5. "Would God letting the state of Israel be ended by the Baathists break His promises?"
No, God's promises will not be broken, even if the Baathist scenario comes to pass. For just as God allowed the ancient state of Israel to be ended by the Babylonians in 586 BC, but then restored the state of Israel in 538 BC; and just as God then allowed the state of Israel to be ended again by the Romans in 70 AD, but then allowed the state of Israel to be established again in 1948 AD; so God could allow the state of Israel to be ended again by the Baathists, at the start of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, but then restore the state of Israel at Jesus Christ's Second Coming, which will occur immediately after the Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).
(See also Acts 1:6 and Amos 9:15 above)
~
6. "Did not Iraq fail to defeat Iran the last time?"
Yes, but the U.S. could build up a future, Baathist Iraqi Army until it is much more powerful than it was under (Baathist) Saddam Hussein, to the point where the U.S. could be convinced that another stalemate-war (like in the 1980's) between a Baathist Iraq and a theocratic Iran will be avoided, and Iraq will be able to completely overrun and occupy Iran. (But the leader of a future, Baathist Iraq could decide not to invade Iran at all, but to turn and defeat and occupy Israel and Egypt instead.)
~
7. "Why would the U.S. create another, and even stronger, Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military leader of Iraq, knowing full well that he could attack Israel instead of Iran?"
For a couple of reasons. First, the U.S. could figure that it does not have any choice about having to build up and trust a future Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military ruler of Iraq, because the U.S. has no other viable option regarding how to put a permanent end to ISIS (and to any subsequent, violent iterations of Sunni Arab grievances), and then to also put a lasting end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, its ballistic missile program, its support of terrorist groups, and its extremist regime, which is oppressing the people of Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The war-weary U.S. public will not support any all-out ground war against Iran by U.S. soldiers, which could result in many thousands of them being killed, and tens of thousands of them being seriously wounded. So the U.S. needs a proxy army; it needs cannon fodder made up of a large number of foreign (i.e. Iraqi) troops.
Second, a future Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military ruler of Iraq (who could be put in place by the U.S.) could be extremely shrewd, in that he could be very careful to always assert (even in the privacy of his bedroom, talking alone with his wife; or speaking privately to his son on his smartphone) that he has no interest in ever invading any other country but Iran. For he will know that Western intelligence agencies will be listening in to everything that he says to anyone at any time in any place, by the tapping of his smartphone signals, by listening devices hidden throughout all of his offices, cars, homes, favorite restaurants, etc.; and by very well-bribed and/or blackmailed double agents among his closest aides and confidants. So the U.S. and Israel could begin to feel confident that he is "their man", someone whom they can trust to overthrow Iran for them, and not to cause any trouble anywhere else. But then he could decide not to invade Iran at all, but Israel and Egypt instead.
~
8. "Why not just let Israel bomb Iran into submission?" / (*Bunkers)
A senior Israel Defense Forces officer told the Israeli cabinet in 2011 that the IDF does not have the ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a "meaningful way". This could be because some of the key Iranian nuclear facilities are buried so deep underground (i.e. under mountains) that no bombs dropped from the air (not even the best bunker busters) can get down to them. Also, Iran now has highly-advanced, Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles guarding its main nuclear-weapons facilities. The only way to end Iran's nuclear weapons program is to send ground forces into Iran who can fight their way down into the facilities and then blow them up with hand-placed plastic explosives. But there are so many different facilities scattered in so many different places across Iran that it would take an all-out ground invasion of Iran to be able to reach all of the facilities, and also to overthrow Iran's extremist regime. For if it is not overthrown, it will (with Russian and North Korean help) simply rebuild any nuclear facilities which are destroyed; or it will secretly purchase already-built nukes directly from North Korea. But, in an awful irony, the preparations for an all-out Iraqi ground war against Iran, to prevent the destruction of Israel by Iranian nukes, could instead result in the destruction of Israel during a different war, by the very same Iraqi ground forces which had been built up by the U.S. to invade Iran.
~
Some possible objections to the Baathist, Arab political unity scenario outlined above:
1. "Isn't there no political unity, but only much divisiveness, in the Arab world?"
There is no unity now, when the Arab masses are unnaturally divided by rival military dictatorships, many supported by the U.S. and Israel. But all of the current political divisiveness in the Arab world could be overcome if Baathism is able to ignite Arab nationalism as the cause célèbre among the Arab masses, who could overthrow any Arab governments insistent on keeping the Arab world splintered up into petty, political fiefdoms. Take out the different dictatorships, and replace them all with one popular, charismatic, Arab-nationalist, Baathist dictator (that is, the future Antichrist) who will distribute the Arab oil wealth to the Arab masses (Daniel 11:24), and you will get political unity in the Arab world in a heartbeat.
