From a short piece at IraqNews.com, with nothing else newsworthy: "The U.S. State Department said on Monday that the United States does not have any reason to doubt the veracity of the video clip claiming to be of the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant...A spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, Jane Sacchi explained, in a news briefing, that 'there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the video.'" There was apparently no comment concerning the claim of Iraq that Baghdadi had been severely injured two days before the roundly-accepted date of the video. This is completely suspicious.
Hasn't any media asked the state department what it thinks of Iraq's claim? Is that not an issue anywhere in the news? (I don't know for sure because I don't have television, but the online news I've seen says nothing). If Obama had claimed that his forces injured Baghdadi, it would be reported large across the globe. Doesn't it seem that the O-people want the Iraqi claim hushed? Clearly, the state department made the statement above because it either does not believe the Iraqi claim, or doesn't want us to believe it even if its true. This is a sensitive issue if the U.S. is the creator of the Baghdadi monster.
Or put it this way, that if the state department and/or the O-circle were not behind Baghdadi, both would take the Iraqi claim with seriousness until the video was inspected by the American teams set up for that purpose. The authenticity of the bin-Laden videos was not decided upon for weeks or months, but, suddenly, in the face of the Iraqi claim, this video is already decided upon...as though the O-dministration doesn't want to talk about it, like we are to swallow whole the "fact" that it was indeed Baghdadi, no debate about it. Why this attitude? There is only one answer: to snub the Iraqi claim. There is not an iota of respect for that claim. It shows complete insult toward the claim because there is an important purpose behind it, and the best answer for that purpose is that Baghdadi is an American-paid product (which is not to say that all of the ISIS players are), likely with a cast of fellow stooges all within ISIS and other Sunni groups.
Try to imagine how the Iraqis feel seeing quotes like that from Sacchi. It is complete disregard of a very big claim, and it places Iraq under pressure to become silent on the claim, or to deny it altogether. If Iraq dares to make it an issue in the news, the O-mericans will pay it a spiteful reward. For example, those jets that are on order could be put on hold indefinitely. Maliki has no choice but to keep his mouth shut when the administration comes out in public statements like that. This is the silent power wielded by the United States based on tax-payer money dangled before weak governments.
It is a sin, make no mistake about it. It is not merely a grey-area issue; it is dark to alter reality based on withholding vital aid. Or, it is dark to force the nation to act in certain ways after they've been made them commit to dependence on vital aid. If the Iraqis injured Baghdadi, it is dark to claim otherwise, and to force the Iraqis to be silent.
If the Iraqis are 99-percent sure that they injured Baghdadi, how do we think they now view the Baghdadi video, as an Arab or American product? The rushed denial of the state department is their clue that this video is an American operation. How will this change the dynamics of the Iraqis as they go forward in their civil strife? Less dependence on the United States, and a jab if possible, at the opportune time.
There were reasons for suspecting the bin-Laden videos as U.S. productions too. I came to believe it after inspected things. There were photos of bin Laden in his early years, and one that was still circulating online was evidence enough for me that the more-common bin-Laden images, taken from videos, was NOT him. Obama never did kill Osama because the photos released of his dead body matched the photos / videos that were faked U.S. productions. The sad reality is that one can easily doctor an ordinary photo to make a person appear brutally killed.
Britain's Independent released an article seeking to convince that Saudi Arabia is behind ISIS, and it says: "when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death." One could view that as the U.S. promising to revive bin-Laden with ISIS, and then blaming ISIS on the Saudis. The article shows that Hillary Clinton, as early as 2009, blamed the Saudis for bin-Laden and other jihadists. Maliki blamed the Saudis too, for ISIS, but might this be a little short-sighted?
The article may be falling short again where it blames the ISIS advance on a refusal of the Obama-Cameron duo to accept a renewed Syria under a changed Assad. It doesn't suggest why such a strategy would have stopped the growth of ISIS. It then concludes what I think is partially false: "The chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds in the north and the official al-Qa'ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra, are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil wells that it did not already control." The Kurds are not faltering, or quaking in their boots, due to ISIS. The Sunni are not, to date, threatening the Kurds. Why would the Independent throw that idea out there?
The article (July 13) is adamant: "Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is rapidly losing control." I don't see why it adds "overwhich it is rapidly losing control," implying that ISIS is not fully doing what's it's supposed to according to Saudi wishes. If the Saudi purpose is to overcome the Shi'ites, where is ISIS acting problematic / contrary to that end? I don't see it. But I do think that ISIS has over-stepped its purpose as the U.S. would have it, and I do expect the U.S. to lose control of ISIS where the only hold on the group is the Baghdadi circle. I don't think the U.S. wants the Sunni to take Baghdad at the present time, for the Kurds have been doing just fine in the way the situation sits at the moment.
For a Russian article (Pravda) speaking words of war against America, see the article below. This is the true crisis, the thing to fear, if you do not belong to God. The fiery end of this world is progressing. There could be real friendship between America and Russia if only the U.S. would get out of Russia's neighborhood. There is no evidence that Russia intends to re-invade its Soviet-era satellite nations, to force them into a Russian sphere. Until then, stay out of Russia's backyard. America saw those satellites become independent; it won the cold war. Don't heat it up again. But, no, the Americans are supporting the bombing of the Ukraine right now, in places where some Ukrainians wish to stay on-side with Russia WILLINGLY. The tables have now turned, with the West forcing the nations to be pro-West, or else.
The sentiments in the Pravda article are shared by more and more Russians. The insults against America are sure to anger Americans. The Ukraine "coup" by Poroshenko is a sore spot to Russians, and the latter are using it to bring the creeping NATO shadow into a spotlight. Even the West is finding it hard not to sympathize with Russians: "European leaders responded by joining forces with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a bid to persuade Poroshenko to put the brakes on violence..." But it was the West that sided with Poroshenko to begin with so that more than an apology is required. The West is guilty of Russian blood in the Ukraine, I suppose. It can be argued that Poroshenko is killing them simply because they wish to separate rather than live under his "democratic" thumb.
The issue is whether or not a regional peoples have a right to form their own nation freely. It's a good question, and I think Christians ought to have a right to form their own nations in all ungodly nations of the world, but you can be sure that they'd oppose us if we tried that. The tribulation retreat, where Christians abandon society because it honors the anti-Christ, is somewhat like forming unofficial nations within nations. It's the prelude to God's wrecking of all nations for to give them to the Christians...when He sets them up as rulers over all nations. It will be The Justified Coup. The truth is that Christians are free, in a Democratic society, to live under the thumb of Masonic rulers, but not free to order society the way that honors God. I don't think it's freedom at all to live under satanic rule, nor do I think it's better than death for us. God's purpose at this time is to expose the complete hypocrites of the nations' leaders, to have them commit atrocities, with persecution against Christians to boot, to justify the removal of all nations.
The Russians are the ones making threats because it's NATO and the U.S. making advances. With peoples of the world filled with satanic spirits more now than in the old cold-war days, it's not a good time to call Russia's bluff. The article (below) claims what could be true, that the Americans were fixing to portray Putin as an aggressor in eastern Ukraine, for the purpose of sabotaging the Russia-EU business relationship, explaining why he backed down and laid off on military support for Russians in the Ukraine. Since then, the Poroshenko side has been making military gains in the Donetsk theater. As even the writer (Paul Craig Roberts, doesn't sound Russian) is hoping that Putin would have a change of heart from backing off, ditto for others. That may still materialize.
But Putin is now becoming active in Iraq. This week, he has called all relevant nations to help Iraq stay together...just what Maliki wants to hear. He is calling for talks toward peace, the same that Washington is calling for, but he's repeating his strategy used on behalf of Assad. The strategy is: peace, but keep the current leader because he's unliked by America.
If the video issue (as explained above) is a sore spot for the Shi'ite rulers, it's predictable that Putin will make richer in-roads to the Shi'ites. Assad, after all, happens to be a Shi'ite. Maliki probably needs Putin right now for his survival, though I did not read that Putin is publicly supporting Maliki for a third term. Putin could help Maliki as he did Assad, by making the Americans look like coup-happy trolls for self-interested purposes. And that's why it was important for Putin to lay off military involvement in the Ukraine, for he wants to play the role of peace maker, for to take over the American role in Iraq. He has a very good chance now of succeeding.
The American media has heard the words of war from Russia, and of course that puts the American media into a certain mode for the purpose of doing preliminary battle. If the media blanks out Russian sentiments, it's because the U.S. doesn't want war with Russia. That's the current fact that Putin can count on, that the West does not want global instability by a renewed cold war. And that's why Putin came out on July 8 to say that Russia should increase arms sales to other nations. The more that the West pushes to handcuff Russia while the U.S. world police sweeps by, the more that Russia reacts as an opposing threat. The recent Russian arms pact made with Iraq can now be put on a fast track because it opens wide the doors to inter-governmental talk and friendship. Putin has looked forward to this day.
The situation is a turning of the tables, for the deeper the Iraqi crISIS over ISIS, the better that Russian arms sales to Iraq can cause friendship. And the last thing the West wants is a situation where Russia and Iran are hand-in-hand in Iraq, exactly the potential NOW. So, if ISIS is a manufactured crisis by the U.S., it can become a monstrous backfire with Putin well inside the Iraqi door already. If Russia suddenly learns that Baghdadi is an American stooge, all the worse for globalists. Conspiracy theorists have been saying for years that globalists create a crisis, then enter to save from the crisis. Of course, the purpose is not to save anyone from the crisis, but to use it to enter certain doors for to do international piracy. It became obvious to me (it wasn't at first) that George Bush did exactly that, but it was not possible to seize the Iraqi oil well enough due to certain obstacles. The globalists are tired of waiting for changes, and are apparently seeking to make changes go their way at this time. The problem is, the changes will rob Russia of it scheme for Kirkuk oil.
The war in Iraq has shown signs of entering a stalemate. I've read that, as of this week, the Iraqis had not yet re-taken Tikrit, but are poised on its circumference to invade carefully with operational precision. An army within a city is not like one on the battlefield. The Arabs have learned to use city buildings as their war zones because they care very little for human life. Even the lives of fellow Arabs means little to these types. And that's why protracted war is predictable. The Sunni advance to Baghdad was halted, but a military wall was set up to keep the Iraqis out of Kurdistan.
