Who is Bombing Whom in the Middle East?

By Robert Fisk, The Independent, May 03, 2015

Let me try to get this right. The Saudis are bombing Yemen because they fear the Shia Houthis are working for the Iranians. The Saudis are also bombing Isis in Iraq and the Isis in Syria. So are the United Arab Emirates. The Syrian government is bombing its enemies in Syria and the Iraqi government is also bombing its enemies in Iraq. America, France, Britain, Denmark, Holland, Australia and–believe it or not–Canada are bombing Isis in Syria and Isis in Iraq, partly on behalf of the Iraqi government (for which read Shia militias) but absolutely not on behalf of the Syrian government.

The Jordanians and Saudis and Bahrainis are also bombing Isis in Syria and Iraq because they don’t like them, but the Jordanians are bombing Isis even more than the Saudis after their pilot-prisoner was burned to death in a cage. The Egyptians are bombing parts of Libya because a group of Christian Egyptians had their heads chopped off by what might–notionally–be the same so-called Islamic State, as Isis refers to itself. The Iranians have acknowledged bombing Isis in Iraq–of which the Americans (but not the Iraqi government) take a rather dim view. And of course the Israelis have several times bombed Syrian government forces in Syria but not Isis (an interesting choice, we’d all agree). Chocks away!

It amazes me that all these warriors of the air don’t regularly crash into each other as they go on bombing and bombing. And since Lebanon’s Middle East Airlines is the only international carrier still flying over Syria, I’m even more amazed that my flights from Beirut to the Gulf have gone untouched by the blitz boys of so many Arab and Western states as they career around the skies of Mesopotamia and the Levant.

The sectarian and theological nature of this war seems perfectly clear to all who live in the Middle East–albeit not to our American chums. The Sunni Saudis are bombing the Shia Yemenis and the Shia Iranians are bombing the Sunni Iraqis. The Sunni Egyptians are bombing Sunni Libyans, it’s true, and the Jordanian Sunnis are bombing Iraqi Sunnis. But the Shia-supported Syrian government forces are bombing their Sunni Syrian enemies and the Lebanese Hezbollah–Shia to a man–are fighting the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Sunni enemies, along with Iranian Revolutionary Guards and an ever-larger number of Afghan Shia men in Syrian uniforms.

Over the past three days, by the way, Hezbollah members in Lebanon have been told to stand by to return to Syria in the next two weeks to fight a great battle in the Qalamoun hills–across the north-east border of Lebanon–lest Isis tries to push into Lebanon itself and cut Hezbollah’s supply line from Hermel to Baalbek and southern Lebanon.

And if you want to taste the sectarianism of all this, just take a look at Saudi Arabia’s latest request to send more Pakistani troops to protect the kingdom (and possibly help to invade Yemen), which came from the new Saudi Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman who at only 34 is not much older than his fighter pilots. But the Saudis added an outrageous second request: that the Pakistanis send only Sunni Muslim soldiers. Pakistani Shia Muslim officers and men (30 per cent of the Pakistani armed forces) would not be welcome.

It’s best left to that fine Pakistani newspaper The Nation–and the writer Khalid Muhammad–to respond to this sectarian demand. “The army and the population of Pakistan are united for the first time in many years to eliminate the scourge of terrorism,” Muhammad writes. But “the Saudis are now trying to not only divide the population, but divide our army as well. When a soldier puts on a uniform, he fights for the country that he calls home, not the religious beliefs that they carry individually… Do they (the Saudis) believe that a professional military like Pakistan… can’t fight for a unified justified cause? If that is the case then why ask Pakistan to send its armed forces?”

And then, of course, there are the really big winners in all this blood, the weapons manufacturers. Raytheon and Lockheed Martin supplied £1.3bn of missiles to the Saudis only last year. But three years ago, Der Spiegel claimed the European Union was Saudi Arabia’s most important arms supplier and last week France announced the sale of 24 Rafale fighter jets to Qatar at a cost of around £5.7bn. Egypt has just bought another 24 Rafales.

It’s worth remembering at this point that the Congressional Research Services in the US estimate that most of Isis’s budget comes from “private donors” in–you guessed it–Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait.

But blow me down if the Yanks are back to boasting. More than a decade after “Mission Accomplished”, General Paul Funk (in charge of reforming the Iraqi army) has told us that “the enemy is on its knees”. Another general close to Barack Obama says that half of the senior commanders in Isis have been liquidated. Nonsense. But it’s worth knowing just how General Pierre de Villiers, chief of the French defence staff, summed up his recent visits to Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraq, he reported back to Paris, is in a state of “total decay”. The French word he used was “decomposition”. I suspect that applies to most of the Middle East.

