Friday, July 21, 2017

'Monumental' Shift On Temple Mount, U.S. 'Global Strike' Concept Is A Direct Military Threat, China Threatens War With India Over Disputed Border





This week, for the first time since the Second Temple stood in all its glory, Jews were able to walk the Temple Mount freely as Muslim authority fell away from the site, allowing both Jews and Christians to heed the call to prayer on the Mountain of God and opening up the gates of redemption.
Jews inadvertently became the main presence on the Mount, something that has not happened since the destruction of the Second Temple 2,000 years ago, as a result of the misguided actions of Arab leadership following a horrifying terror attack at the Temple Mount last Friday.
The global prophetic implications of the major shift on this holiest of sites, emphasized MK Yehudah Glick, an advocate of universal prayer on the Temple Mount, cannot be denied.
“This was an enormous gamechanger,” he told Breaking Israel News. “Everything is part of the geula (redemption) process, but the things that happen on the Temple Mount are especially so.
“If we want to bring world peace, we have to start there.”
The unprecedented situation on the Temple Mount came about in the wake of an attack that bloodied the holy stones of the Mount. Three Palestinian terrorists killed two Israeli Druze policemen near the Temple Mount before being chased into the compound itself and neutralized.

The sudden lack of Waqf guards and large crowds of Muslim visitors on the Temple Mount led to an unusual situation. For the first time in decades, Jews were unencumbered by Waqf guards preventing them from praying. Though the Israeli police were still ordered to stop non-Muslim prayer, many Jews were inspired to seize the rare opportunity to speak a holy word on the holy mountain. The experiences, they shared, were breathtaking.

Rabbi Jeremy Gimpel, co-founder of the Land of Israel Network, was driven by the call to prayer. Early Wednesday morning, he began his preparations by bathing in a mikveh (ritual bath), noting that the day was especially significant because Jews are now in the three weeks of austerity leading up to Tisha B’Av (the Ninth of Av), a fast day commemorating the destruction of the Temples.

When he arrived at the Temple Mount, he saw the site was teeming with Israeli police ready to cope with the threat of the hostile Muslim crowds surrounding it. Despite the tense situation, Rabbi Gimpel was moved by the clear atmosphere of holiness and felt compelled to prostrate himself on the stones as was required in the days of the Temple. The Israeli police followed orders and carried Rabbi Gimpel from the site.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Gimpel was inspired. “Something monumental is happening there right now,” Rabbi Gimpel told Breaking Israel News. “The Palestinians changed the status quo by killing Israeli policemen, but now, it is the time for us to do our part. Every Israeli is looking towards the Temple, waiting to see what happens.”
He described the awe he felt at being able to fulfill the ancient commandment of prostrating oneself before the presence of God.




US ‘global strike’ concept is a direct military threat – Russia’s new naval doctrine


The quest for global domination in the world’s oceans as well as the global strike concept by the US and its allies puts international stability at risk and poses a direct military threat to Russia, Moscow’s new naval doctrine says.
One of the main challenges faced by Russia is the “strive of a number of states, mainly the US and its allies, for domination in the World Ocean, including the Arctic region, as well as for establishing overwhelming superiority of their naval forces,”according to “The fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030,” as ratified by a Decree of the President of Russia on Thursday.
Unlike the now obsolete naval doctrine for the period up to 2020, the new document openly names the states which represent a direct military threat to Russia.
Other challenges listed in the document include: a surge in piracy, terrorism, poaching and other illicit activities in the world’s oceans; the growing numbers of countries possessing a capable battle fleet; development of missile and nuclear weapons; and the desire of certain countries to limit Russia’s access to vital resources and naval routes.
“Negative changes” in the international situation, the mission of certain counties to control fossil resources, piracy, exploiting volatile situations in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan; as well as a number of South Asian and African countries, constitute the need for a Russian naval presence in the “strategically crucial and other regions of the World Ocean,” according to the document.

Russia’s new doctrine highlighted the increasing role of the naval forces in the 21st century, as the fleets “can change the course of a military confrontation and an outcome of a war.”
“This is proved by the US concept of a ‘global strike,’ which represents a new challenge to international security and directly threatens the military security of the Russian Federation. An important role in the implementation of this concept is assigned to the naval forces,” the document reads.







