NYC earthquake risk: the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

NYC earthquake risk: Could Staten Island be heavily impacted?

By Ann Marie Barron

Updated May 16, 4:31 AM; Posted May 16, 4:00 AM

Rubble litters Main Street after an earthquake struck Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014, in Napa, Calif. A report by the U.S. Geological Survey outlines the differences between the effect of an earthquake in the West vs. one in the East. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – While scientists say it’s impossible to predict when or if an earthquake will occur in New York City, they say that smaller structures — like Staten Island’s bounty of single-family homes — will suffer more than skyscrapers if it does happen.

„Earthquakes in the East tend to cause higher-frequency shaking — faster back-and-forth motion — compared to similar events in the West,“ according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published on its website recently „Shorter structures are more susceptible to damage during fast shaking, whereas taller structures are more susceptible during slow shaking.“


The report, „East vs West Coast Earthquakes,“ explains how USGS scientists are researching factors that influence regional differences in the intensity and effects of earthquakes, and notes that earthquakes in the East are often felt at more than twice the distance of earthquakes in the West.

Predicting when they will occur is more difficult, said Thomas Pratt, a research geophysicist and the central and Eastern U.S. coordinator for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program in Reston, Va.

„One of the problems in the East Coast is that we don’t have a history to study,“ he said. „In order to get an idea, we have to have had several cycles of these things. The way we know about them in California is we dig around in the mud and we see evidence of past earthquakes.“

Yet Pratt wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a high-magnitude event taking place in New York, which sits in the middle the North American Tectonic Plate, considered by experts to be quite stable.

„We never know,“ he said. „One could come tomorrow. On the other hand, it could be another 300 years. We don’t understand why earthquakes happen (here) at all.“

Though the city’s last observable earthquake occurred on Oct. 27, 2001, and caused no real damage, New York has been hit by two Magnitude 5 earthquakes in its history – in 1738 and in 1884 — prompting many to say it is „due“ for another.

While earthquakes generally have to be Magnitude 6 or higher to be considered „large,“ by experts, „a Magnitude 5, directly under New York City, would shake it quite strongly,“ Pratt said.

The reason has to do with the rock beneath our feet, the USGS report says.


In the East, we have older rocks, some of which formed „hundreds of millions of years before those in the West,“ the report says. Since the faults in the rocks have had so much time to heal, the seismic waves travel more efficiently through them when an earthquake occurs.

„Rocks in the East are like a granite countertop and rocks in the West are much softer,“ Pratt said. „Take a granite countertop and hit it and it’ll transmit energy well. In the West, it’s like a sponge. The  energy gets absorbed.“

If a large, Magnitude 7 earthquake does occur, smaller structures, and older structures in Manhattan would be most vulnerable, Pratt said. „In the 1920s, ’30s and late 1800s, they were not built with earthquake resistance,“ he said, noting that newer skyscrapers were built to survive hurricanes, so would be more resistant.

When discussing earthquake prediction and probability, Pratt uses the analogy of a baseball player who averages a home run every 10 times at bat and hasn’t hit one in the past nine games: „When he’s up at bat, will he hit a home run? You just don’t know.“

And though it would probably take a magnitude of 7 to topple buildings in the city, smaller earthquakes are still quite dangerous, he said.

„Bookshelves could fall down and hit you,“ he said. „People could be killed.“ A lot of stone work and heavy objects fell from buildings when a quake of 5.8 magnitude struck central Virginia in 2011, he noted, but, fortunately, no one was injured.

To be safe, Pratt encourages New Yorkers to keep a few days‘ worth of drinking water and other supplies on hand. He, himself, avoids putting heavy things up high.

„It always gets me nervous when I go into a restaurant that has heavy objects high on shelves,“ he said. „It’s unlikely you’ll get an earthquake. But, we just don’t know.“

Babylon the Great and U.K. Threaten Russia

Three American B2 stealth bombers have been deployed for two months to RAF Fairford (Image: GETTY)

WW3 fears: Secretive US warplane mission in UK issue ‘imminent’ nuclear threat to Russia

THE leader of the secretive US military mission in the UK has revealed that the stealth bombers flying over Britain are ready to carry out nuclear strikes against Russia.