Read More

Israeli veterans say permissive rules of engagement fueled Gaza carnage

By William Booth, Washington Post, May 4, 2015

TEL AVIV–The war last summer between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead and vast areas reduced to rubble. On Monday a group of Israeli veterans released sobering testimony from fellow soldiers that suggests permissive rules of engagement coupled with indiscriminate artillery fire contributed to the mass destruction and high numbers of civilian casualties in the coastal enclave.

The organization of active and reserve duty soldiers, called Breaking the Silence, gathered testimonies from more than 60 enlisted men and officers who served in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge.

The soldiers describe reducing Gaza neighborhoods to sand, firing artillery at random houses to avenge fallen comrades, shooting at innocent civilians because they were bored and watching armed drones attack a pair of women talking on cellular phones because they were assumed to be Hamas scouts.

The director of the group, Yuli Novak, called the rules of engagement in Operation Protective Edge “the most permissive” they have seen and amounted to an “ethical failure … from the top of the chain of command.” Novak called for an independent investigation.

The 240-page report “This is How We Fought in Gaza 2014” was released Monday and accompanied by videotaped testimony that aired on Israeli news programs.

The soldiers describe how they were told by commanders to view all Palestinian in the combat zones as a potential threat, whether they brandished weapons or not. Individuals spotted in windows and rooftops–especially if they were speaking on a cellular telephone–were often considered scouts and could be shot.

A first sergeant serving in the Mechanized Infantry in Deir al-Balah in Gaza told the group, “If we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming, ‘I give up’ or something–then he’s a threat and there’s authorization to open fire.”

The leaders of the Breaking the Silence group also charged that Israeli Defense Forces reduced whole neighborhoods of Gaza to ruins without any clear operational justification but instead to “demonstrate presence in the area.” Gaza is some of the most densely populated real estate on Earth with 1.8 million people.

A first sergeant in an infantry unit in northern Gaza Strip recalled that armored combat bulldozers, known as D9s, “didn’t rest for a second. Nonstop, as if they were playing in a sandbox. Driving back and forth, back and forth, razing another house, another street. And at some point there was no trace left of that street. It was hard to imagine there even used to be a street there at all.”

The soldiers also testified that their commanders wanted them to level buildings near the Gaza border or on hilltops that could be used by Hamas in future conflicts. More than 18,000 homes were severely damaged or destroyed in the conflict and civilian infrastructure was frequently targeted, including power stations and factories.

The Israelis charge that Palestinian militants brought most of this on themselves and their people by firing thousands of unguided rockets at Israeli cities, employing human shields and caching weapons in schools, hospitals, mosques and other public buildings.

Members of Breaking the Silence are viewed by many Israelis as “anti-military.” The group says its mission is to tell the Israeli public what the IDF spokesmen hide, what serving in the occupied West Bank and in wars in Gaza and Lebanon are really like. Immediately after graduating from high school, all Israeli men and women–except those who get deferments because of religious study or for medical reasons–must serve in the military, and so time in the armed services is a shared experience for most citizens.

The Israeli Defense Forces declined to address details in the group’s report and complained that Breaking the Silence “does not provide IDF with any proof of their claims.”

Breaking the Silence provided reporters with a March 23 letter they sent to chief of the general staff of the IDF requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the report.

The testimonies are spoken in the voices of soldiers–filled with military jargon and occasional expletives–about how they did their jobs, what they saw, sometimes what they felt.

The Israeli combatants reveal acts of both kindness and savagery–how they sheltered a family from harm and how they appear to have executed a wounded Palestinian.

In an interview with the Washington Post, a young tank gunner whose testimony is included in the report, described how he and others fired cannon and machine gun bursts at random travelers on a main north-south highway in the Gaza Strip simply because they were bored and wanted to prove how good their aim was.

“I am ashamed of this,” said the 21-year-old tank gunner who served in the central Gaza in a Hamas hotspot near the town of Al Bureij.

The gunner said he fired his Browning machine gun at a man pedaling a bicycle, but missed because of the distance and his ultimate unwillingness to adjust his fire.

“War crime is a big word,” he said in an interview in a Tel Aviv apartment on Sunday. “I did not rape and kill anybody, but yeah, I shot at random civilian targets sometimes, just for fun, so yeah.”

The same soldier described how a friend in his unit was killed by shrapnel to the neck from a Palestinian mortar round; how rocket-propelled grenades whizzed by his tank and how one time a burst of small-arms fire breezed by his own head.

In other testimonies, soldiers recall that doors and houses and even sheep were booby-trapped with explosives and that once an old man was sent toward the troops as a suicide bomber.

