The Miracle of Israel - A Scientific Theory

..

HAVE SCIENTISTS PROVEN THAT GOD IS PROTECTING ISRAEL?

written by Phil Schneider

Israel Unwired

April 11, 2019 

Nuclear physicist, Gerald Schroeder, a known researcher in the past for The Weizmann Institute and Hebrew University, simply cannot be accused of unscientific thinking. When observing statistics that don’t seem all too logical, most of Schroeder’s colleagues admit that there was “luck” involved.

Impossible Stats?

The existence of the State of Israel, the fact that there were so few casualties from the Scud missiles shot down on Israel during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, all appear, on the surface, to be a stroke of luck. Schroeder, however, refuses to call it “luck.” Luck is just not a scientifically sound term. For nuclear physicists like Schroeder, the real answer is that God is protecting His people.

Dr. Schroeder makes the point that many miracles happen in what seems like a very natural manner. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 was an odd war. The State of Israel endured a massive bombing of an enormously powerful missile – the Scud missile – on heavily populated areas in Israel – Tel-Aviv and its surroundings. Not one person was killed from these bombings, though there were wounded. One man experienced a heart attack, and it is unclear if this was connected to the bombing.

One does not need to be a brilliant professor in order to reach the conclusions of Dr. Schroeder. But, it is most reassuring when someone of his stature makes it clear that the rational explanations of the occurrences in the modern State of Israel simply don’t hold water. We don’t need to be scared of the repercussions of accepting God’s involvement in this world. If it is logical to assume that there is a hand of God in charge of this world, and illogical to assume otherwise, then let’s accept that the creation and existence of the State of Israel is one big miracle.

The fact that Israel survived at least 4 wars by much larger countries on three sides is another clue to the Hand of God being with them. Arabs and Muslims don't like it, but it has been clear for many years that God is not with them, but with the Jews, as He promised He would be.

Trump, Shockingly Admits What Some of Us Have Known All Along - ME War was Wrong!

‘We went to war under false, now disproven premise’:

Trump calls US wars in ME ‘worst decision’ ever

FILE PHOTO: US forces in Iraq. ©  Reuters / Ammar Awad

President Donald Trump has denounced America’s decades of war in the Middle East – Iraq in particular – as one big mistake based on a ruse, saying openly once again that Saddam had no WMDS at the time of the invasion.

Trump once again took to Twitter to revive the anti-war rhetoric of his 2016 election campaign, in another attempt to defend his recent decision to withdraw troops from northeastern Syria. The move sparked an uproar among Trump’s critics, who have accused him of betraying the US-backed Kurdish militia in the area which is now about to face a Turkish offensive.

While yet again reminding his followers that Washington has wasted $8 trillion on wars in the Middle East, this time Trump’s laments went beyond the foolishly spent “trillions” of dollars.

“We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, weapons of mass destruction. There were none!” Trump tweeted. This revelation is hardly surprising at this point, but what is surprising is to hear it put so bluntly from the president himself.

Former President George W. Bush, the man who dragged America into this quagmire in the first place, blamed it on faulty intelligence, while also regretting not finding the weapons of mass destruction. His successor Barack Obama, who used to portray himself as an opponent of the war in Iraq, never directly questioned the reasons for the invasion.

In fact, US intelligence determined there was little evidence of WMDs. Cheney appears to have intercepted the report and altered it to read the opposite. Bush, and many other people were duped by Cheney, who, along with many arms manufacturers, made kazillions of dollars on the war.

The VICE File: Dick Cheney Declassified - National Security Archive

U.S. is Off to a War that Doesn't Make Sense — Again

Sy Hersh and a Brief History of Deep State and American Covert Operations

British Spies Gave Faulty Intelligence on Iraq, Then Quietly Withdrew It - Chilcot

But where is the American inquiry into this incredible atrocity?

“Thousands” of American soldiers died or were wounded in the conflict, which took millions of lives “on the other side,” Trump said – and he’s not that far from the truth this time.

The war, which started in 2003 with the US invasion of Iraq and lasted for almost a decade up to 2011, cost the US almost 4,500 lives, according to various estimates. About half a million Iraqis died over the same period, in war and occupation. Some estimates put the figure at more than a million.

Now, more than a decade and a half later, an American president admits that “going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made in the history of our country!”