PUBLISHED: 08:00, Sun, Sep 1, 2019

UPDATED: 09:06, Sun, Sep 1, 2019

United States Air Force Colonel Kurt Wendt explains why three B2 bombers have been deployed for two months to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.

In a shock admission, the US Colonel in charge of the top-secret military mission in the UK has claimed its stealth bombers are ready to cary out nuclear bombing raids. Three American B2 stealth bombers have been deployed for two months to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in their longest ever UK deployment. The B-2 bomber is known is the US’s only aircraft capable of dropping huge nuclear bombs.

They are invisible to radar, usually operate out of sight and are capable of striking an enemy target without warning.

The aircrafts can carry up to 20 tonnes of nuclear or conventional bombs.

Colonel Kurt Wendt told ITV News: “This is a visual statement. It is a tough message.

“The US and its allies can apply combat power at anytime, anywhere.”

The Air Force announced that it has deployed a task force of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers (Image: GETTY)

He admitted that the US mission pilots in the UK are ready to have their “finger on the nuclear payload”.

The three US Stealth Bombers – each costing more than two billion pounds – are part of a secret training mission in Europe.

The planes arrived in the UK using the callsigns DEATH 1, DEATH 2 and DEATH 3.

They have the power to travel 10,000 miles with only one mid-air re-fueling, making them one of the most deadly warplanes.

This is the first time the US bombers have trained with non-US F-35’s (Image: GETTY)

It is the first time the US bombers have trained with non-US F-35’s.

The arrival of the three massive nuclear-equpped bombers comes as US shores up defences in the UK against a backdrop of Russian military tensions.

Russia has recently been increasing its military presence in the Arctic region.

The US Colonel admitted that their pilots in the UK are ready to have their “trigger finger on the nuclear payload” (Image: GETTY)

This threat to Russia comes in the same week as a study into the consequence of a nuclear war.

Rutgers University found that an all-out nuclear war would see explosions, fires and radiation exposure kill millions in targeted cities.

Following this, a nuclear winter lasting months to years would also drastically alter the Earth’s climate, causing freezing summers and worldwide famine.

The nuclear winter would be caused by smoke blotting out the sun.

Iran Threatens Babylon the Great

Head of pro-Iran militia threatens Americans in Iraq

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – The leader of an Iraqi Shia militia, backed by Iran, threatened to take hostage “all” US citizens in Iraq in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran.

Abu Alaa al-Wala’i, head of the Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) militia, made the threat on Wednesday during an interview with al-Dijla, an Iraqi television station, close to the Fatah Coalition, which represents the Shiite militias, or Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), in Iraq’s parliament.

The KSS was established in 2013 during the Syrian civil war. Ostensibly, its purpose was to protect Shi’ite shrines in Syria. However, its declared aim served largely as a recruiting tool. Iraqis ostensibly mobilized to protect the shrines were used to fight the Syrian opponents of Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime.

When, a year later, the Sunni terrorist organization, the Islamic State, emerged as a major threat to Iraq, KSS became involved in fighting it, as well.

Although the Islamic State, which once controlled nearly a third of Iraq, has largely been defeated as a territorial entity, many PMF militias remain mobilized. In parts of Iraq, they constitute an undisciplined force that practices mafia-like tactics to extort the population.

In northern Iraq, for example, the presence of militias blocks the return of internally displaced persons, many of whom now live in camps in the Kurdistan Region.

READ MORE: US sanctions Nineveh Plain’s militia leaders for terrorizing population, blocking IDPs’ return, and corruption

On Wednesday, Wala’i, in the Dijla television studio, proclaimed, “All Americans will be held hostage by the resistance factions in the event of a war.”

His threat—which can only be realized through a decision in Tehran, and then, of course, only in small part—followed a series of Israeli strikes in Iraq, going back to mid-July, on sites associated with PMF elements closely tied to Iran.

READ MORE: Israel attacks Iranian targets in Iraq

Two weeks ago, a weapons depot in Baghdad, reportedly operated by KSS, was demolished in a massive explosion. That explosion, along with rockets stored there, which fired off sporadically, landing in the surrounding south Baghdad neighborhood, killed one person and wounded 37 others.

Among the first responses of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi was to order an end to the practice of keeping such weapons in populated areas.

