Are We At A Turning Point?

 

 

A Current News Analysis 

 

 

And

 

 

 

 

A WARNING

 

 

 

 

By

R.A. Coombes

Publisher of

The Alpha-Omega Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Tidbits and Puzzle Pieces

 

 

 

 

In recent weeks, we’d begun to pick up tidbits of information from a broad spectrum of sources that something was amiss within the Bush administration regarding policy towards Iran. These tidbits primarily ranged from news stories in the mainstream and alternative online media outlets not just related to Iran but also to politics and to business and or economic aspects indicating that something like an internal “earthquake” was occurring within the Bush inner circle of advisors.

Much of this included reports that the “neo-cons” were beginning to fall out of favor with Bush. There were also reports that the President’s father, former President Bush was also advising the current President on various matters. The former President himself admitted this in a recent TV interview on Larry King Live a few weeks ago.  There have also been “insider” political rumors from the bureaucrats and politicos in Washington, indicating that the President was opening up a bit more to outsider sources.
The latest developments include some of the more infamous “neo-cons” now publicly criticizing the President for a whole host of issues ranging from mishandling of the Iraq war and occupation to his mishandling now of the Iranian crisis and last summer’s Lebanon war.  

As we put these puzzle pieces into place, we begin to recognize that the Bush administration and Bush himself is beginning to realize that now is not the time to be attacking Iran. We doubt that Bush or anyone close to him relayed our earlier A-O articles warning of the Biblical Prophecies concerning Iran and “mystery Babylon.” Instead, we suspect that after reviewing new intelligence assessments after the Lebanon war Bush came to realize that Iran could create unacceptable damage in retaliation.

Iranian War Postponed by White House?

As a result of that suspected conclusion, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Bush administration plans for pre-emptive military action against Iran have been put on hold, at least for the time being.

We’d heard initially after the Lebanon conflict, that Bush had put a temporary hold on a late summer or early fall pre-emptive strike in order to reassess Iran’s strengths, capabilities and resolve as well as re-evaluate any US weaknesses that might be exploitable by Iran during any such hostilities. Of course, there were also the political aspects related to the midterm elections. Initially, we understood the likely time frame for pre-emptive action would be after the elections and probably early in 2007 but perhaps even delayed until late spring or early summer of 2007.  

Of course these speculations were countered by other mainstream media reports that were like a drumbeat for war with Iran. The news media began to report on how bad Iran really was and made a point to focus on the latest crazy rhetoric coming from Tehran by the Iranian crazies running the government.

There was also the issue of Iraq bloodletting and US troop vulnerabilities to any Iranian counterattack using Iraqi Shiite surrogates. The Iraqi violence seemed to be worsening and indications were coming forward that Iran was playing a vital role in covertly stirring up trouble. Such developments were hurting Bush politically. The last thing he needed politically was more problem news stories coming out of Iraq that could spell trouble in the midterm elections.

 

 

 

 

 

Dad To The Rescue 

Combine this was advice from “Daddy Bush” and “Daddy’s” old administration buddies like James Baker and its most likely that Bush began to realize the folly of pursuing pre-emptive military action any time soon. Yet, Bush and his inner circle realized it was best not to let on as though the administration was not prepared to act anytime soon against Iran.  Then along comes the North Korean nuclear test. Here again, one more reason to become cautious in considering what actions to take against Iran.  

Keep in mind that Bush, being the oil man that he is and has been is not averse to hostilities or tensions that might trigger a price spike in oil prices, yet at the same time realizing that a spike to $200 would cause major political problems going into midterm elections. Of course, too, hostilities that might cause such a spike would inevitably involve major damages to oil installations that might cost the loss of oil itself. Perish that thought.  

As October progressed, political opinion polls showed the President’s political party and Republican party control of Congress in danger, it became incumbent to forget about the possibility of military action any time soon, yet a display of military power might be a good bluff to use.