Yehuda Shaul, a leader of the Breaking the Silence, conceded that Gaza was a dangerous, chaotic landscape for Israeli troops. But he said that IDF had contributed to needless death and destruction with “a guiding military principle of minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians.”

According to United Nations and Palestinian human rights organizations, almost 70 percent of the more than 2,100 Palestinian deaths were civilian, including more than 500 children.

When the ground offensive began and Israeli armored battalions entered the Gaza Strip, the IDF would first drop leaflets warning civilians to flee the area; then they would launch artillery and aerial strikes to destroy buildings that intelligence suggested could harbor militants and weapons, and “soften targets” to deter Hamas from counter-attack.

Those who remained in the area could find themselves in the crosshairs. “While official military orders allow for fire only after identifying a weapon, intent, and the enemy’s realistic capability, many soldiers testified that they were told to shoot at any threat, imminent or suspected,” the report concluded.

A first sergeant in the Infantry in the Northern Gaza Strip testified, “They told us: ‘There aren’t supposed to be any civilians there. If you spot someone, shoot. Whether it posed a threat or not was not a question, and that makes sense to me. If you shoot someone in Gaza, it’s cool, no big deal.”

Read More

Arms sales becoming France’s new El Dorado, but at what cost?

By Sam Ball, AFP, 3 May 2015

France’s booming arms trade has proved one of the few bright spots for the country’s struggling economy. But as President François Hollande heads to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, will there be a moral and strategic cost to the deals he might bring back?

When Qatar agreed to buy 24 French Rafale fighter jets in a €6.3 billion contract at the end of April, it represented yet another major success for France’s arms industry, coming hot on the heels of further multi-billion euro sales of Rafales to Egypt and India.

The deals have been hailed by Hollande and his government. According to France’s Minister of Defence Jean-Yves Le Drian, in comments made to the Journal du Dimanche newspaper Sunday, the Qatar contract brought the value of the country’s arms exports to more than €15 billion this year so far.

That sum is already more than the €8.06 billion for the whole of 2014, which itself was the highest level seen since 2009–suggesting a continued upward trajectory for the French arms trade and one that is providing a much-needed salve to the country’s economic woes.

But some of these deals have raised more than a few eyebrows, with anti-arms trade campaigners critical of France’s willingness to sell weapons to countries with less than stellar human rights records.

These concerns are only set to rise when Hollande heads first to Doha on Monday and then Saudi Arabia’s capital of Riyadh the day after, where furthering the recent success of the French arms industry is likely to be one of his top priorities.

Saudi Arabia has already proved a lucrative trading partner for French arms manufacturers, most recently in a deal signed in November that saw the kingdom buy $3 billion-worth (€2.7 billion) of French weapons and military equipment to supply the Lebanese army.

The oil-rich country is currently on something of an arms spending spree.

Last year, the Saudis surpassed India to become the world’s biggest arms importer, upping its spending by 54 percent to $6.5 billion (€5.8 billion), according to a report by industry analyst IHS.

France, thanks to some adept diplomatic manoeuvering in recent years, is well placed to take advantage of the Saudi cash cow.

Paris has been an increasingly close ally of Riyadh ever since it was among the most vocal in backing military intervention against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, a key ally of Shiite Iran–one of Sunni Saudi Arabia’s main regional rivals.

The strategic alliance has been boosted by France’s tougher stance on a nuclear deal with Iran than the Saudi’s traditional western partner, the US. Furthermore, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visited the kingdom in April to show France’s support for the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen.

If Hollande can help secure new arms deals with the Saudis, then he could make the sums involved in this year’s earlier successes look like small change.

He may have to overlook certain moral issues to do so, however.

The kingdom, where the ultra-conservative Wahhabi form of Islam dominates, is one of the world’s most restrictive and repressive states, where public executions are common practise, women are forbidden from obtaining a passport and blasphemers are punished with whippings.

But there could also be a strategic downside.

Experts warn that the influx of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries is worsening tensions in a region already ravaged by conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

“You’re seeing political fractures across the region, and at the same time you’ve got oil, which allows countries to arm themselves, protect themselves and impose their will as to how they think the region should develop,” Ben Moores, author of the IHS report, told AP in March.

France, of course, is not alone in striking lucrative arms deals in the region. The US remains the biggest arms exporter to the Middle East, with $8.4 billion (€7.5 billion) worth of weapon sales in 2014, while the UK and Germany are also major players.

At the same time, Russia, possibly incentivised by the influx of weapons from Western states, appears to be upping support for its main ally in the region–Iran–as evidenced by its decision in April to go ahead with its controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.

This, analyst Tobias Borck of the Royal United Services Institute told the UK’s Guardian newspaper last month, is triggering a dangerous arms race, one that could spill over into bloodshed at any moment.