In the meantime, Israel is tossing its weight around after three teens were supposedly murdered. Israel is accusing Hamas, but I'm wondering whether the three teens were part of a false-flag event. If it seems too harsh for Israel to invade Gaza again based on the murders of three teens, perhaps the "murder" was set up by Israelis because they decided that Gaza needed to be re-invaded at all costs (it's not necessarily true that the three were killed, as such events can be faked). Gaza is now a war zone once again. The Israeli defense chief:
"We continue with strikes that draw a very heavy price from Hamas. We are destroying weapons, terror infrastructures, command and control systems, Hamas institutions, regime buildings, the houses of terrorists, and killing terrorists of various ranks of command," said Ya'alon.
The minister stressed that the operational activities will continue and expand, and called on Israeli citizens to stay patient as the IDF attacks the terrorists; roughly 120 rockets were fired from Gaza on Tuesday, hitting as far as Hadera, 45 kilometers (28 miles) north of Tel Aviv.
...The IDF struck 160 terror targets in Gaza on Tuesday night as part of the operation, and has hit over 440 targets since the operation started on Monday night, including targeted strikes on terror leaders.
The expended Hamas rockets have improved since the Gaza invasion of 2008. If Hamas had the capability at that time to reach Tel Aviv, it dared not try. Things have changed in such a short time. Whom do you think should be blamed for this escalation of weaponry?
The Palestinian unity government stands opposed, of course, to the Gaza invasion, but we now find Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Jerusalem Palestinians, siding strongly with Hamas, something we didn't see openly in the last war:
On Wednesday [after the initial Israeli strikes] the faction of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared it and Hamas share "one goal."
A post on the official Facebook page of Abbas's Fatah faction on Wednesday showed a picture of terrorists in the military wings of Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, featuring the words "brothers-in-arms: one G-d, one homeland, one enemy, one goal."
...the post indicates that Hamas's charter calling for the genocide of Jews and destruction of Israel is "one goal" shared by Fatah.
. For the American state department that agreed with, and probably set up, the union of Abbas with Fatah, that's not good news, but more like goof news. Truly, the West is goofing big time on its handling of Hamas. It fears Arab-wide anger if Israel were to decimate Hamas completely, and yet the alternative chosen by the West is to put off the inevitable until the Arab enemies of Israel have the power to crush it. If the West allowed Israel to decimate Hamas in 2008, the Arabs, by now, would have gotten over it. The West gave de-facto legitimacy to Hamas, or at least had it portrayed as worthy of existence, and the same can be said for Hezbollah in Lebanon. But the blame for this is not ultimately on the West, for God is setting up a trap for Israel by making its friends into evaporation. Gone with the wind.
Perhaps Abbas has now come to the point where he will no longer feign being different than Hamas. Perhaps Abbas will now seek to open the doors of his "kingdom" to Hamas operations. It was the plan all along, anyway, and Obama probably knows it. For the purposes of this war on Israel, it was VERY IMPORTANT to get Egypt on-side with Hamas, a thing that Obama succeeded in doing. But with Sisi over-turning the tables, it crippled the shipment of better weapons to Hamas just in time for this latest onslaught of missiles.
The question of many is whether ISIS will react to drive through Jordan to the West Bank (it's called the west bank of the Jordan river but includes east Jerusalem). There is a piece of Jordan leading straight, like a funnel, to Jerusalem. If it seems that this new war has been Israel's idea, why did it chose this hour? Did Israel learn that ISIS was about to plow through Jordan? That's logical, as there had been reports a week or two ago that ISIS was planning to invade Jordan. Israel is starting to feel strangled from all directions, and something needs to be done. Yet the West will not permit it.
The article goes on:
Abbas on December 31, 2009 clearly stated "there is no disagreement between us (Fatah and Hamas): About belief? None! About policy? None! About resistance? None!"
Fatah has at times been at odds with Hamas over its willingness to hold peace talks with Israel, although senior Fatah officials have revealed such talks are part of a scheme to destroy Israel "in stages" [most of us knew it, why didn't Obama and the EU? Or did they know?]
In recent weeks, Abbas's Fatah has called for violent "revolution" against Israel, and threatened the Jewish state by telling it to "prepare the body bags."
Yet the Obama circle is thumbs up on the Fatah-Abbas merger. I'm even beginning to wonder whether the U.S. military now in Jordan will allow ISIS to plow through. Could Obama arrange for that somehow?
To no surprise, Iran and Jordan are condemning the Israeli air strikes, but so far it doesn't appear that Iran has given Hezbollah the green light to attack simultaneously from the north. Israel, now resolved to handle this problem in spite of Obama, would likely welcome an attack from Hezbollah at this time, while it is yet beatable. The time is coming when it will no longer be so. To decimate Hezbollah is much harder than to decimate Hamas, and if Israel cannot deal even with Hamas, the fate of this tiny nation looks bleak.
What is the West saying about Gaza? At first, the White House supported Israel's right to defend itself, quite the shift from back in Obama's first year, but Norway came out a week ago, before the attacks, warning Israel not to do it again. Back in 2009, Western pressure on Israel allowed Hamas to survive and re-arm itself...so that what you see now is in fact the fault of the West, which is why the U.S. needs to take the opposite position this time around. However, it can of course be superficial (or even phony) support for Israel. An Israeli writes thus:
2. Obama Is on the Wrong Side--and Irrelevant. On the first day of Operation Protective Edge [this past week, against Gaza], President Obama published an op-ed in the left-wing daily Ha'aretz calling for [Israeli] "restraint" and a Palestinian state. As if to make clear that the publication was not an accident of timing, a senior Obama adviser gave a harsh speech to a peace conference in Tel Aviv the same day at which he blasted Israel for continuing to occupy the West Bank.
These gestures--informed, as usual, by misleading Palestinian demographic statistics that falsely predict Arab majorities in the near future--send the message that the White House disapproves of Israel's operation and its general strategic posture. Normally, that would be very bad news for Israel. But it may help, ironically, because Obama has already alienated Israel to such an extent that the Israeli government feels at liberty to ignore him.
So, Obama, when he speaks to Americans, claims that Israel has the right to defend itself, meaning that it has the right to attack Hamas, and then turns to aping what the Arabs would like to hear, that Israel should stop its fire on Hamas.
This situation, where Netanyahu feels at liberty to strike, represents quite the turn from when Morsi was in power, at which time bleak was the word for Netanyahu. I hold the position that Obama (acts pro-Israel) tried to help Hamas when he set up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If that's a correct position, we really have a riddle as Obama plays out his final years. Will he act suddenly and desperately to complete parts of his anti-Israeli agenda before the end of 2016 arrives?
For years, Israel has been demanding, by use of sanctions, that Gazans replace their government with one that accepts peace, but Gazans will not vote Hamas out, partly because they fear violent reactions if they vote for, or create, a viable political party to replace it. Hamas is thus a dictatorship. So why doesn't Obama seek to take out the Hamas dictatorship, for to install a "democratic" one? He doesn't so much as show interest in doing so. Why Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi, but not Hamas? Obama cares nothing for the lives of Israelis; isn't that the truth? By the end of this week, Sisi (= hypocrite) was calling for Israel to stop the Gaza invasion, but I think that even Egypt wants to see Hamas defeated:
Having crushed the Muslim Brotherhood, Cairo's new government has taken a back seat as Israel pounds Hamas...
...With the Brotherhood now quashed, the new government in Cairo has taken a passive approach to the latest conflict, denying Hamas a truce...
Morsi [previous Egyptian leader] himself is being tried on charges of having colluded with Hamas to plot attacks inside Egypt...
"There doesn't appear to be significant appetite on the Egyptian side in terms of playing a major mediating role at the moment," said Michael Hanna, and Egypt expert with The Century Foundation think-tank in New York.
...Public opinion [in Egypt] has "soured" against Hamas, Hanna said.
And because of "the security establishment's long standing antipathy to Hamas, they don't mind seeing Hamas being beaten up, essentially," he added.
Why would Hamas act alone against Israel now, securing its dismal fate and wasting all its arsenal in the meantime? This is a great mystery that can be called, Operation Stupid. Did Hamas really expect the world to come to its aid if it started firing missiles into major cities? Perhaps, for stupids have clouded minds. You can be sure that the Spirit of God does now work in the minds of the modern Philistines as they breath death upon Israel. It's not by the Spirit of God that God will have modern Israel abolished, but by the spirit of satan.
Back in 2008-9, Russia was a friend of Hamas. Fancy that. It's the same Russia today. No one wants to see a Russia-Iran friendship developing in Iraq, except God. If that friendship extends to Hezbollah...bad news for Rothchilian Israel. If that friendship is end-time Gog, God will be pulling it with hooks to Israel. The fighters will spread out and smother Israel with more than Hezbollah alone has to offer. Desert pirates now hunkering out on the Iraq-Syria border have seemingly been prepared. The Euphrates is swelling with an infestation of Muslims seeking glory from the destruction both of Zionism and the Israeli nation.
It just so happens that Hezbollah took sides with Assad so that there is now an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance with which Russia has elastic connections, if it wants them. The prize of Israel can bond Sunni to Shi'ites for that common cause, though, chances are, both will invade Israel by seeking to win the biggest piece of that pie i.e. in competition.
I don't expect the ISIS's of the Middle East to come against Israel yet, not until they have joined the anti-Christ. It doesn't appear that he's yet in Mosul. For one thing, "According to most verifiable accounts, the militants who have swept across eastern Syria and western Iraq appear to have not engaged in widespread violence against the region's Christians, known collectively as the Assyrians." It's strange to me that the Catholics of the Mosul area call themselves "Assyrians." Those who write about these Catholics consistently call them "Christians," but I have my doubts. I don't think anyone knows anymore who the Assyrians are, and certainly they don't all become Catholics, but this desire to connect themselves with ancient Assyrians makes these particular Catholics seem ignorant of God.
What is it about the anti-Christ that he will take a tack in bitter opposition to Christians while his Arab fighters are predicted to be bitter against Israel? There are people who have a special disgust for Christians, with a blurred view of them as only the devil can portray, and so this is the sort of person I think we need to keep watch for. I'm looking for one who simply cannot be missed due to the words he utters concerning his disgust for Jesus. But the world will not recognize him for whom he is. All of the fulfilled prophecies will be viewed by the world in general as coincidences. Their similar disgust for Christ will blind them. Many will be convinced by the anti-Christ that Christians are the problem.
