Why Would Syria Use Chemical Weapons Now?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about trying to understand why Syria would use chemical weapons. This follows this post about  poverty in the U.S. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Why Would Syria Use Chemical Weapons Now?




by Mitchell Moss



Alleged victims of a 2012 Syrian chemical attack seen in a screen capture from a YouTube video uploaded by Syrian rebels.



Source: The Times of Israel

Last week, news reports broke that the regime of Syria's president Bashar al Assad apparently used chemical weapons in a massacre of civilians on a scale not yet seen in that country's two-year-long civil war. A year ago, U.S. president Obama drew a red line , stating that if Syria used them, America would recalculate its plans for dealing with the violent government crack-down on rebels attempting to overthrow the regime. Up to then, and to this day, he hasn't made any moves to intervene. The international community has likewise kept its distance.

Puzzlingly, the attack came at a time when United Nations weapons inspectors had been invited into the country. Those inspectors now on the ground will be reviewing the scene of the attack and if it confirms chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime, global support for stronger action will be almost unanimous. We'll find out what that stronger action looks like. Analysis of the situation exposes a precarious position—if America strikes, what's to stop Syria from retaliating by launching an attack on Israel? One of Syria's most loyal allies, Iran, has warned that an attack on Syria would lead to such an attack. If Syria does that, Israel will undoubtedly hit back with a barrage of its own. At that point, not to be dramatic, we're looking at the possibility of World War III.

But it all begs the question of "Why?" Assuming Assad launched a chemical attack on his own citizens, why would he do so right at the moment weapons inspectors are arriving, and why now after more than two years of uprising? A New York Times piece seeks to answer this question, and does a good job at explaining many possible reasons. Many of the reasons put forth in that piece could certainly be true and be factors.

But another explanation that I think could very well be a large part of all this turmoil is that there is a great struggle going on in the spirit realm. We know that the spirit realm, although unseen, is involved in human affairs—the story of Job, the angels of the churches in Revelation, the angels pouring out different events in the end time, etc. In another example and a fascinating passage of scripture, an angel appeared to Daniel the prophet and told him that he had been sent to see Daniel earlier, but was delayed for three weeks by the prince of the kingdom of Persia (Daniel 10). He was unable to overcome the prince of Persia until one of the chief princes of God, Michael, came to his aid. Clearly the princes referred to are angels or fallen angels. With regard to the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece (verse 20), those are evidently spirit rulers over these empires under the chief of demons, Satan the Devil. Apparently, there are spirits who rule over different nations, and the spiritual battles between them manifest themselves physically in our realm.

The latest attacks on the people of Syria presumably by their own leader, Bashar al Assad, make no logical sense. But if we look at things through the lens that there are spiritual forces at work who perhaps are eager to see a spiral downward into massive global war, things begin to come into focus.

As always, we should be praying for God to speed the day of his coming while drawing closer to Him in our lives, perfecting our character as Christians. And that He will protect us in the times of danger ahead.

Obama's Bluff

A timely post about from www.Stratfor.com about the U.S. President’s rational for war against Syria. This follows this post about the Real Butler. This follows this post about Virginia Dare, an interesting historic figure. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Obama's Bluff


Geopolitical Weekly

Stratfor

By George Friedman

Images of multiple dead bodies emerged from Syria last week. It was asserted that poison gas killed the victims, who according to some numbered in the hundreds. Others claimed the photos were faked while others said the rebels were at fault. The dominant view, however, maintains that the al Assad regime carried out the attack.

The United States has so far avoided involvement in Syria's civil war. This is not to say Washington has any love for the al Assad regime. Damascus' close ties to Iran and Russia give the United States reason to be hostile toward Syria, and Washington participated in the campaign to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Still, the United States has learned to be concerned not just with unfriendly regimes, but also with what could follow such regimes. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have driven home the principle that deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. In those cases, changing the regime wound up rapidly entangling the United States in civil wars, the outcomes of which have not been worth the price. In the case of Syria, the insurgents are Sunni Muslims whose best-organized factions have ties to al Qaeda.

Still, as frequently happens, many in the United States and Europe are appalled at the horrors of the civil war, some of whom have called on the United States to do something. The United States has been reluctant to heed these calls. As mentioned, Washington does not have a direct interest in the outcome, since all possible outcomes are bad from its perspective. Moreover, the people who are most emphatic that something be done to stop the killings will be the first to condemn the United States when its starts killing people to stop the killings. People would die in any such intervention, since there are simply no clean ways to end a civil war.

Obama's Red Lines

U.S. President Barack Obama therefore adopted an extremely cautious strategy. He said that the United States would not get directly involved in Syria unless the al Assad regime used chemical weapons, stating with a high degree of confidence that he would not have to intervene. After all, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has now survived two years of civil war, and he is far from defeated. The one thing that could defeat him is foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. It was therefore assumed he wouldn't do the one thing Obama said would trigger U.S. action.

Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes. It is possible that the casualties were far less than claimed. And it is possible that some of the pictures were faked.

All of these things are possible, but we simply don't know which is true. More important is that major governments, including the British and French, are claiming knowledge that al Assad carried out the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech Aug. 26 clearly building the case for a military response, and referring to the regime attack as "undeniable" and the U.S. assessment so far as "grounded in facts." Al Assad meanwhile has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to examine the evidence onsite. In the end, those who oppose al Assad will claim his supporters concealed his guilt, and the insurgents will say the same thing if they are blamed or if the inspectors determine there is no conclusive evidence of attacks.

The truth here has been politicized, and whoever claims to have found the truth, whatever it actually is, will be charged with lying. Nevertheless, the dominant emerging story is that al Assad carried out the attack, killing hundreds of men, women and children and crossing the red line Obama set with impunity. The U.S. president is backed into a corner.

The United States has chosen to take the matter to the United Nations. Obama will make an effort to show he is acting with U.N. support. But he knows he won't get U.N. support. The Russians, allies of al Assad and opponents of U.N.-based military interventions, will veto any proposed intervention. The Chinese -- who are not close to al Assad, but also oppose the U.N.-sanctioned interventions -- will probably join them. Regardless of whether the charges against al Assad are true, the Russians will dispute them and veto any action. Going to the United Nations therefore only buys time. Interestingly, the United States declared on Sunday that it is too late for Syria to authorize inspections. Dismissing that possibility makes the United States look tough, and actually creates a situation where it has to be tough.