READ MORE: After depot explosion, Iraqi PM orders munitions out of cities, restricts military aircraft

The incident was among five attacks on PMF targets that culminated Sunday in a strike on a convoy in al Qa’im, along the Syrian border, belonging to another PMF group, Kata’ib Hezbollah. The attack reportedly killed six militiamen.

On Monday, the funerals for the militiamen were held, precipitating popular protests in Baghdad. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who has worked alongside Iran since the 1980s and whom the US has sanctioned for terrorism, charged that Israel was responsible for the attacks and the US was complicit in them.

READ MORE: Drone strikes kill 6 Iran-backed militiamen near Iraqi-Syrian border: source

The US was quick to clarify that it was absolutely not involved. Late on Monday, the Pentagon’s Chief Spokesperson, Jonathan Hoffman, issued a lengthy statement affirming, “US forces did not conduct the recent attack on a convoy or any recent attacks that resulted in the explosion of ammunition storage facilities in Iraq.”

“Statements to the contrary are false, misleading, and inflammatory,” Hoffman continued. “We support Iraqi sovereignty and have repeatedly spoken out against any potential actions by external actors inciting violence in Iraq.”

READ MORE: Iran-Israel conflict spreads in Middle East

The issue is very sensitive for the US, as Iraqi parliamentarians associated with Iran, have seized on the attacks to call for an end to the presence of the US-led coalition in Iraq.

As Hoffman made clear, those forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the Baghdad government. The Iraqi parliament has the authority to tell them to leave—including to leave the Kurdistan Region.

Notably, the Baghdad government has not accused Israel of responsibility. Falih al-Fayyadh, Iraq’s National Security Advisor and formal head of the PMF, described the bombings as “planned foreign acts,” but dismissed Muhandis’ claims as not representing the official position of the Iraqi government.

Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric whose coalition commands the most seats in parliament, took an even bolder stance. On Monday, as passions flared, he issued a statement, the basic thrust of which was anti-Iranian.

Sadr called for all PMF weapons depots to be placed under the control of the central government. He also called for the withdrawal of “all factions” from Syria—meaning, most pointedly, the Iraqi militias operating there, under Iranian command.

Most, if not all, the attacks were carried out by armed drones. A report, written by David Hearst, formerly a journalist with The Guardian and now editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye, cited an unnamed Iraqi official, who said that Baghdad had initially doubted that Israel could have been responsible, because it is so far away.

However, according to what Hearst was told, Baghdad eventually concluded that Israel was, indeed, responsible, and it had launched the drones from northeastern Syria, in territory held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), with the financing and backing of the Saudis.

Hearst gives no evidence, and the unconfirmed report is based on just one anonymous source. Yet it does address a part of the puzzle: how could Israel have sent drones all the way to Iraq?  They were launched from a nearby country! But, of course, it was not necessarily SDF-controlled Syria. It is equally plausible they were launched from Saudi Arabia or some other country close to Iraq that is also opposed to Iran.

Editing by Laurie Mylroie

Another Palestinian Dies Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinians clash with Israeli forces along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Rafah, on August 30, 2019. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

Gazan said to die of wounds from border clashes

Hamas-run health ministry says Badr Abu Moussa, 25, was hospitalized after being hit in the head with a bullet on Friday


A Palestinian man reportedly died of wounds sustained from Israeli gunfire during clashes Friday in the Gaza Strip.

The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza said Saturday that Badr Abu Moussa, 25, had been treated at a hospital in the southern Gaza Strip after being struck in the head by a bullet.

Abu Moussa was among 6,000 Palestinians who participated in the weekly “March of Return” protests along the border between Gaza and Israel.

The Gaza health ministry said 75 Palestinians were injured during clashes with Israeli troops, 42 of them from live fire.

An Israeli soldier was lightly injured during the clashes by shrapnel. The army said it was not clear whether the shrapnel came from a grenade or a firecracker.

The Israel Defense Forces also said an army vehicle was damaged as Palestinians threw grenades at the border fence.

Palestinians clash with Israeli troops at a demonstration on the Gaza border, August 30, 2019. (Hassan Jedi/Flash90)

At the start of Friday’s demonstrations, Israeli soldiers captured four Palestinians who crossed into Israel from the Strip armed with a grenade and a knife. The four were arrested shortly after crossing the border and taken in for further questioning, the army said.