~
2. "But is not the Arab world hopelessly divided by religion (Sunnis vs. Shiites), killing its own without batting an eyelid?"
The beauty of Baathism (from a Baathist's point of view) is that it downplays religion and focuses on Arab nationalism. The Baathists could point to Sunni vs. Shiite warfare and terrorism as proof that religious extremism is only hurting the Arabs themselves, and that the Arabs need to assert religious moderation across the board. Most Arabs are already religiously moderate. They are just too scared of the religious extremists to speak out publicly against extremism. But if the Baathists squash the extremists militarily, then the Arabs can unite politically under Arab nationalism and a moderate Islam into one, powerful United Arab States, regardless of the majority religious sects (i.e. whether Sunni or Shiite) within its various states.
~
3. "But how could the minority, Sunni Iraqis keep the majority, Shiite Iraqis from taking control?"
In the same way that they did under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni Arabs are generally tougher than the Shiite Arabs in warfare, possibly due to the generally tougher environments in which the Sunni Arabs live. That is, the Sunni Arabs tend to live in harsh deserts, while the Shiite Arabs prefer easier areas to live in. It was the same way during the Christian Reformation. The Protestants were generally tougher than the Catholics in warfare, possibly due to the generally tougher environments in which the Protestants lived. That is, the Protestants tended to live in colder regions, while the Catholics preferred easier areas to live in.
But with regard to non-Arab Shiites, the Iranians (Persians) are generally tougher than the Arabs in warfare, possibly due to their genetic descent. For the ancient Persians built an empire which completely controlled the Arabs in the Middle East, just as modern Iran is trying to rebuild the Persian Empire in part of the Arab world today, by taking hegemony over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and part of Yemen. Iran is also menacing the Arab Gulf States, and could easily take them over militarily, apart from U.S. intervention.
~
4. "Is not Arab unity and power impossible because they are not Western thinkers; they do not have Western intellects?"
The Arabs will not have to become Western thinkers (in the sense of embracing democracy or women's rights) to become united, like they were united at times during the Middle Ages, when for centuries Arab intellectual endeavors far excelled those in Europe. The Arabs are in no sense stupid intellectually. Their masses have just in recent centuries been suppressed intellectually, not educated in any matters beyond religion. Dubai shows that once educated in a modern fashion, the Arab mind is more than capable of developing a modern, technological society like that in the West. Imagine the level of economic development in Dubai spread across the Arab world, from Oman to Morocco, and you can begin to grasp the potential power of a United Arab States.
Also, the United Arab Emirates, called "little Sparta" by Mattis, proves that Arabs can become very proficient fighters, once they have been trained and motivated properly. Imagine the current prowess of the little U.A.E. military expanded across the Arab world, from Oman to Morocco, and you can begin to grasp the frightening, potential military power of a United Arab States, which would pose a serious problem for the West, just as the Arabs did during the Middle Ages. Note doubt this is why the West and Israel try so hard to keep the Arab world divided up into rival, relatively-powerless, individual nation-states. And even big Arab militaries, such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are purposely kept poorly trained (by the West), and poorly motivated (except by venal corruption), so that they will not ever pose a threat to the West or Israel.
But this also keeps the Arabs weak with regard to Iran. Note, for example, the continuing failure of the Arabs (even the U.A.E.) to defeat Iran's proxy war in Yemen, or defeat (non-Arab) Iran's current hegemony over Arab Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Also, Iran is supported by Russia, so that any gains for Iran are gains for Russian influence in the Middle East, which, in the zero-sum game of geopolitics, results in losses for U.S. influence there.
Saudi Arabia could try to break its military free from sole dependence on Western training and weapons. But who could it go to instead? For Russia or China will only try to oppress it. And even they could never do much to turn Saudi Arabia into a real military power. For its culture is just too passive. It would need to "merge" itself with the dynamic, U.A.E. culture, and let the U.A.E.'s military leaders, who are trained by U.S. mercenary corporations, to also train and equip the Saudi military. There could be many Saudi princes and military leaders who could fully agree with such a merging. And they could be able, with the king's help, to squelch any blocking of this by the young, power-hungry prince who is now in charge.
~
5. "Are not the Baathists history after Saddam ruined their image?"
Baathism is not history in the minds of most of the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, or in the minds of millions of Arabs in Syria, the government of which is still Baathist. And the rest of the Arab world could be easily swayed to join the Baathists, if they completely defeat and occupy Israel, and also distribute the Arab Gulf states' oil wealth to the Arab masses. For Baathism's raison d'être is to raise up all of the Arab people into a mighty and prosperous Arab Empire, free from all Western and Iranian hegemony.
~
Some other comments:
(Re: What are known as Palestinians are refugees of a war which the Arab countries promised to win for them)
There really is no such thing as "Palestinians", as opposed to Arabs. For Palestinians are also Arabs. So a future, "United Palestine" (that is, a defeated and occupied Israel) could become just one (minor) state within a huge United Arab States, stretching from Oman to Morocco.
