Before those headlines above, perhaps more importantly we should focus on an ominous trend we are seeing in the U.S., and can be viewed as foreshadowing for the coming Tribulation:
CNN doesn’t cite specific sources, but it says the new intelligence report references “24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010.”
The DHS intelligence assessment found, “(Sovereign citizen) violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect’s home, during enforcement stops and at government offices.”
Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at the summit, compared the troubling rise in Islamic terror attacks to right-wing extremists and militias who commit violence “in the name of the Bible.”
Islamic terrorists are running roughshod over a good quarter of the planet, and our government is incapable of identifying their “mysterious” ideology. However, here at home, we supposedly face a terror threat that is - apparently - both far worse and far easier to label.
They’re carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.
A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.
Your government believes that these conservative monsters - who have allegedly carried out 24 attacks since 2010 - are just as bad, if not worse, than ISIS.
Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to—and in some cases greater than—the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.
ISIS, you may remember, has been beheading infants, crucifying children, and slaughtering Christians, Jews, and Muslims by the tens of thousands. ...But, forget all of that. It’s small potatoes. Unspecified, unnamed, “groups” say ISIS isn’t as dangerous as right-wingers here at home.
Look. If people in the U.S. are shooting cops, by all means, arrest them and prosecute. End of story. However, if ANY law enforcement official ANYWHERE within the United States honestly feels that the domestic right wing is as dangerous as ISIS, they should be removed from office instantly, because they’ve revealed themselves to be incapable of critical thought.
Honestly, I have a hard time knowing where to go with this. We’re currently enduring an administration that is cutting nuclear deals with Iran, is making a half-hearted effort at bombing ISIS, has turned its back on our global allies, and refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Islamists in the Middle East represent a threat to the United States. ...And when they’re pressed, they come up withTHISpile of B.S. as “the real threat.”
Perhaps they’re worried that a force as horrific as ISIS will bring back the “rah-rah pro-America” patriotism that existed post 9/11. Maybe they’re concerned that, if the focus is on ISIS as the planet’s greatest threat, they’ll finally have to deal with the undeniable link between radical Islam and pure evil. Both of these things are anathema to the modern left and are damaging to Democrat electoral prospects, so perhaps they’re trying to shift the skeptical eye back to a relatively minor domestic issue that they can use to label all political opponents as “extremists.”
...Or maybe progressives have just decided that it’s time to identify their “real” enemy.
Either way, this report makes it feels like the feds have decided to shift their attention away from their tried and true plan of “burying their heads in the sand” in favor of a more pro-active - if equally wrongheaded - strategy.
Mark my words: The next step in this madness is to equate the Tea Party with the insanity of ISIS ahead of 2016.
Though Arab officials have been careful not to side with Israel in their stated positions, their worries over the possibility of a nuclear-armed Tehran are in fact similar to those of Jerusalem, and their attitudes towards the current state of nuclear talks between Tehran and Western powers are similarly pessimistic, according to the report.
Leaders of Sunni states such as Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia fear a bad deal with Tehran would allow it, with the removal of sanctions, to become a nuclear threshold state, the WSJ reported. They say it could also lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.
“At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,” an official from an unnamed Arab nation told the paper.
The IAEA report stated that Tehran was being evasive and ambiguous in its dealings with the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, preventing the organization from launching a thorough assessment of the country’s nuclear program.
Netanyahu has long been opposed to the apparent deal taking shape in talks with Iran. The prime minister believes that the Iranians are negotiating in bad faith and that world powers are walking into a bad deal which would allow Tehran to come very close to a bomb while removing all sanctions on the regime.
Extremist militias in Libya have taken over stashes of chemical weapons which belonged to the late ruler Muammar Gaddafi, sources in the country told London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Alawsat on Saturday.
The sources expressed concern that the non-conventional weaponry, which included mustard gas and sarin gas, could find its way into the hands of Islamic State fighters.
The report added that militias had apparently already conducted an experiment with the captured weapons.
The bombings in the town of Qubba, which is controlled by Libya’s internationally recognized government, solidified concerns the extremist group has spread beyond the battlefields of Iraq and Syria and established a foothold less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy.