Perhaps I've been wrong concerning my assessment of Ezekiel 38. I came to believe that, because Gog is destroyed at the end of the last seven years (according to clues in Ezekiel), he must be the anti-Christ. But it's possible that the two are different men, both of whom invade Israel. It's a scenario I have never entertained, but, as of now, it's badly needed to explain a Romanized anti-Christ that a Russian / Turkish / Arab Gog cannot fulfill.
Here is part of the ISIS agenda, supposedly, though this looks like a heap for public consumption:
...Since the recent escalation between Israel and Islamist terrorists in Gaza, some of those [ISIS] critics have questioned why a self-declared "Caliphate" is not rushing to the aid of Muslims in the Hamas-controlled territory.
In a statement a spokesperson for the group, Nidal Nuseiri reaffirmed that conquering "Bayt el-Maqdis" (Jerusalem) and destroying the State of Israel is central to the group's "jihad", or holy war.
However, he pointed out that ISIS has been taking a systematic approach in its campaign, and outlined six specific stages it said needed to be fulfilled before taking on Israel.
Some of those "stages" - building a firm base for an Islamic state in Iraq, and using it as a springboard to wage war in Syria and Lebanon - have already been achieved. But he said a number of other criteria still needed to be fulfilled before challenging Israel directly.
Among them, Nuseiri said that the US - seen as Israel's greatest ally - needed to be weakened politically and economically via attacks on the American mainland, as well as US interests in Muslim countries. Additionally, the existing "Islamic State" needed to expand its borders to cover all of "Greater Syria" (which would include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and possibly Gaza); such a state, he said, would then be in a position for a direct confrontation with Israel.
It's as good an excuse as any for not helping Hamas, and the real reason is that ISIS isn't as strong as Western media is portraying it. It can't afford to help Hamas right now. It first needs to pillage Iraq and Syria some more, which is the Biblical prediction, anyway. The Sunni are yet small, and will be even when the "little horn" joins them. That's why one can predict the initial failure of the ISIS-Baathist advance. As you can see in the quote that ISIS is promising attacks against the U.S., don't be surprised to see some false-flag events set up to fulfill that threat. If the U.S. is behind ISIS, there we may somehow have the explanation for the False Prophet assisting the anti-Christ's invasion to Jerusalem.
The Iraqi war could be a long, drawn-out stalemate, especially if the purpose is to give Kurds their independence. The best thing for Kurd independence is a long stalemate, and a pro-West Iraqi prime minister. The Iraqi president is already a Kurd, and he's now active as Iraq's second-worst enemy. Obama removed American influence from Baghdad, until Maliki is replaced, and even the Americans who maintain Iraq's American helicopters left. The U.S. has also stalled on granting Iraq its order of fighter aircraft, but Obama didn't figure on Russia stepping in quickly to provide some 25 aircraft. And that's where the situation sits, for how long, I do not know, but within a couple of months, the American aircraft sold to Iraq are to be there. It would seem that the Americans will push for Maliki's fall between now and then.
After the Iraqi government postponed the next session of parliament to August 12, "international" pressure (details not told) caused them to change the date to much sooner, on July 13. While this may appear to be a victory for Obama, it all depends on what happens on the 13th. If the Shi'ites are still unwilling to abandon Maliki, that will be the big story. On the 13th, the meeting's purpose failed, and was postponed two days. Yawn.
A solution for Iraq is semi-autonomous provinces, but it's unlikely that the provinces will agree to the terms. So, a crisis has developed, as feared for years, into which foreign powers, such as the anti-Christ, can step into with a solution in hand, and he can be accepted by the Iraq ruler out of need, but rejected by the citizens as a self-interested meddler. Even the Shi'ite citizens, at this time, reject the assistance of Iran for fear of what Iran will want in return. For the foreseeable future, the Shi'ites want nothing from the West but weaponry to defeat the Sunni.
The article below, with comments from Obama's defense minister (Chuck Hagel), is heavy on the ISIS monster spreading to Americans. It may be indication that the U.S. is prepared to conduct false-flag operations to justify deeper Iraq involvement. The best way for Russia to combat this threat from Hagel is to begin defeating ISIS promptly. Without ISIS, the West has no justification to control Iraqi politics, and with Russia helping to quash ISIS, there will develop a close relationship between Russia and Iraq. However, I do not foresee a close relationship materializing as a success story for Iraq, because the anti-Christ would then need to pack his bags and leave. Instead, Iraq will go from bad to worse under the anti-Christ "solution."
Instability will be his ticket into Iraq (I can't see any other scenario for his entry). In the same way that Maliki used to look to American advice for solutions against the insurgents, Iraq can now look to Putin. The Americans wish to drown that possibility before it gets grounded, by replacing Maliki with leader loyal to the West. Obama may have sent the 300 "advisors" to Iraq when the CIA informed him that Russia was about to offer Maliki something similar. The article ends by saying: "Hagel said assessments of the Iraqi army by the roughly 200 U.S. military advisors on the ground would be finished in 'the next few days.'" Is that because Iraq doesn't like these advisors, and isn't working sincerely with them?
When Iraq attacked northern Mosul by air last week, the Americans claimed not to know about it. It doesn't sound as though the advisors, who have dropped from 300 to 200, apparently, are being included in the war tactics. I can understand why Maliki would snub them. Hagel adds insult when he lies: "what we are doing is assisting in every way we can to help the Iraqi people defeat the brutal fundamentalists..." It was not many days ago when Obama rejected Maliki's request for air power. Who is Hagel trying to fool? The American people who don't follow Iraqi news.
An Iraq article by the Jamestown Foundation, which some say is an arm of the CIA, first says that "the most recent challenge to the Kurdish nation has come from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (which has not proven true at all thus far), and then amends the comment by saying, "In the week following ISIS' victory in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, the [ISIS] movement declared it would not fight against the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) as the Kurdish forces were experienced and well-organized (Rudaw English, June 11)." Actually, that may not be the real reason, but the CIA would like for us to believe it. The real reason for the lack of war between the two may be due to a silent partnership between them...because ISIS is a CIA operation seeking Kurd oil. The article is on Kurd oil, by the way.
When it makes the following statement, it seems to KNOW what the Iraqi future is: "As we see now, Iraq has never been an actual unified state and now looks like it will never have the chance to last long enough to become one." One might glean here that the CIA intends to destroy the unity of Iraq for oil purposes. It's exactly what's taking place, and it's as simple as funding ISIS, and gathering Sunni fighters for the cause. As news reports have stated, multiple Sunni leaders are supporting ISIS from Kurdistan; there is no way to interpret this as hostilities between the Kurds and the Sunni; quite to the contrary. Maliki has made light of it, but Jamestown seems oblivious to it...because (I'm guessing) the CIA would want us ignorant. Instead, the article emphasizes "CLASHES BETWEEN ISIS and KURDISH FORCES [caps mine] thus focus on two major oil-rich cities-Mosul and Kirkuk."
The plot was simple: Sunni-Kurd co-ordination of powers with the purpose of sharing the Kurdistan oil. Therefore, when the writer says, "For now, it would not seem appropriate for ISIS to divert its energies in fighting with Kurdish forces while still engaged in a struggle with the central government," the real reason for lack of a Sunni-Kurd war is the plot to co-ordinate from the start.
The Jamestown writer adds a quote (from the Kurd leader, I think) that enlightens us:
Kirkuk oil was exported to Turkey via a pipeline that passed south of Mosul. Now the terrorists control this pipeline and prior to that it had been blown up ["prior to that" is not now]. If this crude oil is not exported via the pipeline in Kurdistan, it has no other way of being exported. The income from export of this oil will go to all whose budgets were not paid by Baghdad -- Kirkuk dwellers, all Kurdish people, even the people of Mosul. This oil is not only for the Kurds. IT IS FOR ALL INCLUDING ARABS [i.e. the Sunni] and Turkmens of Kirkuk...
There were reports that oil was still flowing after ISIS took Mosul, and to date I have not read that ISIS has crippled any part of the pipeline. If the Sunni were truly opposed to the Kurds, they should destroy that pipeline. But as things sit, the Sunni could be receiving (from the Kurds) an under-the-table fee for keeping the oil flowing. Yet the Jamestown article sets up what appears to be an oil rivalry between the two. That was the case in the past, and can be the case again in the future, but, for now, there appears to be a partnership, and the U.S. may have had everything to do with it prior to the entry of ISIS into Mosul.
"The Kirkuk oil is of high quality and is relatively easy to extract." Translation: cheap to produce, but high price tag for high profits; let's make a deal and share it three ways, Kurds, Sunni, and the U.S. And the following is like saying, "screw Iraq": "As we see in this political and economic context, whoever controls the oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul will have a strong position and become more legitimate in the international community." The world is thereby being egged on to ignore Maliki, to deal exclusively with the Kurds. It's what's been going on for years. The decision was made to screw Iraq, go with the Kurds, at least since Exxon abandoned the southern fields for to make an oil deal with the Kurds instead. It was Maliki's writing on the wall.
The article ends by insisting that there is a Sunni-Kurd conflict: "Both ISIS and the Kurds are powerful and need oil to preserve their legitimacy and recognition, which makes it probable that a conflict between them will last for decades if the 'Islamic State' survives." Translation: a Sunni-Iraq stalemate is good for the oil flow until the wells run dry. Enter Putin. There is a July-9 headline: "Russia: It is time to save Iraq from disintegration." This is Putin's bid to get Russia involved as a serious player:
On Wednesday, Russia proposed to hold an international forum on the threat of terrorism in Iraq, while expressing support for this initiative in the international arena.
Deputy Russian Foreign Minister, Gennady Gatilov said, in a statement carried by the channel "Russia Today" that "all of us [not just the U.S.] are concerned about what is happening in Iraq..."
Gatilov indicated that "Moscow is counting on cooperation with the United States in the face of the terrorist threat in Iraq," adding that "this kind of challenges and transnational threats requires bilateral cooperation, primarily between countries like the United States and the Russian Federation."
