The Devil LIKES Being in the Details
Vol: 114 Issue: 28 Monday, March 28, 2011
A member of the OL family that lives inside Syria emailed me over the weekend. He asked me to comment on the ongoing meltdown across the region.
Our brother lives in Damascus, capital of Syria. I don’t want to identify him further out of concern for his safety, but I can only imagine how confusing things must be from where he stands.
The Obama administration, which took a pass on helping Iran’s rebellion, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sided with it again in Libya, just announced it was leaving the Syrian demonstrators to Assad’s tender mercies.
No wonder he’s confused. I’m confused. In Libya, the United States is firing $1.6 million cruise missiles at Libyan forces like they were free.
Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said categorically that the US won’t intervene in Syria the way that it has in Libya. Why not?
“Each of these situations is unique,” Clinton explained during a whirlwind tour of the mainstream Sunday talk shows.
“Ah!” said the mainstream media. “We thought that every situation was identical. That explains it. Thanks.”
Elsewhere on the dial, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked if the Libyan civil war in some way impacted vital American national interests, as the President said in his weekly radio address.
“No, no,” Gates replied. “It was not a vital national interest of the United States. But it was an interest: the engagement of the Arabs [Arab League], the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake. . . “
“You have had revolutions on the east and the west of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. So you had a potentially destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk, potentially, the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt. And that was another [U.S.] consideration.”
Ok, so Libya isn’t in America’s vital interests. In fact, the only interest America has in Libya, according to the Secretary of Defense, is the general humanitarian question.
And then there was the other US consideration articulated by Secretary Gates — “what if the Libyan civil war destabilized Tunisia and Egypt?”
Ok, I’m now officially confused. I thought it was Tunisia and Egypt that destabilized Libya?
On ABC News Hillary Clinton invoked the “Iraq Defense.”
“Imagine [if] we were sitting here, and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled with nowhere to go or overwhelming Egypt while it is in its own difficult transition,” she said.
That’s not so hard to imagine. In 1992, Saddam’s military all but exterminated the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. (They are still digging up mass graves.)
“If we were sitting here [passively], the cries would have been, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?'”
That’s not what the cries were when the US invaded Iraq, despite Saddam’s record of exterminating whole segments of his population. Then, the cries were “No blood for oil.”
Despite protests to the contrary, the United States has taken sides in the Libyan civil war without having the first clue who the Libyan rebels are.
Mostly, they are the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that supported jihadi attacks against Americans in Iraq.
I continue to be fascinated (the way a bird is when it sees a snake) by the way the media instantly embraces claims from the Brotherhood that they are really closet Democrats.
The West has nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, according to Hresha. Like their counterparts in Egypt, they would embrace multiparty democracy.
“I’ve lived for many years in Canada and the UK, and that’s exactly the political system that we want,” Hresha said.
Well, maybe not exactly like Canada and the UK.
Hresha says that if his organization forms a political party, it would seek to legislate according to Koranic principles, which would include, for example, a continued ban on the sale of alcohol.
CNN is pretty much typical of the dewey-eyed liberal hopefuls that are just positive that this time, the Muslim Brotherhood is really our new best friend.
“A more prominent role for the Brotherhood in Libya could dent support for al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, especially in eastern provinces that have witnessed significant radicalization in recent years” reported the former Clinton News Network.
The Muslim Brotherhood gave birth to al-Qaeda. Ayman al Zawahiri was radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, home to the largest chemical and biological arsenal in the Middle East, all of which are pointed at Israel, CNBC reports,
“The new American ambassador in Damascus, Robert Ford, has been quietly reaching out to Mr. Assad to urge him to stop firing on his people.”
With 61 people confirmed killed by security forces, the country’s status as an island of stability amid the Middle East storm seemed irretrievably lost.
For two years, the United States has tried to coax Damascus into negotiating a peace deal with Israel and to moving away from Iran — a fruitless effort that has left President Obama open to criticism on Capitol Hill that he is bolstering one of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world.”
I suppose this is sort of what our Damascus brother is wondering about. Why is the US, UN and Arab League so focused on Libya, when the real threat is the heavily armed Syrian regime also actively seeking nuclear weapons?
How does this square with Bible prophecy and the whole ‘Islamic antichrist’ theory?