Consequences in Syria and Beyond

This is no longer simply about Syria. The United States has stated a condition that commits it to an intervention. If it does not act when there is a clear violation of the condition, Obama increases the chance of war with other countries like North Korea and Iran. One of the tools the United States can use to shape the behavior of countries like these without going to war is stating conditions that will cause intervention, allowing the other side to avoid crossing the line. If these countries come to believe that the United States is actually bluffing, then the possibility of miscalculation soars. Washington could issue a red line whose violation it could not tolerate, like a North Korean nuclear-armed missile, but the other side could decide this was just another Syria and cross that line. Washington would have to attack, an attack that might not have been necessary had it not had its Syria bluff called.

There are also the Russian and Iranian questions. Both have invested a great deal in supporting al Assad. They might both retaliate were someone to attack the Syrian regime. There are already rumors in Beirut that Iran has told Hezbollah to begin taking Americans hostage if the United States attacks Syria. Russia meanwhile has shown in the Snowden affair what Obama clearly regards as a hostile intent. If he strikes, he thus must prepare for Russian counters. If he doesn't strike, he must assume the Russians and Iranians will read this as weakness.

Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line. It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance. Obama's problem is that the majority of the American people oppose military intervention, Congress is not fully behind an intervention and those now rooting the United States on are not bearing the bulk of the military burden -- nor will they bear the criticism that will follow the inevitable civilian casualties, accidents and misdeeds that are part of war regardless of the purity of the intent.

The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them.

The military dimension is hard to define because the mission is unclear. Logically, the goal should be the destruction of the chemical weapons and their deployment systems. This is reasonable, but the problem is determining the locations where all of the chemicals are stored. I would assume that most are underground, which poses a huge intelligence problem. If we assume that perfect intelligence is available and that decision-makers trust this intelligence, hitting buried targets is quite difficult. There is talk of a clean cruise missile strike. But it is not clear whether these carry enough explosives to penetrate even minimally hardened targets. Aircraft carry more substantial munitions, and it is possible for strategic bombers to stand off and strike the targets.

Even so, battle damage assessments are hard. How do you know that you have destroyed the chemicals -- that they were actually there and you destroyed the facility containing them? Moreover, there are lots of facilities and many will be close to civilian targets and many munitions will go astray. The attacks could prove deadlier than the chemicals did. And finally, attacking means al Assad loses all incentive to hold back on using chemical weapons. If he is paying the price of using them, he may as well use them. The gloves will come off on both sides as al Assad seeks to use his chemical weapons before they are destroyed.

A war on chemical weapons has a built-in insanity to it. The problem is not chemical weapons, which probably can't be eradicated from the air. The problem under the definition of this war would be the existence of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It is hard to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons can avoid an attack on the regime -- and regimes are not destroyed from the air. Doing so requires troops. Moreover, regimes that are destroyed must be replaced, and one cannot assume that the regime that succeeds al Assad will be grateful to those who deposed him. One must only recall the Shia in Iraq who celebrated Saddam's fall and then armed to fight the Americans.

Arming the insurgents would keep an air campaign off the table, and so appears to be lower risk. The problem is that Obama has already said he would arm the rebels, so announcing this as his response would still allow al Assad to avoid the consequences of crossing the red line. Arming the rebels also increases the chances of empowering the jihadists in Syria.

When Obama proclaimed his red line on Syria and chemical weapons, he assumed the issue would not come up. He made a gesture to those in his administration who believe that the United States has a moral obligation to put an end to brutality. He also made a gesture to those who don't want to go to war again. It was one of those smart moves that can blow up in a president's face when it turns out his assumption was wrong. Whether al Assad did launch the attacks, whether the insurgents did, or whether someone faked them doesn't matter. Unless Obama can get overwhelming, indisputable proof that al Assad did not -- and that isn't going to happen -- Obama will either have to act on the red line principle or be shown to be one who bluffs. The incredible complexity of intervening in a civil war without becoming bogged down makes the process even more baffling.

Obama now faces the second time in his presidency when war was an option. The first was Libya. The tyrant is now dead, and what followed is not pretty. And Libya was easy compared to Syria. Now, the president must intervene to maintain his credibility. But there is no political support in the United States for intervention. He must take military action, but not one that would cause the United States to appear brutish. He must depose al Assad, but not replace him with his opponents. He never thought al Assad would be so reckless. Despite whether al Assad actually was, the consensus is that he was. That's the hand the president has to play, so it's hard to see how he avoids military action and retains credibility. It is also hard to see how he takes military action without a political revolt against him if it goes wrong, which it usually does.

Current Events & Trends: Poverty on the rise in America

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about poverty in the U.S. This follows this post about Jesus Christ as God. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Current Events & Trends: Poverty on the rise in America






article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder





A London Times analytical report from the United States revealed that "figures from the US Census Bureau suggest that the economic crisis sparked in 2007 has turned the US into an 'hourglass' society, with a shrinking middle class squeezed between the very affluent and the very poor.







Source: Photos.com. . . The spending power of those in the middle is falling and real median income, at $50,054 (£30,000) remains 8 per cent below pre-recession levels" (Alexandra Frean, "A Squeezed Society," Oct. 6, 2012).



Introduced back in 1961, "America's main weapon against hunger is the Federal Government's food stamps programme, which provides a record 47 million people with funds to buy groceries" (Rhys Blakely, "This Is Our Nation Too, Say America's Invisible Poor," Oct. 6, 2012).



According to Mr. Blakely's report, "Nearly a quarter of the nation's children live in poverty . . . and the number of people living on less than $2 a day has doubled since 1966."



This simply should not be in a nation so abundantly blessed by God as He predetermined so long ago in the book of Genesis. To understand what's happened, read our Bible study aid booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . (Source: The Times [London].)

.

