World Army To Fight Terrorists?
October 22, 2014
|
Share this article
Who
is going to stop ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups?
The United States and its allies are starting to have a go at it, but
are limited by the desire to minimize western troop casualties and
successfully evade the political booby traps along the way. Which is
good news for terrorists: no major war can be fought and won using
air-force and other remote type offensives alone. Some troops will have
to walk the ground and use gunfire and artillery inside trenches,
jungles, on building rooftops and in streets and corridors. Many of them
will return home in body bags, or be left disabled and psychologically
traumatized in the wake of it all.
The idea of a world anti-terrorism army that will spread out the casualties between many nations therefore sounds more palatable. It would minimize the numbers of individual country deaths, reducing the risks of political fallout, and centralize or spread out the financial costs of war. According to influential globalist Henry Kissinger who is also said to be a Bilderberger kingpin, this is just the solution the world needs to overcome the terrorist threat.
In a recent report carried in PrisonPlanet.com, Bill O’Reilly stated on ABC News that he had interviewed Kissinger and reportedly found that Kissinger heartily endorses the idea of a world mercenary army under the guise of fighting terrorism. According to the report, Kissinger is said to be a staunch globalist, intent on pushing for the dissolution of sovereign nations in favor of his vision of a New World Order: “Even at the age of 91, he’s still churning out books, openly calling for global government – see ‘World Order’ his latest globalist ‘diatribe’ in which he bemoans the fact that nation states still exist, suggesting that they are the root cause of modern upheaval in the world."
In the report, Kissinger is quoted stating that: “The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.”
Perhaps part of Kissinger’s frustration is that a world army already exists in the form of a UN peace-keeping force; however it can hardly be described as a fully fledged global force. Its scope is generally limited to operating within strictly limited parameters and timeframes. Hardly what is required to stop bloodthirsty and well armed and trained terrorists who are conditioned to fight using different and advanced forms of warfare, especially on the ground.
Thomas Axworthy, writing for the star.com summarizes this issue as follows: “Rarely has the case for the use of force been more compelling than the need to stop, and then roll back the recent advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is not only a geo-strategic threat, but a group that openly advocates genocide. The case is so compelling for an international coalition to combat ISIS that Canada should press the United States to obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against the Islamic State extremists. Canada should certainly be part of the anti-ISIS coalition, and that coalition, in turn, should have the sanction of international law…I cannot conceive of the UN Security Council turning down a motion to authorize military action against ISIS. But strangely, such a motion has not yet been brought to the Security Council. Instead, another ad hoc coalition of the “willing” has been assembled outside of the UN framework. Why not use the Security Council to give such a coalition the legitimacy of international law?”
The coalition against ISIS is currently constituted by about 40 nations, led by the United States. It isn’t entirely strange though that the United Nations framework is not coordinating the effort. However, taking into account the rate at which diseases such as Ebola are spreading, chances are that sooner rather than later, a global force will be required to enforce quarantine and general order. This will help to ensure that spread of disease and control of humanitarian relief efforts can be conducted safely and securely. This need has already been clearly evidenced in Ebola-ravaged countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, and the spread of Ebola to Western nations.
The Bible wanrs us that in the end times, no one will be able to escape from the control of the antichrist. This level of control could only be achieved if there was a centralized and co-ordinated law enforcement organization, capable of bypassing countries with corrupt police and inefficient monitoring and control mechanisms.
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name (Revelation 13:16,17).
In other words, a one-world army: not just for terrorists, but to physically control everybody on planet earth so that economic dependence can be fully enforced.
The idea of a world anti-terrorism army that will spread out the casualties between many nations therefore sounds more palatable. It would minimize the numbers of individual country deaths, reducing the risks of political fallout, and centralize or spread out the financial costs of war. According to influential globalist Henry Kissinger who is also said to be a Bilderberger kingpin, this is just the solution the world needs to overcome the terrorist threat.
In a recent report carried in PrisonPlanet.com, Bill O’Reilly stated on ABC News that he had interviewed Kissinger and reportedly found that Kissinger heartily endorses the idea of a world mercenary army under the guise of fighting terrorism. According to the report, Kissinger is said to be a staunch globalist, intent on pushing for the dissolution of sovereign nations in favor of his vision of a New World Order: “Even at the age of 91, he’s still churning out books, openly calling for global government – see ‘World Order’ his latest globalist ‘diatribe’ in which he bemoans the fact that nation states still exist, suggesting that they are the root cause of modern upheaval in the world."
In the report, Kissinger is quoted stating that: “The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.”
Perhaps part of Kissinger’s frustration is that a world army already exists in the form of a UN peace-keeping force; however it can hardly be described as a fully fledged global force. Its scope is generally limited to operating within strictly limited parameters and timeframes. Hardly what is required to stop bloodthirsty and well armed and trained terrorists who are conditioned to fight using different and advanced forms of warfare, especially on the ground.
Thomas Axworthy, writing for the star.com summarizes this issue as follows: “Rarely has the case for the use of force been more compelling than the need to stop, and then roll back the recent advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS is not only a geo-strategic threat, but a group that openly advocates genocide. The case is so compelling for an international coalition to combat ISIS that Canada should press the United States to obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against the Islamic State extremists. Canada should certainly be part of the anti-ISIS coalition, and that coalition, in turn, should have the sanction of international law…I cannot conceive of the UN Security Council turning down a motion to authorize military action against ISIS. But strangely, such a motion has not yet been brought to the Security Council. Instead, another ad hoc coalition of the “willing” has been assembled outside of the UN framework. Why not use the Security Council to give such a coalition the legitimacy of international law?”
The coalition against ISIS is currently constituted by about 40 nations, led by the United States. It isn’t entirely strange though that the United Nations framework is not coordinating the effort. However, taking into account the rate at which diseases such as Ebola are spreading, chances are that sooner rather than later, a global force will be required to enforce quarantine and general order. This will help to ensure that spread of disease and control of humanitarian relief efforts can be conducted safely and securely. This need has already been clearly evidenced in Ebola-ravaged countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, and the spread of Ebola to Western nations.
The Bible wanrs us that in the end times, no one will be able to escape from the control of the antichrist. This level of control could only be achieved if there was a centralized and co-ordinated law enforcement organization, capable of bypassing countries with corrupt police and inefficient monitoring and control mechanisms.
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name (Revelation 13:16,17).
In other words, a one-world army: not just for terrorists, but to physically control everybody on planet earth so that economic dependence can be fully enforced.
Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/October22/225.html#v2Z5tOk8tk2zzQH3.99
No comments:
Post a Comment