This mistake also proved to be a costly one. Although the president did not disclose the sources of his ever-increasing assessment of the US expenditure on its Middle Eastern war efforts (last time, he said it was $ 7 billion), other reports suggest America spent a hefty sum waging wars in the region – and dealing with their consequences.

According to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service back in 2014, the cost of the US war on terror had amounted to at least $1.6 trillion up to that point. Later, a 2016 Brown University study put the costs of US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria at about $3.6 trillion over the period between 2001 and 2016, adding that they would likely reach $4.79 trillion by the end of 2017.

A 2013 Harvard University working paper said that the cost of just two US wars – Iraq and Afghanistan – could eventually amount to between $4 and 6 trillion, including the cost associated with long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment, and social and economic expenses.

In July 2018, a US government watchdog revealed that more than $ 15 billion was wasted on futile reconstruction projects in Afghanistan alone, where America wages another seemingly everlasting conflict. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, following the devastating 9/11 attack, and attempted to remove the Taliban from power. Almost two decades later, it has failed to defeat the group.

Because, as is usually the case, American wars aren't about winning, but about moving military inventories so manufacturers of death can get filthy rich.

US Military is World’s ‘Single Largest Producer’ of Greenhouse Gases – Report

© US Army / Ryan Hallock (via Reuters)

The Pentagon is the “single largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world,” according to a new study about climate change that accuses the Trump administration of being in “various modes of denial” about it.

The report, from Brown University’s ‘Costs of War’ project, focuses specifically on "post-9/11 wars" and their impact on emissions. It estimates the US military has been responsible for 1,212 million metric tons of greenhouse gases between 2001 and 2017. Emissions from “overseas contingency operations” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria accounted for more than 400 million metric tons of CO2. In 2017 alone, the report says, “the Pentagon's emissions were greater than all emissions from Sweden or Denmark.”  

Of course, the Pentagon can fix that problem; they can just obliterate Sweden or Denmark, or both. They will be Muslim countries and consequently, enemies of the USA long before global warming becomes a catastrophe. (I am just kidding).

The effects of climate change will soon be “feeding political tensions and fueling mass migrations and refugee crises,” the report says, noting that the military has already added climate change to its list of national security concerns.

This is a theory that has little or no basis in fact, but is the politically correct position to have.

The researchers criticized the Pentagon for acknowledging the threat of climate change to national security, but failing to acknowledge "that its own fuel use is a major contributor.” They also accused "some elements" within the Trump administration of being "in various modes of climate denial.”

Of course, it would be no different if the Democrats were in the White House. Deep State will protect the military from any attempt to downsize or diminish its capability.

While the military received praise for making some effort to decrease its energy consumption, including by gradually replacing some non-tactical fleet vehicles with hybrid, plug-in or alternative fuel vehicles, reducing idling, and developing solar installations at some bases, the report says there is “room for more reductions.”

The study found seven major sources of greenhouse gas emissions relating to US military activities, including from installations and non-war operations, war-related emissions and emissions from the production of weapons. Emissions caused by the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure in war zones and the deliberate burning of oil wells and refineries by all parties to war have also been factored in.

The authors also question whether the huge US presence in the Persian Gulf is necessary, since the US itself is less dependent on the region's oil than in the past and does not necessarily need to “protect the global flow” of oil.

One of the recommendations was that the Pentagon should report its fuel consumption to Congress annually, information which is currently “explicitly withheld.”

I just calculated that a 1.5 hour flight by an F-35 uses an amount of fuel equal to all the gasoline I have used in 55 years of driving. Ground one F-35 for an hour and a half and you negate one entire lifetime of pollution.

The researchers also recommended that each military installation should draw up plans to reduce energy consumption by 10 percent by 2022, and advised increased use of alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles and renewable energy. The Pentagon should also identify which military and national guard bases could be closed, whether due to climate change impacts or diminished threats.

The US military must urgently "reduce their role" in creating greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of national security, the report urged, concluding that if it takes bold actions to reduce fossil fuel use, there could be “enormous positive implications” for the climate.

US Weapons Factories Dominate Global Arms Trade

© Reuters / Mark Wilson

The latest report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) revealed that sales of arms and military services by global majors totaled $398.2 billion in 2017, marking a 44 percent growth over the past 15 years.