Deep immigration reductions helped pave way for civil rights gains in 1960s

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about the reduction in immigration leading to the increase in Civil Rights. This follows this post about increased immigration being done in the name of Obamacare. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

Deep immigration reductions helped pave way for civil rights gains in 1960s






By Roy Beck, posted on NumbersUSA



One of the greatest contributors to the huge civil rights advances in the 1960s was the fact that the United States had a tight labor market that increasingly needed Black American workers, particularly in the South.



And a key reason for the tightness of the labor market was the dramatic reduction in annual immigration flows ever since 1921, according to historians of that era.



During the 50th anniversary celebration of the 1963 civil rights march on Washington, it is important to be aware of the role that Spiked Mass Immigration has repeatedly played in stalling economic progress among the descendants of America's shameful slavery system. And it is a time to acknowledge how the economic, political and social advances of Black Americans in general accelerated when annual immigration numbers were reduced throughout our history.



Nearly everybody of every ideology today acknowledges that a tragically high percentage of the members of our national community who are descendants of slaves remain in poverty. The unemployment rates, poverty rates and average economic assets for Black Americans are all far worse than they are for the average American.



I have long argued for reducing immigration to tighten labor markets as one of the top moral claims on our political system, particularly to level the playing field for Black Americans. Unfortunately, nearly every elite power force in America is conspiring to loosen the labor markets still further with more immigration, making the reduction of persistent Black poverty almost impossible.



I addressed these issues in my 1996 book published by W.W. Norton & Co, "The Case Against Immigration." I include an excerpt below.



Today's Democratic and Republican leaders, and the religious, union and business leaders who are clamoring for "comprehensive immigration reform" are intentionally or recklessly unintentionally fighting for a continuation of extremely loose labor markets that always have been tools for the repression of the descendants of America's slaves.



To have any part of this 50th anniversary celebration include calls for more immigration is as inappropriate and offensive as extolling the benefits to the economy of the labor costs savings of the slave and Jim Crow economies.



Spiked Mass Immigration has always been a tool of the rich and powerful to subjugate America's working classes, especially Black American workers.



Keep in mind that the tight labor markets of the 1950s and 1960s were the result of very low immigration since the 1920s and of the low birth rates of Americans during the 1930s and 1940s. Businesses had to be especially innovative to get more production out of each worker to justify the higher wages that were necessary to compete for workers in such a tight labor market. All of America benefitted from the virtuous economic circle of those times.



You can read the full chapters on the history of immigration and Black American economics at: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/pdf/TheCaseAgainstImmigration-RoyBeck.pdf



A really short outline is here:



At the beginning of the 20th century, Booker T. Washington came to believe that the white power structures would not give full political rights to Black Americans until they truly needed Black labor. Along with most other major Black leaders, he decried the Great Wave of Immigration from Europe as keeping the labor market so loose that industrialists did not need the freed slaves and their descendants.



But when WWI interrupted the flow of immigrants from Europe, industrialists across the north sent recruiters throughout the south to hire from the surplus labor pool of Black workers who had been trapped in semi-servitude on plantations ever since the Great Wave of Immigration began in the 1880s and halted the movement of freed slaves into the industrial north.



After the war, immigration spiked again but only for a short time. Congress stopped the majority of immigration with legislation in 1921 and 1924. The Great Depression obviously retarded the march of progress for Black Americans, but the huge drop in foreign labor after 1914 caused businesses to engage in a 50-year recruiting campaign of the previously underemployed Black Americans.



By the 1950s, America's businesses were so in need of Black American workers that the segregationist laws of many states were seen as an impediment to economic development. This was one of the building blocks forming a foundation upon which courageous civil rights leaders would construct the political changes that culminated in the 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation.



ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA



(The following is excerpted from "The Case Against Immigration," by Roy Beck, published by W.W. Norton & Co., 1996)







Dare we imagine that the foundational act -- restricting immigration -- that freed the descendants of slavery from the southern plantations might also allow those now trapped in the slums to find vitality in life?



Considerable scholarship even suggests that the 1924 immigration restriction-because it enabled the black migration-was the foundational act for the ending of segregation, as well.



"The outmigration of blacks from the South after 1940 was the greatest single economic step forward in black history, and a major advance toward the integration of blacks into the mainstream of American life," says Gavin Wright, the pre-eminent historian of southern economics.



Between 1940 and the 1960s, the South lost most of its surplus labor to northern business recruiters. Once again, the fortunes of poor southern whites and blacks were tied. What few people realize is that the size of the white migration to the North after the reduction in immigration actually was larger than that of the great black migration. Under tight-labor conditions, the South finally had to mechanize and improve education, working conditions, and wages for the black and white workers who remained.



In 1940, state governments in the South were largely or ganized around protecting white supremacy. But thirty years later, they were primarily concerned with development on the part of a national economy. To the extent that segregation policies retarded industrial development and outside investment, business leaders were susceptible to appeals to break down racial barriers.



"This change in the fundamentals of southern society ultimately made possible the success of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s," says Gavin Wright.



* * * * * * *



....Is it possible that America could rekindle its commitment to help the impoverished descendants of slavery?



Nicolas Lemann believes that, despite "an undeniable strain of racial prejudice in its character," the United States also has a conscience that will respond to the horror of the urban ghettoes which now are among the world's worst places to live. He mentions two conditions which he says traditionally have helped the ghettoes and which don't require much in the way of government programs or money:



1. "For most of our history, the issue of race has been linked to the issue of nationhood. During periods of fragmentation-periods when a multiplicity of local, ethnic and economic interests held sway-racial problems have been put on the shelf. It is during the times when there has been a strong sense of national community that the problems have been addressed."



2. "The ghettos partake in the fluidity of American society ... their condition improves in tight labor markets and worsens in more competitive ones."



Both of Lemann's preconditions for helping the black ghettoes would be enhanced considerably by the simple act of cutting immigration back to the average annual flows of below 200,000 that existed from 1924 to 1965.



To Lindsey Grant, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, the moral obligation to do that is clear:



"The nation a generation ago, in rare unity, launched perhaps its greatest moral crusade: to eliminate racism and to bring blacks into the economic mainstream. Since then ... we have inadvertently done the one thing that could most effectively sabotage that crusade. We have allowed the almost unfettered entry of competition for entry-level jobs, at which the blacks could be starting their entry into the economy.... It is not enough to argue that the immigrant-hungry and fearful of deportation will work harder. One must also answer the question: The blacks are Americans; how do we bring the increasingly alienated, restless and isolated ghetto blacks into the system?"



On the night of l1 March 1993, listeners of the liberal alternative radio station WBAI in New York City heard Vernon Briggs of Cornell University make a similar plea. He said African Americans in the northern and western cities are "losing the struggle" because of the massive wave of immigration:



"The treatment of the African-American population is a national blemish of the highest order, and every policy ought to be judged on the following criteria: that it does no harm to the African-American population."



Briggs acknowledged that there are a lot of different opinions about what the government should do to help the "failed black third." But everybody should be agreed on what the government should not do: Washington should not do anything that harms black Americans, "and that's what our immigration policy is doing.”



Later that year, in December, Eugene McCarthy addressed a crowded Senate hearing room on the subject of immigration. The former senator and Democratic presidential candidate had been one of the chief co-sponsors of the 1965 revision that led to mass immigration. The elder statesmen explained that the increase in immigration had been entirely unintended. He said the increases have been immensely harmful to the country and should be rolled back.



A reporter queried McCarthy about how the country could live up to its moral obligations if it cut immigration drastically.



McCarthy didn't hesitate in his response. The moral priority for the United States, he said, remains that of addressing the descendants of two centuries of slavery and another century of racial apartheid who remain in the underclass. To the extent that large-scale immigration interferes with meeting black Americans' needs, he stressed, the immigrant must wait.



* * * * * * * *







NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

"There Is One God, the Father...and One Lord, Jesus Christ"

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Jesus Christ as God. This follows this post about  Syria’s Civil War. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

"There Is One God, the Father...and One Lord, Jesus Christ"

A number of scriptural passages identify Jesus Christ as God along with God the Father. Yet some contend that the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 denied the divinity of Christ in applying the distinction God exclusively to the Father. Let's consider what Paul was actually saying here - and what he wasn't.



In a discussion over whether Christians could eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul agreed that idols were powerless and represented false gods, stating: "About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that 'an idol is nothing in the world,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him" (verses 4-6, HCSB).



So does the fact that "for us there is one God, the Father," mean that Jesus cannot also be God? Initially it might seem so. But consider a parallel question based on the same passage: Does the fact that "for us there is . . . one Lord, Jesus Christ," mean that the Father cannot also be Lord?



This is obviously not the case, for the Father is certainly Lord—meaning Master and Ruler. Jesus prayed, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (Matthew 11:25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.



See All...). And Revelation 11:15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.



See All... mentions the Kingdom "of our Lord and of His Christ." Jesus is indeed Lord, but obviously the Father is Lord above Him. This does not contradict Paul's statement. And neither do other verses that proclaim the deity of Christ.



Rather than excluding Jesus from being God, a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.





See All... should help us to see that He is included in the divine identity. Paul is briefly affirming the contrast between pagan polytheism (the belief in many gods) and true monotheism (the belief in just one God). But why doesn't he limit his affirmation that "there is no God but one" to stating only that "there is one God, the Father"? Why does he even mention "one Lord, Jesus Christ," in this context?



Surely it is because Jesus is an important part of what God is. As elsewhere, Paul shows here that while "all things"—the entire created realm, both physical and spiritual—is ultimately from God the Father, it was all actually made through Jesus Christ. And Jesus rules over it all as Lord under the Father.



Does "Lord" designate divinity?

Some maintain that of the terms "God" and "Lord" used here, only "God" designates divinity in context. It is true that the term Lord does not always denote deity. It can refer to any master—divine, human or otherwise. Yet we should note the parallelism in what Paul has written. He refers to the pagans' "so-called gods" as both "many 'gods' and many 'lords.'" Thus he includes the latter term "lords" as designating deity—whether the imaginary gods of the pagans or human rulers looked on as divine. In parallel, Paul refers to the true God as both "one God" and "one Lord." So "Lord" in this context likewise designates divinity.



In fact, the passage here recognizes far more power and rule belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ than what the pagan systems attributed to their various gods. This point is vital to understanding the matter at hand. Paul acknowledges the label of "gods" for the pagan objects of worship, each believed to have a limited sphere of power. Yet he points out that Jesus, "through whom are all things," is the Maker of all that exists, including ourselves!



By the very terminology Paul employs here, Jesus must rank as divine. For how can the imaginary Aphrodite or Venus, goddess of love appearing as the evening star, be classified as deity while Jesus, Maker of all the stars and of man and woman and of human love—having greater power and lordship than that attributed to all of the pagan gods and goddesses combined—not be classified as deity?



With this in mind, some label Jesus as a god—but that would imply power over a limited sphere. Yet Jesus has dominion over everything that exists with the exception of only one thing—the Father, who is over Him. Jesus is thus subordinate to the Father, but the Father has entrusted "all authority" and "all things" to Him (Matthew 28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.



See All...; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 [27] For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

[28] And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.





See All...). And as explained elsewhere, Jesus is in perfect and total agreement with the Father.



Both crucial to defining God

So if both Father and Son are God and both are Lord, why does Paul divide Them out as "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ"? We are not explicitly told, but the classification is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Psalm 110:1(A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



See All..., Israel's King David referred to an intermediary between God and himself as Lord. The verse begins: "The Lord [ Yhwh ] said to my Lord . . ." As the New Testament makes plain, Yhwh (the Eternal God) in this case designates the Father, who is speaking to the One who became Jesus Christ, David's immediate Lord, ruling on the Father's behalf.



We also have Jesus' own prayer to the Father the night before His death, wherein He stated, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



See All...). Some regard this verse as likewise denying the divinity of Christ, but it assuredly does not. Besides the fact that Jesus said this while His power was limited in human flesh, when only the Father could act throughout the universe as God (John 5:30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.



See All...; 14:10), the obvious intent is that He was pointing to the Father as the true focus of our worship, with Himself as the Father's representative serving as intermediary.



This latter fact is evidently what Paul had in mind as well. In declaring the Father as the one God, he was referring to exclusivity of position, not exclusivity of divine nature. Just as Christ Himself did, Paul was acknowledging the Father as the Supreme Being over all and the focus of our worship. While "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.



See All...), it should be evident that our honor of the Son is still relative to our honor of the Father. We honor the Son in this way because the Father has so ordained it. Thus, the Son is not the one God in the sense of the Supreme Being—and Paul therefore did not include Him in that designation.



But this does not exclude the Son from being God in the sense of sharing the same level of existence with the Father and sharing rule with the Father over all—and of acting as God on the Father's behalf throughout eternity, past and future. For the Son is in fact God in this very sense. Yet had Paul referred to Jesus as God in this particular context of denying polytheism and labeling the Father as the "one God," it would likely have resulted in confusion for many. So he chose to use a different distinction, Lord —the same title Paul typically used for Jesus in his writings.



Designating Jesus as the "one Lord" stresses His role as the One who exercises God's rule over creation—the point being that the Father does not do so directly but acts through Jesus Christ. This fact is a crucial aspect of defining God. And particularly for us, just as David recognized, Jesus is our immediate Lord and Master—the Father being ultimate Lord and Master. But there is no division in allegiance, for devotion to Christ is the way we are devoted to the Father. So again, the fact that the Father is Lord does not contradict Jesus being the "one Lord." For their lordship is not divided. Rather, the Father rules through the Son.



This then, in stark contrast to the competing deities of pagan polytheism, is Paul's brief explanation of true monotheism—God the Father, who is supreme, working through the Son, who perfectly carries out His will, these two being one in unity. And it is through Jesus that we worship and serve the Father. Thus, we should be able to see that Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 was not denying the deity of Christ but was, rather, affirming it through carefully chosen wording.

Current Events & Trends: Syria's civil war spills over its borders

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about about Syria’s Civil War. This follows this previous post about Syria and Chemical Weapons. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Current Events & Trends: Syria's civil war spills over its borders

article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder





Successful containment of any major difficulty normally means a much better chance of concluding it.



But what was a national Syrian conflict has become so prolonged that it now rages well beyond its borders and even threatens yet another major Middle Eastern war. Nations parry and thrust at each other like wild beasts. Verbal threats are all too common. The psalmist asks, "Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing?" (Psalm 2:1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?



See All...).



Wrote Patrick Cockburn in the London Review of Books: "Over the last year a military stalemate has prevailed, with each side launching offensives in the areas where they are strongest. Both sides have had definite but limited successes" ("Is It the End of Sykes-Picot?" June 6, 2013). Lately foreign countries (and groups within countries) are intensifying their interventions on either one side or the other. Now Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or the rebel groups could possibly gain the upper hand in the near future.



USA Today reported: "The Syrian civil war is increasingly drawing in nations across the Middle East, a regionwide conflict that threatens to pit world powers against each other" ("Syria's Deepening Sectarian War Bleeds Across Borders," May 29, emphasis added throughout). President Assad and the various rebel groups have their backers. Russia and Iran have delivered sophisticated weapons to Damascus, and Israel has used precision air strikes to destroy some of them. Thousands of Hezbollah soldiers have actively intervened on Assad's side and pulled Lebanon into this brutal civil war.



August peace talks are planned by the United States and Russia, but so far rebel groups have apparently declined to participate. Another USA Today communique (this one from Jerusalem) stated, "Israel warned Thursday that it needed to prepare for a 'new era' of war in the Middle East as the Syrian regime claimed the first shipment of anti-aircraft missiles from Russia had arrived" ("Syria Says It Has Advanced Missiles From Russia," June 1). The Syrian foreign minister warned that Damascus "will retaliate immediately" if Israel strikes Syria again.



The dogs of savage wars bring untold suffering and death to any country so afflicted. "Barbarity is now commonplace in the Syrian war. Some 80,000 Syrians have been killed since the Arab Spring arrived in March 2011, and unknown numbers have been tortured and maimed" (Victor Davis Hanson, "Why Some Wars Are So Savage," The Wall Street Journal, May 29). Meanwhile Jordan strives to cope with some 500,000 refugees from Syria.



Since its inception The Good News has kept abreast of major events in the Middle East and explained their overall meaning in the light of biblical prophecy. This strategic region remains the key to the fulfillment of many end-time prophecies leading up to the second coming of Jesus Christ. The United Church of God also publishes a comprehensive Bible study aid exploring the region's historic and prophetic legacy - The Middle East in Bible Prophecy . (Sources: London Review of Books, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal. )

.

Sebelius: Pass Immigration Amnesty Bill to Boost Obamacare Enrollment

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.US about increased immigration being done in the name of Obamacare. This follows this post about a Town Hall of an amnesty supporter using a child as a human shield. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what you can do click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.

• Sebelius: Pass Immigration Amnesty Bill to Boost Obamacare Enrollment




by

Jean





Health Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius joins Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter at a February 20, 2013 news conference at City Hall in Philadelphia. (AP File Photo)





Asked Thursday if the Affordable Care Act will help "undocumented individuals," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said no -- and that's why immigration reform is so important:



"Well, the (Obamacare) bill is crafted in such a way that those who are undocumented will not have access to the tax credits or shopping in the (health insurance) marketplace. That has been limited, which is, frankly, why -- another very keen reason why we need comprehensive immigration reform," Sebelius told a gathering of Latinos in Philadelphia.



August 23, 2013 - 8:41 AM

By Susan Jones

CNSnews.com



The remark drew applause at the Obamacare event hosted by Congreso, a Latino community service group.



"Unfortunately, you can't fix -- we won't fix the immigration system, unfortunately, through the health care bill, but I think having the immigration bill that passed the Senate, pass the House, would be a huge step," Sebelius added.



The Senate-passed immigration bill would put some 11 million illegal aliens on a path to eventual citizenship, first by giving them provisional legal status. House Republicans say border security must come first, and they plan to draft their own bill.



Sebelius recommended that illegal aliens continue to get medical treatment at community health centers, where they will find federally funded, "culturally competent" health care providers "who actually speak the language and can reach out to a neighborhood."



She also noted that the Obama administration has doubled the size of the Public Health Service Corps -- "which, to me, is one of the great, well-kept secrets in America. It's like the Peace Corps for health workers," she said.



"If you agree to serve in an underserved area, the federal government helps pay off the student loans and debt that a lot of health professionals carry. And what we find is that when people actually take up service in the National Health Service Corps, they stay in the communities that they are serving long beyond their assignments. So there will be continued access for undocumented," Sebelius promised.



Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who joined Sebelius at the event, also addressed the issue of "dealing with folks who may not have all their documentation in order."



And just as Sebelius did, Nutter indicated that illegal aliens and other disadvantaged people already have access to health care in this country.



Nutter said the City of Philadelphia -- "even through the worst of the recession, we did everything we possibly could to minimize any negative impact on our health centers. We have eight health centers across the City of Philadelphia, and they were last, last, last on any list to get any reductions, although we made cuts all over the city government." He said he is committed to maintaining that funding.



Nutter also said he signed an executive order directing city government workers "that you cannot deny someone service...just because you may be in an undocumented status."



"And I signed that executive order specifically to make sure that while folks are trying to deal with their paperwork and dealing with immigration and all those folks over there at the federal side, that's not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to provide service. Anyone who shows up, who's in this city -- (applause) -- and so folks -- and so people should continue to come, certainly, to our health centers."



The mayor said his city is "doing our best in trying to provide services to folks, notwithstanding any language challenges, documentation status. If you are here, it is our job to try to provide the best, high-quality service and care that we can as a local government. That's our commitment."



What Obamacare 'really is about'



According to Sebelius, "The Affordable Care Act "really is about a portion of the population (15 percent, she estimated) who is either uninsured or underinsured or in and out of the marketplaces."



She said "the other 85 percent of people" already have relatively affordable coverage, which "has gotten stronger" because of various Obamacare requirements.



"Starting October 1st of this year...for about 15 percent of Americans who don't have health coverage at all, they will have some new opportunities. They will have a new marketplace available to them, and because they don't have an employer paying a share of the coverage, they have some help from the federal government."



She estimated that Latinos comprise about 25 percent of the individuals eligible for new coverage options.



~~~

Video at source link

Editorial: One Special Election Candidate and One Primary Election Candidate

Editorial

In our continuing attempt to vote out Senators that voted for S.744, there are two more candidates. One is in the New Jersey special election which will replace Jeff Chiesa, the interim Senator, and a candidate worth investigating is Steve Longedan. You can investigate his website for yourself here.

The other is in the primary election in Tennessee against the incumbant Lamar Alexander. Here the candidate worth investigating is Joe Carr and you can investigate his website for yourself here.

Blistering Ad Exposes New Jersey Candidate Cory Booker’s Pro-Abortion Record

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about  Cory Booker, a New Jersey Senate Candidate. This follows this post about Planned Parenthood, which is receiving Obamacare funds and is abusing Medicare. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get two very interesting books HERE.

Blistering Ad Exposes New Jersey Candidate Cory Booker’s Pro-Abortion Record


American Commitment Action Fund (AC Action Fund) and Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) are jointly releasing a new ad today targeting Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s radical record on abortion. The ad blasts Cory Booker’s record of promoting abortion with no restrictions-including his significant role as Co-Chair of the Democratic National Convention’s Platform Committee. Booker is the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in the special election to succeed Frank Lautenberg.



“Cory Booker was instrumental in driving Democrats to make abortion the centerpiece of the party’s platform,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of SBA List. “His extreme pro-abortion stance flies in the face of the majority of Americans, especially women, who oppose late-term abortion.” http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/23/blistering-ad-exposes-new-jersey-candidate-cory-bookers-pro-abortion-record/

Wknd Box Office: In a World, You’re Next, The World’s End

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: In a World, You’re Next, The World’s End


By Debbie Schlussel

Well, it’s still August, Hollywood’s pet cemetery for garbage movies, sending them to this month to die a quick death. But this weekend’s offerings, while not great, were better than that of the previous weeks. But I wouldn’t pay ten bucks plus for any of these.







* “In a World . . .“: I had mixed feelings about this movie. On the one hand, it was funny, entertaining, and light. On the other hand, it was a feminist fantasy in which all of the men are either complete creeps or entirely weak and wimpy, and the women are the strong and righteous ones. And the movie’s writer, director, producer, and star, Lake Siegel–who goes by the name Lake Bell–clearly has a thing for defaming Jewish fathers.

Bell, whose real-life father is a Jew, Harvey Siegel, makes sure that we know that the father character in this movie–a horrible, horrible man–is Jewish. Played by Fred Melamed, a stereotypically-looking Jewish actor who appears to have walked off the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion picture book, the father, Sam Solomon, drove her mother to death by his horrible behavior. The movie doesn’t just show you he’s Jewish, it tells you, as it’s mentioned in dialogue. He’s a cheater and a lech, who kicks his daughter out of the house so his much younger blonde bimbo girlfriend can move in. He’s also a misogynist who plots with another misogynist to keep women out of the movie trailer voice-over business. When he learns his competition is his daughter and that she got the voice-over contract for a major movie quadrilogy, he steps up the competition and tries to take it away from her and get the job for himself. When he fails, he storms out of an awards ceremony and goes into a cry-filled tirade. Um, my Jewish father was nothing like that. Not even close. He was loving and encouraged and helped me in my ambitions and pursuits. But that’s not the kind of Jewish father Lake Bell wants the world to know.

The story: Bell plays a voice-over coach who has long wanted to do voice-over work on commercials and suddenly starts getting that kind of work. Meanwhile, she’s living with her sister and her brother-in-law in their small Los Angeles apartment, because her oafish fat pig of a father has kicked her out to live out his middle-aged fantasy (see above) with his far younger blonde bim girlfriend. A wimpy voice-over studio owner who is helping Bell get the movie voice-over work has a thing for Bell but is too wimpy to tell her. Also, Bell’s sister, who is a hotel concierge, has a thing for an Irish (or is it Scottish?) hotel guest and cheats with him on her wimpy husband, who finds out.

The only redeeming thing about this movie is that, in the end when Bell gets the coveted quadrilogy movie trailer voice-over contract, the female producer tells her it’s not because she was the best voice-over voice, but because she’s a woman and it’s part of a deliberate feminist thing to help young girls. And that, unfortunately, is the reason behind a lot of things these days. Still, this honest moment in a sea of propaganda wasn’t good enough to justify the rest of this movie.

One other thing: it’s not sexist (contrary to this movie’s claims) to say that voice-overs performed by men sound better and are more effective, which is why men get the bulk of that work. I’ve made that point on this site before.

TWO MARXES





* “You’re Next“: This incredibly bloody, violent movie is part comedy, part parody of ’70s and ’80s slasher films, and part thriller. That the heroine of the movie is a tiny woman who is probably not more than 90 pounds soaking wet, and fights off much bigger men, isn’t believable. That feminist plot point never is. Still it is entertaining and funny in a “I have 1.5 hours to waste and nothing to do with my time or money” kind of way. I also didn’t like that the movie goes out of its way to tell you that the killers “served together,” another dumb Hollywood attempt to defame American soldiers. No thanks.

The story: parents with several grown children bought a giant mansion as a “fixer-upper” project, after the father retires from his job at a “Blackwater-style” company and gets a large retirement package. The kids all come to the house with their significant others for a family get-together. The mother keeps hearing noises in the house, and soon the kids and their guests start getting murdered, mostly by mysterious men in bunny masks who have bows and arrows. I have to say that I didn’t mind that an “underground documentary maker” named Tarek was the first murder victim. Nor did I mind that the movie shows these kids to be spoiled rotten and completely stupid.

Like I said, this is entertaining and funny if you can deal with extremely gruesome murders and a lot of blood and are extremely bored. It’s a campy kind of slasher flick and better than others I’ve seen, though I don’t generally condone violent movies like this, and I think I’ve become desensitized to this stuff that used to cause me cover my eyes.

HALF A REAGAN





* “The World’s End“: This movie was all over the place, way too long and tedious, and kind of a mess. Simon Pegg plays a loser from a small town in England who was once popular in high school and did a pub crawl of all the bars in town with his high school friends all those years ago. But, now, 20 years later, they’ve grown up and moved on with careers and families, and he’s some loser drug addict type with no apparent job or source of income. He gathers up all four of his old friends, who reluctantly join him to go back to the town to do the pub crawl. Soon, however, they learn that the town has been taken over by alien invaders impersonating the townsfolk and seeking to take over their bodies.

While some of this movie was funny, it mostly grated on me as it went on too long and each bar scene seemed like the same thing over and over again. It just got very silly and boring, very quickly, and what was just and hour and 45 minutes seemed like three hours. Also Simon Pegg and his friends just weren’t all that likable or interesting to pull this off. After sitting through this, I felt like a time bandit had robbed me and I didn’t even get a t-shirt to show for it.

HALF A MARX

Syria in the Crosshairs Again over Chemical Weapons

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/  about Syria and Chemical Weapons. This follows this post about being modest. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Syria in the Crosshairs






article by Cecil Maranville





World opinion is that Syria appears to have gone one step too far in its deadly game of sponsoring terrorism. The assassination of Rafiq Hariri will have far-reaching consequences for Syria, as well as for the entire Middle East.



Already at odds with Washington for a number of reasons, Damascus finds itself in the crosshairs of the Bush administration, as well as the governments of Europe.



Although Bashar al-Assad's government decried the car bombing that killed popular former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, Syria is the prime suspect behind the killing. The United States has recalled its ambassador from Syria, and the European Union is joining the United States in calling for an international investigation, as well as for free elections in Lebanon and the lessening of Syria's presence there.



Syrian officials have variously called the assassination "a terrorist act" and "a horrendous criminal attack." President Assad urged the Lebanese people "to fortify their national unity and to reject those seeking discord." The Syrian foreign minister added: "We hope the Lebanese people will remain united and strong and continue to reject domestic strife and foreign intervention." And the Syrian information minister praised Mr. Hariri for fighting for "Lebanon's growth, prosperity and independence."



Syria acts as if the world doesn't know about its activities in Lebanon, or that it doesn't care. Their official comments are patently meaningless on account of Syria's direct link with terrorism in that country.



Syria has been sponsoring terrorism against Israel for decades, principally from southern Lebanon. Syria is the "foreign power" seeking to destabilize Lebanon and preventing it from becoming independent. Syria maintains a force of approximately 15,000 troops in Lebanon to ensure that the country follows the wishes of Damascus. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559 last September, reaffirming a call for respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and for the withdrawal of "all foreign troops," which meant the Syrian army.



Satellite of Syria



Lebanon has literally been a satellite of Syria. Mr. Hariri indeed fought for Lebanon's independence, but how bitterly hypocritical of the Syrian president and the information minister to praise him in death for doing so, when he was fighting for independence from Syria! In fact, he resigned from the Lebanese government last October in protest after Damascus pressured Lebanon to extend the term of its pro-Syrian president.



So you see how absurd it is for the Assad regime to wring its hands in shock and horror at the assassination of Hariri.



And it is little wonder that the Lebanese people are scorning diplomatic niceties coming out of Damascus. Thousands have marched in angry protests, attacking Syrians and Syrian interests.



In death, Hariri may have accomplished what he was not able to accomplish in life—free Beirut of Damascus' stranglehold, for Syria may have no choice but to yield to the international pressure to withdraw from Lebanon completely. Even before the assassination, the United States had already levied heavy sanctions against Syria for its support of terrorism, and Washington is poised to turn up the heat.



Israel the reason



Immediately after the death of Hariri, the Israeli government announced that Syria would have to expel the offices of terrorist groups from its territory, end its occupation of Lebanon, allow Lebanese forces to take control of the border with Israel and stop acts of aggression against Israel, before it would reenter negotiations about the sensitive issue of the Golan Heights.



The Golan Heights is a 459-square mile plateau at the southwestern edge of Syria and the northeastern tip of Israel. It's a logical jumping-off point should Syria invade Israel (as it has in past wars). For several years leading up to the 1967 war, snipers used to shoot into Israeli villages from atop this hilly area. But Israel captured the Heights in 1967, officially annexing it in December 1981 during the Begin administration. The international community hasn't recognized Israel's right of ownership and has long pressured it to return the Golan Heights to Syria.



The Golan Heights are also an important source of water for Israel, for within it are the headwaters of the Jordan River valley. The Golan Heights borders on the eastern edge of the Sea of Galilee, a major freshwater source for Israel. Bashar al-Assad's government wants to reopen negotiations for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria (talks broke down five years ago), but sentiment runs high against the idea among Israelis, given the strategic issues involved. With 20,000 settlers in the area, the cost of relocating and compensating them for their losses would amount to about $10 billion.



Israel is the reason for Syria's interest in Lebanon. It's been a staging area for attacking Israel for decades. President Bush said in his recent State of the Union address: "Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region." Syria blatantly supports the terrorist group turned political party, Hezbollah, as well as many Palestinian terrorists.



Russia is making matters worse. Recently, it announced the sale to Syria of a sophisticated weapons system (including surface-to-air missiles), ignoring U.S. and Israeli back-channel requests that they cancel the deal. Russia's president justified the sale by declaring, "First of all, we understand and are committed to maintaining the balance of power in the region. We understand our responsibilities" ("Russia Tells Israel Arms Deal With Syria Will Go Ahead," The Daily Star, AFP, Feb. 16, 2005).



"A terrorist bazaar"



President Bashar al-Assad is much less subtle than his late father about Syria's ties to the Hezbollah militia. The elder Assad never had a face-to-face meeting with Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, although Hafiz al-Assad certainly used the terrorist militia to his advantage. But the current president meets with Nasrallah frequently. Some reports say Bashar al-Assad supplied Nasrallah with missiles when Hezbollah pounded Israel from southern Lebanon in March and April 2002.



Assad is a wild card in the Middle East, as no one knows with certainty whether he has firm control of Syria, or the ability to provide stable leadership for the enigmatic nation. For that matter, no one knows exactly what goes on within this country of 18 million people.



Is the "accidental president" fully in charge, or is the country run by an old guard from his father's days? (Bashar's brother Basil was the designated heir to Hafiz al-Assad, until Basil was killed in a car accident only six years before the elder Assad's death. Bashar was an ophthalmologist practicing in London until his brother's death, when he was recalled to Syria to undergo extensive secret grooming for taking over from his father.)



Jeff Babbin of The National Review Online called the country "a terrorist bazaar" ("Regime Change, Again," Nov. 12, 2003). Washington charges that it has chemical weapons (including a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and possibly VX) and that it is developing offensive biological ones. It has an inventory of Scud and SS-21 short-range missiles armed with chemical warheads.



Violating UN sanctions, Syria earned $3 billion in secret trading with Saddam Hussein's regime. It provided safe haven for many of Saddam's fleeing thugs, as well as for billions of dollars looted from the Iraqi people by his regime. Syria may also have given Hussein a hiding place for his weapons of mass destruction.



World News and Prophecy reported last year on Jordan's serendipitous interception of a terrorist plot to blow up its intelligence headquarters with a mixture of 71 chemicals that would have produced a toxic cloud of death for up to 80,000 people. The chemicals almost certainly came from Syria (or Syrian-controlled Lebanon), whether from Saddam Hussein's cache or from Syria's stockpiles.



That alone demonstrates the critical danger of the Syrian regime.



A journey through time



Israel and Syria have crossed swords many times throughout history. When Syria was, for the most part, a group of city-states, mainly Damascus, Hamath and Zobah, it often clashed with the kings of Israel and Judah. We read of King David killing 22,000 Syrians from Damascus and Zobah (2 Samuel 8:5And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.



See All...).



Interaction between these territories was not always negative. Jesus and His disciples likely spoke the language of the people of Aram, which was Aramaic. When Christ began His ministry, His fame spread through all of Syria (Matthew 4:24And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.



See All...).



Bible students will recognize the names of Syrian cities where the Church of God took root in the first century, according to the book of Acts. They include Damascus, Antioch, Seleucia and Caesarea Philippi. And, of course, the apostle Paul was struck down and called of God when en route from Jerusalem to Damascus.



Syria was of great strategic importance for many centuries, due to her position at the intersection of three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe), and on a crossroad between the Caspian Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Black Sea and the Nile River. She lay upon the famous silk route between China and Europe.



Alexander the Great conquered Syria, and after his death it passed to one of his generals, Seleucus. He and the territory he ruled became the king of the North of the prophecy of Daniel 11. Antiochus Epiphanes, who set up the first "abomination of desolation" in the temple in Jerusalem (Daniel 11:31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.



See All...), was a king of Syria.



Thus, modern Syria stands in the shadow of history. The Syrian Tourism Office accurately claims, "A journey through Syria is a journey through time."



Abomination of desolation yet to come



Bible students know that there is another "abomination of desolation" yet to come. So said Christ in foretelling events that will occur just before His return (Matthew 24:15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)



See All...). By the time of Christ, Syria had come under the control of the Roman Empire, so that great power inherited Daniel's "king of the North" mantle.



The Roman Empire waxed and waned, realizing several resurrections between Christ's time and now. Although this last great empire long since migrated from the Middle East, it still concerned itself with events in this critical region. We believe it will come to life yet again, and that it will precipitate the modern abomination of desolation in Jerusalem. You can read the details of Daniel's prophecies in our booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy .



Given the ever-increasing influence of the EU, as well as the historically strategic importance of Syria, it's conceivable that the final king of the North will again envelop Damascus. It is arguably an important Islamic country, if for no other reason than for its strategic location. As we reported in these pages last month, Turkey is presently aggressively petitioning to join the EU, promising that it would be a conduit for expanding European influence into Eurasia. Could the EU's umbrella of influence one day extend over Syria? Time will tell.



Democratic reform next door in Iraq (and perhaps in Lebanon soon) will bring pressure on Syria to come in from the cold of its isolation from the world community of nations. Given the relentless pressure from Washington on state sponsors of terror, Syria will definitely be making changes. WNP