect of true believers in nuclear warfighting often dismiss “no first use” as an agenda promoted by arms control or disarmament advocates. While a pledge not to use nuclear weapons first would open up new avenues for constructive arms control, the idea is not driven by peacenik impulses, but by a clear-eyed expert assessment of the risks incurred by first use and the benefits of maintaining a deterrent posture that eschews it. Forswearing first use would not only enhance stability, but could enable smarter investments in nuclear weapons, stabilize nuclear crises, raise the threshold of nuclear use, reduce the risk of initiating a nuclear strike on the basis of faulty intelligence, and open up a new avenue for controlling the dangerous and accelerating nuclear competition between Washington and Moscow. If the next president adopts this policy, they could then push the leaders of every other nuclear-armed state to do so (India and China already have). Anything less threatens to undermine the fragile logic of deterrence and could result in a nuclear catastrophe the world had hoped was left behind in the history books.

The Reality of Catastrophic Nuclear War (Revelation 16)

Iran has announced it is reducing its reducing its compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal (Image: GETTY )

Iran news: Fears of catastrophic WAR surge after Iran snubs Trump over nuclear deal

FEARS are growing that tensions into the Middle East could explode into open warfare after Iran announced it is reducing its compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal, in a dramatic challenge to Donald Trump.

By JAMES BICKERTON

PUBLISHED: 03:21, Sun, Aug 4, 2019

UPDATED: 03:23, Sun, Aug 4, 2019

Iran also warns it could withdraw from the agreement, designed to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons, in its entirety. President Trump pulled the US out of the deal, made by President Obama, in May 2018. He claimed Iran had failed to honour the spirit of the agreement by developing ballistic missiles and funding terror groups.

However the other signatories to the treaty, including the UK, opposed the move and insisted Iran was in compliance.

Tensions with Iran have surged since May 2018, with a number of attacks on oil tankers being blamed on the Iranian regime.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the country had reduced its compliance with the agreement, and may withdraw out entirely unless other world powers do more to protect its economy.

He commented: “The third step in reducing commitments to the nuclear deal will be implemented in the current situation.

Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 (Image: GETTY )

“We have said that if the deal is not completely implemented by others then we will also implement it in the same incomplete manner.

“And of course all of our actions have been within the framework of the deal.”

After withdrawing from the nuclear agreement the US reimposed sanctions on Iran, damaging its economy.

However the other signatories to the agreement, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and the EU, have angered Trump by continuing to support it.

A number of oil tankers have been attacked in the Persian Gulf over the last few months (Image: GETTY )

Over the past few months a number of tankers have been attacked with explosive devices whilst passing through the Persian Gulf, which the US blames on Iran.

However Tehran has consistently denied the claims and said the incidents had nothing to do with them.

Last month forces from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard seized Stena Impero, a UK register oil tanker.

This was in response to British Royal Marines and police detaining an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar, which the Government claimed was going to violate EU sanctions by heading to Syria.

Iran Seizes Another Oil Tanker in the Gulf

A speedboat of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards moves around a British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero which was seized in the Strait of Hormuz on July 21, 2019Morteza Akhoondi,AP

Iran Says It Seized Iraqi Oil Tanker in Gulf, Arrested Seven Sailors

Last month, Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for alleged marine violations and allowed a second one to proceed after issuing a warning

The Associated PressReuters23:01

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has seized an Iraqi oil tanker in the Gulf that was smuggling fuel to some Arab states, Iran’s state TV reported, adding that seven sailors onboard of the tanker had been detained.

>> Subscribe for just $1 now

This is the third such seizure of a vessel in recent weeks. 

The vessel was intercepted near Iran’s Farsi Island in the Gulf, Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency said. Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen TV station reported that it was seized on Wednesday. 

Breaking news and analyses straight to your inbox

Click Here

“The IRGC’s naval forces have seized a foreign oil tanker in the Persian Gulf,” TV quoted IRGC commander Ramezan Zirahi as saying.

“It carried 700,000 litres of fuel. Seven sailors onboard of the tanker, who are from different nationalities, were detained,” he added.