The article says nothing more, but this is not the first time that Russia has come out mentioning its own involvement alongside that of the U.S. The Russians are being careful not to appear pushy or intrusive on issues that have routinely belonged to the United States. It's a gentlemanly approach, but you can be sure that the Obamites despise this talk no matter how kindly the apologetics.
The Washington Post has aided the military to get its version of a story out: that the fighter-jet sales to Iraq are not truly being held up by stalling on the part of the U.S. The article happens to mention that "The Iraqi military burned through its arsenal of hundreds of Hellfire missiles, and ran out late in June." It makes it sound as though Iraq's missile-happy over-use was the problem when in fact the U.S. may have planned their running out in June as part of the ISIS-monster plot. The article speaks to some excuses being made by the U.S. that promises to keep the fighter jets out of Iraq for a lot longer than a couple of months.
ABC paints a similar missile-happy Iraq, but as you can see, it's the U.S. that has been stalling for months on orders placed by Iraq:
With Iraq needing all the help it can get in pushing back Islamic militants, the government has requested 1,400 additional Hellfire missiles from the United States to restock its depleted supply. Iraq burned through its inventory of 300 Hellfire missiles two weeks ago.
In mid-July [why not right away?] the US plans to deliver to Iraq the 200 missiles still remaining from an expedited purchase earlier this year of 500 missiles, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said Friday.
However, Kirby [under fire for stalling, and making fine-sounding excuses] also disclosed that "another sale of more than 600 Hellfire missiles is in execution right now, with a delivery of most of them expected by the end of July."
Expedited means that delivery takes an entire month?!? Only "most of them" can arrive after a month??? That's not very fine-sounding to me. By the end of July, ISIS can be firmly entrenched. The June-27 article goes on the give an excuse: "Kirby added that the missiles' manufacturer Lockheed Marin has two shifts 'working at full capacity right now to modify and test these missiles and get them on their way.'" What? They are still being manufactured??? Doesn't the U.S. have stockpiles of these things? Of course it does. And what is there to tweak and test that should take so long, when Iraq needs them promptly? Is Lockheed afraid that the missiles might blow up?
I'm not justifying the sale of missiles, but simply pointing out the tactics that seem suspicious to me. The U.S. wants ISIS to succeed to a degree, probably not to the point of taking all of Iraq, but enough to make the Kurds smile. The Washington Post stretched the truth, saying that Iraq ran out of the missiles in late June, but ABC, says: "ABC News has learned that Iraq ran out of its current stock of Hellfires two weeks ago." That's the period of the first ISIS advances toward Baghdad. Such a coincidence.
Kirby's excuse in the Washington Post is that the Iraqi's don't yet have pilots that can fly the jets on order, but look at how the Russians were willing to send pilots to fly the crafts that they loaned / donated? Why can't the U.S. do the same under a crisis that it supposedly cares for? The Russians were able to send some older jets in a day or two; why can't the U.S. do the same while the manufacturing of others is supposedly the time-delay problem? Of course it could, if it were willing. The U.S. is not willing, and excuses are being made. The U.S. wants to see Iraq falter, and for this cause, it speaks the very opposite in order to disguise the fact.
Back on July 1: "Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Lukman Faily, said Tuesday in Washington that weapons have been too slow in coming..." The media is restricted to saying things like: "The U.S. has pledged military aid to Iraq..." It sounds like such a love affair. But those who heard Maliki know that he is very disappointed with Obama's "pledge." Maliki doesn't even talk about Obama anymore, and he's not looking back either, as he flings himself into the arms of Russia. One can choose to believe that the excuses are true, but, my bottom line is that, delays are exactly expected if the U.S. has betrayed Maliki in favor of an ISIS plot to weaken him. Mary Harf of the U.S. state department has laid out the lame excuse that Iraq has no place to protect the aircraft, and such arguments can be used later to deliver the jets only after certain conditions are satisfied (i.e. more excuses, more delays, if needed).
Maliki is now turning his missiles on to the oil industry controlled by ISIS: "Iraqi Air Force airrcrafts fired two missiles [only two?] at "Kayara" oil refinery in Mosul..."Kayara" oil refinery is under the control of militants of the terrorist "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) organization and a number of armed Sunni groups for more than a month. The militants of ISIL took control over the Iraqi town of Tal Afar on June 16 [when Iraq had run out of missiles] and the city's military airport also came under their control on June 22.
In my opinion, the only way for ISIS to benefit from the Mosul refinery is by having a deal with the Kurds. Maliki has accused the Kurds of harboring Sunni terrorists, and to some degree this is credible because multiple Sunni leaders are supposedly hiding out in Kurdistan's Erbil area. Are they really hiding out, or getting their war data from the Americans? "Azad Abu Baker, member of the Kurdistani Democratic Party KDP, headed by the President of Kurdistan Region Masoud Barzani revealed the intention of the Kurdish leadership to withdraw the Kurd Ministers from the Federal Government in response for the accusations of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for Erbil of being a headquarter for the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and Levant." This is going from bad to worse, but from good to great so far as the Kurds are concerned. Sweet independence is not far off now (for the Kurds), so long as the Sunni can be empowered for the long haul.
So what now, with Maliki threatening? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made a statement earlier today that he will not allow Kurdistan Region to host terrorists..."We will eliminate Baathists of the former regime and media outlets that oppose the government from Kurdistan Region." That statement is a little different from the one where he accuses the Sunni of merely taking shelter in Erbil. In the quote above, Maliki is accusing them of having a war headquarters there.
How will he keep the Sunni out of Kurdistan? Are Baathists running the Sunni war from Kurdistan? That's what it looks like. The Kurds have threatened to fight Iraq if it attacks a Kurd location. What now, Mr. Maliki? Don't you need outside help? Then, late in the week:
The Iraqi Oil Ministry confirmed on Friday that Kurdish Peshmerga forces had seized the plants that produce crude oil in the fields of Kirkuk and Bai Hassan, warning of the danger of this irresponsible behavior, which it considers an encroachment on the Constitution, the national wealth and a disregard for the Federal authority.
That is, the Kurds are making the plants their own whereas the Iraqi government had run them until now. It's called Kurd oil autonomy, or the holy cow of this war. It's a big no-no, because wanting regional and political autonomy is one thing, but stealing the Iraqi oil rights is another. If Maliki ever had a reason to go in and fight, this is it. And the way in which the West behaves here -- never mind what it says -- can help us to see just how in cahoots it is with Kurdish ambitions.
A website on this topic tends to confirm that the Kurd government is responsible:
Maliki's government demanded that the Peshmerga return the fields to Iraqi control, but the Kurds say Baghdad was about to "sabotage" the facilities:
In a statement on Friday, the Iraqi oil ministry condemned the seizure of oil refineries, adding that they expected Kurdish fighters to "support security forces in confronting terrorist groups rather than using the conditions to raid and occupy oil fields" [Maliki is spot-on with that charge].
Reuters news agency said a senior source within the Kurdistan Regional Government had confirmed the takeover.
The unnamed source said they had been "forced to act to protect Iraq's infrastructure after learning of attempts by Iraq oil ministry officials to sabotage it".
What's apples (infrastructure) got to do with oranges (oil)? Probably, Maliki was planning to bomb the roads in and out of oil / gas depots. Yes, it is possible that Maliki was going to sabotage the field, but only because he learned that Kurds were going to seize it. There is no other reason for Maliki to sabotage it. Another article adds to the statements made by the source above: "From now on [the oil field] will be under KRG control and we expect operations to start up soon." This should explain why the Kurds pulled out of the Iraqi cabinet about a day earlier. The ISIS war is nothing but a speedy separation of the Kurds from Iraq, a drastic undertaking to say the least.
Iran happens to oppose Kurd separation, meaning that it has a stronger bond with Maliki when taking that position. Russia too has announced opposition to Kurd separation, meaning that Putin can find still better grounds for taking over the Iraq crisis, especially as the second-most powerful Shi'ite governmental group (of Sadr) opposes Iranian involvement in Iraq. Under the current circumstances, we could see a speedy entry of some Russian officials into Iraq, just as soon as Putin figures out a way to do it gentlemanly-like. It will then be time to assess Putin's true solution from the things that he and his agents say.
Whatever happened to Ayad Allawi? A few years ago, as per Maliki stealing the election from him, I joked around with Obama as a lame card dealer (in a wheelchair) in an Iraqi poker game. Obama was trying to feed Allawi a wild card that would beat Maliki's full house. Allawi refused to play the card, and went packing. The card game was to be continued at an unknown time in the future, and here we are, when, perhaps, Allawi is still wanting to be the Iraqi leader. The wild card was the Joker, the anti-Christ, meaning that somehow, the anti-Christ might be related to Allawi's power structure...if the anti-Christ is to be a Western agent. On July 9, Allawi visited with U.S. partner, Kuwait:
The Emir of Kuwait, Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, received the head of the Iraqiya Alliance, Ayad Allawi, in Kuwait.
An informed source stated to IraqiNews.com "Sabah received Allawi on Wednesday where they discussed the political updates in Iraq and the region."
That's all it says. Kuwait is a sponsor of Sunni jihad.
The battle in Mosul continues this week: "'The brigade of Mosul Rebel Freemen launched a military operation that resulted in killing the terrorist Bashar al-Akidi, AKA Abu Ahmed, who is the administrative official of the ISIL in the west Side of Mosul city on Wednesday.'" This is according to Iraq, but it may be a fabrication for propaganda purposes. In a July 1 article: "The security forces killed more than 50 ISIL terrorists including what is so called, the military official, Abu Ayman from Afghanistan in Mosul." A statement from the security forces on July 10: "'The Iraqi Air Force bombarded a gathering for ISIL terrorists in Najjar neighborhood near Nineveh International Hotel with four rockets that resulted in killing and injuring dozens of the terrorists.'" It all sounds so "good" for Maliki, who personally controls the security forces. But if these are exaggerations, nobody will be fooled when stalemate sets in.
Mosul would not have been part of my anti-Christ predictions had not someone emailed to tell of Nahum 1:11. I was easily convinced that the prophecy was an end-time one, but had previously missed the significance of verse 11, implying that the anti-Christ will launch out of Nineveh = Mosul. Shortly afterward, both the insurgents and the U.S. military concentrated in Mosul. The easy prediction to date is that Iraq will fail to weed out the fighting Sunni from Mosul so that this war can indeed develop into fulfilled prophecy.