"The overall number excludes Chinese data due to the lack of available information to allow for a reasonable or consistent estimate," the report reads.

Here's the top ten of the world's biggest defense corporations by sales, according to the institute.

1. Lockheed Martin

© Global Look Press

The US company reportedly sold arms worth $44.9 billion in 2017, marking an 8.3 percent growth against the year prior. The Bethesda-based arms giant remained the world's number one weapons producer by sales. Lockheed Martin produces various defense systems, from combat ships to hypersonic missiles to fighter jets. The company delivers the F-35 fighter jet, the world's most expensive weapons system, to Pentagon.

2. Boeing

© Global Look Press

US space and aircraft giant Boeing brought in $26.9 billion in sales. 2017 marked a substantial gap of $18 billion between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

"The fall in Boeing's arms sales can be partially attributed to delays in the delivery of KC-46 tanker aircraft and the end of deliveries of C-17 transport aircraft," according to the SIPRI report.

Arm's sales accounted for only 29 percent of the aircraft manufacturing giant's total in 2017. Last year, Boeing managed to seal a wide range of contracts with the US Government. The corporation signed over 20 deals with a total value of $13.7 billion in September alone.

3. Raytheon

© Reuters / Michaela Rehle

This US arms manufacturer is reportedly the world's biggest producer of guided missiles and missile defense systems. In 2017, Raytheon saw a sales increase of two percent compared to 2016. The company reportedly earned $23.9 billion.

Its portfolio includes the Patriot missile system, a combat-tested platform, which is reportedly the backbone of European ballistic missile defense. Raytheon's Patriot system is used in nine countries outside Europe.

4. BAE Systems

FILE PHOTO Philippine soldiers aboard an M113 armored personnel carrier during an operation against Islamic militants at a remote village in Butig town, the southern Philippine island of Mindanao © AFP / Richele Umel

The British arms producer sold $22.9 billion worth of weapons, demonstrating a 3.3 percent growth against the previous year. The UK remained the largest arms producer in the region in 2017, with total arms sales of $35.7 billion.

5. Northrop Grumman

FILE PHOTO Two Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicles © Reuters

This US arms-manufacturing corporation brought $22.4 billion in sales in 2017, marking a modest year-on-year growth of 2.4 percent. The aerospace and defense tech firm bought American rocket maker Orbital ATK, with the aim of expanding its business in the space market.

6. General Dynamics

© Reuters / Ints Kalnins

The Virginia-based defense company sold arms worth $19.5 billion, marking a slight decrease from $19.6 billion the previous year. Its M1 Abrams tank has been used in nearly every major US military operation over the past 40 years.

7. Airbus Group

© Global Look Press / Qian Baihua

The second largest defense contractor in Europe, France's Airbus, brought in $11.3 billion in arms sales in 2017. Arms sales are not the key revenue earner for the European aerospace giant accounting for only 15 percent of its $75 billion revenue. Its business is mostly focused on commercial aircraft and space sectors.

The Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet, the result of collaboration between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain, is Airbus's most recognizable military product.

8.Thales 

© Wikipedia

In 2017, French defense corporation Thales demonstrated sales of $9 billion, which is around half of its total 2017 revenue. The company managed to raise weapon sales by nearly seven percent from the previous year. Thales manufactures a wide range of defense products, from armored vehicles to missile defense to navigation equipment.

9. Leonardo

© Reuters

Italian weapon producer brought in $8.9 billion in 2017 arms sales, which makes 68 percent of its total revenue. Leonardo produces helicopters, missiles and drones, as well as equipment for non-military space programs.

10. Almaz-Antey

© Reuters / Maxim Shemetov

The Russian weapons supplier entered the top ten of the SIPRI's annual ranking. In 2017, the country's biggest arms company increased sales by 17 percent to $8.6 billion. The company's flagship product, the S-400, a mobile long-range surface-to-air missile system, has managed to lure dozens of foreign military buyers over the last five years.

Obviously there are many more than 10 global majors in the military industrial complex. The total sales for the above named companies accounts for slightly less than half the $398 bn mentioned at the top of this article. 

Just dealing with the devil we know - US companies account for $137.6 bn of the $198.3 bn total of the top ten. That is nearly 70%. America and NATO, read, Deep State, has a powerful vested interest in ensuring there are wars and threats of wars occurring all over the planet. IMHO - In my humble opinion - they are doing a spectacular job at that.

