Copyright 2011-3011 Alternative News Forum, All Rights Reserved. Re-posted courtesy of Pajamas Media 3.28.2011
I have written earlier over the past four years of my deep instinct that the prophesied “Imam Mahdi” of Islam would, in fact, be the Christian final “Son of Perdition,” that man who is called the final Antichrist by many millions of western Christians. Although there is certain dispute and controversy concerning this, my gut continues to scream that the two individuals are actually one and the same. This implies that the man whom all of Islam will worship and follow as both military conqueror and political / spiritual “Messiah” will be the same man that western Christianity has referred to as the Antichrist, or the “final Son of Perdition” for nearly 2,000 years.
In preparation for that man’s ascent, Iran has now made a movie for their people informing them of his imminent appearance. I am citing the entire post below and there is a link to the English language version of the film. Every Christian should watch this film and share it with others. It might not be pleasant, but it is necessary as we keep our watch regarding end time events. This is a pivotal and news making event in Christendom, and it needs to be distributed among Christian readers everywhere.
Chase Kyla Hunter 3.28.11
You can watch the entire movie here: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=5147
Ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the Islamic rulers of Iran have declared themselves representatives of God on Earth, believing their mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Shiites’ 12th imam, Mahdi.
Their belief is based on the centuries-old Hadith by Prophet Mohammad and his descendants, who have provided clear guidance as to the timing of The Coming.
According to the Hadith, in the age of The Coming a revolution takes place in Iran. This is a key sign indicating that the reappearance is near, and serves as the initial preparation in the worldwide movement for The Coming of the last messiah. Based on this belief, the leaders of Iran see it as their duty to prepare the ground for The Coming.
One of the most important keys to securing the reappearance of the last messiah — as called for in the Hadith — is the annihilation of Israel, and the conquering of Beitol Moghadas (Jerusalem). They state with conviction that Islam will soon conquer the world, and that all infidels will be destroyed.
The pursuit of nuclear bombs by the radicals ruling Iran is directly connected to this belief: war, chaos, and lawlessness must engulf the world to pave the way for Imam Mahdi’s reappearance.
This movie has been produced in Iran by an organization called Conductors of The Coming, in collaboration with the Iranian president’s office and the Basij (Iranian paramilitary force). Also, reports indicate that Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, President Ahmadinejad’s top adviser and chief of staff, was directly involved with this project. The movie was completed a few months ago and was recently screened for the high clerics by the Iranian president’s office, with one of its high-ranking official analyzing it.
Mashaei reflects the Iranian leaders’ belief very clearly:
Therefore let us shout out loud that The Coming is soon and that evil should be fearful. We live with these thoughts every day and our lives are filled with The Coming of the last imam. That human will reappear and fill the world with justice and establish his promised governance on earth. The very world has witnessed too much bloodshed of the innocent for others to build their palaces. The very world is filled with shouts for justice. The innocent and the oppressed are losing their lives to world powers. It is in this very world where the oppressors rule and this world that Allah will command the last imam to appear and forever put an end to injustice. At that time the world will belong to the righteous.
Currently this movie is being distributed throughout the Basij and Revolutionary Guards’ bases. The producers are in the middle of translating it into Arabic, with the purpose of mass distribution throughout the Middle East. Their intention is to incite further uprisings, with the hopes of motivating Arabs to overthrow U.S.-backed governments.
The final goal? The annihilation of Israel and Allah’s governance of the world.”
Editor’s note: We can’t overstate the importance of the English translation of this film. Watch it exclusively at PJTV.
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.
- Iranian Rulers, Believing Pre-Messianic Destruction Is Imminent, Make Film To Prepare Muslims (pajamasmedia.com)
- THE COMING IS NEAR: Iran’s Prophecy Propaganda Video (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- The revolution has a pivotal role. (maxwellalbanese.wordpress.com)
- ROGER SIMON: The Coming, And Why The Left Doesn’t Understand Iran. “The message of the short film … (pajamasmedia.com)
- Is Imam Al-mahdi About to Emerge? (imranhosein.org)
- The knives are out for Ahmadinejad (macleans.ca)
- Wars and Rumors of Wars Against Israel, Egypt and the US – by Iran (scottcoombe.wordpress.com)
- Ahmadinejad says Egypt, Tunisia were inspired by Iran’s anti-Western protests – Washington Post (news.google.com)
- Beck: Some Muslims Want To Bring About The Antichrist (huffingtonpost.com)
- The Final Move Has Begun (ourcommunityatfbcdc.wordpress.com)
Copyright 2011-3011 By Chase Kyla Hunter, All Rights Reserved.
You know it’s bad when the new world order “White House” directed mass media agencies begin to tell the truth about the cluelessness, insulated narcissism and inept foreign policy of the Obama administration.
Imagine: everything that tea party blogs and truth researchers have been screaming on the internet for five years now about this man, this calculatedly aloof and inept President, who pretended he was America’s new political Messiah four years ago, is finally, four years too late, being discussed in “official” American media outlets. I could just shake the men and women at Newsweek, clanking their heads together.
Where was all this truthful reporting with “eyes wide open” when we needed it four years ago? I personally hope Newsweek goes out of business in karmic retribution for their absolute and purposed failing to vet and investigate this man four years ago when he came out of far left field, [where he lives], to run for national office, three years after admitting to reporters he did not have the experience to do so.
The mass media numbskulls who elected this man now have the sad and silly karmic duty of reporting on his collapsing presidency to the nation, as if we didn’t already know. We were all three to four years ahead of you, Newsweek. You are so fired.
NEWSWEEK’s new columnist on Obama’s Egypt debacle and the vacuum it exposes.
“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.
Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity … and missed it completely.
In Bismarck’s case it was not so much God’s coattails he caught as the revolutionary wave of mid-19th-century German nationalism. And he did more than catch it; he managed to surf it in a direction of his own choosing. The wave Obama just missed—again—is the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy. It has surged through the region twice since he was elected: once in Iran in the summer of 2009, the second time right across North Africa, from Tunisia all the way down the Red Sea to Yemen. But the swell has been biggest in Egypt, the Middle East’s most populous country.
In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around, in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”
The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted. The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.
Last week, while other commentators ran around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, hyperventilating about what they saw as an Arab 1989, I flew to Tel Aviv for the annual Herzliya security conference. The consensus among the assembled experts on the Middle East? A colossal failure of American foreign policy.
This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried. The president himself is not wholly to blame. Although cosmopolitan by both birth and upbringing, Obama was an unusually parochial politician prior to his election, judging by his scant public pronouncements on foreign-policy issues.
Yet no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.
The best national-security advisers have combined deep knowledge of international relations with an ability to play the Machiavellian Beltway game, which means competing for the president’s ear against the other would-be players in the policymaking process: not only the defense secretary but also the secretary of state and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. No one has ever done this better than Henry Kissinger. But the crucial thing about Kissinger as national-security adviser was not the speed with which he learned the dark arts of interdepartmental turf warfare. It was the skill with which he, in partnership with Richard Nixon, forged a grand strategy for the United States at a time of alarming geopolitical instability.
The essence of that strategy was, first, to prioritize (for example, détente with the Soviets before human-rights issues within the U.S.S.R.) and then to exert pressure by deliberately linking key issues. In their hardest task—salvaging peace with honor in Indochina by preserving the independence of South Vietnam—Nixon and Kissinger ultimately could not succeed. But in the Middle East they were able to eject the Soviets from a position of influence and turn Egypt from a threat into a malleable ally. And their overtures to China exploited the divisions within the Communist bloc, helping to set Beijing on an epoch-making new course of economic openness.
The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.
Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”
I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.
These were his words back in June 2009:
America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice. Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.
Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”
Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.
At worst, he has no map at all.
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires – Newsweek (news.google.com)
- Obama’s Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires (newsweek.com)
- Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy (thedailybeast.com)
- Mubarak in coma? (hotair.com)
- Newsweek Cheat Sheet: What’s in This Week’s Issue (thedailybeast.com)
- In U.S. Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift (nytimes.com)
- In US Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift – New York Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Team Looked Unsteady in Response to Egypt Protesters (businessweek.com)
- Obama’s strategy was to pressure Mubarak without intruding – Los Angeles Times (news.google.com)
- Obama Leadership Tested by Fast-Changing Egypt Crisis (businessweek.com)
- Foreign Policy: Why You Should Care About Egypt (npr.org)
“Every day we are producing several kilos of 20% enriched uranium. In the near future we will be producing triple that amount.”
Re-post courtesy of Euronews.net
President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad – at the centre of the worst domestic crisis since 1979 – told his supporters at Freedom Square that Iran’s nuclear capability has leapt ahead.
“Every day we are producing several kilos of 20 percent enriched uranium, and in the near future we will treble its production,” he said. “Right now at Natanz we have the capability to enrich uranium to much higher levels.”
In fact, he told the crowd, Iran can now enrich uranium to more than 80 per cent purity, close to levels needed to build a bomb, though the president denied once more that that was the intention.
State television said tens of millions of people across Iran rallied to support the president.
But Ahmedinejad’s disputed election win in June last year has spawned a vocal and widespread opposition movement.
Copyright © 2010 euronews
Related articles by Zemanta
- Ahmadinejad: Iran Enriched 20% Pure Uranium, Opium (scrappleface.com)
- Iran Completed First Batch of 20% Uranium, Ahmadinejad Says (businessweek.com)
- Iran: High Grade Uranium Enrichment Claimed (riehlworldview.com)
- ‘Nuclear’ Iran Marks Anniversary With Clashes (abcnews.go.com)
- ‘Nuclear’ Iran Marks Revolution Anniversary (abcnews.go.com)
- On Iran: Time for the Next Step (themoderatevoice.com)
- New Iran Nuke Move Prompts Sanctions Call (news.sky.com)
- Iran Declares New Achievement on Enrichment (nytimes.com)
- Clashes reported as Iran marks Revolution Day (calgaryherald.com)
- Clashes, arrests reported as Iran marks Revolution Day (nationalpost.com)