Pakistani Terrorism And Nukes (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistan is terror ground zero with nukes: David Andelman

Half a world away from Belgium, terror and death have hit another American ally and where the stakes are even higher. This time, the target was Pakistan — a suicide bomb ripping through a Christian Easter celebration in the heart of Lahore, capital city of the Punjab, killing scores, wounding hundreds. It was a powerful and direct message to Pakistan, which unlike Belgium, likely has the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenal.

The message to the nation’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, from a faction of the Pakistani Talban, who quickly claimed responsibility for the attack in his home base of Lahore, was simple and direct. “He can do what he wants, but he will not stop us,” said Ehsanullah Ehsan. a group spokesman.

It was as clear evidence as possible that the Taliban is determined to destabilize, even topple the government or nudge it away from its pro-American position into one more favorable to the radicals’ toxic agenda. The 20 pounds of explosives packed around quantities of ball bearings were designed to maximize the lethal footprint of the blast. And the fact that it took place Southeast of Islamabad, far from Taliban strongholds along the Afghan frontier suggests its ability to work its will as it pleases.

The danger for America is that such a move comes against a background of deeply troubling activity in a region that itself is teetering on the brink of profound unrest. It was, after all, in Pakistan, where an American Navy SEAL team located and terminated Osama bin Laden. It is also Pakistan where the Taliban and other tribal forces maintain their back offices and arms depots for their immediate aim of overthrowing the American-backed regime in neighboring Afghanistan.

They are waiting — for the American withdrawal and at the same time for a more accomodating attitude among the leadership of Pakistan toward their wants and needs.

The danger is that such wants and needs could extend into the arsenal of nuclear arms that Pakistan is expanding at breakneck sped. Already, its nuclear stockpile has passed neighboring India’s — 120 to 100 in terms of deployed warheads. This is a fraction of the numbers maintained by the United States and Russia. But at its current pace, Pakistan’s arsenal could balloon to 350 in the next decade — placing it third in the world, ahead of China, Britain or France. According to the Carnegie Endowment, Pakistan has enough highly enriched uranium to continue the buildup all but unchecked.
“The growth path of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, enabled by existing infrastructure, goes well beyond the assurances of credible minimal deterrence provided by Pakistani officials and analysts after testing nuclear devices,” the report concludes.

That leaves some frightening potential. Most of the new weapons are “low yield,” effectively tactical nuclear weapons, easily deployed — to vast and lethal effect — on isolated battlefields. Or, for that matter, carried in a suitcase into the heart of a city. Indeed, the Carnegie report does raise directly the prospects of “a risky strategy that would place weapons that are the least safe and secure close to the forward edge of battle — a battle that could be triggered by actions taken by extremist groups.”
This must be at least one aim of a multi-pronged campaign by the Taliban, with Sunday’s massacre only the latest skirmish. But it is clearly an aim that should have Washington deeply worried. A suggestion of the depth of this concern was the statement, issued immediately after news reached the White House. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price suggested, “We will continue to work with our partners in Pakistan and across the region, as together we will be unyielding in our efforts to root out the scourge of terrorism.”

Just how effective such an effort might be should become a central focus in the calculus of when and in what fashion to pull American forces out of Afghanistan and leave a nuclear armed-up region to its own devices.

Pakistan Terrorists Kill Christians On Easter (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistanis hunt for militants behind blast that killed at least 65

Pakistani authorities launched a hunt on Monday for militants behind a suicide bomb that killed at least 65 people in an attack that targeted Christians and was claimed by a Taliban faction that once declared ties with Islamic State.

Most of the victims of the bomb attack at a park in the eastern city of Lahore on Sunday evening were women and children enjoying an Easter weekend outing.

“We must bring the killers of our innocent brothers, sisters and children to justice and will never allow these savage inhumans to over-run our life and liberty,” military spokesman Asim Bajwa said in a post on Twitter.

Officials said at least 65 people were killed and about 300 wounded. The death toll was expected to rise.

Pakistan has been plagued by militant violence for the last 15 years, since it joined a U.S.-led campaign against Islamist militancy after the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.
A faction of the Pakistani Taliban called Jamaat-ul-Ahrar claimed responsibility for the attack, and issued a direct challenge to the government.

“The target was Christians,” said a faction spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, said.

“We want to send this message to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that we have entered Lahore.”
The group has claimed responsibility for several big attacks after it split with the main Pakistani Taliban in 2014. It declared allegiance to the Islamic State but later said it was rejoining the Taliban insurgency.

While the army, police, government and Western interests have been the prime targets of the Pakistani Taliban and their allies, Christians and other religious minorities have also attacked.
Nearly 80 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack on a church in the northwestern city of Peshawar in 2013.