Too bad peace doesn't pay as well.

Veteran Reporter Quits NBC with Biting Critique of Corporate Newsroom

If there was ever any doubt in your mind about the complicity of Mainstream Media (MSM) and Deep State, this ought to remove that doubt. 

© AFP / Drew Angerer

NBC News has given endless war and ‘destructive’ intelligence agencies a free pass, all while fixating on around-the-clock Trump hysteria, a veteran national security reporter wrote in a biting farewell message to his colleagues.

William M. Arkin had a number of pointed words to share with his fellow reporters before his last day of work at NBC on Friday – 2,228 words, to be exact. In his farewell memo – which reads more like a manifesto than a goodbye –the veteran muckraker accused NBC of peddling “ho-hum reporting” that “essentially condones” endless American military presence in the Middle East and North Africa. He also took the network to task for not reporting “the failures of the generals and national security leaders,” essentially becoming “a defender of the government against Trump” and a “cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering.”

Glenn Greenwald✔

@ggreenwald

 Long-time reporter @warkin leaves NBC & MSNBC, emails statement saying these outlets are captive to the national security state & devoted to Endless War: "defenders of the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering"- reflexively pro-war

Arkin expressed concern that NBC’s infatuation with the “Trump circus” has distracted journalists from pressing stories that need to be told.

“I’m more worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step back and think why so little changes with regard to America’s wars,” he wrote.

He continued by questioning the media’s fanatical opposition to Trump’s desire to improve relations with Russia, denuclearize North Korea, and withdraw from Syria.

“I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn’t get out Syria? We shouldn’t go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the Cold War? And don’t even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?” he quipped.

Being against peace because Trump is for it, is poor excuse for MSM to tote NATO policy. NATO is totally run by Deep State and is devoted to making kazillions of dollars by wars and rumours of wars. Their only concern is moving military inventory, and they couldn't possibly care less how many soldiers or civilians are killed, raped, displaced, or wounded in their enterprise. MSM shares some considerable responsibility in those atrocities.

If anyone is qualified to critique NBC’s military and national security reporting, it would be Arkin. The veteran journalist has worked for the network intermittently for the last 30 years, and co-authored a seminal Washington Post investigation revealing the dangerous rise of America’s security state.

William M. Arkin

@warkin  · Dec 21, 2018

 Even if one hates @realDonaldTrump Mattis’ resignation letter and the tsk tsking of near everyone is bad news for democracy. Mattis shouldn’t have taken the job, was never the savior, and did nothing but continue long standing go nowhere policies.

William M. Arkin

@warkin

My guess is Mattis 2020. On Syria and Afghanistan (and North Korea) Trump has the right instincts. And on national security stagnation, both in warfare and in thought. Again, he has no ability to implement or even learn but the enemies of Trump shouldn’t become the war party.

Arkin has also been a vocal critic of America’s wars in the Middle East, and distinguished himself as one of the few mainstream journalists to question the fictitious WMD rolled out to justify war with Iraq.

Many on social media expressed their gratitude to Arkin for shining a light on the media’s complacency – and complicity – as America’s military and national security apparatus operate with near impunity both at home and abroad.

“Very useful to have all our well known suspicions confirmed from inside. there’s a reason revolutions make a priority to take over the tv stations,” one Twitter user noted. Geopolitical analyst Emma Ashford noted that Arkin's letter was "a very fair criticism of most mainstream news networks."

tim russo

@TimRussoCLE

Replying to @ggreenwald @warkin

very useful to have all our well known suspicions confirmed from inside. there's a reason revolutions make a priority to take over the tv stations

Emma Ashford✔

@EmmaMAshford

 There are journalists out there doing great work on these issues, but this strikes me as a very fair criticism of most mainstream news networks. 

Too much attention to the "Trump circus," not enough to covering or challenging American wars abroad. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/media/william-arkin-departs-nbc-news/index.html …

Arkin finished his farewell roast by detailing some of his writing projects currently in the works, including an “extended essay about national security and why we never seem to end our now perpetual state of war.”

“There is lots of media critique out there, tons of analysis of leadership and the Presidency. But on the state of our national security? Not so much. Hopefully I will find myself thinking beyond the current fire and fury and actually suggest a viable alternative. Wish me luck.”