The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

Historic Earthquakes

Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC

Magnitude 5.5

Intensity VII

This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.

Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

Teilen mit:


Preparing for the Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 16)


By Tom O’Connor On 10/18/19 at 5:36 PM EDT


United States, Russia and Europe have all planned near-concurrent nuclear war games across the globe, testing their strategic capabilities in the event of a conflict

U.S. Strategic Command commenced on Friday its “annual command and control exercises” “Global Thunder” and “Vigilant Shield 20” alongside the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. The drills were designed to “assess all USSTRATCOM mission areas and joint and field training operational readiness, with a specific focus on nuclear readiness.”

“This exercise employs global operations in coordination with other combatant commands, services, appropriate U.S. government agencies, and allies to deter, detect and, if necessary, defeat strategic attacks against the United States and its allies,” U.S. Strategic Command said in a statement.Meanwhile, in Russia, President Vladimir Putin just wrapped up his own “Thunder 2019” exercise, involving some 12,000 troops, five nuclear submarines, 105 aircraft and 213 missile launchers. The three-day, cross-continental display that concluded Thursday included the firing of nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles at Russia’s Komi Republic, Arkhangelsk province and the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula.

Russia tests an RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Mirny, Arkhangelsk province, October 17, as part of the Thunder 2019 Strategic Missile Forces drills. Russia and the U.S. have by most of the world’s nuclear weapons and both have nuclear triads capable of delivering them from land, sea and air.


The Russian military tested a variety of weapons including the RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the 3M-54 Kalibr cruise missile, the Sineva ballistic missile, and the Iskander-K short-range mobile cruise missile system—all capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons. The advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system was also tested.

I terrain, various road surfaces, and other obstacles.”

Elsewhere in Europe, however, much more secretive nuclear-related maneuvers were taking place, and the U.S. was again involved. The NATO Western military alliance conducted the “Steadfast Noon” exercise involving German Tornado warplanes transporting U.S. B-61 nuclear bombs, Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported Friday.

Aircraft from Italy and other NATO nations were involved in the drills that included aircraft taking off from Germany’s Büchel Air Base and the Netherlands’ Volkel Air Base. Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Program, noted to the outlet that U.S. B-52 bombers had just arrived in Europe shortly before the exercise.

NATO has released no official information about this exercise, and has never even confirmed whether or not there were U.S. nuclear weapons at Büchel Air Base. The site, however, was among those included in an accidentally-released NATO report published in July by Belgian newspaper De Morgen.

Another was Incirlik Base in Turkey, something that has grown controversial due to the recently-strained relations between Washington and Ankara, especially over the latter’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 and its invasion of northern Syria. Asked about the security of up to 50 B-61 bombs there, President Donald Trump said Wednesday that “we’re confident, and we have a great air base there, a very powerful air base.”

The series of tests came as decades-long deals ensuring the non-proliferation of such nuclear weapons collapsed. In August, the U.S. left the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a deal struck with the Soviet Union in 1987 to ban the deployment of land-launched missiles ranging from 310 to 3,420 miles, after claiming Moscow’s Novator 9M729, an Iskander-compatible weapon, violated the deal.

Russia denied this and counterclaimed that the Mark-41 Vertical Launch Systems used in Romanian and Polish sites of the Pentagon’s Aegis Ashore missile defense system could be used offensively as well. Just after leaving the agreement, the U.S. tested a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile that flew over 310 miles.

Both Russia and China charged the Trump administration with attempting to instigate an “arms race.”

With Washington and Moscow worlds apart in their attempts to reconcile their many, overlapping policy disputes, the deadline was gradually approaching for another major arms control pact—the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The deal, which expires in 2021, limits the number of nuclear warheads and launchers maintained by the U.S. and Russia. Putin recently said he was still attempting to negotiate the agreement with “no answer so far” from Trump.

Starving Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

A Palestinian child can be seen outside her home in the poverty-stricken quarter of Al-Zaytoon in Gaza City on 29 September 2014 [Ezz Zanoun/Apaimages]

Gaza: Poverty and unemployment rates at 75%

October 18, 2019 at 9:15 am

The Ministry of Social Development in the Gaza Strip said yesterday that the rates of poverty and unemployment in the Gaza Strip reached nearly 75 per cent in 2019.