The security forces have killed and arrested hundreds of suspected militants under a major crackdown launched after Taliban gunmen massacred 134 children at a military-run school in Peshawar in December 2014.

Lahore is the capital of Pakistan’s richest province, Punjab, and is widely seen as the political heartland of Sharif and his ruling party.

Sharif’s office condemned the blast as a cowardly act and said a response had been ordered, without elaborating.

Pakistan’s security agencies have long been accused of nurturing some militants to use for help in pursuing security objectives in Afghanistan and against old rival India.

The Pakistani Taliban are fighting to topple the government and install a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Sharif’s opponents have accused him of tolerating militancy in return for peac
e in his province, a charge he strongly denies.

(Reporting by Asad hashim; Writing by Robert Birsel; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

Crowds Put Pressure On Democrat Senators To Kill Iran Deal

New York Protesters Tell Chuck Schumer: Kill Iran Nuclear Deal

Where is Chuck? Kill this deal! Kill this deal!” rally-goers chanted.

11 hours ago | Updated 10 hours ago

Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post

 NEW YORK — An estimated 10,000 opponents to the Iran nuclear deal rallied in front of Times Square on Wednesday evening with a clear message for Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer: Either sabotage the agreement, or lose a significant chunk of voter support.

“We’re not going to believe you, Chuck Schumer, if you give a good speech on the Senate floor and vote against the deal, but don’t lobby the entire Senate with all the strength you have,” warned Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a financial advisor who helped organize the event. “Leaders of legislative bodies, their job is to round up votes. And Chuck Schumer, you better round up those votes to kill the deal!

Those banking on Congress to unravel the July 14 nuclear agreement between Iran, the U.S., and five other world powers face an uphill battle. Because of legislation passed in May, lawmakers have two months to review the text of the agreement and decide whether to hold a vote of approval, a vote of disapproval, or to simply do nothing.

President Barack Obama has stated his intention to veto a resolution of disapproval, which would remove his authority to temporarily waive some sanctions relief granted to Iran as part of the agreement. To get the two-thirds majority vote needed to override a presidential veto, at least 13 Democrats in the Senate and 43 in the House would have to vote to kill the nuclear accord.

Schumer, set to succeed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) next year, is currently trying to reconcile his loyalties to Obama, who spent much of his time in office working to complete the nuclear agreement, with loyalties to his Jewish, pro-Israel voters, who describe the deal as an existential threat that guarantees Iran gets nuclear weapons.

During his time in the Senate, Schumer has been a reliable supporter of legislation that increases aid to Israel and strengthens sanctions on Iran. He likes to remind voters that his last name comes from the Hebrew word “shomer,” which means “guardian.” “I am a shomer for Israel and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body,” he said in 2010.
Protesters at Wednesday’s rally, which was organized by a group of Jewish organizations, accused Schumer of planning to vote against the deal while quietly counting on his Democratic colleagues to protect the nuclear accord. Protesters waved signs that said, “Schumer, you are no shomer,” and frequently broke into chants of, “Where is Chuck? Kill this deal!”

Schumer has been hesitant to weigh in on the nuclear agreement, which requires Iran to significantly downsize its nuclear program and submit to increased inspections in exchange for international sanctions relief. “Supporting or opposing this agreement is not a decision to be made lightly, and I plan to carefully study the agreement before making an informed decision,” Schumer said in a statement shortly after the deal was announced.
Those gathered in front of Times Square on Wednesday said that’s a weak excuse. “They’re playing a game saying they’re studying it,” said Wiesenfeld. “Any simple person can read it, it’s not technical,” he continued, referring to the 159-page text, which details the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of several networks of international sanctions.

“Did anyone have to study the edicts of Hitler?” asked Wiesenfeld. “If [Schumer] wants to stop this deal, we know damn well he can do it.”

Several people at the rally indicated that if Congress fails to undo the nuclear agreement, they will shift their focus to electing one of the Republican presidential candidates in 2016. Several, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), have indicated that they would prefer to take military action against Iran rather than enforce this diplomatic accord.

Michael Fandal, a former police officer-turned-clown, is throwing his support behind Donald Trump for president. “That’s right, I’m a clown for Trump,” he said. “I have to strike a balance between my hilariousness and my seriousness.” Fandal came to the rally with several hand-decorated T-shirts that expressed his disappointment with Obama’s management of the Iranian nuclear issue.