“[The] Saudi-led military operations in Yemen [are] the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” he said. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect and pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”

Such concerns, though, are unlikely to lessen Hollande’s pursuit of more Saudi investment in French arms.

According to the French Defence Ministry, the arms deals struck in 2015 alone have created close to 30,000 new jobs for the French economy.

At a time when unemployment is at a record high–with 3.51 million out of work at last count–those sorts of figures will be difficult for the French president to ignore.

Read More

Desert Song by Hillsong United

Read More

Why Exercising Is a Higher Priority Than My Business

Joshua Steimle, Entrepreneur, April 22, 2015

There’s a prevalent attitude among entrepreneurs that the business, whatever that business is, comes first. It is the high priority that trumps everything else, including family, friends and especially health.

I’ve seen entrepreneurs sacrifice all these things, sometimes with tragic consequences, to focus on making their businesses successful. I’ve also done it myself, although I’m one of the lucky ones. During the years I made my business my highest priority, my wife stuck by my side, I didn’t cause any permanent damage with friendships (although I certainly didn’t nurture any) and I didn’t die.

It’s not greed that motivates us entrepreneurs. It would be difficult to justify the sacrifices we make if the only reward were money. Dollars become mere points in a sort of game. What it’s really about is building something great, doing something that matters and changing the world. That’s what makes it so easy to brush other things off. But it’s a mistake. I know that now, and that’s why today I care more about exercise than my business. But it’s not easy.

I have a growing business with 14 team members. These men and women rely on me to make sure their paychecks come on time, that benefits are there for them and their families, and that obstacles are removed so they can get their work done. We have approximately 40 clients, who are depending on me to make sure they’re getting the results that will help their businesses grow.

This adds up to a lot of tasks, and a lot of pressure. On any given day there are easily 100 important things I should be doing for my business, 50 of which are also urgent, but there is no way I can get more than 10 things done. And yet each and every week I spend at least 10 hours on focused, physical exercise.

I schedule my workouts during the workday and prioritize exercise over all my work activities. There is some flexibility, but if there is a conflict between a trail run I need to get in, and a meeting with a client, I’ll reschedule the client meeting first. I do this because I and my business can survive the consequences of rescheduling a client meeting, even if it means losing that client. But as soon as I start pushing workouts off, I’ll start missing workouts, and once I start missing workouts, I’m close to stopping workouts altogether.

Exercise must come first, or it’s unlikely to happen at all.

If exercise stops, then my health goes downhill. With the loss of physical health my productivity at work goes down. I become depressed. I lose motivation to do the things that makes my business successful. I’ve learned firsthand that excellence in one area of my life promotes excellence in all other areas of my life. Exercise is the easiest area of my life to control. It’s easy to measure. Either I get it in, or I don’t. When I do, it lifts up all other areas of my life, including my business.

For a long time, I was fooled into thinking that if my business wasn’t the top priority, then that meant I wasn’t doing all I could do to make it successful. This is an understandable way of thinking, but it’s completely wrong.

If my life is made up of 10 priorities, then it’s not as simple as saying that if I move the business from being priority two to priority one, that the business is going to benefit. The trick is to figure out which ordering of priorities provides the maximum overall benefit.

For example, when I exercise, that makes me better in every role I have, whether it’s as a husband, father, friend or entrepreneur. If I were to stop exercising because I felt that being a good business owner was a higher priority, then ironically I would end up a worse business owner than I was when it when it was a lower priority. Putting exercise first creates a win-win.

As my business grows, I see members of my team falling into the same trap I did. That’s why we’re working to institute health incentives, and why I’m not ashamed to talk about the time I take out of my work day to exercise. I know that if my team members put exercise and health before their jobs, they might work fewer hours, but they’ll feel better about themselves, have more fulfilling lives and they’ll produce better results with the hours they do work.

Read More

WANTED: A MAN -- A MAN WHO WILL STAND

By Frank Carlson, July 1968:

Frank Carlson was a member of the Senate Breakfast Group, which met every Wednesday morning to pray together & ponder the issues of a spiritual heritage. About 20 Senators--of all denominations--usually were present. 

For 27 years, a writer from the News and World Report had attended as the only regular member outside the Senate. What was said at those gatherings was generally not for publication, but the talk made by Carlson on June 19th so impressed his listeners that special permission was granted for this printing of excerpts from it. Senator Carlson has since retired after 18 years in the Senate. Prior to that he served 12 years in the House of Representatives, and 4 years as Governor of the State of Kansas.