In a press release it added that 70 per cent of the population of the Gaza Strip is food insecure. This, it continued, was a result of “the aggressive Israeli practices increased since the Second Intifada, which broke out in 2000, and depriving thousands of Palestinians of their jobs.”

As a result, the Palestinian economy could not “create new jobs to accommodate those untrained workers.”

“The Israeli blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip since 2006, restricting the movement of citizens and goods, in addition to three wars in 2008–2012–2014, and the division of Palestinian forces created a complex and difficult political, economic and social reality.”

It said that poverty indicators in Gaza “are the highest in the world, and that efforts by governmental, international and local institutions arepredominantly categorised as relief activities, meeting only about 50 per cent of the basic needs of poor families.”

The ministry called for “guaranteeing humanitarian work independence away from political tensions, and improve the living standards of the people of the Gaza Strip by opening the border crossings and allowing citizens and goods to move freely.”

It also demanded “strengthening coordination between social institutions working in the Gaza Strip … in order to secure decent living conditions for the poor; in addition toincreasing humanitarian and relief assistance to the Palestinian people through international and regional institutions.”

For 13 years, Israel has imposed a tight siege on Gaza, which resulted in a dramatic increase in poverty and unemployment rates.

Can the U.S. protect its nuclear weapons in Turkey?

Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrive for a news conference after meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Ankara, Turkey, on Thursday. (Str/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrive for a news conference after meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Ankara, Turkey, on Thursday. (Str/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

U.S. forces reportedly came under artillery fire from Turkish troops heading into northern Syria last week — another sign of the sudden plunge in U.S. relations with Turkey.

On Monday, President Trump imposed economic sanctions against Turkey and threatened to “swiftly destroy Turkey’s economy.” Vice President Pence announced a cease-fire agreement with Turkey on Thursday, but this does not appear to fully address the underlying problems in the bilateral relationship. Over the summer, the Pentagon kicked Turkey out of the F-35 joint strike fighter program, marking U.S. displeasure that Turkey was buying advanced Russian military technology.

Here’s the backstory — and the downside of removing this nuclear cache.

This deteriorating relationship is troubling because Turkey is a long-standing NATO ally. But even more worrisome are the nuclear weapons — about 50 B61 gravity bombs — that the United States stores at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, less than 100 miles from the Syrian border. On Wednesday, Trump appeared to confirm the existence of these weapons in a startling break with past practice, but over the weekend, U.S. officials reportedly were considering plans to withdraw them.

Why does the U.S. have nuclear weapons in Turkey, and what would be the risks of withdrawing them? Here’s what you need to know:

1. These weapons are relics of the Cold War.

The United States first deployed nuclear weapons on Turkish soil in 1959. President John F. Kennedy used them as bargaining chips to end the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, agreeing to withdraw nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the removal of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. But Washington has continued to deploy shorter-range tactical nuclear forces since then.

Why does the United States keep nuclear weapons on foreign soil, and how does this strategy advance American interests? Our research reveals that three main strategic drivers behind these deployments.

First, these deployments were once a way of coping with technological limitations. In the early days of the Cold War, before intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear-armed submarines became the backbone of the U.S. arsenal, putting nuclear weapons in Europe expanded the U.S. ability to respond quickly to an enemy attack. Today, of course, most of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is carried by ballistic missiles — rather than long-range bombers — so most of the world is within range.

Second, nuclear deployments serve as a warning to potential attackers. U.S. leaders during the Cold War believed that putting nuclear weapons in Europe would discourage a Soviet invasion, because Soviet leaders would be worried that a limited conflict would quickly turn nuclear. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Turkish military commanders argued that U.S. nuclear deployments served as a deterrent to aggression by regional rivals such as Iran.

Third, nuclear deployments are also intended to reassure allies — including Turkey. Reassurance is not only about managing intra-alliance relations, however — it can also be an important nonproliferation tool. By mitigating the security concerns of allies, U.S. nuclear deployments could prevent them from launching their own nuclear programs.

2. Nuclear deployments in Turkey bring the United States few benefits.

U.S. nuclear forces in Europe may have served a function during the Cold War, but they are increasingly obsolete.

A recent study we conducted shows that the critical factor for preventing aggression against U.S. allies is a formal alliance relationship with the United States — not the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons. Indeed, our research found that global deployments of nuclear weapons made very little difference for deterrence even during the Cold War.