The Bible says that in the last days, the world will be divided into four spheres of political influence, but the global power will be concentrated in the government run by the antichrist.
The Bible portrays the antichrist’s government as one of global reach and scope. It will be the richest and most advanced government on earth at the time.
The Bible says that the antichrist’s power will be so minutely centralized that he will be able to restrict the ability to buy and sell down to the individual level.
That requires a massive, computerized infrastructure, total control of a world-wide economy, and the ability to enforce worship as a condition of economic participation.
Are we witnessing the formation of the antichrist’s government in the collapse of the Arab Middle East? Is the antichrist’s government the Muslim Brotherhood? It doesn’t qualify. It cannot qualify and still be Islamic.
A Muslim couldn’t worship a man and still be a Muslim. A Muslim could not demand worship of himself and still be a Muslim. If the Mahdi demanded worship of himself, he would be exposed as an infidel.
It is entirely possible that the Mahdi plays a role in the Bible prophecy – but as the king of the south, not the antichrist. The antichrist’s government’s principle weapon is peace — not war.
Daniel says “by peace [he] shall destroy many’ and the Apostle John symbolizes him as a rider on a white horse carrying a bow (signifying power) but no arrows, symbolizing a bloodless coup.
It is clear that the United Nations would love to assume the role of global government, but the United Nations doesn’t qualify, either. Every single time it attempts to involve itself (like in Libya) it proves itself incapable of handling the job.
Or any job handed to it.
According to Bible prophecy, the Arab nations surrounding Israel will form a coalition of nations that will launch an all-out war against Israel.
Interestingly, Libya isn’t part of that coalition – Libya is part of the Gog-Magog alliance.
When the Arab coalition attacks Israel, it will be utterly destroyed as a viable political force. The prophet Isaiah hints that the destruction of the Edomite coalition will involve nuclear weapons.
It is after that war that Israel is pictured as living in a period of temporary peace and safety, a “land of unwalled villages” as described in Ezekiel 38.
There is no crossover between the membership of the Edomite coalition of Psalms 83, etc. and the members of the Gog-Magog Alliance.
Every member of the Edomite coalition is Islamic. Gog-Magog’s Persia, (Iran) Libya, Ethiopia (Islamic North Africa) and Togarmah (Turkey) are Islamic; Russia is not.
None of the nations that are named as part of the Edomite coalition are mentioned during the Tribulation – but after that point, Israel is pictured as living in peace and safety. These are all powerful arguments against an Islamic antichrist.
Where the Middle East meltdown does fit the prophetic outline, however, is as a springboard FOR the antichrist. Edom’s war with Israel clearly suggests mushroom clouds over the Middle East.
The prophet Daniel says a prince of the people that destroyed the Temple would then impose peace between Israel and the many.
If that describes the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (which did not split from Rome until two centuries later and was therefore powerless in AD 70,) then why link his identity to the Destruction of the Temple?
I have no doubt that the meltdown in the Middle East is part of the overall outline of Bible prophecy. The administration’s desperation to put the whole thing under NATO is significant. NATO is Europe.
But all of this is relevant to us in the here-and-now in but one respect. It signals the lateness of the hour. That is more than just a turn of phrase – the hour is so late that we can almost smell the sulfur.
The topic du jour is the coming of the antichrist in real terms, and not just hypothetical ‘what-ifs’.
There are actual contenders instead of the usual “Prince Charles is the antichrist because his coat of arms looks like the first beast of Revelation” (Tim Cohen) or King Carlos of Spain because his name adds to 666 in ten languages.
But beyond the relevance of pointing out that everything is trending according to the outline of future history in the Bible the identity of the antichrist or the religion of the false prophet is largely speculative.
The only point for the Church in noting the nearness of the antichrist according to the signs is that it means the Rapture is even closer.
We are to note the signs of the times — they were given as a warning.
But the warning isn’t to the Church – it is to the lost. The signs were given to the Church to establish the credibility of the warning. That is the purpose for Bible prophecy.
“The Bible predicted this and that and this and that are so. So you can trust the part that says Jesus is coming soon.”
The evidence, no matter how one focuses on the details, suggest that whoever the antichrist might be, he has his choice of world systems available – and eagerly awaiting him with open arms.
“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)