“The subject of the text I am using is ‘Wanted a man--a man who will stand.’ We have had men in both ancient & modern history who have had the courage to take a stand & stand firm…

In Ezekiel 22:80, the Prophet says:

‘And I sought for a man among them who would build up the wall & stand in the breach before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it.’

God is searching for men who are unique, thoroughly saved, & filled to running over with His Spirit. God & the world need men who will stand in the gap…

Modern Americans have accepted & are tolerating conditions never before permitted by any generation of our ancestors.

Never have so many hated on such flimsy cause. Never have so many denounced so many with such little knowledge. Never has the dollar been as important as it is today. Never has wild pleasure or physical abandonment been considered fitting human behavior as it is today.

Never have public officials been so brazen & open in seeking the vote of the people through promises of things that are morally & spiritually wrong. Never have ministers of the Gospel turned their pulpits & their pastoral duties toward direction of the social order to the near exclusion of the salvation order as abounds in our time.

In that same 22nd chapter of Ezekiel, the Prophet speaks of Israel’s religious leaders in these words:

‘Her priests have done violence to My law & have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy & the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean & the clean, & they have disregarded My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.’

Israel's religious leaders of that earlier time would be appalled to observe what is transpiring in the churches of God today. Even the daily press--notoriously indifferent to religious news--reports a few lines on the inner & back pages that tell us clearly how growing numbers of Americans treat holy things with irreverence & sacred things with contempt.

Not only have vast numbers of Americans lost all sense of the sacred, the moral, & the ethical, but the spiritual leaders from both the laity & the priesthood are often found in the forefront of this irreligious pursuit of comfort rather than conviction--of accommodation rather than truth--of the pleasant life rather than the meaningful life.

If God is to have men who will stand in the gap & hold back the flood of destructive emotional & spiritual forces, we must first understand the nature of the problem & why things are the way they are.

There are 3 major forces that have brought about the chaos, frustration, & anti-Christian era in which we live. They touch both the philosophical & religious bases, were first voiced by few in number whose intensity deceived millions, & have been permitted to flourish by both the unwary & the fearful.

First, we live in this age of uncertainty because we have either accepted or endured a doctrine of universal conformity.

The forces that reduce the power of an influence of God & Christ in the lives of our people are seeking to become levelers of men. It is their conviction that only through lowering mankind to a dependency upon the ideas, ideals, & material judgments of superior people can we live together in harmony & peace.

Evidence is rampant that this kind of meddling & interference with God's natural law brings fearful conflict, death, destruction, riots, crime, & disregard of decency & principle among our people,

Today there is widespread devotion to the idea that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be allowed to remain the same. All things must change, & there is practically no consideration given as to whether the change is good or bad--right or wrong--easy or difficult--necessary or unnecessary.

The doctrine of change stands on just the precise idea that change is inevitable. That is absolutely true. Change of various kinds & sorts takes place every day everywhere. But irresponsible, erratic, violent change only for the sake of making things different, is as illogical & as unreasonable as it is unspiritual.

No intelligent person argues against the necessity of using question marks after many of our inherited ideas & practices of the past. But when the question mark is turned into a totem pole or a marble altar on which the people are supposed to lay their sacrificial offerings, such people have escaped the general limits of common sense & sound judgment, & have launched off into material idolatry & are rushing toward a degree of spiritual insanity.

If human reason has so totally lost its respectability & no-one is allowed to go from a major & minor premise to some sort of orderly conclusion, then the welfare of our people is entrusted to the care of strange & weird people.

Great changes had to take place during these recent years, & even greater changes will have to take place in the future. But no safe & proper change seen in recent times--& certainly none of the irrational changes that outnumber the sane ones--can justify the wholesale abandonment of the safe & sure principles of God & this country which have brought us safely this far. In the face of great changes, we Christians have to remember that we have a firm point of view, & that we operate from certain unchanging foundations.

We believe in a God Who does not change--in human nature which does not change except for its accommodation with & acceptance of God--in standards of right & wrong that do not change--in death & judgment which are inescapable--& we believe in a truth that is absolute, not relative, & which is forever settled in Heaven & can never pass away.

The Christian today--even in the midst of the erratic & erotic commitments of irreligious leaders--does not follow the failing steps of the priests of Israel. Christians make a clear distinction between the holy & the common. They teach the difference between the clean & the unclean. They observe & keep the Sabbath, & they do not profane either the Name, the Spirit, not the power of God.

The third cause of our uncertainties in this time is the doctrine of universal criticism. Today man is taught not to accept anything until he has first put it under strong & critical examination. Trust nobody--believe nobody--have faith in nothing--& accept no truth until it has been proved to you with mathematical exactness & material demonstration. That is the agony of the hour when the doctrine of criticism has taken over our people.