Tensions with Russia could blow up into all-out conflict, posing “an existential threat to our whole being”, Britain’s top general in Nato has warned.
Gen Sir Adrian Bradshaw, deputy commander of Nato forces in Europe, said there was a danger Vladimir Putin could try to use his armies to invade and seize Nato territory, after calculating the alliance would be too afraid of escalating violence to respond.
His comments follow a clash between London and Moscow after the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said there was a "real and present danger" Mr Putin could try to destabilise the Baltic states with a campaign of subversion and irregular warfare.
Sir Adrian told the Royal United Services’ Institute there was a danger such a campaign of undercover attacks could paralyse Nato decision making, as members disagreed over how much Russia was responsible, and how to respond.
Nato commanders fear a campaign of skilfully disguised, irregular military action by Russia, which is carefully designed not to trigger the alliance's mutual defence pact.
Niger: Muslims Slaughter Christians, Try To Burn Them Alive In Churches Over European Muhammad Carto
More details on the “collective punishment” of Niger’s Christians in response to Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons recently appeared.
According to a nun who escaped the violence, forty churches were torched and ten people slaughtered. She further added that “the intention was to torch all the churches with us inside them on Christmas Day and thus burn us alive!” This never came to pass but with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, an excuse was found (as discussed here, “collective punishment” is often an excuse—in this case, ludicrously blaming Niger’s Christians for the actions of Parisian atheists—to kill Christians).
Concluded the nun: “Boko Haram students believe they must kill Christians in order to take their place in paradise but we won’t surrender to fear because love must prevail over hatred.”
The US is a few “accidental” airstrikes away from total war with Syria. The US is reportedly working with Turkey to provide militants inside of Syria with radios to call in US airstrikes to help in their “fight against ISIS.” Despite the obvious reality that these militants are in fact fighting alongside ISIS and are primarily fighting the Syrian Arab Army, and that such airstrikes are inevitably going to be called in on Syrian, not ISIS targets, the US is nonetheless attempting to assure the world this is not the case
The London Telegraph declared in its article, “Moderate Syrian rebels ‘to be given power to call in US air strikes’,” that:
The US is planning to train some 5000 Syrian fighters a year under the plan as part of an effort to strengthen the fractured rebel movement against the government of President Bashar al-Assad and extremist groups.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the initial training would focus on helping rebels hold ground and resist fighters allied with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
The Telegraph would also report:
Four to six-man units will be equipped with rugged Toyota Hilux vehicles, GPS and radios so they can identify targets for airstrikes.
Even in the Telegraph’s article, it is clear that this plan will inevitably be aimed at the Syrian government and its troops, the only secular force in the region fighting Al Qaeda and its spin-off, ISIS.
The Telegraph reports that the US and Turkey are to train and equip “moderate Syrian rebels” to call in US airstrikes. In reality, by the West’s own admission, the very last of NATO’s so-called “moderate” fronts have long since been folded into groups operating directly under Al Qaeda’s banner.
Clearly, there are no “moderates” to speak of, and for those following the Syrian conflict from the beginning, it is clear that armed militancy sprung up from networks of Muslim Brotherhood extremists, funded and organized years before the so-called “Arab Spring” by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for the explicit purpose of creating a regional sectarian-driven conflagration to effect regime change in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran
USAF Becomes the Islamic State Air Force
Clearly then, if all the “moderate rebels” the US claims are in Syria have in fact long-ago pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, then US airstrikes called in by these militants will essentially be airstrikes called in by Al Qaeda against the only legitimate forces in the region actually fighting terrorism.
The creation of ISIS, just like during the US occupation of Iraq where Al Qaeda created the “Islamic State of Iraq” to maintain plausible deniability, is simply an attempt to build distance between the Al Qaeda terrorists the US is directly arming and will soon be providing air cover for, and the overt atrocities being carried out by these very same terrorists
As US airstrikes begin hitting Syrian positions, it is likely that eventually Syria or its allies will retaliate and provoke a wider and more direct campaign against Damascus itself. Should Syria and its allies resist striking back, the US is likely to manufacture a provocation anyway
Global Warming Update (II)