Former New York governor and Republican presidential hopeful George Pataki spoke at the rally and slammed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for supporting the nuclear agreement. “She saw the pain and anguish and suffering,” he said, referring to Clinton’s role as a New York senator during the 9/11 attacks. “She saw the lessons of not dealing with radical Islam before they attack us here. Hillary, let me tell you one thing: America does not need as our next president another appeaser-in-chief; we need a commander in chief!”

Pataki’s words resonated with those at the rally. “I mean, there’s so many good candidates, I don’t even know what to say anymore!” said Bruce Weinfeld, when asked which of the 16 Republican presidential candidates he was rooting for. “I like Marco Rubio,” he continued. “But I think most of the Republican candidates will get us out of the deal.”

Just A Regional Conflict Would Kill A Third Of Mankind (Rev 9:18)

Nuclear War
“The world as we know it could end any day as a result of an accidental nuclear war between the United States and Russia,” a prominent environmental scientist warns.

“With temperatures plunging below freezing (as a result), crops would die and massive starvation would kill most of humanity,” asserts Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and a leading authority on nuclear winter, with its catastrophic effects on the global food supply.

Robock will present his new information in a speech to be delivered at a conference on “The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction” Feb. 28-March 1st at the New York Academy of Medicine, 1216 Fifth Ave., sponsored by the Helen Caldicott Foundation For a Nuclear Free Future of Asheville, N.C.  (Press invited to cover.)

(Nuclear Weapons) “would never be used on purpose by the major powers, but could be used by accident. Some countries might use them in a moment of panic, or in response to imagined threats and insult, or in a fit of religious hysteria,” Robock asserts. “The arsenals of nuclear weapons states set a bad example for the world, encouraging proliferation, and they could kill us all.”
He goes on to say that a nuclear war with each of two adversaries using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bobs as airbursts over urban areas “would inject so much smoke from the resulting fires into the stratosphere that the climate change would be unprecedented in recorded human history.”

Robock says climate model simulations find that the smoke would absorb sunlight, making it dark, cold, and dry at Earth’s surface and produce global-scale ozone depletion with enhanced ultraviolet(UV) radiation. “Crop models show that it would reduce agricultural production by 10-40% for a decade. The impact of the nuclear war simulated here, using much less than 1% of the global nuclear arsenal, could sentence a billion people now living marginal existences to starvation,” he asserts.

That could come about, say, from the cooling after a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, Robock explains. Calling on the United States and Russia to “set an example for other current and potential nuclear states,” Robock says the only way to avoid a global climatic catastrophe would be to reduce each of their arsenals well below new START levels.

(START is an acronym for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by America and Russia on February 5, 2011, that reduces the number of nuclear weapons and launchers that the U.S. and Russia deploy.) “The time is now to quickly reduce our nuclear arsenals,” Robock states. “Their costs are enormous to any nation building them. They cannot be used, and their continued existence makes the world a much more dangerous place.”

He cites President Obama’s statement in Prague five years ago to the effect that “The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War…In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons… As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”

– See more at:

Extremism Is No Longer Extreme, Welcome To Mohammed’s Vision (Quran Sura 2:161)

Former U.S. Military Leaders Outline Extremist Threat

Published: • Updated: January 27, 2015 7:00 PM
Undated photo of ISIS fighters.
Former senior U.S. military leaders outlined the threat that violent Islamist extremists pose and put it into a larger global security context at a Tuesday hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on global threats.

Gen. John Keane—a former vice chief of staff of the Army—recognized the split between the radical Shi’ia branch of Islam and the role Iran plays not only in the Middle East but beyond, using “proxies to attack the United States”—such as Hezbollah did in Lebanon or its sectarian militias did in Iraq—while developing its own nuclear and long-range missile capabilities and radical Sunnis.

The radical Sunnis, through al Qaeda and its affiliates, “exceed Iran” in attracting recruits and threatening Europe and North America. He cited the recent attack in Paris at satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket as an example of radical Sunni reach outside of the Middle East.

“We sure as hell are opinionated” as witnesses, he said. “[But] it is unmistakable that our policies have failed” in rolling back the Islamic State (sometimes called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) or in using drones to attack suspected terrorist targets in Yemen and Pakistan. Those actions “guarantee we will be incrementally engaged” without an overall strategy, Keane said.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, a former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, described the Middle East “as a region erupting in crisis” and the United States and its allies need to decide whether “political Islam is in our best interest.” Including Afghanistan in his assessment, he asked rhetorically “Are we asking for the same outcome [when the United States pulled its troops] out of Iraq?”

“We can’t have everything,” Adm. William Fallon, who also served as CENTCOM commander, said. “We’ve got to make choices,” he added, noting that it is impossible for the United States to solve the centuries-old divide between Shi’ia and Sunni and the even longer battle between Persians [Iran] and Arabs over control of the region.

Fallon warned against, “the hype about everything that happens with these characters [radical extremists],” characterizing extremists as mostly, “a pick-up band of jihadists.”

Zeroing in on Iraq, Fallon said it is critical that Sunnis there believe they “are getting a fair shake going forward” from the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. If they believe that, the tribes would be more likely to join the Kurds and largely Shi’ia Iraqi military in fighting ISIS.

“We know ISIS and ‘reconcilable Sunnis’ are on a collision course,” Keane added. He said the Abadi government and its military do not want to wait any longer to retake Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

“I don’t know if we will be ready by summer” to assist them with forward air controllers and air strikes, increased intelligence-gathering and sharing, special forces and additional trainers to be with Iraqi front-line forces in an attack on Mosul, Keane said. “We’ve got to have people on the ground with them,” he said. When asked, he put the number at 10,000 in that advise and assist role.

He added that several brigades of ground forces, including coalition troops, should be in place in Kuwait if the attempt to retake the city stalls or fails.

Mattis agreed on embedding forces with the Iraqis. Using forward controllers as an example, “you are seeing a much faster decision process” when they are available for planning and follow-up on a military operation that could keep an enemy off-balance.

Across the Iraqi border, Keane called the situation of the Free Syrian Army “as complex a thing as we have had on our plate” as it tries to battle ISIS with its roots in among Sunnis and the regime with its ties to Shi’ia at the same time. Most coalition nations assisting the Iraqi government have limited air strikes against ISIS to that country. Iran is supporting the Syrian regime with forces and equipment.

On halting Iran’s nuclear program, Fallon reminded the committee that the United State negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War over limiting these weapons. “We didn’t trust them. They didn’t trust us. The key thing is to verify.”

“Rigorous inspection” was the way Mattis described it. He said, “Economic sanctions worked better than I expected” in bringing Iran to the negotiations. Other steps could include a blockade, striking Hezbollah and the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria if talks fail.

Keane said he had “no confidence that the Iranians will not move to undermine” any agreement. “The supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is on a path for a nuclear weapon.”

“The threat has shifted” in Europe, Keane said pointing to the Russian seizure of Crimea, support of separatists in Ukraine and threats to the Baltic States, now members of NATO. “Let’s put some permanent bases there,” closer to the Russian border, and re-look the decision to pull the missile defense system from Eastern Europe.

As for a pivot to Asia and the Pacific, Fallon said the difference is rather small. During the Cold War, the Fleet was about evenly divided between the Atlantic and Pacific and the shift now would allocate 60 percent of the Navy’s 280 ships to the Pacific, a move of 28 ships. But it would be a step to reassure allies and partners in the region and China that the United States was still engaged, he and Mattis said.

When asked about a return to the draft, all said that would not be a good idea, but the growing divide between the 1 percent who serve voluntarily and the American public is “a huge problem,” Fallon said. Mattis said the All-Volunteer Force “has been good for the military [in terms of quality] but bad for the country” [in terms of the divide].

“The force looks like America, and they want to be there,” Keane said.

ISIS Kills Iranian General

Islamic State kills Qods Force general in central Iraq
December 28, 2014
Long War Journal

An Islamic State sniper gunned down a general in Iran’s Qods Force who was advising Iraqi troops and Shiite militias in the battleground city of Samarra in central Iraq.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced that Brigadier General Hamid Taqavi was “martyred” while serving in Samara, close to the “shrine of Imam Hassan Askari” on Dec. 27, 2014, Jahan News, a hard-line Iranian media outlet reported. Taqavi was killed by an Islamic State “sniper,” ABNA noted.

Taqavi served as an “adviser to the [Iraqi] Army and the popular mobilization of the Iraqi people,” a reference to the Shiite militias that fight alongside the Iraqi military. Iran’s Qods Force, the expeditionary special operations arm of the IRGC, is tasked with supporting the Iraqi military and Shiite militias, including the Badr Brigade, Hezbollah Brigades, Asaib al Haq (League of the Righteous), and Muqtada al Sadr’s Promised Day Brigade (or Peace Brigade). The Shiite militias have been instrumental in reinforcing beleaguered and demoralized Iraqi forces, and have helped retake some areas in Iraq, including Jurf al Sakhar and Amerli.

The IRGC said that Taqavi was “one of the commanders of the Ramazan Base, during the sacred defense,” of Iran during the Iran-Iraqi war from 1980-88. The Ramazan Base “was important” to the the Iranians, said Ali Alfoneh, a Senior Fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies who specializes on Iran.