You cannot pick up a paper, magazine, or a book that is not in & of itself critical of something or somebody, even including among its victims almighty God Himself. In truth, the criticisms of God rank well above almost all other criticisms of the hour. More people--in more ways & on more occasions--cast doubt, hurl darts, & throw charges against God such as this country has never seen in all of its history.

To accept the doctrine of universal criticism leaves us with almost nothing that is sacred--almost nothing that is absolute--& nothing that is eternal. So real has our acceptance of the doctrine of criticism become that even the word “indoctrination” has been turned into an evil word that must be shunned, like “discipline,” “disciple,” or “patriotism.”

These 3 doctrines--universal conformity, universal change, & universal criticism--have left our nation without moorings or anchors. We are being tossed about in the sea of doubt & uncertainty that is about to sink the ship of God before our very eyes.

2 Chronicles 16:9 King James Version says  For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.

Are you on God’s short list?

The world today is looking for:

Men who are not for sale;

Men who are honest, sound from center to circumference, true to the heart's core;

Men with consciences as steady as the needle to the pole:

Men who will stand for the right if the heavens totter & the earth reels:

Men who can tell the truth & look the World right in the eye;

Men who neither brag nor run;

Men who neither flag nor flinch;

Men who can have courage without shouting it:

Men in whom the courage of everlasting life runs still, deep, & strong;

Men who know their message & tell it;

Men who know their place & fill it;

Men who know their business & attend to it;

Men who will not lie, shirk, or dodge;

Men who are not too lazy to work, nor too proud to be poor;

Men who are willing to eat what they have earned & wear what they have paid for;

Men who are not ashamed to say ‘No’ with emphasis, & who are not ashamed to say ‘I can’t afford it.’

If we had men & women like this in abundance, our society would be dramatically improved. Our homes would be happier & healthier; our educational programs would be more effective; illegitimacy would drop dramatically; crime would be substantially reduced; the streets would be safe; opportunities would be greater; & everyone would benefit as a result.

God is looking for men. He wants those who can unite together around a common faith--who can join hands in a common task--& who have come to the kingdom for such a time as this. God give us men.”

The above speech was reprinted in the following book: Fourth Reich of the Rich by Des Griffin

Read More

The Wild Man Prophecy

By Dennis Edwards: 

Most everyone knows that Abraham is the father of both the Jewish and Arab nations. However, most people do not realize that both Jews and Arabs are descendents of Shem. In fact, according to Biblical chronology, Shem and Abraham’s lives overlap by about 100 years. So Abraham could have known Shem. The point I am trying to make here is that both Jews and Arabs are Shemites or Semites, that is, descendents of Shem.

The word anti-Semitism comes from Shem’s name. Since both Arabs and Jews are Shemites or Semites, the word anti-Semitism should mean those who are prejudice to both Arabs and Jews. Instead it is used to designate hatred or prejudice toward the Jewish people. According to Wikipedia the word was first “coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass or Jew-hatred."[1]

In any event, Abraham is the father of the Jewish people through Isaac the son of Abraham’s wife Sarah. But Abraham is also the father of the Arab nations through Ishmael, his son through his wife’s handmaiden Hagar. Ishmael was actually older than Isaac. Because of the jealousy which was arising between Hagar and Sarah and ultimately between their descendants, Sarah asks Abraham to put away both Hagar and her son Ishmael.

Abraham laments, but God tells him to yield to his wife’s request. Hagar and her son are put out of the camp and wander in the desert. In her desperation Hagar calls out to the Lord for help and he helps her. The angel responsible for her rescue prophesizes over Ishmael saying,

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.[2]

The Lord also says, “For I will make him a great nation.”[3]

And later:

These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles (or encampments); twelve princes according to their nations.[4]

Have the Arab nations been traditionally “a wild man?” Surely there manner of gaining converts during some of their reign over the Middle East since the time of Mohammed has been by force. Also, since they are a tribal people, each tribe tends to keep to themselves and have strong tribal preferences. Therefore, even though they are brothers, they find it hard to agree and have through history been in constant squabbles among themselves, which we even see today in the Sunni- Shiite division. We see it in the “liberated” nations of Iraq and Libya. Without a strong man dictator to force the different tribal areas to work together, the country soon falls into chaos which every man’s hand against each other.

The Israeli’s realizing that the Arabs are often against each other, have used the fact to their advantage in the Middle East conflict. Because of their knowledge of the Arab weakness, they have been able to prevent some attempted unions by Arab leaders which could have proved dangerous to Israel’s national security. Secret documents have shown that the Mossad have used the philosophy of divide and conquer as their foreign policy using their expert intelligence to foment division among the Arab nations. As long as the Arab nations are fighting among themselves Israel’s security is safe and Israel becomes the most dominant military power in the area.