~
(Re: No Arab country has done anything significant toward the return of these refugees)
The Baathists could use that fact to help disgrace the current Arab governments, and to get them replaced by a (Baathist) United Arab States, after the Baathists defeat and occupy Israel and Egypt, and create a "United Palestine", to which all of the refugees (and all of their descendants) in Jordan, Lebanon, etc., can freely return.
~
(Re: The so-called Muslim Brotherhood does not care about any Palestinian)
The Baathists could use that idea to help show that Arab Islamic parties have not helped the Arabs at all to become free and powerful. (That is, Islam is not the answer.) What the Arabs need is Arab nationalism, a political unification of all Arab countries into a single, truly-federal, United Arab States, stretching from Oman to Morocco. Only this would restore the power of the Arabs on the world stage like they had during the Middle Ages.
~
(Re: The Antichrist's *Cabal)
Ultimately, the power behind the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") will be Lucifer/Satan (the dragon) (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9), just as the controllers of the non-Christian world have always been (and are still currently) Satan and his fallen angels (Ephesians 6:12, Ephesians 2:2-3). But there could also be a secret cabal of human world leaders in big business, finance, intelligence agencies, federal law enforcement, politics, the media/entertainment, the military, and religion, who know this fact and so have secretly become worshippers of Satan in order to obtain from him all of the world's power, wealth, and pleasures that they can (cf. Matthew 4:9).
These Satanists could have been working secretly together for some time (including through a worldwide secret society which teaches Gnostic Luciferianism, also called Satanism, at its highest degree of initiation) to prepare the way politically, economically, culturally, militarily, and religiously for a single Satanist human world leader (the Antichrist) to take hegemony over the whole earth (Revelation 13:7b), and, along with his miracle-working False Prophet, to bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer/Satan and the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 19:20). God will let them succeed in this, but for less than four years (Revelation 13:5b, Daniel 12:11-12), before Jesus Christ returns from heaven and defeats them completely (Revelation 19:20 to 20:3). Jesus will then set up his own, 1,000-year, physical kingdom on the earth with the physically resurrected Church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:8-21).
(See also Revelation 13:2 and Ezekiel 28(space) above. And see Revelation 13:4 above)
~
(Re: Isn't it only the Jewish cabal which we need to fear? I mean, don't they want a Jew to rule the world? So why do Dispensationalists side with Israel like they do?)
A Jew will end up ruling the world, for Jesus Christ is a Jew (John 4:9,22). And at His future, Second Coming, He will rule the world (Psalms 72:8, Zechariah 14:9), on the throne of His forefather King David the Jew (Luke 1:32, Isaiah 9:7). And other Jews will rule the world with Jesus. For the Church includes Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13). And the Church will rule the world with Jesus during the future Millennium (Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 20:4-6).
But no one can be saved simply by siding himself with Jews. For not all Jews are saved or will be saved (John 8:42-47, Revelation 2:9; 1 John 2:22). One can be saved from hell only through the individual Jew Jesus Christ (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12).
~
(Re: Is the Antichrist a good rebel, like George Washington?)
Lucifer (Satan, the dragon: Revelation 12:9), his fallen angels (Revelation 12:9b), the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") (Revelation 13:4-8), and the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 19:20) are similar to the U.S.'s founding fathers with regard to their rebellion against YHWH God. For the U.S.'s Founding Fathers rebelled against YHWH God when they rebelled against the King of England. For YHWH God has commanded people not to rebel against established governmental authorities (Romans 13). If the people of America had only been more patient, like, for example, the people of Canada and Australia were more patient, they could have obtained liberty from the King of England without having to have waged war against him, and without having to have caused the completely unnecessary early deaths of so many people during the American Revolutionary War, and then the War of 1812.
Another way that Lucifer/Satan and the Antichrist could act similarly to the U.S.'s founding fathers is the latter reviled the King of England as an evil tyrant, and mistakenly thought that this justified their violent rebellion against him. The Antichrist, who will be empowered by Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:4), will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). And no doubt one of his chief blasphemies against YHWH will be that YHWH is an evil tyrant. This is one of the ancient blasphemies of Gnosticism, another being the antichrist lie that Christ is not in the flesh (2 John 1:7).
But with regard to religious liberty, when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations (Revelation 13:4-8), Satan and the Antichrist will act differently than the U.S.'s founding fathers. For the latter made sure to specify in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that the U.S. government must never make people follow any one religion. But when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations, they will force everyone in the world (not in hiding) to worship Lucifer/Satan, and the Antichrist, and an image of the Antichrist, on the pain of death (Revelation 13:4-18).