The incident came shortly after an incendiary balloon launched from Gaza sparked a fire in the Sdot Hanegev Regional Council and as Palestinians took part in the weekly “March of Return” rallies along the border.

Recent weeks have seen an increase in violence from Gaza, which is ruled by the Hamas terror group.

Israel and Hamas have fought three wars since the Islamist organization took over Gaza in 2007, the last of which ended five years ago this week.

According to a report Friday in Lebanon’s al-Akhbar newspaper, Israel has offered Hamas economic concessions and to ease its blockade of Gaza in return for a long-term ceasefire.

The report said the proposal was made by Egyptian intelligence officials during a meeting with top Hamas members.

Illustrative: Masked Hamas members carry a model of a rocket during a rally in the central Gaza Strip on December 12, 2014. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

While making the proposal, the Egyptians were said to warn Gaza officials that Israel is serious in its threats to carry out a wide-ranging military campaign if the violence continues.

Hamas said it was not responsible for the recent firing of rockets from the coastal enclave toward Israel, blaming “rogue elements.”

Israel has accused the Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad of being behind the recent violence emanating from Gaza. But it maintains that Hamas, as the Strip’s ruler, is ultimately responsible for all attacks emanating from the territory, while saying that it believes the Islamic Jihad is instigating the current unrest.

Both Israel and Egypt enforce a number of restrictions on the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza. Israel says the blockade is necessary to keep Hamas and other terror groups in the Strip from arming or building military infrastructure.

Since the start of August, an increase in rocket fire and attempts by Palestinian gunmen to cross from Gaza into Israel have been met with IDF airstrikes on Hamas targets, threatening a fragile ceasefire between Israel and the ruling terror group.

Bringing Armageddon Closer (Revelation 16)

The Defense Department conducts a flight test of a conventionally configured ground-launched cruise missile at San Nicolas Island, California, on August 18. (Department of Defense / Scott Howe)

The Pentagon’s New Missile Drive Is Bringing Armageddon Closer

Washington is withdrawing from the INF treaty not because of Russian violations but because the Pentagon wants to deploy a dangerous new class of its own nukes.

By Michael T. KlareTwitter Yesterday 7:30 am

On August 2, in a brazen attack on the arms control architecture forged by US and Soviet leaders during the Cold War era, the United States formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a 1987 accord that bans the possession of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,420 miles). Just two weeks later, on August 18, the Defense Department test-fired a cruise missile that would have violated the treaty, were the United States still in compliance. That test, involving a ground-based version of the sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile, was intended less as a technology assessment than as a political statement—to demonstrate the Pentagon’s determination to rapidly field an array of treaty-non-compliant weapons and put China and Russia on the defensive. Unless halted by Congress, this drive will almost certainly spark a dangerous new arms race and dramatically narrow the “firebreak” between conventional and nuclear war.

To appreciate the extreme dangers posed by this new US missile drive, it is essential to grasp the distinctive nature of the INF treaty. Unlike strategic arms reduction and limitation treaties, like SALT I and II of the 1970s and the existing New START, which seek to restrain the intercontinental (“strategic”) nuclear arsenals of the major powers (that is, weapons aimed at each other’s homeland), the INF accord completely eliminated an entire class of weapons—in this case, missiles intended for use in a regional, or “theater” context, assumed to be Europe.

As viewed by Western strategists at the time, such weapons were intended as a “bridge” between conventional and nuclear conflict: In response to a potential massive Soviet assault that might overwhelm NATO positions in Central Europe, the United States would hold out the threat of quickly hurling nuclear weapons against enemy forces and command centers (thus, presumably, deterring any such Soviet attack). But the Soviets, fearing similar attacks from NATO, deployed theater nukes of their own, putting all of Europe at risk of nuclear annihilation. It soon became obvious to anti-nuclear activists in both Europe and the United States that any outbreak of conflict in Europe would quickly result in the rapid use of those non-strategic nukes, with all-out nuclear war sure to follow. As massive protests multiplied on both sides of the Atlantic, US and Soviet leaders began talking about limitations on theater weapons, finally agreeing to their elimination altogether. With their destruction—by the treaty’s deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been demolished—the risk of rapid escalation across the nuclear firebreak had been substantially reduced.