On June 25, 2014 blogger Brandon Martinez wrote the following on his blog commenting on the fighting in Iraq between the different Muslim groups confirming Israel’s policy:[5]

On the June 22 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu let slip his government’s intention to divide and conquer the Middle East. Remarking on the latest ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) incursions into Iraq, Netanyahu expressed the desire of his regime to promote internal strife in Israel’s neighboring states. “We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” Netanyahu said, implying that it is in Israel’s interests to have Muslims fighting and squabbling amongst themselves.

“When your enemies are fighting each other, do not strengthen either one of them, weaken both,” said the Israeli leader.

Martinez continues,

That is what ISIS was created to do. The terrorist militia’s American, Israeli and Saudi backers are content to see these roving bands of malcontents and marauders behead their way to Damascus and Baghdad. What better way to solidify Israel’s position as the sole hegemon in the region?

Fragmenting, weakening and Balkanizing the Middle East has been part and parcel of the Israeli impulse from the very beginnings of the Jewish state.

Martinez brings to our attention that oddly enough, back in 1982, Israeli military strategist Oded Yinon had written a paper called, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s.” At the time Iraq was Israel’s most powerful and potential adversary and Israel’s greatest threat. Yinon, therefore, advocated the territorial dissection of Iraq into three states. Each state would be based on ethnic and confessional roots, namely Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Yinon promoted the same scenario for the other Arab/Muslim states surrounding Israel, including Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iran. Some experts claim the idea of a Middle East divided along Arab tribal lines goes back as far as the 1920s.

According to Martinez, Yinon believed that fractured and divided Arab/Muslim countries could not pose any challenge to Israeli dominance. He insisted,

Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

Martinez concludes,

Yinon’s geopolitical blueprint is still very relevant today. His vision of a crippled and prostrate Arab/Muslim world is playing out before our very eyes.

Will Iraq be redrawn into three parts in the near future in fulfillment to Yinon’s suggested strategy?

Footnotes:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

[2]Genesis 16:12
[3] Genesis 21:18
[4] Genesis 25:16
[5] http://martinezperspective.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/isis-insurrection-serves-israels-interests/

Read More

Isis on the run? The US portrayal is very far from the truth

Patrick Cockburn, The Independent, 3 May 2015

A graphic illustration of Western wishful thinking about the decline of Islamic State (IS) is a well-publicised map issued by the Pentagon to prove that the self-declared caliphate has lost 25 per cent of its territory since its big advances last year.

Unfortunately for the Pentagon, sharp-eyed American journalists soon noticed something strange about its map identifying areas of IS strength. While it shows towns and villages where IS fighters have lost control around Baghdad, it simply omits western Syria where they have been advancing in and around Damascus.

The Pentagon displayed some embarrassment about its dodgy map, but it largely succeeded in its purpose of convincing people that IS is in retreat. Many news outlets across the world republished the map as evidence of the success of air strikes by the United States and its allies in support of the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria. The capture of Tikrit after a month-long siege is cited as a further sign that a re-energised Iraqi state is winning and one day in the not too distant future will be able to recapture Mosul in the north and Anbar province in the west.

How much of this comforting news is true? Recall that the loss or retention of territory is not a good measure of a force such as IS using quasi-guerrilla tactics. Good news from the point of view of Baghdad is that its forces finally retook the small city of Tikrit, though its recapture was primarily the work of 20,000 Shia militia and not the Iraqi army, which only had some 3,000 soldiers involved in the battle. It was not a fight to the finish and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said IS only committed a few hundred fighters to holding the city.

Success at Tikrit was trumpeted at home and abroad and was to be followed by an Iraqi army offensive in Anbar province and possibly an assault on Mosul later in the year. But, just as this was supposed to begin, IS fighters attacked Baiji oil refinery, the largest in Iraq, and Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, showing that they retain their offensive capability. As of last Thursday, IS fighters had seized most of the 36-square-kilometre refinery compound with only a few pockets of Iraqi federal police and soldiers still holding out. “We have very little food and ammunition, and we can’t withstand the suicide bombers, snipers and rockets,” said a federal police officer reached by phone by the Iraq Oil Report. “All of us are thinking of committing suicide.”

What emerges from the latest round of fighting is not only that IS retains the ability to launch offensives over a wide area, but that the Iraqi army very much depends on rushing a small number of elite combat units like so many fire brigades to cope with successive crises. One source in Baghdad told me that the number of troops useable for these purposes was about five brigades or some 15,000 soldiers. Other published reports suggest the number may be even smaller at 5,000 men drawn from the so-called Golden Brigade, an Interior Ministry Swat team and a unit known as the Scorpions. When these small but effective forces succeed in repelling an IS attack there is nobody in the regular army to hold the positions they have defended.

A key question since IS captured much of northern and western Iraq last year concerns the ability of the Iraqi army to reconstitute itself after such a defeat. Going by recent fighting this is simply not happening, and failure here has important political consequences for Iraq and the region as a whole. It means that IS is not being beaten back by the regular army in its most important strongholds in Iraq. As a result the Baghdad government is this weekend poised to send Shia militias into overwhelmingly Sunni Anbar province to reinforce the army. “We are under tremendous pressure,” an army officer fighting in Anbar was quoted as saying. “We are in the midst of a war of attrition, which I am afraid will play into the hands of Islamic State.” He described their fighters as being “everywhere”.

The move of Shia militiamen, organised and in part directed by Iranian officers, into western Sunni Iraq creates a dilemma for the US. The Americans have been insisting that the militias be under the military control of Baghdad, though how you prove this is another matter. Washington had been hoping to repeat, if only in miniature, its success in using anti-al-Qaeda tribes and communities against the jihadis in 2006-08. Today this is almost impossible because there are no longer 150,000 US troops in Iraq, IS has shown it will kill anybody opposing it, and Sunni-Shia sectarian fear and hatred is deeper than ever. The 90,000 Sunni refugees who fled Ramadi for Baghdad when the fighting started found it difficult or impossible to enter the capital because they were suspected of being IS infiltrators. Their fate is a grim illustration of the degree to which Iraq no longer exists as a unified country.

At the heart of the failure of the US and its allies to defeat IS over the last 10 months is the problem that what makes military sense is politically toxic and vice versa. The strongest military force opposing IS in Iraq is the Iranian-backed Shia militias, but the US imperative to limit Iranian influence in Iraq means that it does not want to support the militias with air strikes. In Syria, there is a somewhat similar situation since the Syrian army is the most powerful military force in the country, but it does not receive US tactical air support when fighting IS or Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate, because a US priority remains to displace President Bashar al-Assad. As a result IS is not under serious military pressure in Syria and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has recently issued orders for fighters to transfer from Aleppo to Iraq.

Wishful thinking about the strength of IS and other al-Qaeda-type movements is not confined to foreign powers. Baghdad governments are always inclined to believe their own propaganda or see themselves as victims of conspiracies. Last summer the Shia leaders in Baghdad had convinced themselves that they were the victims of a conspiracy in which the Kurds were in league with IS. It came as a shock to them when the Kurds were the next victims of an IS offensive last August. In Baghdad last week the Interior Minister, Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban, summoned dozens of journalists to meet him so he could blame them for creating the conditions for IS successes.

The Pentagon’s misleading map shows the degree to which false optimism dominates the thoughts and actions of the outside powers in Iraq, Syria and rest of the Middle East. It reminds me of the situation early last year when President Obama, in receipt of the best information US intelligence could give him, dismissed IS as being the equivalent of a small-time basketball team whose actions were of no importance.

Please see my article The Wildman Prophecy

Read More

Jimmy Carter calls situation in Gaza ‘intolerable’ in visit to Jerusalem

Associated Press, May 2, 2015

JERUSALEM–Former US President Jimmy Carter said Saturday that eight months after a bloody war in the Gaza Strip the situation there remains “intolerable.”

Mr. Carter and his delegation were supposed to visit the isolated territory but earlier this week called it off citing unspecified security concerns. Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Carter said he was still determined to work for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

“What we have seen and heard only strengthens our determination to work for peace,” he said. “The situation in Gaza is intolerable. Eight months after a devastating war, not one destroyed house has been rebuilt and people cannot live with the respect and dignity they deserve.”

More than 2,000 Palestinians were killed in the 50-day summer war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants who fired rockets into Israel.

Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat.

Carter was accompanied by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and fellow member of his Elders group.

But Carter was shunned by Israeli leaders who long have considered him hostile to the Jewish state.

Although he brokered the first Israeli-Arab peace treaty during his presidency, Carter outraged many Israelis with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” He’s also repeatedly reached out to Gaza’s Islamic Hamas leaders, considered terrorists by much of the West.

Carter did meet with a group of Israelis living in towns bordering Gaza and heard about life under the threat of rocket attacks and militant infiltrations from Gaza. But he said that he had no interest in meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has ignored him in the past.

“This time we decided it was a waste of time to ask,” Carter said. “As long as he is in charge, there will be no two-state solution and therefore no Palestinian state.”

Read More

Expecting to See Jesus He's Coming! by Anne Graham 2017-2030

Read More