Another way that Satan and the Antichrist will be different than the U.S.'s founding fathers is that since the latter founded the U.S., YHWH God has allowed it to keep control of its territory for centuries. But when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations, YHWH God will let him keep that power for less than four years (Revelation 13:5, Daniel 12:11-12), before Jesus Christ (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) returns from heaven and defeats him completely (Revelation 19:20 to 20:3). The returned Jesus will then establish His physical reign over the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:8-21).
~
(Re: The *Beast)
"Beasts" can refer figuratively to men (Titus 1:12). Revelation uses a Greek masculine-pronoun "him" to refer to its beast (Revelation 13:8) when it is referring to the individual "man" (Revelation 13:18) aspect of its beast, commonly called the Antichrist, the individual...
(See "man of sin" under 1 John 2:18 above)
A second aspect of Revelation's beast is that it is a powerful fallen angel (referred to with a Greek masculine-pronoun "he" in Revelation 17:11), who is now literally in the Bottomless Pit, and will ascend from it during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 to spiritually empower the empire of the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 17:8-11), empire being a third aspect of the beast, represented by the animal symbols of Revelation 13:1-2. The fallen-angel aspect of the beast could be the angelic prince whom Satan assigned to spiritually empower the ancient empire of Babylon, just as Satan assigned other fallen angelic princes to spiritually empower the subsequent ancient empires of Persia and Greece (Daniel 10:13,20). When the ancient empire of Babylon was defeated, the fallen angelic prince empowering it could have been cast into the Bottomless Pit. This same fallen angel could be released to empower a revival of the empire of Babylon, during the future Antichrist's literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (of Revelation 13:5-18).
The release of the powerful fallen angelic prince of Babylon from the Bottomless Pit could occur at the same time as the unbinding of four other powerful fallen angels who are now bound in the Euphrates (Revelation 9:14b). They could have been bound there at the fall of the ancient empire of Babylon. The binding of a stone to a prophetic scroll (written down by the prophet Jeremiah) about the fall of the ancient empire of Babylon, and the casting of the scroll into the Euphrates to sink down to the bottom (Jeremiah 51:63-64), could have been a symbolic act which included a representation of the binding of the four powerful fallen angels, and their being cast into the Euphrates to sink down to the bottom.
When these four fallen angels are released at one point during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, they will cause an army of 200 million strange horse-like beings to kill one-third of mankind (Revelation 9:15-19). This could be done to make mankind completely desperate before its takeover by Satan and the Antichrist mid-tribulation, when Satan and his fallen angels will be cast down from heaven to the earth permanently, after losing a mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 to 13:18).
(See also paragraphs 5-14 of the "Details" section of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 (Overview) above)
(Also, see Revelation 13:1 and Job 33:22 above)
~
(Re: Can any aspect of the beast be a fallen angel when the idiom "was, and is not" applies to someone who was alive, but who has died?)
The phrase "was, and is not" in Revelation 17:8 does not have to apply to someone who was alive, but who has died. Instead, it can apply to a fallen angel who was a power on the earth at one time, but who was not a power on the earth at the time of the apostle John, who wrote down the book of Revelation in the first century AD.
~
(Re: The Antichrist is *not Satan)
(Regarding the False Prophet not being Satan, see the "not Satan" section of Revelation 13:11 below)
Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9) is not the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), but the one who will empower the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:9) and who will be worshiped along with the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4). The Antichrist will be cast into the lake of fire over 1,000 years before Satan is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20 to 20:10). The Antichrist and Satan are shown to be separate persons also in Revelation 16:13. But Satan could spiritually enter the man who is the Antichrist, just as Satan spiritually entered Judas (Luke 22:3).
~
(Re: The beast empire is *not Satan)
The beast in its empire aspect (Revelation 13:1-2, Revelation 17:3) is a different entity than Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:3,9). For the beast and the dragon are shown to be separate in Revelation 13:2,4, Revelation 16:13, and Revelation 19:20 to 20:3. Also, Satan has his crowns on his seven heads (Revelation 12:3,9), while the symbolic beast has its crowns on its ten horns (Revelation 13:1).
In Revelation 12:3, the seven heads are Satan's literal heads in his true, serpentine-dragon form (Revelation 12:9), while the seven heads of the symbolic leopard-like beast in Revelation 13:1-2 and Revelation 17:3 are the symbolic heads of the kingdom of Satan as he has made it in his seven-headed image down through the ages, during seven consecutive empires (Revelation 17:9-10).