This makes sense, because the United States doesn’t need to forward-deploy its forces to place allies under its nuclear umbrella. American missiles and submarines give it the capability to hit any target in the world. What matters is the United States’ commitment to defend its partners with nuclear weapons if necessary — not where these nuclear forces are physically located.

U.S. nuclear forces in Turkey might, however, contribute to reassurance and nonproliferation. Political scientist Dan Reiter, for instance, has shown how countries with foreign nuclear weapons on their soil are less likely to explore their own nuclear options. Still, most U.S. allies — including Japan and South Korea after the early 1990s — have remained nonnuclear even without U.S. nuclear forces in place.

3. There are potential dangers to keeping nuclear weapons in Turkey. 

While the benefits of these deployments are modest, the risks are significant. Nuclear weapons on foreign soil could be vulnerable to theft or sabotage. When Greece and Turkey, two NATO allies, were on the brink of war in 1974 the United States had nuclear forces stationed in both countries. Worried about the safety and security of these weapons, Washington secretly removed its nuclear forces from Greece and disabled all of the weapons in Turkey.

The 2016 coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reignited concerns about U.S. nuclear weapons at Incirlik. As tensions escalate today, some analysts and U.S. officials continue to worryabout the safety and security of the B61s in Turkey.

4. Is there a downside to withdrawing the weapons?

Would pulling out the nuclear weapons now mean the end of the U.S.-Turkish alliance? This concern is legitimate, but recent research suggests that it is overstated. The United States has withdrawn nuclear forces from many allied countries: Britain, South Korea and others. In none of these cases did the withdrawals damage the overall alliance relationship, nor embolden adversaries.

There is also a security challenge with withdrawing the weapons in the short term. Removing them from their storage vaults during a period of intense hostility could invite an act of sabotage.

In the long term, the larger risk is that removing the weapons will prompt Turkey to try to acquire its own nuclear weapons. After all, Erdogan reportedly is exploring this option. But as relations with Turkey deteriorate, it is by no means certain that the presence of a few U.S. weapons will prevent this outcome. And there are other political and diplomatic tools for dissuading Turkey from venturing down the nuclear path if the United States pulls out its nuclear forces.

Matthew Fuhrmann (@mcfuhrmann) is professor of political science at Texas A&M University. 

Todd S. Sechser is the Pamela Feinour Edmonds and Franklin S. Edmonds Jr. Discovery Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of Virginia and Senior Fellow at the Miller Center of Public Affairs. 

Sechser and Fuhrmann are co-authors of Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy(Cambridge University Press, 2017).

4,500 Arabs Take Part in Weekly Riots Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

4,500 Arabs take part in weekly riots on Gaza border

Hamas-run “health ministry” says 69 injured in weekly “March of the Return demonstrations.

Some 4,500 Palestinian Arabs demonstrated on Friday in several locations near the Gaza border fence, as part of the weekly “March of the Return” protests.

The Hamas-run “health ministry” in Gaza reported that 69 rioters were injured, 26 of whom were wounded by IDF live fire.

The “March of the Return” protests, orchestrated by Hamas, have been going on every Friday since March of 2018.

In last Friday’s protests, the rioters threw explosives and firebombs at the border fence and toward a military keep. Several suspects crossed the fence in the northern Gaza Strip and returned immediately to Gazan territory.

Two weeks ago, Hamas claimed a Palestinian Arab was killed by Israeli fire during the weekly clashes.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Antichrist calls on followers to stage anti-government protests

The firebrand Iraqi cleric and politician Muqtada al-Sadr has called for Shia worshippers to mark today’s Arbaeen pilgrimage with continued anti-government protests.

Since protests began in Baghdad on October 1, at least 110 people have been killed. The government has responded by cutting internet access for up to 75% of Iraqis, enforcing curfews in Baghdad and arresting some 1,000 demonstrators.

Disillusionment with the current government, corruption and high unemployment are chief concerns among the protesters. With $450 billion of government funds unaccounted for since 2003, Transparency International last year ranked Iraq the world’s 13th most corrupt country. Meanwhile, only 50,000 jobs are added to the economy annually for some 700,000 Iraqis seeking work.

For his part, Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi has offered housing, training and loan subsidies to the unemployed, compensation to the families of the 110 killed and the prosecution of 1,000 corrupt civil servants.

