Overthrowing God Part 1–1/14/07

Overthrowing God Part One

Overthrowing God? 
Part One
See the A-O 2007 Updated Introduction Page

See the A-O 2007 Updated Introduction Page

Originalliy posted April 4-10-06


Rumbling Rumors Flying Again



Above: Bush Sr & Jr at Satanic Ritual Summer Camp: Bohemian Grove before Jr became president. Both Bush’s also belong to Satanic “Skull and Bones” club. Is Satan using Bush to overthrow God using the Iranian crisis as a tool to defeat God?

Is Bush’s Foreign Policy About Controlling Oil – Or Is It A Tool Of
Satan To Overthrow God?

At A-O, our souces within the GOP have been rumbling their rumors for months now, that advisors close to Bush (read “neo-cons”) had been hinting strongly that the only way to deal with Iran’s nuclear program effectively was to use nuclear weapons on Iran’s key underground installations. Why?



Above: Isfahan facility. In background, mountains contain deep underground facilities that conventional bombs won’t phase, nor likey tactical nuclear weapons either.
Iran’s key nuclear facilities are buried deep within the mountains of Iran and those facilities are deemed to be nearly impenetrable by conventional bombs including the “bunker-busters” and “daisy-cutters.” The only thing that can take out such facilities are nuclear bombs.


Above: Map of Iran’s main nuclear facility locations.

From the rumors that we’ve picked up from the cocktail circuits both inside and outside the DC Beltway, we understand that tactical nuclear weapons are not favored by some neo-con strike planners because there is no guarantee that tactical weapons will knock out the underground mountain bases either. They may work well in urban locations where the facilities are underground but they’re not likely to destroy the mountain facilities. Keep in mind though, that some conventional bombs will work against facilities located underground in urban settings.


  Above: Iran’s Nuclear facility at Natanz. Perhaps the #1 target on the list of air strike targets.  


The only real weapons guaranteed to do the job are the big, masive nuclear warheads on ICBMs cuuise missiles and/or the B-52 bombers.



Above:The old, but mighty B-52 bomber. These bombers, ICBMs and Cruise Missiles may be the only tools that can deliver the big nuclear weapons that might be needed to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities that have been built deep into the mountains of Iran and untouchable by conventional weapons or even tactical nuclear weapons.   


We’ve heard all of this before here at AO so why do we bother mentioning this again?   We bring this up because you’re going to begin hearing more talk in the next few days from the news. We suspect its a subject that won’t go away anytime soon, either. Why?

The thrust that the Bush administration now wants to pursue is to get the public ready for mili-tary strikes on Iran and not just the idea of strikes but the use of nuclear weapons. The mantra from the Administration, eventually will be that he US must strike Iran militarily before Iran can make nuclear weapons and give them to terrorists to use on American soil and in Israel.

Furthermore, you will begin to here the “N” word used on the TV talking heads shows partic-ularly the Sunday morning shows. Some shows Sunday touched on the issue.


CNN interviewed Seymour Hersh who has written an article for New Yorker magazine that is full of the same Rumbling Rumors that we’ve reported on.



Above: Pulitzer-prize journalist, Seymour Hersh has started a firestorm over US planning for military action against Iran and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

We are convinced that in the near future, as the Iranian Nuclear crisis builds the media talk will build to a crescendo in a cacaphony of debate on the use of nuclear weapons for such a strike.

How do we know that? Technically we don’t, we’re assuming such conclusions with great confi-dence, because we know how the geo-political “system” works because this writer was once a part of it and because this writer knows the news media because again this writer was once a member of the broadcast news media. It does not take an understanding of rocket science to extrapolate where this whole mess is headed. It does  help though, to have sources within the Washington, D.C. beltway that can be relied upon to be accurate.

This writer began working on this article late Saturday night because of a brand new story just coming onto the news cycle because of an article to be published in the April 17th edition of The New Yorker Magazine (due out tomorrow) by one of the world’s most respected investigative journalist reporter’s and a Pulitzer Prize winner, Seymore Hersh.

The London Telegraph jumped the gun early with reports in advance of Hersh’s article appear-ance with snippets of information from Hersh’s impending article. The AFP Newswire as well as the Houston Chronicle and Al Jazeera TV News also reported on the Hersh story. This means that you will likely see and hear more on this in the coming days across a wide array of Main-stream News Media sources. Later on Sunday, all the news talk shows featured the Hersh story.

Concerning Mr. Hersh’s claims?

We’ve hear that same thing in the past from our sources who’ve picked it up from the neocons close to Bush. We’ve also monitored some of these neo-cons public statements and interviews for the past three years concerning Iran and have noted that they too think the only solution is a nuclear solution. We’ve also heard that some neocons believe that Iran needs to be nuked from the face of the earth and have so stated to Bush and that Bush is inclined to agree with them.

Above: Bush thinks this man, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler in human history.

Hersh reports that Bush believes Iran’s president will be the next “Hitler” unless he is stopped and stopped sooner, rather than later. Bush believes he is the only president who will be in such a position to stop Iran’s president. Bush is also convinced that a nuclear Iran will launch a nuclear war with America, probably through terrorist channels. There is also a counterbalance to all of this yearning by the politicians for nuclear strikes on Iran. How so? 

We also know for a fact, that some military strategists are horrified at the thought of using nuclear weapons in such a manner for such a purpose. We understand that some officers have already resigned in advance to protest such thinking while more are cosidering that option. Obviously, they believe that theimplementation of nuclear weapons could trigger future war-crimes prosecution in international courts at sometime in the future.

Below is a key excerpt from Hersh’s New Yorker Magazine article: 

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.” 

So which course of action will be taken? I am not so sure that anyone knows for sure. I suspect that the situation is still “fluid” and no concrete decisions have yet been made. I do suspect, however, that military action will come sooner than most commentators now think, but again, the situation is fluid and military options may be delayed indefinitely by diplomatic progress or military action may be advanced much sooner, should diplomacy totally collapse in the next 30 days.  Our concern in all of these developments however, is the Prophetic ramifications that ensue should America move to try to destroy Iran totally with nuclear weapons. Why is this such an issue? The Biblical Prophecy predicts a prominent role that Iran will play in the Magog War of Exekiel 38/39 plus the Babylon prophecies. A thoroughly “nuked” Iran would pose serious theological issues and make God’s predictions to no effect. It also has serious implications in the Satanic attempt to overthrow and defeat God. We’ll look at this aspect in Part 2 of this featured article – a study on Iran in Bible Prophecy and the theological implications of Satan’s war against God.


Leave a Reply