(See Revelation 13:1 above. Also, see section 2 of Revelation 13(space) above)
~
(Re: The beast angel is *not Satan)
The fallen-angel aspect of the beast (Revelation 17:8-11) is not Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9). For the former is currently in the Bottomless Pit (Revelation 17:8), while Satan is currently walking about invisibly on the earth seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Jan 3, 2019
No, God's promises will not be broken, even if the Baathist scenario comes to pass. For just as God allowed the ancient state of Israel to be ended by the Babylonians in 586 BC, but then restored the state of Israel in 538 BC; and just as God then allowed the state of Israel to be ended again by the Romans in 70 AD, but then allowed the state of Israel to be established again in 1948 AD; so God could allow the state of Israel to be ended again by the Baathists, at the start of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, but then restore the state of Israel at Jesus Christ's Second Coming, which will occur immediately after the Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).
(See also Acts 1:6 and Amos 9:15 above)
~
6. "Did not Iraq fail to defeat Iran the last time?"
Yes, but the U.S. could build up a future, Baathist Iraqi Army until it is much more powerful than it was under (Baathist) Saddam Hussein, to the point where the U.S. could be convinced that another stalemate-war (like in the 1980's) between a Baathist Iraq and a theocratic Iran will be avoided, and Iraq will be able to completely overrun and occupy Iran. (But the leader of a future, Baathist Iraq could decide not to invade Iran at all, but to turn and defeat and occupy Israel and Egypt instead.)
~
7. "Why would the U.S. create another, and even stronger, Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military leader of Iraq, knowing full well that he could attack Israel instead of Iran?"
For a couple of reasons. First, the U.S. could figure that it does not have any choice about having to build up and trust a future Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military ruler of Iraq, because the U.S. has no other viable option regarding how to put a permanent end to ISIS (and to any subsequent, violent iterations of Sunni Arab grievances), and then to also put a lasting end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, its ballistic missile program, its support of terrorist groups, and its extremist regime, which is oppressing the people of Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The war-weary U.S. public will not support any all-out ground war against Iran by U.S. soldiers, which could result in many thousands of them being killed, and tens of thousands of them being seriously wounded. So the U.S. needs a proxy army; it needs cannon fodder made up of a large number of foreign (i.e. Iraqi) troops.
Second, a future Baathist, Saddam Hussein-type military ruler of Iraq (who could be put in place by the U.S.) could be extremely shrewd, in that he could be very careful to always assert (even in the privacy of his bedroom, talking alone with his wife; or speaking privately to his son on his smartphone) that he has no interest in ever invading any other country but Iran. For he will know that Western intelligence agencies will be listening in to everything that he says to anyone at any time in any place, by the tapping of his smartphone signals, by listening devices hidden throughout all of his offices, cars, homes, favorite restaurants, etc.; and by very well-bribed and/or blackmailed double agents among his closest aides and confidants. So the U.S. and Israel could begin to feel confident that he is "their man", someone whom they can trust to overthrow Iran for them, and not to cause any trouble anywhere else. But then he could decide not to invade Iran at all, but Israel and Egypt instead.
~
8. "Why not just let Israel bomb Iran into submission?" / (*Bunkers)
A senior Israel Defense Forces officer told the Israeli cabinet in 2011 that the IDF does not have the ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a "meaningful way". This could be because some of the key Iranian nuclear facilities are buried so deep underground (i.e. under mountains) that no bombs dropped from the air (not even the best bunker busters) can get down to them. Also, Iran now has highly-advanced, Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles guarding its main nuclear-weapons facilities. The only way to end Iran's nuclear weapons program is to send ground forces into Iran who can fight their way down into the facilities and then blow them up with hand-placed plastic explosives. But there are so many different facilities scattered in so many different places across Iran that it would take an all-out ground invasion of Iran to be able to reach all of the facilities, and also to overthrow Iran's extremist regime. For if it is not overthrown, it will (with Russian and North Korean help) simply rebuild any nuclear facilities which are destroyed; or it will secretly purchase already-built nukes directly from North Korea. But, in an awful irony, the preparations for an all-out Iraqi ground war against Iran, to prevent the destruction of Israel by Iranian nukes, could instead result in the destruction of Israel during a different war, by the very same Iraqi ground forces which had been built up by the U.S. to invade Iran.
~
Some possible objections to the Baathist, Arab political unity scenario outlined above:
1. "Isn't there no political unity, but only much divisiveness, in the Arab world?"
There is no unity now, when the Arab masses are unnaturally divided by rival military dictatorships, many supported by the U.S. and Israel. But all of the current political divisiveness in the Arab world could be overcome if Baathism is able to ignite Arab nationalism as the cause célèbre among the Arab masses, who could overthrow any Arab governments insistent on keeping the Arab world splintered up into petty, political fiefdoms. Take out the different dictatorships, and replace them all with one popular, charismatic, Arab-nationalist, Baathist dictator (that is, the future Antichrist) who will distribute the Arab oil wealth to the Arab masses (Daniel 11:24), and you will get political unity in the Arab world in a heartbeat.
~
2. "But is not the Arab world hopelessly divided by religion (Sunnis vs. Shiites), killing its own without batting an eyelid?"