With the end of the Cold War and disappearance of superpower tensions, the prospect of nuclear escalation greatly diminished. As tensions between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing have heated up, however, those concerns have surfaced again. And that brings us back to the INF Treaty and the problem of the “bridge” between conventional and nuclear conflict.

In recent years, both Russia (which assumed the USSR’s treaty obligations) and the United States have accused the other of violating the INF treaty. The most serious charge has come from Washington, which claims that Russia has deployed a treaty-non-compliant ground-launched cruise missile, the 9M729, in its western regions, where it could reach targets in NATO territory. Moscow, for its part, claims that the US “Aegis Ashore” missile interceptor now deployed in Romania (and soon to be based in Poland), can be used to fire proscribed offensive weapons, although Washington insists it can only be used to launch defensive weapons designed to intercept an Iranian (or other “rogue state” missile). Efforts to resolve these discordant claims through negotiations came to naught.

The Trump administration, in the run-up to its August 2 announcement of withdrawal from the treaty, spoke a lot about Russian violations and the dangers they allegedly pose to NATO. But the missile test on August 18 revealed another motivation entirely: Far from fearing a few dozen Russian cruise missiles—which could, in any case, be neutralized by other weapons already in the US arsenal (such as air- and sea-launched cruise missiles)—the Defense Department seeks the freedom to field an array of treaty-non-compliant weapons of its own. In particular, the Pentagon would like hundreds, eventually thousands, of conventionally armed ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles that could be fired at critical Russian and Chinese military assets—air bases, air-defense radars, mobile missile systems, communications nodes, and so on—located on their national territory.

“We would like to deploy a capability sooner rather than later,” said newly installed Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on August 2, when asked, during a flight to Australia, to describe his plans for such missiles. “We want to develop this capability and making sure [sic] we can have long-range precision fires,” not only for Europe but also for Asia, given “how important an intermediate-range conventional weapon would be to [that] theater.”

Esper identified two such weapons his department was in the process of developing (bear in mind that initial work on these INF-non-compliant systems had begun when the United States was loudly complaining about Russian violations of the treaty): a ground-launched cruise missile, derived from an existing air- or sea-launched system like the Tomahawk; and a ballistic missile, called PrSM (pronounced “prism”), for Precision Strike Missile. The Pentagon requested $76 million for continued development of these systems in its Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal, along with additional millions of dollars for longer-range follow-on weapons. Some of these more advanced projectiles are expected to be fitted with “boost-glide” delivery systems capable of flying at hypersonic speeds (more than five times the speed of sound).

Much secrecy surrounds the design and intended purpose of these missile systems, but from what can be deduced from comments by senior officials (like those made by Esper), the intent is to deploy these munitions in Europe and the Western Pacific, where they can be used for prompt attacks on high-value Chinese and Russian targets at the very outset of a conflict. This would then make it possible for slower-moving ships, planes, and ground forces to penetrate enemy territory with reduced risk of injury.

All this presupposes, of course, that acquiring the capacity to attack critical military installations deep within Chinese and Russian territory at the very onset of a crisis helps deters rash acts by those countries and so serves US security interests. Missing from this equation is the likelihood that both China and Russia are likely to respond by acquiring more offensive and defensive weapons of their own, thereby prompting reciprocal measures by the United States and sparking a costly new arms race.

Even more worrisome is the danger that any large-scale US missile attack on critical command facilities in China and Russia, even if conducted with conventionally armed weapons, might be interpreted as constituting the onset of a disarming US nuclear first strike. Once those missiles were launched, it would be nearly impossible for Chinese or Russian radars to determine what sort of warhead they carried, and their short flight duration—no more than 10 or 15 minutes—would give enemy decision-makers little time in which to decide what sort of countermeasures to take (before they themselves faced obliteration); fearing the worst, they might opt for a prompt nuclear response. That is exactly the sort rapid escalation scenario, overleaping the nuclear firebreak, that the INF treaty was intended to prevent.

It is also the fear of “decapitating” attacks of this sort that has fueled Russia’s drive to build a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered cruise missile, called “Skyfall” in the West, that could be launched at a moment’s notice, circle the globe, and attack the US coastline. A test of the missile’s engine on August 8 at a site in northern Russia apparently failed, killing at least seven workers and releasing unknown amounts of radioactive material into the air and water.