“During the war with Iraq, they [the Iranians] directed operations behind enemy lines” in Iraq from the Ramazan Base, Alfoneh said.

Samarra is a key front in Iraq’s current war against the Islamic State, and Iran has placed considerable importance on supporting Iraq’s military and the Shiite militias operating there. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Qods Force, has been spotted in Samarra directing military operations. As recently as last month, he was photographed alongside Shiite militiamen in Samarra. The Qods Force commander has also been spotted on other key fronts as Shiite militias continue to battle the Islamic State.

The Al Askari shrine in Samarra is one of the most important in Shiite Islam, and its fall to the Islamic State would be a major blow to Iran. Additionally, Samarra is the linchpin in securing the northern Baghdad Belt. The Islamic State seeks to control the city and others north of Baghdad in order to encircle the capital and lay siege to the Shiite-led government. [For more details on the jihadist group’s strategy in Iraq, see LWJ report, ISIS, allies reviving ‘Baghdad belts’ battle plan.]

The Islamic State has been active in Samarra and in towns north and south of the city. Two weeks ago, the jihadist group routed a Hezbollah Brigades unit near the towns of Yathrib and Tal Gold, just south of Samarra. And in the first week of December, an Islamic State unit overran a Badr Brigade force near Samarra.

Read more:

Iran Assasinates Their Own Scientist For Refusing To Create Nukes

Iran accused of assassinating its own nuclear scientist

Iranian Nuclear Scientist Killed In Car Bombing

Iranian Nuclear Scientist Killed In Car Bombing

Mahboobeh Hosseinpour, the sister of an Iranian nuclear scientist alleged to have been assassinated by Israel, has claimed that her brother was actually killed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) because he would not cooperate with the regime’s demand that he help create nuclear weapons.
Western countries have long held suspicions regarding [Iran’s] nuclear weapon ambitions and Mrs. Mahboobeh Hosseinpour’s claims could help support these suspicions,” Dr. Iman Foroutan, chairman of Iranian opposition group The New Iran, said in a statement last week.

Mahboobeh said that her brother, Dr. Ardeshir Hosseinpour, was approached in 2004 by special agents of the IRGC on behalf of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wanted to enlist Hosseinpour’s services for a project aimed at increasing uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons. As part of the project, he would also be tasked with teaching and supervising Russian and North Korean scientists.

Deceased Iranian nuclear scientist Dr. Ardeshir Hosseinpour, whose sister has accused the Iranian Revolutionary Guards of assassinating him in 2007.  He was offered a two star rank in the revolutionary guard and ownership of factories,” Mahboobeh told the Middle East news source The Media Line in an interview from her home in Turkey. She said that her brother refused to work in Iranian nuclear projects, believing they would prove harmful to both the country’s economy and the international community. She alleged that his refusals led to Khamenei ordering his assassination by IRGC agents in January 2007.

Following Dr. Hosseinpour’s mysterious death, there were conflicting reports as to the cause, with media sources originally claiming he was “gassed.” Later, US private intelligence reported that he had died of radioactive poisoning and that sources close to Israeli intelligence had confirmed that he was targeted by Mossad.

As a matter of policy, Israel neither confirms nor denies reported assassinations, and Iranian officials vehemently denied that Dr. Hosseinpour had been assassinated. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, then Iranian vice president and head of the country’s Atomic Energy Organization, told the semi-official Fars News Agency that Iran’s “nuclear experts, thank God, are sound and safe,” and even went as far as to deny that Hosseinpour had worked for him.

However, Mahboobeh claimed that her brother “was the sole individual with the top credentials required for uranium enrichment in Iran,” according a press release by The New Iran. Iranian journalist Dr. Alireza Nourizadeh supported Mahboobeh’s allegations. He told The Media Line that the assassination was ordered “because of an email communication [Dr. Hosseinpour] had with me about the sensitivities of his work. They were aware of it, even if they did not have the content.”

Mahboobeh further supported her allegations by recounting conversations with her brother’s widow, Sara Araghi, who said that she had seen a DVD with detailed instructions for building, as well as neutralizing, a nuclear weapon “12 times more powerful” than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Araghi, Mahboobeh related, said she removed the DVD from her husband’s office the day of his assassination, but that it was later stolen by a family member.

This is not the first time the Iranian opposition has charged that Iran assassinated its own nuclear scientists. In May 2012, Dubai-based news channel Al-Arabiya, quoting Iranian opposition sources, reported that Tehran had executed a man for being an Israeli spy as cover for having assassinated its own nuclear scientist Masoud Ali Mohammadi in a car bombing in January 2010. Elhanan Miller contributed to this report.