The beauty of Baathism (from a Baathist's point of view) is that it downplays religion and focuses on Arab nationalism. The Baathists could point to Sunni vs. Shiite warfare and terrorism as proof that religious extremism is only hurting the Arabs themselves, and that the Arabs need to assert religious moderation across the board. Most Arabs are already religiously moderate. They are just too scared of the religious extremists to speak out publicly against extremism. But if the Baathists squash the extremists militarily, then the Arabs can unite politically under Arab nationalism and a moderate Islam into one, powerful United Arab States, regardless of the majority religious sects (i.e. whether Sunni or Shiite) within its various states.
~
3. "But how could the minority, Sunni Iraqis keep the majority, Shiite Iraqis from taking control?"
In the same way that they did under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni Arabs are generally tougher than the Shiite Arabs in warfare, possibly due to the generally tougher environments in which the Sunni Arabs live. That is, the Sunni Arabs tend to live in harsh deserts, while the Shiite Arabs prefer easier areas to live in. It was the same way during the Christian Reformation. The Protestants were generally tougher than the Catholics in warfare, possibly due to the generally tougher environments in which the Protestants lived. That is, the Protestants tended to live in colder regions, while the Catholics preferred easier areas to live in.
But with regard to non-Arab Shiites, the Iranians (Persians) are generally tougher than the Arabs in warfare, possibly due to their genetic descent. For the ancient Persians built an empire which completely controlled the Arabs in the Middle East, just as modern Iran is trying to rebuild the Persian Empire in part of the Arab world today, by taking hegemony over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and part of Yemen. Iran is also menacing the Arab Gulf States, and could easily take them over militarily, apart from U.S. intervention.
~
4. "Is not Arab unity and power impossible because they are not Western thinkers; they do not have Western intellects?"
The Arabs will not have to become Western thinkers (in the sense of embracing democracy or women's rights) to become united, like they were united at times during the Middle Ages, when for centuries Arab intellectual endeavors far excelled those in Europe. The Arabs are in no sense stupid intellectually. Their masses have just in recent centuries been suppressed intellectually, not educated in any matters beyond religion. Dubai shows that once educated in a modern fashion, the Arab mind is more than capable of developing a modern, technological society like that in the West. Imagine the level of economic development in Dubai spread across the Arab world, from Oman to Morocco, and you can begin to grasp the potential power of a United Arab States.
Also, the United Arab Emirates, called "little Sparta" by Mattis, proves that Arabs can become very proficient fighters, once they have been trained and motivated properly. Imagine the current prowess of the little U.A.E. military expanded across the Arab world, from Oman to Morocco, and you can begin to grasp the frightening, potential military power of a United Arab States, which would pose a serious problem for the West, just as the Arabs did during the Middle Ages. Note doubt this is why the West and Israel try so hard to keep the Arab world divided up into rival, relatively-powerless, individual nation-states. And even big Arab militaries, such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are purposely kept poorly trained (by the West), and poorly motivated (except by venal corruption), so that they will not ever pose a threat to the West or Israel.
But this also keeps the Arabs weak with regard to Iran. Note, for example, the continuing failure of the Arabs (even the U.A.E.) to defeat Iran's proxy war in Yemen, or defeat (non-Arab) Iran's current hegemony over Arab Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Also, Iran is supported by Russia, so that any gains for Iran are gains for Russian influence in the Middle East, which, in the zero-sum game of geopolitics, results in losses for U.S. influence there.
Saudi Arabia could try to break its military free from sole dependence on Western training and weapons. But who could it go to instead? For Russia or China will only try to oppress it. And even they could never do much to turn Saudi Arabia into a real military power. For its culture is just too passive. It would need to "merge" itself with the dynamic, U.A.E. culture, and let the U.A.E.'s military leaders, who are trained by U.S. mercenary corporations, to also train and equip the Saudi military. There could be many Saudi princes and military leaders who could fully agree with such a merging. And they could be able, with the king's help, to squelch any blocking of this by the young, power-hungry prince who is now in charge.
~
5. "Are not the Baathists history after Saddam ruined their image?"
Baathism is not history in the minds of most of the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, or in the minds of millions of Arabs in Syria, the government of which is still Baathist. And the rest of the Arab world could be easily swayed to join the Baathists, if they completely defeat and occupy Israel, and also distribute the Arab Gulf states' oil wealth to the Arab masses. For Baathism's raison d'être is to raise up all of the Arab people into a mighty and prosperous Arab Empire, free from all Western and Iranian hegemony.
~
Some other comments:
(Re: What are known as Palestinians are refugees of a war which the Arab countries promised to win for them)
There really is no such thing as "Palestinians", as opposed to Arabs. For Palestinians are also Arabs. So a future, "United Palestine" (that is, a defeated and occupied Israel) could become just one (minor) state within a huge United Arab States, stretching from Oman to Morocco.
