Posted on 07/13/2014 10:52:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
The ISIS, which has conquered vast portions of Syria and Iraq, has now declared itself to be the new Islamic caliphate. There has been no caliphate (an Islamic state led by a “successor” to Muhammad) since 1916, after the end of more than 400 years of Turk-enforced rule over a resentful but helpless Arab world.
Since then, most Sunni Muslims have informally recognized the legitimate successor of the prophet Muhammad to be the king of Saudi Arabia, whom they call the “Guardian of the Two Holy Places.”
But in recent years, many rival factions have risen across the Islamic world, each claiming to be the one to bring about the legitimate succession.
The Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Turkey and Qatar, is one faction.
Al-Qaeda, and particularly Osama bin Laden at one time, had also hoped to be recognized as such.
But now, a far more blood-thirsty group has upstaged those and many other Islamic factions. What was first known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but lately just calls itself the Islamic State, has declared itself to be the rightful caliphate and is now commanding the allegiance of all other smaller factions.
Although the West, and America in particular, have every reason to fear that declaration, other Arab Sunni countries have much more at stake. That’s to say nothing of the Shiites in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, who believe they are the legitimate successors through the prophet’s lineage of Ali and Hussein.
Those in the West might be inclined to believe that such Islamic division is good for the West. However, those divisions can only spell deep pain for Christians in the Arab world, and ultimately for Israel, the U.S., and Europe.
The way each faction proves its superiority over each other is by demonstrating how much blood it can spill against “soft” targets. Therefore, they behead docile Christians, and when they find the opportunity, they go for the bigger targets, like Muslims whom they consider to be apostates or rivals.
As Al-Qaeda demonstrated on September 11, 2001, they will pick on an easy target - like the lax U.S. airport security- to kill thousands of unsuspecting Americans.
In Egypt, when the Muslim Brotherhood felt threatened by the powerful military, they went after Christian churches, schools, stores, and homes—burnings hundreds and otherwise destroying hundreds more. The strategy worked for them, as they received wide support from the Islamic world (thankfully, today, the Brotherhood is growing weaker due to rejection from the Egyptian public).
And today, the capitulation of the U.S. administration by withdrawing all its troops from Iraq has resulted in the current mayhem against Christians and other Muslims.
Now some ask, “What would American troops have accomplished?”
A great deal. Put a weak boy in an empty classroom with a bully and the weak boy will be in deep trouble. But put a teacher in that classroom to observe the interaction and suddenly the bully will find a way to behave himself.
That being said, I am in no way advocating military intervention in Iraq; it is entirely too late for that. So what is the answer?
For starters, President Obama needs to seek out someone like President al-Sisi of Egypt, who has successfully stood up to Islamist bullies in the region. Mr. Obama needs to eat some humble pie and apologize to al-Sisi for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and objecting to his legitimacy.
President al-Sisi has proved that he’s a match for Islamist bullies. And as a former Field Marshal and head of military intelligence, he can steer the U.S. and the West to the right strategy in dealing with this disastrous situation.
What is he holding, a protractor?
But is not the “rapture” really a 18-19th centuries teaching. Rather the Christians are going to have to suffer for the Lord Jesus before He, the King of Kings returns.
It does make targeting easier.
Warm up a couple Trident 2s.
errr.. no
Assyria was a major Mesopotamian Semitic kingdom, and often
Sorry to see how superficial is your analysis.
empire, of the Ancient Near East, existing as an independent state
for a period of approximately nineteen centuries from c. 2500 BC
to 605 BC, spanning the Early Bronze Age through to the late Iron
Age. For a further thirteen centuries, from the end of the 7th century
BC to the mid-7th century AD, it survived as a geo-political entity,
for the most part ruled by foreign powers, although a number of small
Neo-Assyrian states arose at different times throughout this period.
If I had meant PRECISELY the same, I would have said so.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThis is not a grammar exercise,
but a thought process for reflection.The time is very short.
Tuesday is the 17th of Tammuz.
Israel is surrounded by all nations who have come against her.
Two camels for the one on the right!
Maybe true...looking more and more so everyday..
Although the word Rapture is not in the Bible, it is clear that there will be a catching away with Jesus prior to the Battle at Armageddon. Revelation ch 16: 15, 16.
Well, first there will be all sorts of calamities. We haven’t seen the waters turn to blood, or 1/3rd of the population die yet. I figure this could be the ezekiel war. Armageddon has to be at least 7 years off. More likely a lot longer than that.
The Assyrian kingdom prior to 1000 BC was different from that of 700 BC -- the latter is called the "neo-Assyrian Empire"
Secondly, your statement "The Assyrian Empire is the same as the Eastern half of the Roman Empire." is factually wrong -- look at the maps above, the Eastern Roman Empire only had the western portion of the previous Assyrian Empire. The Iranis had the eastern portion
Since you now say you didn’t mean the Roman and Assyrian Empire were PRECISELY the same, in what linguistic, historical, cultural or political sense do you consider them the same?
This “Levant” has also been ruled at times by the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Arab, Crusader, Fatimid and Ottoman Empires, among others.
What is the specific connection between ISIS/ISIL/IS and the Romans and Assyrians?
BTW, the difference between the meaning of ISIS and ISIL is minimal. Historically, Greater Syria referred to the area now controlled by Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon as well as Syria. Levant and Syria were very nearly synonymous.
Also, what is the relevance of the Assyrians? They never destroyed Jerusalem or its temple. That was done by the Babylonians, the empire that succeeded Syria.
Except the Assyrian areas are under Iraqi government control and are populated mostly by Shia. Also, I’ve seen nothing of ISIS’s claim to that area. The only maps I’ve seen of their proposed or actual state do not include Babylon and other ancient Assyrian areas.
When Assad falls Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s goal will be achieved. Funding for ISIS will stop and it will get ground up by the Syrian successor -which won’t be ISIS, the Kurds, Iraq and Jordan.
It means the announcer is mouthing Bravado that has no basis in fact
Correction...Bomb...
At least two...
That would take care of a big portion of the problem...Or at least define it even clearer for some who are slightly thicker skull’d than the rest...;-)
But this just makes me a really mean, hated and racist person...
beyond my paygrade to figger out.
What did he SAY?
THAT always seems to be enlightening!
Google (Assyrians Jerusalem)
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
OK. I googled.
Most all the initial hits were for the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah.
They failed, with a large army destroyed.
Now why do you think an unsuccessful siege of the city is more relevant to Bible prophecy or to Israel today than the successful sieges of the city and destruction of its temples by the Babylonians and Romans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.