Just as the Kurd crisis got heated up, the Telegraph came out with this: "Exclusive: Islamic State strengthens grip on northern Iraq by raising millions from sale of oil through Kurdistan to Turkey and Iran." Is that not a Kurd-ISIS partnership? How else can ISIS make money from oil originating in Kurdistan? Isn't this oil exactly what the Roman harlot wants?
Oil industry experts believe the group formerly known as Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis) is able to command $25 a barrel for crude its fighters are moving in tankers from the oil plains south of Mosul.
Middlemen [assume Western brokers] based in the Kurdistan region of Iraq are able to turn a handsome profit on the supplies by selling its abroad for refining into the more valuable petroleum and diesel products.
The specialist Iraqi Oil Report said the centre of the $1million trade was the town of Tuz Khurmatu on the fringes of the Kurdish region. Traders there are buying convoys of tankers supplied by Islamic State.
Shwan Zulal, an Iraqi oil industry analyst, said the Islamic State was using its control of a 150-mile swathe of territory to loot crude oil from some of Iraq's prime oil assets.
The swift advance of Islamic State after last month's conquest of Mosul gave it control over the path of the Kirkuk/Ceyhan oil pipeline...
This must be the crux of the Maliki accusation against the Kurds. If the Kurds were not involved in this, they would be fighting / sabotaging the ISIS oil trade, as Maliki insists they should, but, instead, the Kurds have now seized oil wells of their own.
Our beef: oil can be sold at $25 per barrel with huge profits, and yet the tycoons are selling it at over $100. How can anyone argue that $100 has a justified profit margin? What wicked precedent is this "marketing strategy"? It's these high prices that are to blame for the Middle East crisis, and the blame rests fully on Western globe trodders. One can't argue that it's the Arabs who set the high prices, for the Western elite have the option of complaining and crusading against such prices. But Western companies, very obviously, want the high prices too. And it's this greed that will burn the earth with fire.
The article claims that ISIS has reduced gasoline prices on the streets by three-quarters (what the rest of the world should be doing) in the towns / cities it controls, in an effort to form allies. It is a dandy way to make armed friends, isn't it? It's not a problem for ISIS that these friends are all fellow pirates. A Kurd-Sunni oil alliance can cause the Sunni to grow very strong, quickly (because it costs about a dollar to pump a barrel from a Kurdistan well). But before this can happen, buyers must be secured.
The article adds that the oil is being trucked locally, underscoring the importance of controlling refineries (because crude is useless in people's cars). I find it hard to believe that the Iraqis cannot protect all oil refineries, or win them back immediately. Where can the rats hide in an oil refinery? How easy would it be to cripple a refinery using air power? It seems inconceivable that ISIS should be able to operate refineries inside Iraq, or to sell crude to refineries on the black market, yet this is the picture being given to us:
The Islamic State has also claimed to have taken Syria's Euphrates Oil Company fields in its grip.
...Jordan Perry, an Iraq analyst at Maplecroft risk analyst, said Islamic State was now well placed to emerge as a jihadist version of Hamas, which used community services and welfare programmes to take control of the Gaza strip.
"If as it seems Isis is earning a $1million a day from taking oil from the plains of northern Iraq and trucking it to where it can be sold that means that it has gained control of revenue streams to buy weapons, secure the support of militias and sheikhs who in return for money say they will have nothing to do with Baghdad," he said. "The resources also give Islamic State to copy the strategy of Hamas in providing services, health and education through which they will become much more entrenched."
I suppose it's possible that Maliki will not bomb refineries for the sake of the common people who need their refined fuels daily. Otherwise, I have no explanation as to how the Sunni fighters are providing cheap fuel for the locals. It's possible that the Telegraph is feeding us the Western fabrication that the ISIS monster is growing fatter on seized oil wealth. I can't see such a scenario until the Sunni take all of Iraq. Until then, Maliki has missiles (not if the U.S. can help it) that can cripple the buyers of ISIS crude. That's not to say that ISIS can't sell crude to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, and that's probably where ISIS is getting its oil money. We shall have to wait and see whether Maliki can bomb that pipeline, or whether the West will heap insults upon him for doing so.
Shame on you, Western oil cats. Great shame. High oil prices are now allowing the anti-Christ's desert pirates to swell fat with a heavy fist. When he secures all of Iraq, and Syria too, his god will be the wealth of his forts, the profits of which will go to guns for the purpose of empire building. So long as oil prices remain high, oil wealth will be part of his deity.
Bombing the Kirkuk pipeline might become a Putin suggestion to Maliki, if and when Maliki (or his replacement) is completely desperate. To make him more desperate, it is important for the West to exaggerate the size of the ISIS monster, and so while Maliki's media reports that the Iraqi army is defeating it, pushing it back daily, the West reports the opposite. Western media has been focused on ISIS victories. Late this week, the U.S. military leaked a report that ISIS has plans to overthrow the Baghdad airport, and Reuters reported that ISIS entered an Iraqi military base 50 miles north-east of Baghdad. The latter scenario is one way to explain how ISIS will manage to get advanced equipment and weaponry made in the USA. Believe it if you will, as told, but I'm being more careful. Some anonymous Iraqi official confirmed to Reuters that ISIS entered the base, but an anonymous official may be a complete fabrication. Media can conjure up an anonymous official at any time to inject a theme of their whims into a story, and to make it appear that they are in the journalistic dirt hashing out exclusive stories / comments.
I suppose that the following is the culmination, thus far, of the assessment of the 300 (or is it 200) advisors: "A Pentagon draft assessment of Iraq's security forces has concluded that only approximately half of the country's military units are capable of being advised by American commandos, and many units have been infiltrated by either Sunni insurgent informants or Shiite militia members backed by Iran, according to a published report." Translation: Maliki's Iraq isn't listening to our advice much. "The New York Times reported that the assessment warns that Iraqi forces loyal to embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are so dependent on the Shiite militias, as well as advisers from Iran's paramilitary Quds Force that American advisers could face safety risks if they are assigned to train certain units." It looks like the O-300 is a lost cause.
It goes on: "Among the other conclusions reached in the draft assessment, the paper reported, was that Iraqi forces may not be able to defend Baghdad if the militants attacked the capital in large numbers. The Times also said that the report concluded that Iraq forces were not capable on their own of reversing gains made by ISIS, a conclusion noted by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in public comments earlier this month." Is that an assessment, or a plan? Isn't it the plan to stick it to the Iraqis so that they cannot repel the Sunni?
In consideration that Obama changed the leader of Central Command recently, putting a black man in that spot, read the following as though Obama is the true leader of Central Command: "The Times reported that the draft report was being reviewed Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of Central Command...The report, and the recommendations developed from it by Central Command and the Joint Staff, are expected to influence the Obama administration's decision about whether or not to send more advisers, weaponry, and surveillance systems to aid Iraq's army against ISIS." What do we suppose that Austin will recommend? Is this news story merely a political ploy by the Democrats to make it appear that coming U.S. escalation in Iraq is the "fault" of Austin rather than Obama?
I have completely disregarded Fox news and CNN since the Sunni advance. I never know which of their reporters to trust as genuine news people versus insider plotters. Fox is heavily a support group for globe trodders, and CNN is heavily an O-Democrat political animal. We will often get slants from them that represent the will of their bosses. This is not to say that their articles are useless, or that non-American news sources are not biased, but I would prefer that the bias is not toward the O-merican way...because I'm trying to figure out what the true agenda / will of the O-mericans is through all the twists and turns of their public statements. By July 14, it appears that the O-mericans have become withdrawn due to the anti-American tide over-taking Iraq. The assessment above tends to place the Iraqi ball in the hands of others, and the Americans are seemingly washing their hands of whatever other destruction takes place.
Identifying the Anti-Christ with Ease Impossible
People don't need to read tribwatch only in order to find writings of an anti-Christ appearing in relation to Iraqi events. I haven't been listening in, but I'm sure that all the prophecy educators / watchers are on this ISIS topic roundly. One prediction is that many prophecy watchers will come to view the anti-Christ as an Arab. World Net Daily proposes / pushes this view by constantly advertising a book on the topic. I say that's too hasty. However, I do entertain a Turkish anti-Christ, and Turkey is just-now a benefactor of Kirkuk oil. As Maliki fights the Kurds for oil rights, Turkey may weigh in. I can conceive of a Turkish leader becoming an EU stooge, and a Western False Prophet supporting him with fire from the sky, but that situation is not conducive to a Turkey-Iran alliance, which tends to oppose the prediction of the Gog prophecy.
Beside all of my insistence that the anti-Christ will be allied to the Sunni, the Gog-Iran alliance in Ezekiel 38 tends to claim otherwise, that he will be allied to the Shi'ites. I would feel sadly humbled if, after years of claiming a Sunni punch for the anti-Christ, it turned out that his backers will be the Shi'ites. But prophecy is not my story. I don't get to make it up. It is what it will be, and whatever that is, we all need to tread lightly with our personal predictions and views. It's so easy to be wrong when it comes to the identification of the anti-Christ. It's completely foggy.
Most prophecy educators have not viewed Daniel 11:21-31 as an end-time prophecy, but I'm hoping it will change. The truth could be that the flood-like army in verse 22 is that of the Sunni, and that when it defeats the Shi'ites temporarily but solidly, the Gog-Iran alliance will arise in support of these Shi'ites. I cannot yet say one way or the other whether the United States / Europe will come to favor the Sunni or Shi'ites, and perhaps the West will maintain a unity theme to the end. I would not predict that the U.S. will fight openly on behalf of the Sunni, or that the U.S. is capable of controlling the Sunni fully or for long. One could argue that, ultimately, after a period of stalling, the U.S. will need to support the Shi'ites because it is the political-correct way. But we may be surprised to hear U.S. animosity growing toward the Shi'ites in the meantime. Look for that as evidence that Omericans are secretly behind the Sunni.
The U.S. military is taking precautions already to announce that it will not contribute to the Shi'ites while they partner with either Russia or Iran, but, ultimately, the U.S. is bound to bump fenders with the latter two while coursing in the same direction down the same road. This race to the finish line is promising to be hair-raising. The Omericans are not withdrawing, but huddling, at this time. It's time for a pit stop and a change of treads, but the race must go on. I have merely an opinion based on thin prophetic evidence that the Americans will end up in an alliance with the anti-Christ. Perhaps the fact that Russia is entering this race like the shadow of the United States is beginning to speak to that alliance. But it's not a shadow; it's a real car of its own, driving side-by-side with the American rod. If correct to view the False Prophet as an American, the prediction is that the American car will help the anti-Christ car win the race, but for the life of me, I cannot see America helping Russia's cause in Iraq and Syria.
Then again, what will Russia's cause in Iraq become? Russia is not going to say that it's there to seize the oil. It's saying that it's there to keep Iraq unified, the only line the Europeans and the UN is willing to hear. We can therefore conjecture, as one scenario, that both the U.S. and Russia will fight for the same cause. Perhaps the next U.S. president will help us to understand this. Perhaps Obama will decide that, in order to remain involved with Iraq, the U.S. needs to get beside Russia, rather than vice-versa.
Here is Daniel 11:21-24:
"A rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And the arms will gush a flood before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after they join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people. With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter. And he will do what his fathers nor his father's fathers have not done. He shall plunder and spoil, and scatter goods among them."
Let me give you that in open brackets for you to fill out as you see best:
"A [......................] shall stand up in his place, and [...................] shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And [.....................] will gush a flood before his face, and [........................] will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after [.....................] join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people. "
Here is an example of how to fill in the blanks:
"A [a Russian agent] shall stand up in his place, and [the Shi'ites] shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And [the Sunni] will gush a flood before his face, and [the Shi'ites] will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after [the Shi'ites] join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
In the past, I identified the third bracket as the flooding U.S. invasion under George Bush (so that the second and fourth brackets needed to be the Sunni). That scenario is so far in the past that I'm willing / compelled to abandon it. The way that the Sunni have now advanced can indeed be likened to a gushing too, I suppose, a scenario that forces the second and fourth brackets to be Shi'ites. I'm open to filling the blanks in different ways, but until more events have transpired with Russia's involvement, I'm not committing to any dogmatic filling of the blanks.
In the way I have the blanks filled above, the "ruler of a covenant" can be al-Sadr. He's the one unwilling to form alliances with Russia or Iran. In this picture, he represents the Shi'ite blocs predicted to reject the anti-Christ when he tries to control a weakened Iraq in crisis. But after the Sunni make things more desperate, Sadr and the rest of the Shi'ites decide to join him.
In order for the anti-Christ to join the Sunni, the brackets need to be filled differently. Here are two possibilities:
"A [a Russian agent] shall stand up in his place, and [the Sunni] shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And [the Shi'ites] will gush a flood before his face, and [the Sunni] will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after [the Sunni] join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
"A [a Western agent] shall stand up in his place, and [the Shi'ites] shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And [the Sunni] will gush a flood before his face, and [the Shi'ites] will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after [the Shi'ites] join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
The latter option tends to require a West-Iran partnership if Ezekiel 38 is included in the picture, making it a poor option as world politics now stand. The option above it tends to require a change of heart by the Russians, from supporting Maliki to supporting the Baathists. Perhaps the Russians will be pushed from Maliki's side by the Americans insisting that it's their place to purchase and own Maliki. It's too early to predict, and the Daniel prophecy doesn't seem to give a solid clue for the purpose.
The Americans can easily switch from supporting Maliki to supporting Baathists simply because the oil situation benefits it. Therefore, another option is:
"A [a Western agent] shall stand up in his place, and [the Sunni] shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And [the Shi'ites] will gush a flood before his face, and [the Sunni] will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after [the Sunni] join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
In this picture, the American media continually pegs the Sunni monster as ISIS because the Americans want us to make a solid distinction between it and the Baathists...because the Americans are planning to openly support the Baathists and other "moderate" Sunni. Let's not forget::
It was reported on June 25 that the Sunni groups in Iraq are taking up arms against the ISIL militants.
In particular, the 1920 Revolution Brigades group is armed against the militants. The 1920 Revolution Brigades group actively fought against Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq in 2007.
The activists of the Iraqi Islamic National Resistance, the Islamic Army of Iraq, Sunni Mujahideen Army are also armed.
Earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned down the proposal to create a transitional government with the Sunni insurgents that are not included in the ISIL.
The same website reported a Baathist alliance with these groups and ISIS. It is very likely that the Americans have Sunni leaders in meetings with them. I will not be surprised to find the Americans openly supporting some Sunni "coalition" soon for to have them win the political rights. It may still be too early to predict how the Sunni will divide themselves, but a Baathist split from ISIS is perhaps the most predictable because both want the Iraqi throne to themselves. When that split takes place, watch for subtle American support of Baathists.
The Nusra Front is incapable of defeating Syria while ISIS is incapable of defeating Iraq, wherefore the two may put aside selfishness and agree to share power. An ISIS deal with Nusra can be made without Nusra wanting the Iraqi throne, the idea being that both fight together, sharing their turfs and resources to grow together, but to secure their respective thrones. Nusra now objects to this alliance because ISIS is too entrenched in Syria. A deal between them would require ISIS to lay off of Syria, and move it all over to Iraq.
As of July 7, the Wall Street Journal, in an article concerning the American weaponry / equipment possessed by ISIS, continues to maintain that "The insurgents, whose ranks are populated by former generals from Saddam Hussein's army..." Here's on July 12, from an Iraqi media that tells Maliki's side of the story more than Western media is bound to: "Security source stated to IraqiNews.com 'The security forces conducted a raid-search operation in Muqdadiya district of northern Baquba to kill four ISIL terrorists and seize some Israeli weapons.'" That's all the article says. Israel had cause, in Syria, to support ISIS.
Israel has its problems, foremost its long-standing alliance with the Western harlot. It has been a sinful alliance. Now the West is more-or-less abandoning Israel, just as God would have it, as Israel's recompense. The West is led by illogical radicals. Even now that Hamas has fired rockets at major city centers, the West yet wants a ceasefire...that allows Hamas to survive for yet anther amassing of missiles for a repeat down the road, and moreover the West wants Israel to seek peace with these, their sworn enemies. Western leaders calling for these things are sheer madness, unable to act properly.
Let Hamas shoot missiles at Cairo, and then let Sisi, the hypocrite, show restraint, as he's asking Israel to show. Any national leader showing restraint at such a scenario is a traitor to his country. The only way to deal with Hamas is to wipe it out. If an Egyptian kills even one other Egyptian, that murderer is punished most severely, yet Hamas, Sisi is saying, should be allowed to survive. Obama now wants Israel to lay off of Hamas yet again after shooting hundreds of missiles in a matter of days. Would Obama say that he needs to hurry up and make peace with me if I were to shoot hundreds of rockets into Washington? Only if he's a lunatic.
The Baathist Connection to Rothschilds
There was an article in the news this past week that two or more Bush-men are supporting Ahmed Chalabi (ex-banker, Shi'ite) as the next Iraqi prime minister. Chalabi was a Bush agent for some time in the 2003 invasion, but he fell from grace when becoming a friend of Iran. The Bush team got him a ticket to become the OIL minister, fancy that. There are a slew of articles out suggesting that Chalabi could be the next Iraqi leader. American Democrats generally despise him, but: "The New York Times is reporting that Ahmed Chalabi, the former leader of the exile Iraqi National Congress (INC), has met with the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and the senior state department official responsible for Iraq and Iran policy in recent days." I find it difficult to see why the U.S. military would want an Iranian ally on the Iraqi throne, but I did speculate that Obama is a secret Iranian friend for the purpose of undoing Israel.
"Chalabi" suggests the ancient Chalybes/Halybes, the people that I say named Halab, now Aleppo (Syria). I traced the mythical Lapiths to "Aleppo," and felt that the Israeli high priest (Joseph Caiaphas) at the crucifixion of Jesus was from a Lapith bloodline in Aemilia Lepida. Whether Chalabi traces to Aleppo or not does not remove the Aleppo significance of the events now unfolding. It was reasonable to assume that the mythical Satyrs (= Satrae Thracians) that were given a Lapith ancestry (by myth writers) were from Seir of Edom, the namers of Syria, and that "Halybes" or "Halab" was a term in honor of the carriers of the bloodline of Eliphas, son of Esau who married a woman from Seir. In other words, what we could be seeing in the Middle East now is the strength of Edom versus Israel.
In fact, I traced "Osiris" to "Seir," and "Horus" (close kin of Osiris) to the Seir Horites, and then mythical Isis was exactly of that "Egyptian" cult. It can explain why ISIS now has a stronghold in the Aleppo theater.
This story becomes more intriguing where a mythical PHLEGyas, a Lapith, was named after Peleg, son of the Biblical Eber (patriarch of all Hebrews). The Genesis genealogy goes a little out of its way to say that "peleg" means "divided," and that the world was divided in the days of Peleg's birth. Iraq's crisis now is division. Might the players in Iraq be Pelegites and related Lapiths?
The colors of the ISIS flag are those of the Fleck/Flack/Flag surname, terms that well reflect "Peleg." The white on black, or in reverse, are generally the colors of Templar pirates such as the Sinclair Normans, chief Templars. As mentioned in recent updates, the white scallop of the Fleck Coat is used centrally in this Arms of Rothschild. A few years ago, shortly before realizing that Fulks (sat on the Templar throne of Jerusalem) were definitely a branch of Belgian Flecks, it came to my attention, as a theory anyway, that split heraldic Shields were devised in honor of the Fulk bloodline. At that time, I had not yet put two-and-two together to realize that this dividing of Shields was in honor of Peleg. If that is correct, then Fulks and Flecks, and Fletchers/Fleggers too, are a line of Peleg Hebrews.
Just look at this. It was mere months ago when I realized that the heraldic mermaid, called a "Siren" at times likely due to her being a Seir element, was a depiction of the Lapith bloodline. For example, the Lapp/Leap surname uses this mermaid. You can view her simply as a Seir line out of Aleppo, though the history of human relationships complicates matters. There's a lot more to it, but this mermaid traced very well to Aemilia Lepida, daughter of Lepidus the Younger. The mythical Sirens were pirates, you see, who gobbled up sea farers, and then Moray, the place that I say the Sinclairs of More ruled, had the mermaid bloodline as kin, as you can see in the Moray Crest. But the main point in this paragraph is her green MIRROR, which I found to be code for the Mire/MIREUR bloodline (play on words, obviously), first found in Anjou, where the Fulks ruled. This mermaid is also the "Melusine" of the Drakenberg Veres, who claim that Melusine was the mother of the counts of Anjou a couple of generations before the Fulks became counts of Anjou.