~
(Re: No Arab country has done anything significant toward the return of these refugees)
The Baathists could use that fact to help disgrace the current Arab governments, and to get them replaced by a (Baathist) United Arab States, after the Baathists defeat and occupy Israel and Egypt, and create a "United Palestine", to which all of the refugees (and all of their descendants) in Jordan, Lebanon, etc., can freely return.
~
(Re: The so-called Muslim Brotherhood does not care about any Palestinian)
The Baathists could use that idea to help show that Arab Islamic parties have not helped the Arabs at all to become free and powerful. (That is, Islam is not the answer.) What the Arabs need is Arab nationalism, a political unification of all Arab countries into a single, truly-federal, United Arab States, stretching from Oman to Morocco. Only this would restore the power of the Arabs on the world stage like they had during the Middle Ages.
~
(Re: The Antichrist's *Cabal)
Ultimately, the power behind the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") will be Lucifer/Satan (the dragon) (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9), just as the controllers of the non-Christian world have always been (and are still currently) Satan and his fallen angels (Ephesians 6:12, Ephesians 2:2-3). But there could also be a secret cabal of human world leaders in big business, finance, intelligence agencies, federal law enforcement, politics, the media/entertainment, the military, and religion, who know this fact and so have secretly become worshippers of Satan in order to obtain from him all of the world's power, wealth, and pleasures that they can (cf. Matthew 4:9).
These Satanists could have been working secretly together for some time (including through a worldwide secret society which teaches Gnostic Luciferianism, also called Satanism, at its highest degree of initiation) to prepare the way politically, economically, culturally, militarily, and religiously for a single Satanist human world leader (the Antichrist) to take hegemony over the whole earth (Revelation 13:7b), and, along with his miracle-working False Prophet, to bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer/Satan and the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 19:20). God will let them succeed in this, but for less than four years (Revelation 13:5b, Daniel 12:11-12), before Jesus Christ returns from heaven and defeats them completely (Revelation 19:20 to 20:3). Jesus will then set up his own, 1,000-year, physical kingdom on the earth with the physically resurrected Church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:8-21).
(See also Revelation 13:2 and Ezekiel 28(space) above. And see Revelation 13:4 above)
~
(Re: Isn't it only the Jewish cabal which we need to fear? I mean, don't they want a Jew to rule the world? So why do Dispensationalists side with Israel like they do?)
A Jew will end up ruling the world, for Jesus Christ is a Jew (John 4:9,22). And at His future, Second Coming, He will rule the world (Psalms 72:8, Zechariah 14:9), on the throne of His forefather King David the Jew (Luke 1:32, Isaiah 9:7). And other Jews will rule the world with Jesus. For the Church includes Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13). And the Church will rule the world with Jesus during the future Millennium (Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 20:4-6).
But no one can be saved simply by siding himself with Jews. For not all Jews are saved or will be saved (John 8:42-47, Revelation 2:9; 1 John 2:22). One can be saved from hell only through the individual Jew Jesus Christ (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12).
~
(Re: Is the Antichrist a good rebel, like George Washington?)
Lucifer (Satan, the dragon: Revelation 12:9), his fallen angels (Revelation 12:9b), the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") (Revelation 13:4-8), and the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 19:20) are similar to the U.S.'s founding fathers with regard to their rebellion against YHWH God. For the U.S.'s Founding Fathers rebelled against YHWH God when they rebelled against the King of England. For YHWH God has commanded people not to rebel against established governmental authorities (Romans 13). If the people of America had only been more patient, like, for example, the people of Canada and Australia were more patient, they could have obtained liberty from the King of England without having to have waged war against him, and without having to have caused the completely unnecessary early deaths of so many people during the American Revolutionary War, and then the War of 1812.
Another way that Lucifer/Satan and the Antichrist could act similarly to the U.S.'s founding fathers is the latter reviled the King of England as an evil tyrant, and mistakenly thought that this justified their violent rebellion against him. The Antichrist, who will be empowered by Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:4), will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). And no doubt one of his chief blasphemies against YHWH will be that YHWH is an evil tyrant. This is one of the ancient blasphemies of Gnosticism, another being the antichrist lie that Christ is not in the flesh (2 John 1:7).
But with regard to religious liberty, when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations (Revelation 13:4-8), Satan and the Antichrist will act differently than the U.S.'s founding fathers. For the latter made sure to specify in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that the U.S. government must never make people follow any one religion. But when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations, they will force everyone in the world (not in hiding) to worship Lucifer/Satan, and the Antichrist, and an image of the Antichrist, on the pain of death (Revelation 13:4-18).