Therefore, the administration ordered up some show of force to keep Iran and the world wondering what Bush was really planning. Naval exercises were utilized to keep Iran guessing. The Bush team however didn’t apparently count on Iran responding with its own sudden war games last week which Iran used to impress Bush and US military planners with a demonstration of Iran’s capability to inflict serious harm to Israel, Europe as well as to US forces stationed in Iraq and the Gulf region.

 

 

 

 

Withdrawal From Iraq First?

Earlier in October, we understand that the Bush team had already concluded that before Iran is to be dealt with, US forces in Iraq must be withdrawn in order to prevent unacceptable losses that could put the last two years of the Bush presidency into dire political straits. Thus, we have many reasons for Bush to forestall any military adventure against Iran anytime soon. Additionally, Bush and his advisors figured it would be better to await Iran’s own election in mid-December of Iran’s Council of Elders.

Should the radicals take effective control of that governing body, the EU nations and the rest of the world would likely be inclined to agree that a joint global operation should be undertaken to stop Iran. Thus, we have another reason for delaying hostilities against Iran in 2006.  As it now stands, we’re picking up other “insider” reports that Bush has at least for now decided not to launch any military operations against the Shiite. These reports might be a ruse to throw of Iranian preparedness but we tend to doubt this, due in part to all the various puzzle pieces that we’ve mentioned previously.
 

Another indicator is the position of US Naval forces. In fact, this seems to be the dead give away that bush has issued a “stand down” at least temporarily from any Iranian military operation. The USS Enterprise, one of America’s early and premier nuclear aircraft carriers which had been stationed inside the Persian Gulf has been pulled out and ordered home at the end of its 6-month tour of duty in the Gulf.   

 

Moving Military Chess Pieces  

If the Bush administration were truly contemplating action against Iran, any time soon, the Enterprise would not likely have been ordered back to its home port for rotation. Also, the Enterprise did not remain on station until its replacement, the USS Eisenhower arrived in the Gulf, but left with out the Eisenhower arriving on station as its replacement. This suggests that perhaps Bush has finally realized that the Persian Gulf is but like a mere pond and a potential death trap for any US carrier battle group so vulnerable to some of Iran’s most sophisticated anti-ship missiles like the Kh-55 “Sunburn” missiles for which the US apparently has no ready anti-missile defense capable of stopping the Sunburn.  The departure of the Enterprise strike group is but one aspect tipping us off to the conclusion that no imminent action is being contemplated.  See Link for location.

 

The US Navy’s webpage stating current locations of warships at sea shows the USS Eisenhower located somewhere in the Arabian Sea. As you will see from the map, the Arabian Sea is not the Persian Gulf. See link below for US Navy webpage statement for not only Eisenhower’s location but also for map of Arabian Sea. US Navy webpage listing location here. Link. See link for map, here. 

If you will note on the US Navy’s location page for its ships, the only listed ships on location in the Persian Gulf are the LHA – USS Saipan a landing helicopter assault warship and the  LSD – USS Comstock which is a landing ship dock warship designed to assist in landing US Marines conducting amphibious beach landing operations. Both ships are part of the USS Boxer Amphibious Strike Group.

The USS Saipan provides additional helicopter support with the USS Comstock. The USS Boxer is currently located in the Arabian Sea while another ship from the Boxer Strike Group, the USS Dubuque another amphibious landing support ship remains in the Indian ocean. These ships just finished participating in the joint naval maneuvers with India’s navy and a Canadian warship in “Exercise Malabar.”  

As we understand it, the USS Saipan and Comstock are likely now in position to defend the islands in the Strait of Hormuz from any potential Al Qaeda terrorist strike against oil facilities in the region as well as against any attempts by Iran to seize the Straits of Hormuz and seal off oil shipments. We suspect that a few miles away is the USS Boxer just outside the Straits of Hormuz also joining in similar guard duty. The Iwo Jima Strike Group which was located in the Persian Gulf has now been pulled back to the Gulf of Aden near the Red Sea.

  

At this time, there are no actual aircraft carriers operating in the Persian Gulf. We conclude that for now, the Pentagon and the White House have elected to keep a lowered profile in the Gulf and keep its primary capital ships and support vessels out of range of Iranian anti-ship missiles. Only the USS Saipan and the USS Comstock are cruising within range of Iran’s deadly missiles as a deterrent to any attempted terrorist or special forces operations by enemy combatants which might try to either seize or destroy vital oil installations in the region or seize vital islands in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

 

 

 

We're Not Alone In Our Assessment  

 

 

We are not alone in concluding that the Bush administration is standing down from an immediate confrontation with Iran. UPI’s Editor at large, Arnaud de Borchegrave has noted this also in comments made on Friday, November 3, 2006. He writes:

“More likely, Bush's thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz, the channel for two fifths of the world's oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 almost overnight.” The UPI editor at large also notes comments made by some of the neo-cons, such as Michael Ledeen, suggests that Bush has for the moment disregarded neo-con advice about attacking Iran. See link. Also, the British newspaper, The Guardian notes the displeasure of the neo-cons who are also unhappy with Bush’s failures to heed their advice. Link.

 

 In addition to these developments, we’re getting information suggesting that the White House has dispatched envoys to key allies in the Middle East in recent days indicating that the United States will pull US military forces out of Iraq and redeploy its troops to other locations in the region to protect oil installations throughout the region, including a return to Iraq if necessary to protect vital oil installations only.  

These reports, if true, once again reconfirm our earlier suspicions and the related indications that the Bush administration “finally gets it” in regards to taking action against Iran by first getting needless targets out of harm’s way from Iranian retaliatory counter-attacks in the event of a US or Israeli Pre-emptive strike.   

However, by virtue of leaving Iraq, the US gives up airbases that could be used by the U.S. or Israel in pre-emptive air strikes. This is especially significant in the case of an Israeli pre-emptive strike because without those Iraqi airbases, Israel has no way of refueling its aircraft that might conduct strikes against Iranian targets. Therefore, we conclude that there are no longer any plans by either the United States or Israel to conduct pre-emptive air strikes against Iran. 

 

 

Bush Policy Versus Biblical Prophecy  

 

The only military action that President Bush might take against Iranian nuclear installations would be to conduct ICBM nuclear missile strikes that would leave Iran a sea of glass good only for use as a nuclear parking lot. However, in doing so, Iran’s oil would be forever useless due to radiation. Also, the fallout from such an attack would endanger neighboring nations including Russia and China. Neither nation would take too kindly to such a result and would likely trigger their own nuclear retaliation against the United States.  Such a response, combined with the fact that such a development would forever make Biblical Prophecy incapable of fulfillment means that God would likely intervene to make sure Iran fulfills her role as a participant in the Magog war and her own eventual doom by supernatural means from the direct hand of God.  In other words, God would protect Iran, not because Iran is on God’s side but simply because Iran is to become an object lesson to the Universe to not mess with God’s chosen people. As such, America has no business trying to do God’s work for Him. He reserves that right to Himself at His own appointed time, not a time chosen by an American President or any other nation’s leaders. This same holds true for Israel. God cannot nor will not permit Israel to “nuke” Iran from the face of the earth either.

 

 

 

     WARNING:  

 

Christians Beware


Persecution Is Coming   

 

Conclusions In Light of Biblical Prophecy  

 

 

The Coming Martyrdom of American Christians 

 

 

 

 

So what then are we to conclude about the overall issues of Biblical Prophecy fulfillment and where we are currently at on God’s timeline?  It is my personal suspicion, subject to change, but at the moment, I’m beginning to suspect that we are most likely a long ways off from the beginning of the Tribulation period and the rise of the Antichrist.  In fact, I suspect that the last of all Biblical timing theories not yet disproven by time is the only alternative.

The theory to which I refer is the 2,000 year “Church-age”  theory. This theory marks a 2,000 year period from the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as being the length of the Church age minus or plus the Tribulation period of nearly 7 years duration.  

This theory then would suggest that the Tribulation events described in the Revelation to John, would begin perhaps around 2020 to 2033. That means we would likely be thirteen to twenty years away from such fulfillments. This does not mean that a pre-trib rapture is necessarily that far off in time, but it is the more likely time frame, IF, and I do repeat, IF my suspicions are correct, and they may not be.

Part of my reasoning, aside from what has already been stated, is that Revelation 17:6 along with Revelation 18:24 indicate that the “harlot” of Babylon is “drunk” with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ and of others killed by the harlot. 

Rev 17:6 

And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 

Rev 18:24 

And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

In my two-volume work: “America, The Babylon,” I present strong evidence that America already has much blood on her hands from the genocide of the American Indians, also of unjust and unprovoked wars such as the Mexican and Spanish-American wars, plus the American Civil War and also the Holocaust of World War 2. Dr Antony Sutton’s work shows proof that America’s political and banking establishment, (the Illuminati leaders) controlled and ordered Hitler’s Holocaust. [See the book: “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler” by Dr. Antony Sutton.]

Furthermore Sutton in another documented book documents these same leaders as being responsible for and controlling Russia’s Joseph Stalin and his genocide of 20 to 40 Christians and Jews plus Red China’s Mao Tse-Tung’s genocide of up to 60 million Chinese Christians in 1948 and subsequent years thereafter.  It would seem that such numbers should be sufficient for the fulfillment of Revelation 17:6 and 18:24 and well they might.

However, new laws are taking effect in America including recent laws signed by Bush allowing dictatorial control and arbitrary power to decide that any US citizen can be deemed a terrorist or enemy of the state including genuine Christians.  It seems to me, that if we are a dozen to twenty years away from the Tribulation period, there is plenty of time for a totalitarian America to become the “killing field” of many more American Christians.

I know this seems hard for American Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to believe but it is certainly now within the realm of possibilities given the current state of affairs by way of these nefarious new laws enacted all in the name of Homeland Security.  

As Christians around the world, we are all facing a time of probably persecution and torture unparalleled in human history at the wrathful hand of an angry Satan. Now some of you might argue that 1^st Thessalonians 5:9 …

 

 

  “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,”  

 

Please note that this verse does NOT mean that the Church will not undergo persecution and torture. Indeed, after this was written, the early church went through great persecution at the hand of the Roman Empire. This verse refers only to God’s Divine, Supernatural wrath. It does not rule out the wrath of Satan against the Church.

Indeed, the prophecies concerning the Harlot indicate that the Harlot of Babylon will kill many Christian believers. It had been thought by many that this passage refers only to Tribulation saints and not to the Church. However that is an assumption based upon what I believe to be the false theory that there is only one judgment of Babylon and that it comes at the end of the Tribulation period and that the passage only relates to Christians killed during the Tribulation period.  

Again, citing my two-volume work: “America, The Babylon” – I point out that there are two, distinctly different judgments upon Babylon and the Harlot. The first is a fiery judgment in which Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 along with Revelation 17:16 and 18:8-19 indicate a fiery judgment resulting in desert-like conditions for an indeterminate period of time. Yet Jeremiah 51: 42, 55, & 64 along with Revelation 18:21 indicate a watery judgment in which Babylon sinks forever beneath the ocean waves never to rise again. You can’t have both desert and an ocean sea bed at the same time.

 

 

 

The Double Judgment of Babylon 

Keep in mind also that Revelation 18:6 indicates a “double-judgment” or two judgments against Babylon. The first judgment will occur by fire resulting in desert-like conditions for an indeterminate period of time. Revelation 17:12-14 indicates that this first, fiery judgment comes upon Babylon as the Antichrist comes to power as the 10 “horns” vote power to the Beast or the Antichrist. That meeting takes place in one hour of one day, the same hour and day that the Harlot of 17:16 is destroyed by fire.

Thus, the first judgment takes place and triggers the rise to power of the Antichrist and therefore, Babylon’s first destruction comes before the Tribulation period begins and if that is the case, the Harlot has indeed been killing a lot of Christians and Saints prior to the rise of the Antichrist. This means, that it is indeed possible for Babylon-America to kill still more Christians, perhaps and probably American Christians between now and the time when the Antichrist rises unless The Lord returns first to rescue the Saints long before the Antichrist rises to power and the Tribulation begins. In other words, there is the possibility that if the Lord tarries much longer, you and I and other genuine believers may face a martyr’s death at the hands of the Harlot of Babylon.  

Are you prepared to face such a fate? You had better face up to such a possibility, because conditions are now developing to the point wherein, we who are genuine believers, resting by grace through faith alone on the cross-work, substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ will likely see such persecution within months or at best a few short years should the Lord tarry.

 

 

 

 

 

Gun-Toting Christians Will Trigger Martyrdom & Persecution

 

With all of the recent scandals within the “Church” the unbelieving world is growing tired of Christians and hypocrisy and crass “evangelism” techniques. The “War on Terror” has created a backlash against any type of religious fundamentalism. Initially the backlash is focused upon Muslim fanatics but there is within “Christianity” an element that is equally promoting violent behavior.

This includes the Christian reconstructionist, and Christian Dominionism plus other Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups who have a pre-millennial viewpoint but misunderstand that as Believers we are not to take up arms against the Antichrist and fight a violently physical war against the Satanically controlled governments and New World Order.

 It is that type of violent responses that will enable the New World Order to rally the secular world to demand the outlawing of Christianity and the genocide of anyone proclaiming faith in Jesus Christ. 

New World Order to rally the secular world to demand the outlawing of Christianity and the genocide of anyone proclaiming faith in Jesus Christ. 

There is a British Evangelical group (composed of one million members) that has just made headlines in asserting the concept that it is right for Christians to violently overthrow a government that outlaws Christianity or enacts laws that negate certain Christian doctrines. A British newspaper covering this story has responded by branding Evangelical Christians as no different, than the radical Muslim terrorists such as Al Qaeda. See the link to this story here.  

This notion merely plays into the hands of the Illuminist-New World Order crowd looking for an excuse to foment humanity’s rejection of Jesus Christ by virtue of His alleged adherents.

This British evangelical group cites it as a duty to take up arms against evil governments that propose to outlaw Christianity or Christian dogma.

 

 

 

 

Early Church Didn't Wield Swords Against Rome  

I ask the following question. If this is the case, why did the Apostles, the Disciples of Jesus Christ and the early church fathers fail to stand up and fight the Roman persecution? The reason is because genuine Christians are not supposed to take up arms and overthrow the New World Order of the Antichrist or any national government no matter how evil or awful the situation. We fight spiritual warfare by spiritual means not with physical weapons. We prepare to be led as lambs to the slaughter just as our Lord and just as the early church and the Apostles.  

Will you stand firm in the faith or will you wilt under such persecution? Will you swallow the heresy and try to take up arms and physically fight the forces of the Antichrist instead of obeying Christ and taking up your cross own cross for martyrdom?  Taking up arms against the forces of Satan and his government will only harm the gospel of Jesus Christ, not protect it. Taking up the sword only creates a misunderstanding of the Gospel and hides the truth of salvation by grace through faith, so that the bullets of Christian ‘terrorists” only serves to hide the truth of salvation.

 

 

 

 

 

Think About This

 

 

 

 

Martyrdom Is Greater Testimony Than Revolting With Guns  

 

We can only serve the cause of the Gospel by willingly offering ourselves up as martyrs not as revolutionaries. IF this concept is appalling to you, give careful thought to the ramifications of taking up the sword and how it can assist in destroying what your’re supposed to be protecting, advocating and promoting – salvation. By trying to save yourself you only dishonor the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in the end you lose your life anyway. Think about it.