Nonetheless, al-Sadr—who holds no official political office, but is a spiritual leader of a powerful Shia alliance—is using his influence to call for Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation and fresh elections. With Abdul-Mahdi struggling to quell the protests and millions backing al-Sadr as both a religious and political figure, expect violence to escalate.

Deadly protests set stage for the Antichrist

Iraq’s recent wave of protests saw more than 100 people killed | © AFP | AHMAD AL-RUBAYE

Deadly protests set stage for Iran, US tug-of-war over Iraq

Iraq’s deadliest wave of protests since the 2003 ouster of dictator Saddam Hussein has made the country vulnerable to a battle for influence between its two main competing allies, the United States and Iran, analysts say. October 12, 2019

Baghdad (AFP) |

The anti-government protests that erupted on October 1 echoed the demands that young Iraqis have made over recent years.

But the demonstrations played out differently this time, as tensions spiralled between the US and Iran.

“Without this context, Iran would not have intervened,” Iraqi political analyst Munqith Dagher said.

Tehran denounced the week of demonstrations that shook Baghdad and southern Iraq as a “conspiracy” that “failed”.

This response cost Iran “a lot of credit and support in Iraq, especially among Shiites,” said Dagher.

“But it sacrificed that in order to maintain the system in place in Iraq and to guard the country as an asset in negotiations with the United States.”

– ‘Conspiracy’ –

The wave of unrest left more than 100 people dead, mostly protesters, and put Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi in a weaker position than ever.

Even before this Abdel Mahdi headed an unwieldy government.

The coalition includes Shiite populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr — who won the most seats in the last parliamentary elections — and Fatah, the political arm of Hashed al-Shaabi, the paramilitary force dominated by pro-Iran groups.

Protesters burnt tyres as they held huge rallies demanding a complete overhaul of the political system | © AFP | AHMAD AL-RUBAYE

As protests peaked, Sadr called for the government he helped form to resign.

The Hashed took the opposite position, saying it was ready to crush the “conspiracy” aiming to bring down the government.

Since then state institutions have been paralysed by division, effectively preventing concrete responses to protester demands for jobs, services and ending corruption.

Caught in the middle, Abdel Mahdi is “even weaker and more vulnerable to pressure from the largest political blocs,” said Maria Fantappie, an International Crisis Group Iraq analyst.

This could favour Tehran, she said, as “the prime minister will be increasingly dependent on Iran’s ally Fatah, which has stood by his side during the crisis”.

Polarisation is complicating the premier’s pursuit of “a foreign policy aimed at insulating the country from the unfolding US-Iran competition,” Fantappie said.

But in a crisis-ridden and increasingly fractured region, a country like Iraq — which attempts to maintain relations with all, from Iran to the United States, Saudi Arabia to Syria — is a major asset for all.

Neither Washington nor Tehran “would like to see the situation spin out of control,” Fantappie said.

A stable Iraq is vital for Iran. Stifled by US sanctions, Tehran is committed to maintaining its six billion euro ($6.6 billion) annual exports to Iraq.

Likewise Washington needs Iraq to contain the danger of a resurgent Islamic State group, and to keep Iran’s regional influence in check.

– ‘Pandora’s box’ –

The danger now, Fantappie said, is that some in the US administration interpret anti-Iran slogans by protesters as evidence of mounting anti-Iranian sentiment overall.

The recent wave of protests was the deadliest in Iraq since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein | © AFP | AHMAD AL-RUBAYE

US officials who see Abdel Mahdi as indecisive and powerless may even push to replace him in light of the demonstrations, she said.

But this “could be like opening a Pandora’s box, given a stagnating political system, mounting popular frustrations and the perennial difficulty of forming a government” in a country caught between rival powers.

The shifts in Iraq’s political arena go beyond the pro-US and pro-Iran camps — other factions have also made moves since the start of the month.

Firebrand Sadr maintains the ability to paralyse the country with sit-ins — as he has done in the past.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq’s highest Shiite spiritual leader, said in his sermon Friday that he “had no interest in any party in power” and only defended “the interests of the people”.

Even as calm appears to have returned to Iraq, the protests may yet be rekindled, particularly if public anger grows as videos showing last week’s crackdown continue to circulate online.

© 2019 AFP