Nuclear Iran and US foreign policy

In Dore Gold's The Rise Of Nuclear Iran, Gold predicts a nuclear strike isn't the first threat the world will face. The most likely scenario is that Iran would use their nuclear weapons as an umbrella, a shield of protection while Hezbollah and others carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

How can we know this for sure? Because it has already happened with Pakistan.

No sooner had Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons (a significant failure of US foreign policy) did al Qaeda make its first strike. In May 1998, Pakistan carried out its first successful nuclear test. By August of the same year, al Qaeda had simultaneously struck two US embassies in East Africa, killing more than 200 people and injuring many more. This was also the same year Osama bin Laden declared jihad on America.

Of course, the reason American presidents and diplomats have remained silent on Pakistan's role in all this is because the US is attempting to keep Pakistan within its sphere of influence. Thus the US could hardly call Pakistan a major problem in the worldwide fight to defeat Islamic terrorism, and still expect Pakistan to cooperate with the US.

And for anyone doubting the connection between al Qaeda and Pakistan consider where OBL was assassinated. If you know your history of the creation of the Taliban and al Qaeda, you'll know that America, along with Saudi petro-dollars went into funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against Soviet invaders. All monies were channeled through Pakistan, and funds were only given to those militants with a similar religious belief. Ahmed Shah Masoud of the Northern Alliance, for example, received nothing from the Pakistanis, despite having done his fair share (or more than his fare share, if you believe his own accounts) of repelling the Russian invaders.

IRAQ: A FAILURE OR THE KEY TO VICTORY?

I often wondered why in the war on terror the allied forces only seemed to target countries whose connection to Islamic terrorism were secondary: Afghanistan and Iraq. What about the state sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and to a lesser extent, Iran?

On the face of it, this seemed illogical. Although Afghanistan is obviously where the Taliban ruled, al Qaeda had many training bases and OBL was hiding, it was Pakistan, with Saudi petro-dollars, that was funding the madrassas. It was Saudi Arabia that was funding the construction of mosques worldwide with the Wahabi-compliant imams that now do their share of the Islamic burden, churning out terrorists (such as the Boston Bombers). Thus fighting in terrorist 'backwaters' seemed to be like standing at the end of a long conveyor belt, shooting the terrorists as they came off the production line, but leaving the factory and its machinery unscathed...

But by 2003, Iraq had been under heavy sanctions and also happened to have colossal oil reserves big enough to rival the Saudis. Even though in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism, Iraq had taken part in terror operations against the US, it was a long way down the list of priorities in terms of terrorism prevention. Take out al Qaeda, take out the state sponsors of terrorism and you'd likely never hear from Saddam again. However, just taking out a country like Saudi Arabia wasn't so easy because of Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.

The possible way around all this seems to have been a little bit of chess. Take out Saddam. Rebuild Iraq, lift sanctions, get her oil pumping again which would help to rebuild the country, and this would also have the effect of significantly reducing the Saudi revenues, and cut off not only al Qaeda but Pakistan's main source of finance as well.

In the last few years we've seen exactly this come to fruition. Iraq has significantly cut into the house of Saud's oil profits with the result that the Saudis are panicking. It's not only that the Saudis are having to share world oil profits with Iraq, it's that Western countries are also finding ways of becoming energy independent (thanks in large part to Israeli innovations in the technique of extracting oil from rock, known as fracking). As a result of this, the usual idiots have come out with scare stories about fracking, chief among them actor Matt Damon.

But there is one major problem along this road: Barack Obama. By taking out Iraq, the Americans were removing the single largest buffer to Iranian hegemony in the region and throughout the world. But by pulling out of Iraq so soon, Obama effectively gave Iraq to Iran. Iraq, a neighbour of Iran, is teeming with Iranian agents. Tehran would only need to give the word, and the Iranian agents working as bodyguards to many Iraqi officials would carry out their duties, whether this means assassinations or anything else.

The other problem is that Iraq has been helping Iran skirt sanctions. This means that it can simply carry on with its nuclear program. With America's poor history when it comes to stopping nuclear proliferation (and don't forget the fiasco over N.Korea acquiring nukes), it's a safe bet that if left to Obama, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. Certainly, there isn't much room for interpretation when watching how Obama delays and plays Israeli PM Netanyahu, promising to deliver bunker busting bombs (Israel has been waiting since 2009), and then doesn't. The latest proof of Obama's intrasience when it comes to the Iranian threat is getting the EU to boycott the bits of Israel it doesn't like as a means of pressuring Israel to come to the negotiating table with the people that vow to wipe the Jews off the map. 

After more than 10 years of failed negotiations with Iran, this leaves us only with the military option.

Oil has obviously been a boon for the Islamic world and we've seen the resurgence of Islamic power/terrorism in conjunction with the resurgence in their oil revenues. The US has only had a decade of wars and is already critically weak economically (partly because of those wars, but mostly because of the left). It does not take much imagination to see what the world will be like if the 1400 year old sunni/shia rivalry occurs under the immunity of a nuclear umbrella.

Israel is our last hope.

What's In A Number - Economic Jihad

In my first post here on EOS, I wrote about the significance of the date of 9/11. Since then, it has become clear that not only do jihadists use anniversaries for attacks, but that the numbers in the dates themselves have significance; with the emphasis on odd numbers.

During the 9/11 hijackings, many more clues were given about which numbers hold significance. American Airlines flight 11 and 77 were hijacked. The London terrorist bombings occurred on July 7th (7/7). A United Airlines flight 175 was hijacked (read Sura II verse 175. For context sura II verse 174). Taking 175 and changing it to a date 17/5 (using the British calendar system of placing the date first, followed by month) we have the 17th of May. This was the date, in 1987, when Saddam launched an Exocet missle at the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors. Also the Madrid bombings were carried out on March the 11th 2004 (3/11).

The most famous flight of 9/11, United 93, became well known thanks to the heroic actions of its passengers as they learnt about the other hijackings that had taken place that day, and decided to fight their kidnappers ultimately crashing the plane in Pennsylvania. All the passengers on board died. But 93 was the year (1993) of the first WTC bombing.

However, the date of the 1993 bombing was February 26th. Obviously no odd numbers there. But on Feb 26th, 1989, the US army officially withdrew from Lebanon. On the same date in 1991, Saddam ordered the withdrawal of his occupying forces from Kuwait. Given the strong evidence that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing, this is more than likely the reason for the date of the first attempt to destroy the WTC.

But odd numbers don't only relate to terror operations. According to Islamic sources (PDF document) on shari'ah, an odd number of prayers must be recited during daily prayers. The entire first chapter (sura) of the Quar'an consists only of 7 short verses.

The terrorist 'Palestinian' leaders of the PA, attempted to have a Palestinian State declared in September of 2011 (thus 9/11). Achieving statehood would've meant a significant milestone in the Arabs war to exterminate Israel. The State of Palestine would be able to launch one war crimes investigation after another against Israel through the UN (and as we have seen, accusations of massacres in the past have been fabricated, the most successful of which being the Goldstone Report). In addition, Israel would have no legal authority to check shipments going in and out of the West Bank, effectively meaning the importing of any amount of weapons.

As for 9/11, in the Quar'an, Sura (chapter) 9 verse 111 is the most chilling. The verse talks about believers (Muslims) killing and being killed for Islam, and in exchange receiving paradise from Allah. Reading this verse, and the authoritative commentary along with it (Quar'an IEC 2nd edition. Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)), it's not hard to imagine these verses were going through the minds of the hijackers, in the run up to their mission.

In fact, chapter (sura) 9 in the Quar'an is one of the most violent of all. Muslims believe that the 9th chapter of the Quar'an came about in the 9th year of the hijra. Meaning it was written 9 years after Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina, and from his new base of operations in Medina set about planning how to conquer the rest of Arabia, and from there the rest of the Middle East and the world.

The Odd-Numbers Theory Today

On the last anniversary of 9/11 (the tenth anniversary), tensions were high as people were expecting some sort of attack given the significance of a decade passing since the attacks. But I remember positing the above theory and being skeptical that an attack would take place. Thankfully, an attack never came. But could that be because of what we now know above? Ten is obviously not an odd number...

Today, I received my copy of Secret Weapon by Kevin Freeman. In the book, Freeman explains not only how the Western economies are being destroyed using  financial products as weapons, but that we're in a final stage (the Third Act, as he calls it) of a monetary and fiscal attack.

Nobody could have missed the 2008 economic crash. But amazingly, Freeman reveals, It came on the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, on September 11th, 2008.

Here is an important lecture by Freeman of his concepts, how economic terrorism works, and what happened in the 2008 economic meltdown.This has already been approved by US Congressmen, intelligence officials; and Freeman has now briefed the CIA.




Clearly the US is extremely vulnerable (in large part thanks to President Obama's stimulus, as well as the community organisers, with the help of President Clinton, overloading the housing markets). This ties together all the projects of George Soros, the Saudi sponsored al Qaeda's war on the US, and shari'ah finance. But the last remaining piece of the puzzle is when the final attack itself will occur?

Maybe a financial attack is connected to the upcoming 9/11 anniversary, which will be the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks 2001, maybe it won't be financial. But I am certain from the data above (and there is a lot more of it), that this anniversary (2012) will be a lot more significant than last year's 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The intention of writing this is not to cause alarm, but it is written in the hope of providing the relevant authorities a possible insight and key date in order to prepare. Hopefully the readers will also make some preparations too. To some, this may be hard to believe and easy to dismiss. Just like standing in downtown Manhattan on 10th September 2001, and telling people that the towers would be brought down the next day.

Only time will tell...

The Battle Of The Civilisations Resumes

The battle at the Gates of Vienna, in 1683, is an historic battle in the history of the West and Islam. This battle was the beginning of Islam's decline in Europe, and the world.

Soon after this defeat came the Industrial Revolution which saw Western technology give the Europeans an unfair advantage on the battlefield. It almost ensured the colonial power's rule and success in its conquests.

From what started with the battle at the Gates of Vienna culminated with the First World War: the complete destruction of the Islamic world, not only militarily, but ideologically too with Seljuk Attaturk abolishing the Caliphate and accepting the Western concept of democracy (a method of rule antithetical to Islamic rule: Shari'ah law).

Political writer and commentator Christopher Hitchens calculates the precise date of this battle of 1683, to be the eleventh of September, of that year.

"...it is extremely unlikely to me, that the forces that wish to restore the Caliphate [Al-Qaida, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood etc] which believe in sign, symbol and dream; and superstition and prophecy, picked a 'nothing' date for their grandest of all operations. It may be one of the many things that they know about but that we do not."

(the above quote from an excerpt of video two: 2 min 40sec)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVSXzDYYDjA

Material Hitchens found whilst researching his book on Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man.

Further to this, Robert Spencer gives further illumination on the topic:

"The jihad advance into Europe did end in 1683, and then we didn't see, at least not on that scale, jihad warfare until relatively recently. At least not until the last few decades of the 20th Century.

Many people believe, that at that point this was because of some kind of reformation in the Islamic world that led to the disguarding the ideology that had led these conquests to begin with.

...in 1683 it simply became impossible for this jihad to be persued because of the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, and the decline generally, of the Islamic civilisation. It was not a matter of setting aside these [Koranic] doctrines, it was simply not being strong enough to persue them.

Now in our own generation, because of the Iranian Revolution, because of Saudi petro-dollars, it has again become possible to take up this war again. And so people believe because we have not seen this on such a scale, until the last few decades, that it is something new. It is not. It is something radically traditional. It is something very old, it is something deeply rooted in the Islamic religion, and it is being reasserted today."

Robert Spencer



I wonder, with the Industrial Revolution only a short while after the battle at the gates of Vienna, if the Turks had won and the Ottoman and Islam's appalling record of oppression, subjugation
and slavery had taken hold in Europe, where we'd all be now?

No Renaissance, no Enlightenment, no literature, no art...

Europe seems poised to be the first to find out...