Russia’s deployment of the 9M729, if confirmed, represents a significant violation of the INF treaty; China’s buildup of intermediate-range missiles on its coast opposite Taiwan poses an additional challenge. These issues are best resolved, however, through serious negotiations, not the rapid pursuit of additional war fighting capabilities. A US decision to deploy hundreds of ground-launched missiles aimed at the Chinese and Russian homelands, even if (initially) conventionally armed, can only lead to a dangerous arms race and increased risk of nuclear escalation. Fortunately, a majority in the House of Representatives agree with this assessment, and so have voted to exclude funding in the FY 2020 defense authorization bill for the missiles sought by Esper without further justification for their need. The Republican-controlled Senate, however, has shown no such reluctance. It is essential, then, that Democratic members of the Senate stand by their colleagues in the House and keep the missile exclusion intact when the two houses meet to resolve differences in the authorization bill.

Pakistan Warns of First Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

Warning of war with India, PM Khan leads rallies to draw world’s attention to Kashmir

Updated 31 August 2019 Aamir Saeed August 30, 2019 14:18

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan warned on Friday that war between two nuclear powers was a threat to the entire world, as thousands rallied across Pakistan in mass demonstrations protesting Delhi’s move this month to remove the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir and impose a security clampdown on the region.

Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated since August 5 when India revoked the autonomy of the part of the Himalayan region of Kashmir that it administers and moved to quell objections by shutting down communications and clamping down on local leaders.

Pakistan has reacted with fury to India’s decision, cutting trade and transport ties and expelling India’s ambassador. Both countries claim Kashmir in full but rule it in part.

Cities around Pakistan came to a standstill from noon to 12:30 pm on Friday as tens of thousands of people poured onto the streets in a government-led demonstration of solidarity.

The Pakistani national anthem and an anthem for Kashmir played across television and radio, while traffic came to a standstill, traffic lights were switched off and trains stopped, as part of Khan’s campaign to draw global attention to the plight of the divided region.

The world should know that if two nuclear countries [Pakistan and India] go to war, this will affect not only the subcontinent but also the whole world,” Khan told a charged crowd in Islamabad. “We want to tell Kashmiris that we all are standing with them and will continue to stand by them till they get freedom [from India],” Khan said.

The prime minister lamented what he called the silence of the United Nations and the international community in the face of the oppression of Muslims around the world.

“Had Kashmiris not been Muslims, the world would have raised a hue and cry,” Khan said, warning that if the international community failed to confront what he called the “fascist and racist” government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this would ultimately impact the whole world.

Khan also said India was mulling a false flag operation in Azad Kashmir, the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, to divert the world’s attention from the crisis, but “if it does so, we are fully prepared to respond.”

Criticizing India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and its parent body, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Khan said: “The RSS ideology has taken over India like Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party had taken over Germany and they think that Muslims should be taught a lesson.”

The prime minister said he would engage human rights organizations, celebrities and international media to highlight India’s human rights violations in Kashmir and raise the issue with international leaders and the United Nations General Assembly, which he will attend next month.

President Dr. Arif Alvi also addressed crowds in Islamabad, urging Pakistanis to unite for the country’s economic growth as “only a strong Pakistan can raise its voice for Kashmiris effectively.”

“I pray to God that in your and my lifetime, we see an independent Kashmir in which their rights are not repressed,” the president said.

More Palestinians Injured Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinian protesters carry a wounded man during clashes with Israeli troops on the Gaza-Israel border, east of southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Aug. 30, 2019. At least 54 Palestinians were injured on Friday, during clashes with Israeli soldiers in eastern Gaza Strip, close to the border with Israel, medics said. (Xinhua/Khaled Omar)


A Palestinian protester uses a slingshot to hurl stones at Israeli troops during clashes with Israeli troops on the Gaza-Israel border, east of southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Aug. 30, 2019. At least 54 Palestinians were injured on Friday, during clashes with Israeli soldiers in eastern Gaza Strip, close to the border with Israel, medics said. (Xinhua/Stringer)


A Palestinian protester uses a slingshot to hurl stones at Israeli troops during clashes with Israeli troops on the Gaza-Israel border, east of southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Aug. 30, 2019. At least 54 Palestinians were injured on Friday, during clashes with Israeli soldiers in eastern Gaza Strip, close to the border with Israel, medics said. (Xinhua/Stringer)