Another way that Satan and the Antichrist will be different than the U.S.'s founding fathers is that since the latter founded the U.S., YHWH God has allowed it to keep control of its territory for centuries. But when Satan gives the Antichrist power over all nations, YHWH God will let him keep that power for less than four years (Revelation 13:5, Daniel 12:11-12), before Jesus Christ (who is YHWH: John 10:30, Zechariah 14:3-4) returns from heaven and defeats him completely (Revelation 19:20 to 20:3). The returned Jesus will then establish His physical reign over the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:8-21).
~
(Re: The *Beast)
"Beasts" can refer figuratively to men (Titus 1:12). Revelation uses a Greek masculine-pronoun "him" to refer to its beast (Revelation 13:8) when it is referring to the individual "man" (Revelation 13:18) aspect of its beast, commonly called the Antichrist, the individual...
(See "man of sin" under 1 John 2:18 above)
A second aspect of Revelation's beast is that it is a powerful fallen angel (referred to with a Greek masculine-pronoun "he" in Revelation 17:11), who is now literally in the Bottomless Pit, and will ascend from it during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 to spiritually empower the empire of the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 17:8-11), empire being a third aspect of the beast, represented by the animal symbols of Revelation 13:1-2. The fallen-angel aspect of the beast could be the angelic prince whom Satan assigned to spiritually empower the ancient empire of Babylon, just as Satan assigned other fallen angelic princes to spiritually empower the subsequent ancient empires of Persia and Greece (Daniel 10:13,20). When the ancient empire of Babylon was defeated, the fallen angelic prince empowering it could have been cast into the Bottomless Pit. This same fallen angel could be released to empower a revival of the empire of Babylon, during the future Antichrist's literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (of Revelation 13:5-18).
The release of the powerful fallen angelic prince of Babylon from the Bottomless Pit could occur at the same time as the unbinding of four other powerful fallen angels who are now bound in the Euphrates (Revelation 9:14b). They could have been bound there at the fall of the ancient empire of Babylon. The binding of a stone to a prophetic scroll (written down by the prophet Jeremiah) about the fall of the ancient empire of Babylon, and the casting of the scroll into the Euphrates to sink down to the bottom (Jeremiah 51:63-64), could have been a symbolic act which included a representation of the binding of the four powerful fallen angels, and their being cast into the Euphrates to sink down to the bottom.
When these four fallen angels are released at one point during the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, they will cause an army of 200 million strange horse-like beings to kill one-third of mankind (Revelation 9:15-19). This could be done to make mankind completely desperate before its takeover by Satan and the Antichrist mid-tribulation, when Satan and his fallen angels will be cast down from heaven to the earth permanently, after losing a mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 to 13:18).
(See also paragraphs 5-14 of the "Details" section of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 (Overview) above)
(Also, see Revelation 13:1 and Job 33:22 above)
~
(Re: Can any aspect of the beast be a fallen angel when the idiom "was, and is not" applies to someone who was alive, but who has died?)
The phrase "was, and is not" in Revelation 17:8 does not have to apply to someone who was alive, but who has died. Instead, it can apply to a fallen angel who was a power on the earth at one time, but who was not a power on the earth at the time of the apostle John, who wrote down the book of Revelation in the first century AD.
~
(Re: The Antichrist is *not Satan)
(Regarding the False Prophet not being Satan, see the "not Satan" section of Revelation 13:11 below)
Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9) is not the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), but the one who will empower the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:9) and who will be worshiped along with the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4). The Antichrist will be cast into the lake of fire over 1,000 years before Satan is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20 to 20:10). The Antichrist and Satan are shown to be separate persons also in Revelation 16:13. But Satan could spiritually enter the man who is the Antichrist, just as Satan spiritually entered Judas (Luke 22:3).
~
(Re: The beast empire is *not Satan)
The beast in its empire aspect (Revelation 13:1-2, Revelation 17:3) is a different entity than Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:3,9). For the beast and the dragon are shown to be separate in Revelation 13:2,4, Revelation 16:13, and Revelation 19:20 to 20:3. Also, Satan has his crowns on his seven heads (Revelation 12:3,9), while the symbolic beast has its crowns on its ten horns (Revelation 13:1).
In Revelation 12:3, the seven heads are Satan's literal heads in his true, serpentine-dragon form (Revelation 12:9), while the seven heads of the symbolic leopard-like beast in Revelation 13:1-2 and Revelation 17:3 are the symbolic heads of the kingdom of Satan as he has made it in his seven-headed image down through the ages, during seven consecutive empires (Revelation 17:9-10).
(See Revelation 13:1 above. Also, see section 2 of Revelation 13(space) above)
~
(Re: The beast angel is *not Satan)
The fallen-angel aspect of the beast (Revelation 17:8-11) is not Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9). For the former is currently in the Bottomless Pit (Revelation 17:8), while Satan is currently walking about invisibly on the earth seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Jan 3, 2019