China was prepared to engage India in a battle for contested land near the Sikkim border. The conflict appears to be developing from greater competition for economic and political dominance between the two leading Asian powers. Beijing now says it will begin to mass troops and armaments at the border for what they say is "anticipation for what could turn into an all-out war."
This isn’t the first time that these two nations have been at each other’s throats over their borders. In 1962 their armies clashed, leading to defeat of the Indian army, and thousands of casualties on both sides. Based on the rhetoric coming out of Beijing’s state sponsored media, it appears that China is more than willing replicate that conflict.
Of course, if war did break out again between China and India, there would be one significant difference from the Sino-Indian war of 1962. This time around, both nations would have hundreds of nuclear weapons. And it’s possible that Pakistan, another nuclear armed nation that India has fought border disputes with in the past, could also be swept into the conflict. It should go without saying that billions of lives are at stake every time these nations hurl threats of war at each other.
Americans often worry about various geopolitical hot-spots that could drag our nation into a world war. But they shouldn’t forget that there are plenty of places where another global war could start without our country ever lifting a finger. The whole planet is a powder keg these days.
Watch this situation closely for sudden and dramatic developments.







With the success of the last missile test, North Korea is continuing the ramping up their weapons system. Their last hugely successful ICBM test showed they have the capability to strike Alaska.
United States intelligence is now saying the rogue North Korean regime is getting ready to launch yet another missile test. The frequency of these tests show a continued thumbing of Kim Jong Un’s nose in Donald Trump’s direction, and they increase the already heightened tensions between the two countries. U.S. intelligence is also suggesting that North Korea is making preparations for the test which could happen in about two weeks, according to CNN.

Earlier this week, Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is “reasonably confident in the ability of our intelligence community to monitor the testing but not the deployment of these missile systems.” Since that isn’t comforting, all hope lies in Kim Jong Un suddenly deciding he no longer enjoys his hobby of war and provocation. “Kim Jong Un and his forces are very good at camouflage, concealment, and deception,” Selva told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week.

He added that Pyongyang has not yet shown “capacity to strike the United States with any degree of accuracy or reasonable confidence of success.” But that statement doesn’t appear to be factual. North Korea, on July 4 of this year, successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time, and experts agree that it had the capability of hitting the US.

These developments are obviously a concern since North Korea’s tyrant has said he intends to eventually have a nuclear weapon that can hit mainland United States. Pyongyang has long maintained the ability to legitimately threaten the United States with a nuclear attack is the only way to protect itself against any attempts at regime change.





The U.S. government has invaded and occupies Syria to overthrow its President, Bashar al-Assad and also to destroy ISIS, which is one of the jihadist organizations that are (like the U.S.) trying to defeat Syria’s government forces (Assad’s forces). The U.S. government has been supporting the ‘rebels’ (tens of thousands of imported foreign jihadists who aren’t ISIS but who are instead allied with or led by Al Qaeda) against the nation’s internationally recognized legal secular (non-religious) government. 
The only two U.S. Senators who are at all disturbed that the U.S. has violated both U.S. law and international law by having our soldiers and weapons invade Syria, are the two libertarians, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. Even they — the Senate’s two libertarians — don’t care about America’s violation of international law by America’s invasion and occupation of Syria; even they care only about our government’s violation of the U.S. Constitution. Even they do not challenge America’s right to violateinternational law (which wasn’t even an issue in that Senate vote).
The other 98 U.S. Senators don’t object, at all, to the U.S. government’s invasion into, and occupation of, Syria; they don’t object to this government’s violation of international law, and they (the other 98) alsodon’t care about its violation of the U.S. Constitution.
If any progressive had been in the U.S. Senate, that person would have objected to both violations; a progressive is concerned about both; but, in the Senate’s votes on these matters, neither Bernie Sanders, nor Elizabeth Warren, nor Sherrod Brown (the Senate’s three supposed ‘progressives’), has joined with Paul and with Lee, even on the objections to the violation of the U.S. Constitution, much less have they extended such objections to include this government’s violation of international law regarding this invasion.







No comments: