Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13

UN Report: 15,000 Foreign Jihadists Have Joined ISIS
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;War

Islamic State terrorists (file)

Reuters

A special new report compiled by United Nations (UN) Security Council shows that more than 15,000 foreign nationals have crossed the borders into Syria and Iraq to join the ranks of the brutal Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist organization.

According to the report, published Thursday, there has been a mass movement of civilians from around the world in the past two years into Syria and Iraq to join ISIS's jihad.

Foreign nationals are entering a war zone in the Middle East to states known previously only for their oil, and not once mentioned in the context of global terrorism, according to the report.

The authors claim that ISIS's new recruits are citizens of 80 countries around the world. 

Although the report itself did not mention the names of the countries from which foreign fighters are coming, it has been widely published that recruits are coming mainly from countries like France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Ireland.

It was also recently reported that since 2011, 500 British citizens have crossed the Syrian border and joined ISIS's fighting. 

Earlier this week, Islamic State published a video of captured British photojournalist John Cantlie, in what appeared to be the heart of the bleeding city of Kobane.

In the video, ISIS claimed that they are in mostly full control of the Kurdish city which the West has been trying to save.

Trending: More College Students Support Post - Birth Abortion of Live Babies
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsProphecy New Watch
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues;Commentary

A disturbing trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.

Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”

“We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”

Campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of Created Equal have encountered this opinion include Purdue, University of Minnesota, and University of Central Florida. And at Ohio State earlier this year, the group captured a debate on video between one of its members and an older woman on campus who defended infanticide.

“This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage—it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans,” Harrington said. “[I] talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age.”

Kristina Garza, spokeswoman for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, a prolife organization that often sets up anti-abortion displays on campuses along the West Coast, said her group also frequently encounters college students who accept infanticide.

“For those who are firmly for abortion, because they understand it kills a human being, it’s very easy for them to accept killing a human being after birth,” Garza said. “There is this notion that is common on campus, that it’s OK to kill babies because somehow we don’t become human until we are self aware.”

“A common number that is going around is 4 years old,” she adds.

As for the trend, Garza said there’s an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.

Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

“He has been saying things like this since the 70s, but I think it has been more recently that this type of ideology is being promoted on college campuses,” Garza said. “When he said this stuff, there was a very select few who accepted it. But nowadays, we have become so desensitized, and college students lacking in a moral fiber easily accept this kind of strange ideology.”

But prolife advocacy and engagement on campuses has helped turn students away from pro-choice stances, she adds.

“While the number of students who believe it is OK with killing children after birth is growing, the number of students who accept that life beings at conception is also growing, and that is growing at a larger and faster rate than those who accept infanticide,” Garza said.

“The trends I am seeing is it’s not so much students are better grounded in morals, it’s that we as a prolife movement have done our job in presenting a better argument, and we are pushing people out of the middle,” she said. “We are seeing more students who see the logic and choose to be anti-abortion.”

Yet staunch opposition to the prolife philosphy remains.

Asked about the incident at Ohio State, at which a woman responded to a prolife display by defending infanticide, a pro-abortion activism group at the campus stated its views were similar to those of the woman in the clip.

“As for post-birth abortion, I would imagine that my colleagues would think the ‘post-birth’ part was largely irrelevant, as we believe very strongly in abortion on demand, without apology, and it’s plain and simple that we should look to the woman’s morals and not shove our opinions where they, frankly, don’t belong,” Devin Deitsch, leader of VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood at Ohio State University, said in an email to The College Fix.

The Road to Armageddon
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsWhistleblower
Categories: Warning;Prophecy

Why the ancient war between Islam and the rest of the world is coming to a head.

To the outside world, the terror army called ISIS is a metastasizing cancer, a maniacal barbarian horde, a brutal Nazi-like militia that revels in beheading and crucifying Christians, raping women, murdering children and threatening to take over the Middle East – and later the world.

Its rapid recruitment of fighters, including many from America, and urgent calls for terror attacks on "infidels" everywhere make this an exceedingly dangerous time.

And yet the Obama administration, despite limited and belated efforts to "degrade" the threat militarily, hasn't even begun to come to grips with this enemy.

In reality, for many in the Muslim world, the message and mission of ISIS resonates deeply with them. In fact, it appears to herald the "End of Days," the fulfillment of Islamic divine prophecy. That's right, a recent Pew survey shows a high percentage of Muslims in the Middle East – almost 3 out of 4 in some nations – believe they will personally witness, in their lifetime, events leading to the Day of Judgment and the appearance of the Mahdi, whom they regard as an Islamic messiah who will restore Islam to greatness and perfection. Meanwhile, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghadi – whom the West regards as an uncouth barbarian warlord – holds a doctorate degree in Islamic studies and has been declared the supreme leader of the newly formed Islamic caliphate.

There is much more going on here than meets the eye. Yet, without understanding the powerful, apocalyptic – and historically Islamic – appeal of ISIS, this enemy cannot be defeated.

Sweden Recognized 'Palestine' for 'Muslim Votes'
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

Anti-Israel protest in Stockhold, Sweden

Miriam Alster/Flash 90

Former Israeli Ambassador to Canada Dr. Alan Baker, the head of the Legal Forum for Israel, on Friday explained to Arutz Sheva why the Swedish government officially recognized the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the "state of Palestine" on Thursday.

Baker, who previously served as legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, sent a message to Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven following the declaration, explaining to him that the move opposes the 1993 Oslo Accords.

"On the one hand they encourage the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and on the other hand they establish in advance the results of the negotiations," Baker told Arutz Sheva. "According to the Oslo Accords the Palestinians don't have the status of a state."

Baker posits that the recognition is a simple political act that has no juridicial meaning whatsoever, much the same as the UK's recent non-binding vote on the same issue.

"This step puts Sweden in line with states holding a hostile approach to Israel, but it has no legal meaning. It's known that the Muslims are flooding Sweden, and the prime minister needs their support," explained Baker.

The Swedish recognition has led Israel to recall its ambassador, and has also led to a string of quips, with Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman saying Thursday "the Swedish government must understand that relations in the Middle East are a lot more complex than the self-assembly furniture of IKEA and that they have to act with responsibility and sensitivity."

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom shot back "I will be happy to send him a flat pack of IKEA furniture and he will also see that what you need to put that together is, first of all, a partner. You also need to cooperate and you need a good manual."

Her comment was met by a crushing riposte from Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon, who said "it's nice to send a piece of furniture from IKEA, but when it comes with a manual in an unintelligible language and is missing screws, it doesn't help."

Steinitz: Swedish Move 'An Attack on Israel's Security'
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

Yuval Steinitz

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz on Thursday said that Sweden’s recognition of "Palestine" is “an attack on the existence and security of Israel."

Steinitz, who met with the heads of the Yesha Council, said that Sweden’s move affects the chances of achieving peace in the Middle East.

The reason for this, Steinitz explained, is that the Swedish move does not impose conditions of peace and security for Israel, of defensible borders and for Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Earlier Thursday, Sweden officially recognized the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the "state of Palestine," less than a month after the government announced its intention to make the controversial move.

"Today the government takes the decision to recognize the state of Palestine," Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said in a statement.

"It is an important step that confirms the Palestinians' right to self-determination," she said, adding that "we hope that this will show the way for others."

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman denounced the Swedish decision and, in a biting statement, said that “relations in the Middle East are a lot more complex than the self-assembly furniture of IKEA”, referring to the Swedish furniture store chain, which also has branches in Israel.

Wallstrom later responded to Liberman’s comments, telling CNN she would be “happy to send him a flat pack of IKEA furniture and he will also see that what you need to put that together is, first of all, a partner.”

Shaked: Allow Jews to Pray on the Temple Mount
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

MK Ayelet Shaked

Flash 90

MK Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) on Thursday called on the government to announce new regulations regarding Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount, as a response to the shooting of leading Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick.

Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Shaked said that Glick is an example of a human rights activist who conducts himself in a democratic manner, and criticized many of the leading Israeli media outlets that chose to describe Glick as an “extremist right-wing activist”.

"Yehuda would always ascend the Temple Mount without provocation. I hope the police will come around and let him hold tours on the Temple Mount, and that the Prime Minister will come to his senses and approve the regulations on visiting times to the Temple Mount, so that the Jews can continue to visit and pray there,” she said.

Shaked added that there is no need to change the law in order to do this, but only to sign regulations already drafted by the Deputy Minister of Religious Services Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan.

"The Prime Minister should just apply the sovereignty over Jerusalem which today, unfortunately, is being abandoned, and should, together with the Minister of Justice, sign these regulations,” she said.

"It is true that previous governments have made mistakes," added Shaked, ''but the situation is not irreversible and we should find the right balance and allow everyone to enter the Temple Mount.”

Early Thursday morning, security forces killed an Islamic Jihad terrorist, 32-year-old Mu'taz Hijazi of Abu Tor in Jerusalem, who was the prime suspect in Glick’s shooting.

According to one report, the forces tried to arrest the suspect, but were forced to shoot him after he retaliated violently.

Glick - who founded and heads the LIBA Initiative for Jewish Freedom on the Temple Mount  was shot in the chest outside the Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, after the shooter pulled up in a motorcycle or scooter and confirmed his identity before shooting. 

He had been speaking, minutes before being shot, at an event for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount that had hosted leading religious figures and MKs. Likud MK Moshe Feiglin was with Glick as he was shot. 

The Director of General Surgery Unit in Sha’arei Tzedek Hospital in Jerusalem, Prof. Petachya Reisman, said on Thursday that Glick is still not out of danger but is improving.

RAF Jets Scrambled to Meet 'Unusual' Level of Russian Bombers That Flew Close to Britain
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsExpress
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

RAF fighter jets were scrambled to meet an "unusual" level of Russian bombers that flew close by Britain.

Putin to Western Elites: Play - Time is Over
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsClubOrlov
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance. (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill's “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.

In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out. Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and political leaders.

The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.


Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition. 

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  


As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.  

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.


Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.


We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Poland is Preparing for a Potential Russian Invasion
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsBusiness Insider
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

As Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to threaten Ukraine after stealing Crimea in the spring and exerting de facto Kremlin control over much of the Donbas this summer, war worries are mounting on NATO’s eastern frontier.

New reports of Russian troop movements on the Ukrainian border this week are not reassuring to those Atlantic Alliance members who suffered Soviet occupation for decades, and still live in Moscow’s neighborhood.

Neither are Russian air force incursions into Western airspace calming nerves with their reborn Cold War antics: yesterday, NATO fighters intercepted no less than nineteen Russian combat aircraft, including several heavy bombers.

No NATO countries are more worried about Kremlin aggression than the Baltic states, with their small militaries and lack of strategic depth — countries that are frankly indefensible in any conventional sense without significant and timely Alliance assistance.

But Poland is the real issue when it comes to defending NATO’s exposed Eastern frontier from Russian aggression.

Only Poland, which occupies the Alliance’s central front, has the military power to seriously blunt any Russian moves westward. As in 1920, when the Red Army failed to push past Warsaw, Poland is the wall that will defend Central Europe from any westward movement by Moscow’s military.

To their credit — and thanks to a long history of understanding the Russian mentality better than most NATO and EU members — Warsaw announced a revised national security strategy emphasizing territorial defense this past fall, a point when the violent theft of Crimea was still just a Kremlin dream.

Eschewing future American-led overseas expeditions like those to Iraq and Afghanistan that occupied Poland’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) during the post-9/11 era, this new doctrine makes defending Poland from Eastern aggression the main job of its military.

Presciently, then-Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, contradicting optimistic European and NATO presumptions of our era that conventional war in Europe was unthinkable, stated in May 2013, “I’m afraid conflict in Europe is imaginable.”

Particularly in light of the fact that both NATO and the Obama administration rejected my advice to seriously bolster Alliance defenses in the East with four heavy brigades, including the two brigades that Warsaw explicitly asked NATO — meaning, in practice, the United States — for after this year’s Russo-Ukrainian War began in earnest, the issue of Poland’s military readiness is of considerable importance to countries far beyond its borders.

Instead of creating a militarily viable NATO tripwire that would deter Russian aggression, the Alliance, and Washington, DC, have opted for symbolic gestures — speeches, military visits, small exercises — that impress the Western media, but not the Russians.

Could Poland Resist Russia?

Simply put: Can Poland defend itself if Putin decides to move his aggression westward? Even if NATO rides to the rescue, as they would be required to under Article 5 — and that is now an “if” question to many in Warsaw — will the Polish military be able to buy sufficient time for the Alliance to come to its aid?

Notwithstanding that Poland (and Estonia) are the only “new NATO” members that take their Alliance obligations fully seriously, spending more than the required two percent of GDP on defense — a standard almost all longstanding NATO members can’t manage to meet — there are serious doubts about the ability of Poland’s armed forces to defend against a major Russian move to the West.

 There is good news. When it comes to resisting what I term Special War — that shadowy amalgam of espionage, terrorism, and subversion at which the Kremlin excels — Warsaw, with its long acquaintance with sneaky Russian games, is probably better equipped than almost any NATO country to deter and defeat Putin’s secret offensive.

The recent arrests of two Polish agents of Russian military intelligence (GRU), one of them a Polish military officer assigned to the MoD, sent a clear message to Moscow that Special War will be met with aggressive counterintelligence.

When it comes to conventional defense, however, the news from Poland appears less rosy. Despite the fact that no one questions the basic competence of the Polish armed forces, nor the impressiveness of their current defense acquisition program, there is the matter of size. 

The recent MoD announcement that it is moving thousands of troops closer to the country’s borders with Belarus and Ukraine, where any threat would emerge, is encouraging but not sufficient (thanks to the Cold War, when Poland’s Communist military was directed westward, most of its major military bases are closer to Germany than they are to the East).

Since the abandonment of conscription five years ago, a cumbersome process that caused readiness problems for some time, Warsaw’s armed forces come to only 120,000 active duty troops, with less than 48,000 in the ground forces (i.e. the army). That number is insufficient to man the army’s structure of three divisions with thirteen maneuver brigades (ten of them armored or mechanized).

A solution to this manpower shortfall was supposed to be found in the establishment of the National Reserve Forces (NSR), with 20,000 fully trained part-time volunteers who would flesh out the order of battle in a crisis.

Yet the NSR, which was announced by the MoD five years ago with much fanfare, has had considerable teething problems, with shortages of recruits and inadequate training budgets. Recent reports indicate both morale and readiness are low among NSR soldiers, who feel poorly treated by the regular military, while none dispute that the force has only recruited and trained 10,000 troops, half the target figure.

Quality can compensate for deficient quantity to an extent, and Poland’s recent acquisition of more late-model Leopard II tanks from Germany, adding to the 124 it already has, means they will be able to replace most of their Soviet-model legacy armor, and meet any Russian incursion on an equal footing in terms of quality, if not quantity.

By approximately 2020, the air force will have wholly replaced its Soviet-era helicopters, buying 150 modern airframes, while the MoD plans to purchase thirty-two late-model attack helicopters by 2022, which would pose a significant threat to Russian armor.

The "Polish Fangs"

More interesting still are plans taking shape to give Warsaw asymmetric deep-strike capabilities to resist Russian aggression. The navy and the army intend to acquire long-range missiles to counter superior Russian numbers, but the cornerstone of the deterrence concept called “Polish Fangs” by Warsaw is the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), to be carried by the air force’s F-16 fleet (the wing of forty-eight F-16’s is the backbone of Polish airpower).

Combined with drones and Poland’s excellent special operations forces, which are among the best in NATO, Warsaw believes that the American JASSM on the American F-16 will give them an important qualitative advantage over the Russians, including the ability to precisely hit targets up to 370 kilometers behind enemy lines.

Yet even the most optimistic forecasts predict that “Polish Fangs” will not be fully operational for three more years — five seems a more realistic estimate — so there is the pressing matter of deterring Putin’s rising aggression right now.

To provide additional deterrence, Warsaw is taking the remarkable step of creating home guard forces to harass the Russians in the event of occupation, a condition that Poles are only too familiar with. Unlike Ukraine, Poland plans to be prepared should Putin opt for war.

The Creation Of A Home Army

Ever since Moscow’s aggression against Kiev became overt in the spring, the Polish MoD began quietly standing up volunteer forces to bolster the armed forces, should the Russians come again. Word of this became public this week with a story in the Polish edition of Newsweek that details what’s been going on behind the scenes.

Building on shooting clubs that exist all over the country, possessing several hundred thousand members, the MoD has been supporting the establishment of paramilitary units that would bolster the army if needed. Their intent would be to counter Russian irregulars, GRU’s “little green men” that caused such havoc in Crimea a few months ago.

How many volunteers have already been enrolled is unclear, though it’s evident that the number far exceeds the 10,000 belonging to the NSR.

In late September, and explicitly invoking the legendary Home Army (Armia Krajowa — AK) that resisted Nazi occupation in the Second World War, the first volunteer unit was sworn in at Świdnik, near the eastern border, with modest public fanfare, despite the fact that the MoD considers the existence of this new shadow army to be officially classified.

Advocates of the reborn Home Army speak of finding 100,000 volunteers soon, but that seems a rather long-term goal.

While this project has attracted the support of some Polish right-wingers — the sort who tend to join rifle clubs — its MoD manager is Major General Bogusław Pacek, the director of the National Defense Academy, a veteran of Poland’s Cold War Communist military not known for dirigiste views. Pacek’s quiet enthusiasm for a new Home Army has been noted and it can be expected that before long “AK 2.0″ may constitute more than a nuisance to any invader.

This begs the question of why Poland, a leading member of the Atlantic Alliance, thinks it needs to worry about an actual Russian invasion.

In the first place, the Poles have been invaded and occupied by Moscow too many times over the centuries, including twice during the last one, to think this is just a fantasy. Putin’s harsh and threatening language gets more attention in Warsaw than just about anywhere else.

Doubting NATO

The Poles also understand that Article 5 only works as a deterrent if everyone understands that NATO will actually go to war to defend a member under threat. Here, again, recent history gives room for doubt. All of Europe was happy to sit back and watch Poland fight off the Red Army in 1920, alone, while Kremlin sympathizers in Western Europe blocked desperately needed arms shipments headed to Warsaw.

More germanely, the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 brought none of the Allied help that Poland was obligated to receive under treaty. Although both Britain and France were supposed to come to Poland’s direct military aid, they were content to declare war on Germany and essentially do nothing, letting Hitler and Stalin dismember Poland completely.

Warsaw’s war plans assumed they needed to buy time — perhaps six weeks — until the British and French arrived. That promised rescue force never came, and every Pole today knows it.

Hence NATO assurances are met with a certain skepticism in Warsaw, including — perhaps especially — in defense circles.

Then there is the touchy issue of President Obama.

The Polish Right was never enamored of him, noting with disgust how Obama in 2009 cancelled a US/NATO missile defense system in the country, a move termed a “betrayal” by Poland’s president. Making the announcement on September 17, the seventieth anniversary of Stalin’s invasion, added insult to injury.

More than a few Polish right-wingers have doubted the staying power of Obama, particularly given his youthful dislike of President Reagan, a revered figure to many Poles for his major role in ending the Cold War and regaining Poland’s freedom.

Obama’s talky dithering on foreign and defense issues and his rough dealings with America’s friends have led to Polish worries spreading well beyond the country’s right wing.

I deal regularly with Polish defense and intelligence officials, and over the last few years their doubts about Washington, DC’s courage and wisdom have mounted steadily.

Poles understand that without American leadership there is no NATO in any military sense. Since the onset of Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, those fears have multiplied and there are now many in Warsaw who wonder if Obama would really honor Article 5 in a crisis.

Yesterday I spoke with a top Polish MoD official, a man of sober and strongly pro-American views whom I’ve known for years. Referring to this week’s needless White House crisis with Israel, another American ally who has doubts about the current administration, he noted, “I didn’t need the Beltway media to tell me who the real chickens--- is.” 

"They really have no idea what they are doing,” he opined about Obama and his national security staff, “and we know it. You have no idea how many promises we’ve been given, even by the President himself, but there’s never any follow-up, it’s all talk. He thinks he’s on Oprah.”

When I asked if he thought America would come to Poland’s aid in a crisis, he said laconically, “I’d flip a coin.”

In a similar vein, a senior Polish intelligence official, another veteran of long collaboration with Washington, DC, expressed his skepticism to me.

“Is it 1939 again? I don’t know,” he explained, “but I think Obama isn’t even a Chamberlain,” citing the British prime minister who left Poland in the lurch at the beginning of World War Two.

Given such doubts, combined with Putin’s obvious desire to break the Atlantic Alliance, Poland will prepare to resist the Russians alone, while hoping and praying it does not have to.

MK Tibi: 'Jews Have No Right to Pray on Temple Mount'
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

Ahmed Tibi on Temple Mount

As violence in Jerusalem rages on and the fear of Arab riots has placed security forces on high alert, MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List) told Channel 2 in an interview to be broadcast Friday night that "the Jews have no right to pray at the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Tibi explained his words: "[allowing Jews to pray there] is a misuse of the concept of equal rights." 

"Jews are not allowed to pray at Al-Aqsa because this is a place of worship for Muslims," added Tibi. "While this is a 70-dunam site, every single meter is holy to Islam."

The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, where the Holy Temples stood before being destroyed, with Muslims building mosques on the site of the ruins centuries later.

According to MK, the Temple Mount is under the "occupation" of eastern Jerusalem, which is the reason for the recent violence there - despite the fact that it is under de facto Jordanian Waqf (Islamic trust) rule.

"Police forces control the Al-Aqsa Mosque," he noted. "If it were under Palestinian rule, there would be no such disturbances."

This is not the first time Tibi has used his position in the Knesset to attack Israel and its policies. 

Earlier in October, Tibi traveled to London to take part in a diplomatic push to urge the British parliament to recognize "Palestine" as a state. 

During the events leading up to Protective Edge through to the aftermath of the war, Tibi also took several controversial actions. 

In June he proclaimed that Hamas is "not a terror organization." And regarding the two Arab terrorists who kidnapped and murdered Israeli teens Naftali Frenkel, Eyal Yifrah and Gilad Sha'ar hy''d, Tibi, like his colleague MK Hanin Zoabi (Balad), refused to refer to them as terrorists. 

Additionally, following the recent counter-terror operation in Gaza, Tibi called on the attorney general to investigate the prime minister and defense minister for "war crimes."

Let the Headlines Speak
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsFrom the internet
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

ISIS now targeting women with guides on how to be the 'ultimate wives of jihad'
women, who Isis believe should never undertake combat roles, can contribute to jihad through "feminine manual labour" such as cooking and nursing fighters.  

FEMA conducts pandemic training in NY, NJ
Titled “2013-14 Pandemic Influenza Continuity Exercise Strategy,” the FEMA training simulates a global pandemic of influenza that spreads from person to person, including in the U.S..  

Christians outraged by orders to teach 'other faiths'
the U.K.’s official education inspector told an independent Christian school that it is out of step with “British values” prescribed by the government and must invite someone from another faith, such as a Muslim imam, to lead assemblies or it risks being closed. The threat comes amid a series of new school inspections imposed by the government in response to a “Trojan horse” scandal in which several public schools in Birmingham, England, were taken over by Muslim managers who imposed Islamic education standards.  

Jordan Threatens to Revoke Peace Treaty Over Temple Mount
Jordan's government has threatened to revoke its 1994 peace treaty with Israel after the Temple Mount was temporarily closed to both Jews and Muslims on Thursday, in an attempt to calm tensions after an Arab terrorist shot Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick.  

Houston, YOU Have a Problem!
Mayor Annise Parker crossed what some are calling a “bold red line.” In a dispute over a ballot item, city attorneys threatened 5 local pastors with subpoenas if they did not turn over all their sermons, speeches and communications such as emails and letters to their congregations related to the lawsuit. This attack on free speech and religious freedom brought immediate outrage from church leaders, Christian bloggers, conservative media and Christian attorneys dedicated to protecting these freedoms.  

First Presidential Debate in Works for Republicans
Prospective Republican White House hopefuls have been jockeying for position while helping their GOP colleagues in midterm contests from Iowa to New Hampshire in recent weeks. The list includes Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.  

Curbing immigration would be a 'disaster' Tony Blair warns as he begs Labour not to chase
TONY Blair was mocked today for pushing more voters towards Ukip after he claimed curbing immigration to Britain would be a "disaster".  

Amelia Earhart plane fragment identified
A fragment of Amelia Earhart's lost aircraft has been identified to a high degree of certainty for the first time ever since her plane vanished over the Pacific Ocean on July 2, 1937, in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator. New research strongly suggests that a piece of aluminum aircraft debris recovered in 1991 from Nikumaroro, an uninhabited atoll in the southwestern Pacific republic of Kiribati, does belong to Earhart’s twin-engined Lockheed Electra.  

Temple Rage Tensions hit new high in Jerusalem
police prepare for 'day of rage' in Jerusalem as flashpoint Temple Mount reopens; 'war between Jews and Arabs is a religious,' Arabs say.  

ECB's Visco says concrete risk of deflation cannot be ignored
The eurozone faces a real risk of deflation, with medium and long-term inflation expectations now at historically low levels, European Central Bank governing council member Ignazio Visco said on Friday. Noting that the outlook for economic growth has weakened across the euro zone, Visco, who is also governor of the Bank of Italy, said 5-10 year inflation expectations had fallen below 2 percent, the ECB's level for price stability.  

Security official: Jerusalem rioting could persist for weeks, even months
As police prepared Friday for possible violent disturbances in Jerusalem," a senior security official estimated that rioting in the capital could continue for several more weeks, if not months.  

A SCARY STORM MISSES EARTH
In July 2012, Earth had a close call with a solar superstorm, the kind of space weather event that could cause significant damage to our technological infrastructure. Fortunately, it missed. In a newly-released interview, NASA heliophysicist Lika Guhathakurta discusses what might have happened if the storm had enveloped our planet.  

Another Oklahoma earthquake recorded today
During the past seven days, the USGS recorded 21 Oklahoma earthquakes. During the past 30 days, the USGS recorded 136 earthquakes of least 2.5 magnitude, including a 4.3 magnitude quake Oct. 10 near Cushing.  

GPS back-up: World War Two technology employed
Technology developed during World War Two is to be used as a back-up for GPS. The General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA) have announced that they have installed a system called eLoran in seven ports across Britain. The GLA say many critical instruments on ships use Global Navigation Satellite Systems, and if they fail the consequences could be disastrous.  

EDF France: Inquiry after drones buzz nuclear sites
An investigation has been launched after France's state-owned EDF power company said unidentified drones had flown over seven of its nuclear plants. The first unmanned aircraft was spotted on 5 October and there had been further sightings up to 20 October, EDF said. Who is behind the drones is unclear but pressure group Greenpeace has denied any involvement.  

Burkina Faso crisis: Blaise Compaore faces new protests
Protesters are gathering for a second day in the Burkina Faso capital Ouagadougou, calling on President Blaise Compaore to resign immediately. Opposition figures used social media overnight to call for new protests. They are angry at Mr Compaore, who responded to a day of violence by saying he would stay in power for a year under a transitional government.  

Costa Rica on alert after Turrialba volcano spews ash
Costa Rica has issued an emergency alert after ash from an erupting volcano reached the capital and beyond. Turrialba volcano, some 50km (30 miles) east of San Jose, began rumbling and producing seismic activity on Wednesday night. The authorities said they were evacuating nearby residents to temporary shelters as a precaution.  

UNHRC to Israel: Probe Gaza, start working on settler evacuations
The United Nations Human Rights Committee called on Israel to probe its last three Gaza conflicts and to begin working toward evacuating West Bank... The report also called for rerouting of the security barrier to the pre-1967 lines, halt settlement activity, stop expropriation of Palestinian land and look to evacuate citizens from the West Bank and east Jerusalem.  

Security official: Jerusalem rioting could persist for weeks, even months
As police prepared Friday for possible violent disturbances in Jerusalem," a senior security official estimated that rioting in the capital could continue for several more weeks, if not months. The security official told Channel 10 that defense establishment estimates do not believe there is an order on high or an organized hierarchy behind recent disturbances in east Jerusalem.  

Poland Is Preparing For A Potential Russian Invasion
As Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to threaten Ukraine after stealing Crimea in the spring and exerting de facto Kremlin control over much of the Donbas this summer, war worries are mounting on NATO’s eastern frontier.  

Why Jerusalem’s holiest site remains a flashpoint
Fearing dangerous clashes following an assassination attempt on a right-wing rabbi advocating for greater Israeli access to Jerusalem's most contested holy precinct, Israeli authorities on Thursday took the extraordinary step of restricting access to the site — the first such closure in 14 years. Although that ban was subsequently lifted ahead of Friday's Muslim prayers, the move underscored the rising danger of confrontation as the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over the city's future continues to escalate.  

Ukraine, Russia, EU agree to natural gas supply deal
Ukraine, Russia and the European Union signed a deal on Thursday that will see Moscow resume vital supplies of gas to its ex-Soviet neighbor over the winter in return for payments funded in part by Kiev's Western creditors.  

Kerry says reported U.S. slur of Israel's Netanyahu 'damaging'
The description of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "chickenshit" by an anonymous U.S. official as quoted in a U.S. magazine this week was disgraceful and damaging, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday.  

Israel backing out of US V-22 aircraft sale
Israel's defence minister is dropping the purchase of US V-22 Osprey aircraft, raising concerns that this could further chill already frosty relations with Washington, Israel Hayom daily said Thursday.  

Obama and Mexican politicos secret pact borders on blackmail
There are allegations that the United States' leaders are all but rolling over like trained circus animals for the Mexican government because of a secret -- some claim sinister -- pact between the White House and Mexico's federal government in Mexico City, according to a knowledgeable source on Thursday.For example, growing number of Americans are asking the question of why President Barack Obama and his security team are allowing an American hero, Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, to remain a captive of a corrupt and duplicitous Mexican government  

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on 'unprecedented scale' – UN
The United Nations has warned that foreign jihadists are swarming into the twin conflicts in Iraq and Syria on “an unprecedented scale” and from countries that had not previously contributed combatants to global terrorism.  

Obama’s Midterm Loss Record Could Make History
President Barack Obama is about to do what no president has done in the past 50 years: Have two horrible, terrible, awful midterm elections in a row.In fact, Obama is likely to have the worst midterm numbers of any two-term president going back to Democrat Harry S. Truman.  

New Russian Boldness Revives a Cold War Tradition: Testing the Other Side
WASHINGTON — When the White House discovered in recent weeks that its unclassified computer systems had been breached, intelligence officials examined the digital evidence and focused on a prime suspect: Russia, which they believe is using its highly sophisticated cyber capabilities to test American defenses. But its tracks were well covered, and officials say they may never know for sure.  

Krauthammer: Netanyahu Remarks Showcase Obama's 'Incompetence'
The flap over derogatory statements made about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by an unnamed White House official shows President Barack Obama's real views, and exhibits his foreign policy "incompetence" that has been reflected in strained relations with countries around the world, Charles Krauthammer told "Fox & Friends" on Thursday.  

Officials: Dozens of Ex-Gitmo Prisoners Joining ISIS
Former Guantanamo Bay detainees may have joined up with Islamic State forces (ISIS) or other extremist groups within the Syrian border, according to senior Defense Department and intelligence officials.  

Jordan Threatens to Revoke Peace Treaty Over Temple Mount
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

Jordanian King Abdullah II, Binyamin Netanyahu

Jordan's government has threatened to revoke its 1994 peace treaty with Israel after the Temple Mount was temporarily closed to both Jews and Muslims on Thursday, in an attempt to calm tensions after an Arab terrorist shot Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick.

Mohammed Al-Momani, Jordan's Minister of Media Affairs and Communications and spokesperson for the Jordanian government, said the peace treaty is "under threat" if Israel continues "breaching" the status of the Temple Mount, Arabic-language Sky News reported, as cited by Yedioth Aharonoth.

He also threatened that Jordan had put together a plan to oppose the Israeli "breaches" on the Temple Mount and eastern Jerusalem.

The Jordanian minister criticized how Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu folded to Jordanian pressure and said he would keep the discriminatory status quo of the Temple Mount, but nevertheless closed the site on Thursday.

The closure on Thursday has already led Jordan to call Israel a "terrorist state," and despite the threat of riots and violence, police folded to the international pressure from Jordan, the US and other sources and allowed limited access on Friday - for Muslims only.

This is far from the first time Jordan has threatened to revoke the peace treaty.

Back in February, Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Nsur threatened to pull the treaty if the Knesset were to continue advancing a bill to allow Jews to pray on the Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, where the Jordanian Waqf (Islamic trust) has forbidden such prayer.

It isn't even the first time this week Jordan has made such a threat, as Jordan's ambassador to Israel Walid Obeidat on Sunday threatened the agreement was in danger after indications that Netanyahu might lift his covert freeze on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria.

Under Jordan's auspices, the Temple Mount has been the scene of anti-Semitic graffiti, the destruction of Jewish artifacts, and constant violent Arab rioting, which Jordan has condemned Israel for trying to stop.

Jordan has also been pushing in the UN Security Council to advance the Palestinian Authority's (PA) "diplomatic war" demanding Israeli withdrawals through unilateral moves.

Iran Wants All Sanctions Lifted in Final Deal
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

Bushehr nuclear reactor

Reuters

Iran wants all Western sanctions to be lifted as part of a deal on its contested nuclear program by a November deadline, a top official said Wednesday, according to AFP.

The announcement came amid intensifying efforts to conclude a definitive pact. The six powers in the talks with Iran - Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States plus Germany, known as the P5+1 - have set November 24 as the deadline after they failed to reach an agreement by a previous deadline in July.

However, the chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said an American proposal of a gradual lifting of sanctions was “unacceptable.”

“If we want a definitive accord on November 24, there must be an immediate lifting of sanctions,” he told a news conference in Paris, according to AFP.

A Western diplomat close to the negotiations with Iran on Monday said a firm deal by the deadline was highly unlikely, saying Tehran would have to make “significant gestures.”

The aim is to close avenues towards Tehran ever developing an atomic bomb, by cutting back its enrichment program, shutting down suspect facilities and imposing tough international inspections.

In return, the global community would suspend and then gradually lift crippling economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic.

But the two sides, despite long-running talks, remain far apart on how to reconcile their objectives.

Western officials have said there are still important differences between the sides, especially over the future scope of Iran's production of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic energy plants but can also provide the fissile core of a bomb if purified to a high degree.

Iran has been toughening its position, with senior negotiator Abbas Araqchi saying last week he sees no prospect for a deal unless the other side abandons its “illogical excessive demands”.

Araqchi recently indicated that nuclear talks with world powers could be extended again if no deal is reached by the November 24 deadline.

However, an American official dismissed the possibility of talks being extended yet again after November, saying there were no talks now about extending the deadline.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad Call for Palestinians to Step Up 'Resistance' Against Israel
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsThe Jerusalem Post
Categories: Today's Headlines;Antisemitism

Islamist movement controlling Gaza calls for demonstrations in coastal enclave, West Bank on Friday.

A Palestinian protester stands in front of an Israeli car set torched during clashes with Israeli security forces in east Jerusalem. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Thursday called on Palestinians to step up their “resistance” against Israel following the assassination attempt on the life of Yehuda Glick and the temporary closure of the Temple Mount.

Islamic Jihad announced that the assailant, Mu’taz Hijazi, who was killed by Israeli security forces hours after the assassination attempt, was one of its members.

The group said that the “Jerusalem intifada” will continue and praised Hijazi for carrying out his “sacred duty to defend the Aqsa Mosque.”

The group said that Israeli measures in Jerusalem would not dissuade the Palestinians from “pursuing the “path of resistance and jihad.”

Ziad al-Nakhaleh, deputy head of Islamic Jihad, said that attempt on the life of Glick “affirms the correctness of the option of resistance.”

He said that the assassination attempt in Jerusalem proves that the “resistance is the most effective and strongest option to restore the land and preserve Palestinian rights.”

Hamas, for its part, called for a “day of mobilization” on Friday in protest against the closure of the Temple Mount. It also called on Palestinians to avenge the killing of Hijazi and other Palestinians killed by the IDF and police.

The movement also called for demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Friday.

Hamas’ armed wing, Izaddin al-Qassam, welcomed the shooting of Glick and said that Jerusalem will be the trigger for “the battle of liberation.”

Abu Obaida, spokesman for the Qassam, said in a statement: “We salute the sacred hands that pulled the trigger of dignity and fired the bullets of revenge toward the Zionist criminal who desecrated the blessed Aqsa Mosque.”

Beer - Based Worship Services Explore Post-christian Fix
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsProphecy New Watch
Categories: Today's Headlines;Apostasy;Commentary

You probably know some parishioners who get drunk on Saturday night and show up for church with saintly smiles on Sunday morning—but what about those that get drunk at church on Sunday night?

I wasn't shocked when I read about a special event at a Tulsa church that includes beer. More and more churches are meeting in pubs or otherwise sanctioning a glass of suds during fellowships. But East Side Christian Church is taking the concept to a whole new level, opening the door to worship Jesus with hymns and ale in their mouths at the very same time.

Fox23.com reports the church organized "Beer and Hymns Sunday" as it kicks off a discussion about the future of the Christian church around the world. In speaking about this stunt, Evan Taylor, outreach pastor at East Side, says, "We like to rattle the cage a little bit."

"Everybody's welcome. No questions are banned. No holds barred," says Michael Riggs, senior pastor at First Christian Church of Downtown Tulsa, which is also participating in a weeklong event during which several area churches are hosting Christian Piatt, who just put out a new book called postChristian. "Just come and respect each other's opinions, and just have a good honest conversation about God while having a few beers at the same time."

Three-Beer Limit, ID Required

Apparently, there's a three-beer limit and IDs will be checked at the door. I guess that's supposed to be a safeguard of some sort but in reality three beers is quite plenty to get more than a buzz. I'm not having the teetotalism debate here, but even Christians who enjoy a beer or glass of wine now and then should be concerned about a bunch of church folk gathering on Sunday night to throw back brewskies in the name of Jesus.

Piatt is at the center of the beer-sipping stunt. I guess post-Christians drink beer in church. Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic, but why would any God-loving man or woman want to embrace a post-Christian lifestyle, which is what the title suggests to my mind. In reality, the goal of the book is to fix what's wrong with the church—and God knows there's plenty wrong with the church—but inviting the community to Sunday night worship to get an alcohol-induced buzz is not the answer. It's just not.

"People are more curious than anything," Riggs says. "It's not a big drunk fest. It's just going to a nice time to have a beer and sing some old hymns at the same time."

Call me old fashioned. I just can't wrap my mind around drinking beer and singing old hymns in church. I understand arguments about reaching the culture where they are, but not at the sake of becoming like the world. Jesus said His disciples were "not of the world" (John 17:16) and Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, cautioned us not to conform to the pattern of this world but to be renewed transformed by the renewing of our mind (see Rom. 12:2).

Culture Should Bow to Jesus

Why is it so necessary for the church and the gospel to fit into modern-day culture? Modern-day culture should not dictate the messages we preach or the outreaches we arrange. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not obligated to meet the culture where it is—the culture is obligated to bow a knee to Jesus Christ.

That doesn't mean we can't get creative in how we present the gospel or take into consideration cultural understandings. Paul said, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:19-22).

Still, we're not talking about reaching out to the Jews or the Greeks or the Muslims or the Hindus. This beer-sipping stunt is in the heartland of America—and we don't need to include alcohol to be culturally relevant, either. Also keep in mind that Paul also said, "Do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). (You could easily substitute wine with beer or hard liquor.) 

Somehow I don't think Paul invited Greeks and Jews to the temple with a three-glass-of-wine limit to hash out their philosophical differences. The point is, as Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (see 1 Cor. 10:23).

Are beer-based outreaches really edifying in the end? If we compromise the purity and holiness of the Christian faith to win souls, are we really leading them into a true salvation after the bottle of beer is empty? Or are we merely compromising the gospel in the name of soul-winning without fruit that remains?

Battle on the Mount: 3000 More Officers Deployed to Jerusalem
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;The Nation Of Israel

Arab rioters on the Temple Mount

Flash 90

About 3,000 police and Border Patrol officers were deployed to Jerusalem starting early Thursday morning, with most being placed in eastern parts of the city that seen seen most of the violence in past weeks, over concerns that Arab riots will continue to rage in the capital.

Police will also bolster their presence around the Old City alleys and near the Western Wall. 

The concern of riots follows the funeral of terrorist Mu'taz Hijazi, would-be assassin of Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick, which was held in the late hours of Thursday night. 

Glick, who founded and heads the LIBA Initiative for Jewish Freedom on the Temple Mount, was shot outside of Jerusalem's Begin Center on Wednesday night. He was rushed to Shaare Tzedek Medical Center in critical condition, where his condition has continued to improve after several surgeries.

Hijazi's funeral took place in the neighborhood of Shiloah (Silwan) in eastern Jerusalem, despite the threat of riots. It was attended by 45 family members only and was under heavy security. The funeral ended relatively quietly with the dispersion of the participants. 

Hours later, police are standing by on red alert because of the prayer services to be held on the Temple Mount.  

While the Mount was closed to both Jews and Muslims on Thursday, Jerusalem District Commander Moshe (Chico) Edri bowed to international pressure to re-open the Mount to Muslims on Friday. 

However, after the Jerusalem police received intelligence about the intentions of young Arabs to riot at the end of Friday's prayers, Edri decided than only men over the age of 50 will be able to pray on the Temple Mount. Women of any age are also allowed to enter. 

Preparing for the "day of rage"

Leading to the heightened alert on Friday is that fact that on Thursday, Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction called for an official "day of rage" in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, while praising the assassination attempt on Glick. 

The official website of the recruitment department of Fatah expressed outrage at the killing of the terrorist, which they say is "illegal assassination" by Israeli security forces. Hijazi was killed in a shootout with police, as he tried to resist arrest.

Fatah Secretary-General in Jerusalem, Adnan Ghaith, told the Palestinian Arab Ma'an News Agency that the police's killing of Hijazi, without offering him the possibility to defend himself against evidence, is "an act of terrorism."

Arab Rioters Vow: 'It's An Intifada, We Won't be Stopped'
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsArutz Sheva
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

Arab rioters shoot firework in Jerusalem

Hadas Parush/Flash 90

What is going on in the head of a young Arab rioter engaged in the "silent intifada" of terror attacks against Jews in Jerusalem? That's the question AFP apparently sought to answer in a series of interviews with Arab terrorists in the capital city.

Hisham, a fourteen-year-old rioter born around the start of the Second Intifada, "dreams of a new uprising" according to the news source. Ironically, it has been noted Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas recently echoed calls for that 2000 intifada by encouraging terror using the Temple Mount as a trigger.

"All the young people go in and out of prison on a regular basis," revealed Hisham, speaking about the rampant lawlessness and violence permeating the Arab population of Jerusalem. There are roughly 230,000 Arabs in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and around 200,000 Jews.

Hisham recently was recently in jail for a week, his first and likely not last arrest, for his part in the violent riots attacking police in the capital.

But jail time is not enough to stop the Arab rioters, AFP found.

Mohammed (20) told them after his recent four month stint behind bars for his role in the violence that he would not be stopped from returning to terrorism.

"It's an intifada, there are no peaceful solutions"

"There's no peace in Jerusalem. It's an intifada," Mohammed declared. "I'm ready to go back and confront the Israeli soldiers. I can't bear seeing settlers on the (Al-Aqsa) mosque compound, when Muslims aren't allowed in."

The rioter apparently was incorrectly referring to the closure of the Temple Mount on Thursday, which in fact applied to both Jews and Muslims following the assassination attempt on Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick. However, Muslims reportedly were let on the site where they promptly proceeded to riot, something that has become an epidemic at the site.

Police folded to international pressure on Thursday night and let the site reopen on Friday - for Muslims only - but only for men over the age of 50 and all women. Meanwhile Jews have been forbidden from praying at the site by the Jordanian Waqf (Islamic trust) which still enjoys de facto control of the Mount.

Backing Mohammed's assessment was Salah, a 23-year-old resident of the Issawiya neighborhood that has been a hotbed of terrorism.

Salah does "not believe in dialogue or peaceful solutions." He further said "Israel wants to kick Palestinians out of Jerusalem. It's a religious, demographic conflict and they attack houses and now Al-Aqsa."

Despite the clear statement from the street that there are no "peaceful solutions," US Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday called for a return to peace talks after his last attempt was torpedoed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in April, and went on to demand Israel open access to the Temple Mount for Muslims.

Africa's Fourth - Largest Gold Producer is Facing a Possible Military Coup
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsBusiness Insider
Categories: Today's Headlines;Contemporary Issues

OUAGADOUGOU (Reuters) - Burkina Faso's President Blaise Compaore said on Thursday he would stay in power at the head of a transitional government until after elections, rejecting opposition calls for him to step down immediately following a day of violent protests.

The head of the armed forces, General Honore Traore, had earlier dissolved parliament and announced talks with all political parties to create an interim government to take the West African country to democratic elections within a year.

The move came after at least three protesters were shot dead and scores wounded in clashes with security forces as demonstrators attacked the homes of senior members of the ruling party and symbols of Compaore's long rule.

Hundreds of people had earlier stormed parliament, looting the building and setting it on fire, while others ransacked state television, forcing it off the air.

Protests also gripped Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina's second-largest city, and other towns across the gold and cotton-producing country.

"I have heard the message, understood it and taken note of strong desire for change," Compaore said in a statement broadcast on BF1 TV. "I am available to open talks on a transitional period at the end of which I will hand over power to the democratically elected president."

Compaore, who seized power in a military coup in 1987, said he had dissolved his government and was lifting martial law that was announced earlier in the day.

He also scrapped plans for an unpopular constitutional amendment that would have allowed him to seek reelection next year, a prospect that had sparked Thursday's protests.

Regional West African bloc ECOWAS had said earlier on Thursday that it would not accept any party seizing power through non-constitutional means - suggesting diplomatic pressure to leave Compaore in place.

A delegation from the African Union, the United Nations and ECOWAS was due in Burkina Faso on Friday to hold talks with all parties involved.

"BLAISE LEAVE"

Protesters had faced off with security forces for several hours outside the presidential palace as opposition leaders held talks with senior military officials in an attempt to ease Compaore from power.

Both opposition politicians and ordinary demonstrators made it plain they did not want any role for Compaore in a transition.

"We want Blaise Compaore to leave. We want change," said George Sawadogo, a 23-year-old student.

The fate of Compaore, a close military ally of the United States and former colonial power France, will be closely watched by other governments across West and Central Africa, where a number of long-serving leaders are reaching the end of their constitutional terms.

Burkina Faso is one of the world's poorest nations but has positioned itself as a mediator in regional crises. It is also a key ally in Western operations against al Qaeda-linked groups in West Africa.

White House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan had earlier said in a statement that the United States was deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in Burkina Faso and called on all parties to end the violence and respect democratic norms.

France, which has a special forces base there that conducts operations across the Sahel, also appealed for restraint by all sides. Its ambassador had held talks with opposition leaders on Thursday.

 CONCERN ABOUT PROSECUTION

Compaore has ruled the nation with a firm grip but has faced increasing criticism in recent years, including defections by members of his party. He weathered a military and popular uprising in 2011 thanks to the support of his elite presidential guard.

Diplomatic pressure had mounted over the past year for Compaore to step down in 2015, amid calls from his own entourage for him to seek re-election, diplomats said.

A letter from French President Francois Hollande to Compaore earlier this month, seen by Reuters, offered France's support in finding him a job with an international organization.

Diplomats, however, say Compaore has been concerned about the possibility of losing his immunity from prosecution, particularly in the wake of the trial of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor in the Hague.

Burkina Faso's former president Thomas Sankara, a leftist leader dubbed Africa's Che Guevara, was killed in the coup that swept Compaore to power. Protesters in the streets of Ouagadougou waved photographs of Sankara and signs reading, "Sankara look at your sons. We are fighting your fight."

At the headquarters of state television, which was forced off the air after the building was taken, jubilant protesters posed on the set of the evening news program.

Burkina Faso, the fourth-largest gold producer in Africa, is home to several international mining firms including TrueGold <TGV.M>, IamGold <IMG.TO> and Randgold Resources <RRS.L>.

“There’s been no impact on our operations whatsoever,” said Doug Reddy, senior vice president for business development at Endeavour Mining <EDV.TO>, which has a mine near the southern border with Ghana. "Obviously, we’re monitoring the situation and we’re keeping in touch with our people in the mine."

'Stay in Australia ... Behead People': Islamic State 'plot' Prompted U.S. Security Fears
Oct 31st, 2014
Daily NewsThe Sydney Morning Herald
Categories: Today's Headlines;War

Khaled Sharrouf left Australia to fight for the Islamic State group.

Los Angeles: The alleged Islamic State terror plot to kidnap and behead an Australian was partly responsible for the decision to ramp up security at US government buildings, according to a high-ranking congressman.

Mike Rogers, the chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News that 14 Australian IS recruits were "ready to go to Syria" at the time and "further their radicalisation".

But Mr Rogers said the recruits were told to stay in Australia. The senior Republican politician said the note back from IS said: "No, No. What we want you to do, stay in Australia. We want you to randomly kidnap people off the street, behead them, videotape it, send it to us for further propaganda."

Abdullah Elmir from Bankstown has also left Australia to fight with the Islamist fanatics.

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security boosted security at 9500 federal buildings across the US. Mr Rogers linked the alleged IS Australian beheading plot and other intelligence to the security boost.

Advertisement

"They wanted to have a high-profile event in a Western country," he said.

"They wanted to show that they could reach out and strike a Western country, which is why we believe now you see all of this activity - Canada, the United States, across Europe, Germany, France, Spain, because they're actively working at trying to find an event that happens in a Western country that they can take credit for."