>> Read more: U.S.-Iran escalation on verge of turning into a real slugfest ■ On Iran, Trump is shoving Israel out into the cold | Opinion

“This foreign vessel had received the fuel from other ships and was transferring it to Persian Gulf Arab states,” Fars quoted Gen. Ramazan Zirahi, a Guard commander, as saying. He added that “the seizure of the oil tanker was in coordination with Iran’s judiciary authorities and based on their order.” 

Iraq’s Ministry of Oil denied on Sunday accusations that the tanker was smuggling fuel, state news reported. 

Tensions have risen between Iran and the West since last year when the United States pulled out of an international agreement which curbed the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme in return for an easing of economic sanctions on Iran. 

In July, British forces seized an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar, accused it of violating sanctions on Syria. 

Breaking news and analyses straight to your inbox

Click Here

Then Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for alleged marine violations. It allowed a second one to proceed after issuing a warning. 

Describing the seizure of the Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz as illegal, Britain has rejected the idea that it could release the Iranian tanker in exchange for the British-flagged vessel seized by the IRGC.

Fears of a Middle East war with global repercussions have risen since Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and revived a panoply of sanctions meant to push Tehran into wider security concessions. 

Iran has retaliated by resuming uranium enrichment seen in the West as a potential conduit to developing an atom bomb. But it faces severe economic damage under intensified U.S. sanctions designed to strangle its vital oil trade. 

>> Read more: U.S. sanctions may cripple Iran, but it’s not why billions of dollars keep vanishing | Analysis

After several attacks in May and June on oil tankers – blamed by Washington on Tehran, which denied responsibility – Trump has been trying to forge a military coalition to secure Gulf waters, though European allies have been loath to join for fear of provoking open conflict. 

European parties to the deal – Britain, France and Germany – have instead appealed for diplomatic moves to defuse the crisis and have been trying to salvage the pact by exploring ways to shield Iran’s economy from U.S. sanctions. 

Tehran has called on them to accelerate their efforts or it will further decrease its commitments to the agreement.

Britain said on July 25 that it had started sending a warship to accompany all British-flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. 

In a reportedly unrelated incident, an Iranian fighter jet crashed in Tangestan county, in the Bushehr province, on Sunday. Two pilots onboard managed to eject and land safely. The accident was due to a technical malfunction, the Tehran-based Mehr Agency said. 

Bushehr province is on the Persian Gulf coast, and home to one of Iran’s nuclear power stations. 

Israel Tries to Hide the Truth Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Israeli forces injure journalists covering protests

Israeli forces injured three journalists as they were covering protests in Jerusalem and Gaza on Friday, according to the Journalist Support Committee (JSC) in Palestine.

They attacked AP photographer Iyad Hamad, who was covering protests in the Wadi al-Hummus area of Jerusalem, breaking his foot, said Saleh al-Masri, a representative of the committee.

Local reporter Osama Al-Kahlut was shot in the foot with a live bullet and Hatem Omar, working for China’s Xinhua news agency, was injured by a rubber bullet, al-Masri said.

A total of 49 people were injured by Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Friday, he said.

Since the Gaza rallies began in March last year, two journalists have been killed and 353 others injured by Israeli forces, the JSC official said.

Palestinians on Friday converged near a security fence that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel to demonstrate against Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories.

Gaza’s National Authority for Return and Breaking the Siege (NARBS), which organizes weekly rallies, called on Palestinians to attend the demonstration and affirm their right to return to their villages in historical Palestine.

NARBS dubbed the Friday rallies as “the massacre of Wadi al-Hummus” in reference to the demolition of Palestinian buildings in the area.

In mid-July, bulldozers accompanied by hundreds of Israeli soldiers moved into the neighborhood of Wadi Homs in East Jerusalem and began razing several buildings in the area.

Since the Gaza rallies began in March last year, nearly 270 protesters have been martyred and thousands more wounded by Israeli troops deployed near the buffer zone.

Demonstrators demand an end to Israel’s 12-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has shattered the coastal enclave’s economy and deprived its two million inhabitants of many basic amenities.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.