Bear with me if you've already heard me go over these things, because it now needs to be tied to ISIS and the Baathists. All my years-long work on heraldry is now coming to a head in the Sunni of Iraq and Syria. Let me repeat that the Moray motto can be connected easily to Eliphas and his Seir-Horite wife, Timna. There are at least two good ways to expose that the makers of heraldry knew this, and encoded it. One, the "Tout" motto term of the Moray surname is used by Oliphants, a term like "Eliphas." Secondly, the Timm/Time surname can be traced to a "Deum Time" motto (partly code for Edom, and partly for the Timna line) used by a Moray Coat no longer shown at houseofnames. I had that Coat mentioned and recorded in several of my writings (in my Ladon book) several years ago.
The Oliphants were first found in the same place (Perthshire, Scotland) as the Rollo surname, and the latter too uses the "tout" code (for the Toot/Tout surname) in its motto. The Rollo motto term, "Fortuna," is code for the Fortune's that were first found in East Lothian, where the Sinclair surname was first found.
Rollo was a chief Norman Sinclair, founder of Normandy. His name was alternatively, Rolph, and the latter surname shares the raven with German Rothes as well as the Corbins/Corbetts, but the latter uses an elephant in Crest that must be code for the Oliphant bloodline, you see. These things are not coincidences, but are proof that the creators of heraldry knew exactly to what they were tracing: Esau and Timna. The conclusion is that a host of Hebrew tribes had passed through Aleppo, and some remained in that theater to this day.
The book of Enoch claims that a black boar was a symbol of Edom, but you can see a black boar in the Crest of the Rollo surname, as well as in the Bush and Booth Coats. The Booths are from "Bute," an island that was anciently Rothesay, named by the origin of Rothschilds without a doubt. "Bush" tends to betray that the surname is from the carriers of BOZrah, the Edomite capital of Esau and Eliphas. Rollo's father, RAGNvald, probably traces to the same entity as Ronald REAGEN, the one who put the president Bushes on the high political map. Jewishvirtuallibrary.org says: "Edom is even compared to a black boar (I En. 89:12, 42-43, 49, 66; Jub. 37:20, 24)." Oliphants were linked to ArBUTHnott.
Note how Belgian Flecks/Flegins use a Shield divided vertically in red and green, and ask why the similar Fulke/Folk Coat won't come up when one searches "Fulk." Is someone trying to hide this Fleck-Fulk relationship? Apparently, yes. The write-up even traces to Fulk Nerra of Anjou, and yet houseofnames has arranged not to include "Fulk" in its databank for this surname.
The "sera" motto term of the Fulke's/Folks is in honor of Seir's Edomites, isn't it, as well as the Siren of the Mire/Mireux Coat.
German Fulks use an hourGLASS shape between the black wings, as does the Jewish Glass surname, which is showing, and has been for years, the same design exactly (not including colors). Then, Scottish Glass' show the Siren mermaid yet again. You can link this entity to the Houstons of GLASgow, who not only use an hourglass in Crest, but another "time" motto term. Then, compare the blue and-white checks of the Houstons with the same of Italian Fulks.
So, clearly, Edomites -- a branch of Hebrews but not Israelites -- were in the Glasgow area, in Renfrew. It just so happens that Pollocks/Polks, who smack of "Fulk / Fleck / Peleg," were first found in Renfrewshire. It has dawned on me that Pollocks must trace to mythical Pollux, a Spartan entity smacking of "Peleg" but also tracing to tribes of Joktan, Peleg's brother. The way to trace Pollux to Joktan is by noting in Genesis how Joktan's many sons lived between Mesha and Sephar, while a Sepharvite people had a god, ADRAMmolech (2 Kings 31), a term like "Hadoram," a son of Joktan. But we now have the added evidence of a Pollock-surname trace to Joktan's brother. And I have it from a good source that Renfrew is filled with Hebrews, though these would claim to be Jewish exclusively rather than some other form of Hebrew. See ancient Idrimi (smacks of "Adram") and his Hebrew supporters near Aleppo of the 15th century BC.
In updates of the first half of this year, I showed how Rothschilds trace to "Lady Rothes," the daughter of Peter Pollock (patriarch of Pollocks) who had a Rothes castle at Moray. This is a powerful sentence.
I have a very good sense of what I'm doing here. The Arthurian cult, which attempted mythology of its own as code work (same idea as the Greeks), and which morphed into the Rhodian Round-Table Illuminati, wrote on a fabulous king Arthur that is generally timed by many at about 500 AD, at which time proto-Scotland was "Alba," a term that I will trace very confidently to "Halab," for I discovered to my satisfaction that Arthur's ExCALIBER sword was part code for the Chalybes of Halab. The first part of that sword code is for EXeter, founded by a Dumnonii peoples that I trace to LaceDAEMONians, otherwise known as Spartans. I conjectured that the Biblical Sephar was very-ancient Subartu, and that the migrational carriers of the latter term named Sparta. Subartu was the part of Iraq now being infiltrated by ISIS.
One can see here that Lapiths of Halab settled proto-Scotland, and, in fact, if I recall correctly, the Caithness area of northern Scotland was the one that went by a Chalybes-like term that begins with a 'G'. Pollux's brother, Castor, was traced (by me) to the namers of Istria, where Pula is located that uses a cross in its Arms in the colors of the Pollock saltire cross. It seems clear that the Spartan line of Pollux and Castor was at Pula. The Rothschild surname even uses an eight-pointed star, the symbol of ancient Ishtar. Her name may be the reason for "Satyr," which were made the children of mythical Ixion, a Lapith. That tends to trace the Ishtar cult to Lapiths of Aleppo. In at least one of the photos released of Baghdadi's speech, one can see an eight-pointed lamp, perhaps not coincidental. Castor's horse symbol can be figured from the Hyksos, or from the wheel symbol of Ixion, for the Hyksos are said to have introduced the horse and chariot into Africa,
I now identify Mesha with Mus at Lake Van, and thus identify Mesha as the ancestry of the Masseys, Maceys, and Meschins. It just so happens that Meschins share white-on-black scallops with Flecks. The house of Mus was central to the Hyksos rulers in Egypt, and as they traced to the Hector Trojans, it's important to mention that the Hector surname was important to the Arthurian cult, which cult gave mythical Hector a son, Kay/Cai, a term that traces well to "Ceyhan," a location now in Turkey (near Kizzuwatna) to the near-West of Syria. As Hyksos were called "Heka Khasewet," they can be traced to the naming of Kizzuwatna. "Ceyhan" smacks of "Khyan," the Hyksos ruler that I say was the Exodus pharaoh whose daughter named Moses / Musa after "Mus." It is known from others that the Hyksos were Hebrews, and so it seems very evident that they were Pelegites and Joktanites, for in fact there's no way to be a Hebrew unless one is descended from one or the other brother.
Ceyhan happens to be where the oil from Kurdistan is slated to go.
The "Qui sera" motto phrase of the Fulke's/Folks might be code for the Caesarea near Ceyhan, which went by an alternative spellings such as, Kaisariya. Anciently, Caesarea was Mazaca, a Meshech city, and for this reason one should be able to trace Joktanites in/near "Mesha" to that place. It became my fundamental principle that Hebrews of the dragon bloodline had been merged with Meshech and Rosh elements, the Gog of Ezekiel 38. Tubal even had a kingdom at the Ceyhan theater (Wikipedia's article on Tabal is to be distinguished from its article on Tubal).
The blue lion that the Samson Crest shares with the Hector Crest is important where Samsons, once again, share white-on-black scallops with the Flecks/Flags, and the Samson motto term, flagitium, even honors the Flag surname. The importance of a Fleck/Flag trace to Peleg is where the co-founder of the Baathists was a Syrian by the surname of AFLAQ, while the other co-founder had a Bitar surname, while heraldry has the Bitar and Aflack/Afleck surnames both sharing a black-on-white cross, in the colors and style of the Sinclair cross (for years, the Aflack cross showed without a border design; it showed exactly like the Bitar cross).
Note that Bitars were first found in the same general area as Hectors, and that they were in Perthshire, where Rollo's and Oliphants were first found. Note too that the Oliphant crescents could be in use by the French Masseys. I say that the proto-Masseys had been the Amazons (at Mazaca) that often lived smack in the Halybes / Khaldi theater, to the north side of Aleppo.
I say that the purple strongarm (holding a bow for arrows) in the Bitar Crest is a Rothschild symbol that carried on to Communist Russia when Rothschilds founded it. There is a question, therefore, of whether Rothschilds of some sort founded the Baathists, or at least set them up in power, for to poke manipulating fingers in Syrian affairs (Assad is a Baathist). Later, the Baathists spread to Iraq and found power there under Saddam Hussein. This all seems important where I await a Russian entity to form an alliance with the Baathists and other Sunni. It's Sunni-interesting that the Sinclair surname comes up as "Sun."
Note the Auchinfleck and similar variations of the Aflacks, for I traced "Joktan" to "Occitania" (partly on the Ebro river of Spain) and therefore to the heraldic OAK theme used by Auchin-like surnames. The Achin/Atkin/Aiken surname (oak tree in Crest) is traced in its write-up to an AKYNE location and to neighboring Glasgow. As we saw that Glasgow links to the Timm/Time bloodline, by what coincidence does the Oakley motto use "timeo"? For those of you who followed my Caepio trace to the Cave's and therefore to Joseph Caiaphas, note the "caveo" motto term of the Oakleys.
The Oakley Coat can be using a colors-reversed version of the Oliphant Shield. It just so happens that the English Bush Coat once showed, years ago, with either a red-on-gold, or gold-on-red, horizontal bar. I believe that is was a red-on-gold bar with (two) gold spread eagles, the Oakley symbol.
The ArBUTHnott entity (share the white Oliphant / Tout crescent) to which Oliphants became merged / allied use what looks like the Moray Shield and have as their motto, "Laus Deo," words written at the top of the paganite Washington Monument. Others using "Laus Deo" (traced to Las in Sparta) include the Rhodes-related Manders ("omniBUS" motto code) from the Maeander river flowing from Phrygia, through Caria, and toward Rhodes, the latter beside Kos, where the Edomite god (Kos) probably named the island. The Kos surname shares three red-on-white "bends" (diagonal bars) with the Hectors, and these bars are known to be those of mythical Hector de Maris, of the Arthurian cult Therefore, keep a look-out for an Artis location, near Kos, below.
See the three bends of the Merit/DeMerais surname as proof that the Hectors and Maris' were kin, and then know that the Hebros river (Thrace) was also the Maritsa. Then, as the Maris surname has a write-up tracing to a Lemarais location of Normandy, see more white-on-black scallops in the Marais Coat, noting that the latter uses a moline cross in the colors of the Maris saltire. The Marais surname (in Bus colors) is said to have origins in a "house of Bousis.
See the Russell scallops and compare the Russell motto ("Che sara sara") to the Fulke motto. The Russell goat is the Bush goat, isn't it? It's to be expected that Russell liners named Roslin, home of the early and wealthy Sinclairs.
Note that "Buth" is a surname registered, not with Bush-related Booths, but with the Welsh Baths ("Habere" motto term suggests Hebrews). The Baths/Buths are using the cross of Scottish Randolphs (both crosses may be versions of the Maris saltire), who in-turn use a bat in honor of the Baths/Buths. It just so happens that English Randolphs, who are in Obama's bloodline, use the same Coat as Dunhams, while Dunham is the surname of Obama's mother. Dunhams were first found in the same place as the Fulke's/Folks (and Bus'), and the two surnames share spears in Crest.
The Bat surname uses an "engrailed" saltire cross (as does the Maris saltire) in the colors of the engrailed Sinclair cross, and therefore the Bats and Buths/Baths are both suspect as proto-Baathists. The cross design of the Buths/Baths is even of the type used by Bitars, Aflacks and Sinclairs. As Bats were first found in the same place (Rutland) as English Watsons, the Bats should prove to have been cognate with "Watt." There was a Uat cult of Egypt that was also "Buto", and as I figured that "Buto" was from "Buz," son of Nahor, note that the Bus surname uses the cinquefoil in the Arms of Leicester, for Rutland is at Leicester. Thus, the Watsons and the Bus', both first found in the same place, appear as carriers of the Uat-Buto cult to the Illuminati founders of the United States.
I traced the Rothschild all-seeing-eye symbol to the Mr. Watson that the immediate family of Lady Rothes married, for both the Watts and Vatts/Waters use a human eye...as well as a pair of seeing GLASSes hanging from an oak tree. Scottish Watsons use the oak tree, and share share the Rodham oak stump in Crest.
There is a hand holding a human eye in the Battin/Baden Coat, of a surname first found in the same place (Somerset, home of the Dumnonii) as Buths/Baths. It just so happens that Uat/Buto, and the related Horus, was an all-seeing-eye cult, explaining the pyramid on the one-dollar bill. As the Biden/Button surname has a write-up tracing to Bath and Wells of Somerset, Joseph Biden seems to apply to the circle of dirty lunatics implied by the things that I'm pointing out. Dirty lunatics rule over us.
You can verify the description of the Battin-Crest eyeball, or the symbols of any Coat and Crest, at the website below:
I trace Joseph Caiaphas to the Caepio bloodline with which Julius Caesar mated. Cave's share the fretty lattice symbol with the Cotts, and the latter traces to the surname of the mother of Julius Caesar (she was a Cottian element, from the namers of the Cottian Alps). I did not have this Cave-Cott heraldic evidence when I first traced "Caiaphas" to "Caepio, and especially to the Caepio's with which Julius was sexually involved.
It's known that Julius had an affair with Servilia Caepio(nis), but some say that he may have mated also with one or more of her daughters. In the family tree below, one can see Servilia's daughter, Junia Secunda, married to the Lepidus surname, and grandmother to Aemilia Lepida. The latter's brother (Manius Aemilius Lepidus) was appointed to the governorship of Asia in 21 AD.
Caiaphas (father and mother unknown) was preceded as the high priest by Annas, whose father (Seth) was from Syria. Therefore, some Syrian fingers in the affairs of Israel was possible, especially as Syrian elements of the Romans had come to control the Levant as far south as Israel.
The Roman province of Asia stretched from Mysia and Troy through Lydia into Caria, which were the areas into which the Halab elements under discussion migrated. The Asian province included one Lebedus location in the realm of a Clarus location to which I trace Rollo's Claro surname. For those who agree with me that the migrational carriers of the name / tribes of Abraham's other wife, Keturah (Genesis 25), named mythical Kodros/Codrus of Athens (he had a boar symbol), whose son founded Ephesus (beside Clarus), the following is interesting:
According to Pausanias, [Lebedus] was inhabited by Carians when the Ionian Greeks immigrated there under the guidance of Andrĉmon, a son of Codrus. Strabo, however, states that it was colonized by Andropompus and that it previously bore the name of Artis in Lydia.
There is a Charo/Claro surname (shares the bull design of the Bozrah-suspect Boso(n)'s) that can trace to both "Caria" and "Clarus," and it just so happens that I trace Joseph Caiaphas to the Joseph surname that uses a "charo" motto term.
What I think is happening is that the lines from ancient Aleppo and related locations are now in charge of the world through Rothschild avenues in league with White House leaders over at least several consecutive U.S. presidents. The Baathists in the Middle East are seemingly connected to this Western entity as we speak, but further corroboration is needed. The connection may be more than militarily or political, and may be to blood links of the Masonic past. The connection to Caiaphas is as simple (though it took me years to realize it) as the first Templars being of the Chappes bloodline (Hugh de Payen married a Chappes).
Spanish Capets, related royally to French Martels for obvious reason, are easily linked by their green-and-red vertically-divided Shield to the Fulke/Folk and Fleck Shields. English Capets/Cape's even share white scallops with English Flecks...the Rothschild symbol too. The strongarm with a bow (the bow and arrow is a chief Rothschild symbol, code for the Bauer ancestry of Rothschilds) in the Bitar Crest is seemingly used also by the Fletchers/Flagers, said to be from "Fleche." It argues once again for the blood relationship between the Bitar and Aflaq surnames (of the Baathist founders) to British surnames. Both Fletchers/Flagers and Bitars use the same style cross in the same colors. Both surnames have four surrounding symbols around their crosses.
The black "roundels" (code for the Round surname and for "Round Table") in the Fletcher Coat are called, "plates," and then more white scallops are used by the Plate surname. The Plates/Blatts use their scallops in the colors of the so-called "pheons" of the Pilate surname, important, not just because "Pilate" and "Plate" are similar enough, but because Blate's share white pheons too. This argues for a trace of "Caiaphas / Caepio" to the white scallops of the Cape's/Capets, for Joseph Caiaphas (a Sadducee) was in the priesthood under Pontius Pilate, and blood relationships may have resulted that carried on to the first Templars.
Pontius may have been named after the Pontus, the location of Phrygia, where the Caepio liner, Manius Lepidus was governor since 21. Pilate became governor of Judea in 26. I view the first year of Jesus' ministry in 27. "According to Josephus, Caiaphas was appointed in AD 18 by the Roman prefect who preceded Pontius Pilate, Valerius Gratus."
"Pharisee" is like "parse," a term meaning "divide" i.e. as does "peleg." It just so happens that while Pelegites are expected at the Hector Trojans, Hector's mythical brother was Paris; the latter mated with Helen "of Troy," Pollux's sister, you see, so that she is suspect from Peleg too. In this way, a Paris > Pharisee line was a Pelegite one. It just so happens that while Soducena, a location that I think was home to proto-Sadducees, was at lake SEVAN, Pollux and Helen were born from the eggs of SWANs, and the swan was Zeus. Moreover, Helen was married to Menelaus, a Spartan i.e. the Joktanites. "MeneLAUS" is code for the ancient Spartan city of Las, on the Mani peninsula, and he obviously traces to the Manders, Manners, and similar surnames.
I expect the anti-Christ to be a Zeus-swan line from Caiaphas, or at least of the same entity that produced Sadducees. French Josephs even showed a swan until recently, until it was changed to a footless martlet, symbol also of the Saddocks/Sedwicks, Chaddocks and Chadwicks. Consider also that Zeus was portrayed as a white bull, the color of the swan, and the color of the Saddock, Chaddock and Chadwqick martlets. It is very likely that these white martlets had been swans until the family decided to honor Charles Martel with the martlet. Consider also that while English Josephs honor the Charo/Claro surname, the latter uses the bull. In other words, the Zeus line had Jesus killed, and the Zeus line is expected in the end-time Gogi anti-Christ.
I identified proto-Zeus as a Sittacene location south of Assyria when it became obvious to me that Soducena, near the land of Gugar/Gogarene, was the representation of Hera, Zeus' wife. Later still, I discovered a Sittaceni people at lake Maeotis, in the land of the Alan Huns. It is likely, therefore, that "Helen" of Troy was an Alan peoples at Sparta, but descended from the Zeus Sittaceni. "Sittaceni" can explain why the Swan surname is listed with the Sion surname while Sion in Switzerland is also "Sitten." The question then becomes: what named Seth, father of Annas?
In another myth, Zeus appeared as a golden shower to birth the Greek Danaans, but I traced Danaans to "Tanais" at lake Maeotis. The Greek Danaans ruled at Argos, beside Sparta. It is very likely that Zeus became the Gargarian / Gorgon Caucasians that named "Greco." Herodotus said that Amazons of the Pontus, in relationship with Gargarians, founded the Sauromatians after passing through Taurus of the Crimea, beside Maeotis. It just so happens that "Sauromatia" is a term like "Taurus" in combination with "Maeotis."
To put it another way, the Alan Sauromatians and Sittaceni moved together to Sparta. The Alans, I suspect, are the reason for the white colors of Zeus, but historians will tell us that Alans, or all Huns, had been Scythians (white Caucasians). They will also tell us that the Turks descended from Gok-Turks who had been the Scythian > Hun line, and so let's add that there was a Turukku/Turrukkaean peoples near Sittacene that smacks of "Taurus."
Basically, Zeus looks like the Gog line to the anti-Christ. If you understand me, the Zeus entity included a peoples at lake Sevan, a lake that was at one time named after Gogarene. See map..
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents