Today I emailed a letter to Congressman Ryan and I thought I'd share it with you. Writing your representatives is a great idea. You can find your representatives by searching at the US House website, or the US Senate website.

Congressman Ryan:

While I am at odds with you on some issues, I see a genuineness in you that seems to be rare in the federal government and I have the utmost faith that you truly care about people. I lived in your district for a few years and I have seen you in action. That is why I write to appeal to you, to address the issue of the 9/11 investigation.

Several of your colleagues, including Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, have publicly stated that they would support a new, independent investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Much information has come to light in the last seven years to suggest that things did not occur the way it was portrayed to the American people.

There is a large and growing grassroots movement for 9/11 truth, started by the victim's family members and first responders, which is being portrayed in the media as an "anarchist group" by Geraldo Rivera. Morning Joe's Willie Geist said of a 9/11 truth protester, "the man [was] led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in Eastern Europe, never to be heard from again... I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists."

Michael Reagan said of Mark Dice's organization, which sends 9/11 truth information to the troops in theater, "we ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out, and shoot them... You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and you shoot them... But anybody who would do that doesn't deserve to live... I'll pay for the bullet... How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of the firing range, tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."

All of this for simply petitioning our government for a redress of grievances. The US Government has done a total of ten investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the mere idea of asking for a second investigation into this attack on our country makes us traitors who deserve to be shot. I thought this was America. I thought it was patriotic for the people, who supposedly are the government, to ask questions and exercise oversight over our elected representatives. Is this not still a republic?

The notion that the official story, asserted by the 9/11 Commission, is not the full truth is certainly not a patent absurdity, nor is the theory that perhaps members of our own government had prior knowledge or involvement in the attacks of 9/11. US Government involvement in false flag attacks is, of course, nothing new. We have a history of staging attacks to start wars. A declassified NSA report confirms that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a staged attack and that Vietnamese boats weren't even present on the 4th of August. In March of 1963, a plan was submitted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, which describes plans to stage false flag terror attacks as a pretext to illegally invade Cuba. These plans included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,"including "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)," faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a "Remember the Maine" incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. The United States was condemned by the World Court for international terrorism in Nicaragua. Even recently, Seymour Hersh exposed an idea by Vice President Cheney which he described in the following words: "Why don't we build, we, in our shipyard, build four or five Iranian boats, that look like Iranian PT boats, put Navy Seals on them, with a lot of arms, and the next time one of our boats goes through the Strait of Hormuz, start a shoot-up." This is all eerily reminiscent of Hitler's Reichstag fire.

So there is plenty of precedent for this alternate theory, but is there any evidence? It turns out that there is a plethora of evidence to disprove the official 9/11 Commission conclusion.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, retired professor of Physics at BYU, examined metal samples from the World Trade Center towers and found evidence of sulfur (which would indicate that thermate, a military grade steel cutting material, was present) and performed a study of the collapse of the towers and WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, and was completely omitted from the 9/11 Commission report. Jones helped establish an organization dedicated to independent, expert research of the 9/11 attacks using the scientific method. The organization now has over 500 members with backgrounds ranging from engineering to physics to aviation and has a wealth of information available to the public.

Simple common sense would indicate many problems with the official story. The 9/11 Commission claims that the jet fuel burnt long and hot enough to melt enough core columns in both towers to cause the floors to "pancake" down. This is obviously not true, as we would have seen a stack of pancaked concrete floor slabs after the collapse. The Law of Conservation of Momentum tells us that the collapse would slow as it progressed, as each successive floor would absorb more and more momentum, but in all videos, all three WTC buildings collapse at near free-fall speed. This would indicate that support, i.e. resistance, had been removed from under the collapsing floors. In a pancaking collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete into the enormous clouds of dust we all witnessed. A pancaking collapse could not explain the embedding of a large chunk of one of the towers into WTC7, over 300 feet away. There is evidence of first responders, time and again, reporting secondary and tertiary explosions, explosions in the ground floor lobby, explosions in the elevator, explosions in the basement. NIST's recent report on the collapse of WTC7 admits that these three buildings, all on one day, became the only tall, steel-frame buildings in history to collapse as a result of fire. In October 2005, New Civil Engineer called into question NIST's computer models for the collapse of the Twin Towers.

A tape was released of firefighters just seven minutes before the collapse on the 78th floor, saying there were only two pockets of fire, and Chief Orio Palmer said, "we should be able to knock it down with two [hose] lines". Firefighter Brian Becker, Engine 28, stated, "So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were - like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like - it was like that - like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there." Firefighter Ed Cachia, Engine 53: "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

An FBI document, 199-Eye W.F. 213 589, stifled the FBI's investigation of two of bin Laden's relatives and their ties to terrorist organizations. In fact, the FBI's own website, on Usama bin Laden's Most Wanted Terrorist page, does not even claim he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. BBC reported in September 2001, "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

Congressman, I could continue on with more and more evidence, and if you are interested in other leads and other facts, I will be happy to collate and provide them. However, I assume you have greater resources than I to gather such information. I will conclude this by simply requesting that you investigate this issue and imploring you to help fight so the victims of 9/11 can learn the truth and justice can be served.

I also hope the Congress will very soon embrace the idea of impeachment, not necessarily to pursue removal from office, but at least as a duty to history to get the lies and crimes of this administration in the Congressional record with an official inquiry. President Clinton was impeached for far less than what this President has done.

As a final thought, I have a question about your party's nominee for President in the 2008 election. Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Carter. During Brzezinski's term, we saw the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state and the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He admitted that it was a lie when he claimed we started helping the mujaheddin after the Soviet invasion, and that it was designed to provoke such an invasion to cause a Vietnam-style war for them. Brzezinski is very hawkish, especially with Russia. How can we reconcile our want for the War in Iraq to end with voting for someone who has this guy as a Foreign Policy Advisor? Senator Obama has also called for sending troops into Pakistan. Obama also proposed a "civilian national security force", larger and more well-funded than the military. That sounds like an admission that the plan is a larger economic black hole than the War in Iraq. On top of this, he has voted to renew the Patriot Act, voted for FISA domestic surveillance, and voted to fund the war in Iraq. How can we trust and support such a candidate, a candidate from the party that campaigned two years ago on ending the War in Iraq, lowering gas prices at the pump, and holding the administration accountable, none of which has happened. I see you stand up continuously and admonish the administration, but as a whole the entire Congress has failed the American people in all these regards. We got a minimum wage increase, but with the dollar being debased by the Fed and the resulting economic downturn and price increases, we are generally in a much worse position than in 2006. Obviously we cannot support John McCain, a continuation of the abhorrent Neo-Conservative movement (who, ironically, lists Zbigniew Brzezinski's son as a campaign worker) that has been the Bush administration. I think the two party system has failed to produce a worthy candidate and it is time for those stand-up members of Congress, of which I count you as a member, to break with their party affiliations and become independent voices. What are your views on this stance and also on Chuck Baldwin as a presidential candidate?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your reply.

Correct. We do know. But you don't. So I'll show you how simple it really is.

Depending on your age and memory, you may not recall the name Zbigniew Brzezinski.

From wikipedia:

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski ... is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Known for his hawkish foreign policy at a time when the Democratic Party was increasingly dovish, he is a foreign policy realist and considered by some to be the Democrats' response to Republican realist Henry Kissinger.

Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China, ... the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state, ... the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet-friendly Afghan government, increase the probability of Soviet invasion and later entanglement in a Vietnam-style war, and later to counter the Soviet invasion.
He is currently ... Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor...

He is also a member of the secretive societies, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group.

Brzezinski's daughter, Mika, a co-host on MSNBC's Morning Joe, has some interesting information for us. It turns out that her brother, Mark, is also working for Senator Barack Obama. And even more interestingly, another brother, Ian, is working for Senator John McCain. One family with members in both presidential campaigns.

Of course this is nothing new. Both 2004 presidential candidates, George W. Bush and John Kerry, belonged to the secretive Skull and Bones society, and had sworn a vow of secrecy and loyalty.

And if that's not enough, the Georgia Guidestones were erected on 3-22 in 1980.

[Der Film stellt die immer gleiche Frage] In dieser Welt kann sich niemand davor drücken, zu beantworten, wann Nichteinmischung zum Verbrechen wird und wann Einmischung zur Dummheit, wann ein Rückzug politisch geboten und wann er moralisch verwerflich ist.

Der Krieg des Charlie Wilson handelt vom Krieg in Afghanistan und von seinem klammheimlichen Unterstützern in Washington und Langley, wo der CIA sein Hauptquartier hat. Er spielt in der Welt der Unterausschüsse für geheime Operationen, auf CIA-Weihnachtspartys, in den Palästen Islamabads und bei Banketten politischer Lobbyisten in Kairo. Israelische Waffenhändler, pakistanische Militärberater und Las-Vegas-Stripperinnen begegnen sich in dieser unwahrscheinlichen Räuberpistole, die auf nichts als nackten Tatsachen beruht.

Ein sympathischer Hallodri und Hurensohn steht im Mittelpunkt, der texanische Kongressabgeordnete Charlie Wilson, von Tom Hanks mit jungenhafter Begeisterung gegeben. Er ist dem guten Leben samt Whiskey, Koks und Frauen herzlich zugetan. Wilsons Bruder im Geiste ist der frustrierte CIA-Mann Gust Avrakotos, den Philip Seymour Hoffman als bärbeißigen Choleriker anlegt, der mit wippendem Bauch und Walrossschnurrbart jede Szene an sich reißt. Julia Roberts zeigt als Südstaatenmatrone Joanne Herring mit blonder Barbara-Stanwyck-Perücke, dass sie eigentlich eine große Komödiantin ist, wenn man sie nur lässt. Als bekennende Christin lässt die attraktive Kommunistenfresserin es sich nicht nehmen, eine feurige Affäre mit Kongressmann Wilson zu pflegen. Make love, then war könnte ihre Losung sein.

Diese drei Personen, in denen sich Lebenslust, Sendungsbewusstsein und laxe Sitten auf vitale und politisch folgenreiche Weise mischen, werden die Weltgeschichte verändern. Wenn ihr Ränkespiel vollendet ist, wird das Budget der US-Regierung für geheime Operationen in Afghanistan von 5 Millionen Dollar auf eine Milliarde gestiegen sein. Tausende Flugabwehrraketen werden auf geheimen Wegen an den Hindukusch gelangt sein. Die allmächtige Sowjetarmee sieht sich schließlich gedemütigt durch eine Horde frommer Bauern mit seltsamen Wollmützen, die zwar keine Panzer und Düsenjäger haben, aber einen unbeugsamen Glauben – und natürlich besitzen sie die neuesten Stinger- und Milan-Raketen, mit einem schönen Gruß von Charlie Wilson und dem Kongressunterausschuss für geheime Operationen.

Wir sehen den Triumph der drei Verschwörer, als die Russen 1988 gedemütigt aus Afghanistan abziehen. Doch der Jubel der Kalten Krieger klingt hohl, weil wir schon wissen, dass die asymmetrische Form der Kriegsführung, die die Mudschahedin gegen die Russen entwickelt haben, sich heute gegen den Westen richtet, vor allem in Afghanistan und im Irak.

Zum Thema empfehle ich das äußerst aufschlussreiche und ungemein spannende Buch "Die Bärenfalle - Der Kampf der Mudschahedin gegen die Rote Armee" von Mohammed Yousaf und Mark Adkin.

Of interest:

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany

They Loved Each Other's Politics

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006. 242 pgs.

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt's numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression. "The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this 'delegation of powers,' Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933."(p.18)

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip." (p.190)

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual." (pp.19-20) A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism. . .the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism. (pp.23-24)

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.'"(p.31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest. . .most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious."(p.32, quoting Tugwell)

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A Leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government. "While Hitler's and Roosevelt's nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences. . . contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual." (p.54)

But does not Schivelbusch's thesis fall before an obvious objection? No doubt Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini were charismatic leaders; and all of them rejected laissez-faire in favor of the new gospel of a state-managed economy. But Roosevelt preserved civil liberties, while the dictators did not.

Schivelbusch does not deny the manifest differences between Roosevelt and the other Leaders; but even if the New Deal was a "soft fascism", the elements of compulsion were not lacking. The "Blue Eagle" campaign of the National Recovery Administration serves as his principal example. Businessmen who complied with the standards of the NRA received a poster that they could display prominently in their businesses. Though compliance was supposed to be voluntary, the head of the program, General Hugh Johnson, did not shrink from appealing to illegal mass boycotts to ensure the desired results. "'The public,' he [Johnson] added, 'simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan.' In a fine example of doublespeak, the argument maintained that cooperation with the president was completely voluntary but that exceptions would not be tolerated because the will of the people was behind FDR. As one historian [Andrew Wolvin] put it, the Blue Eagle campaign was 'based on voluntary cooperation, but those who did not comply were to be forced into participation.'"(p.92) Schivelbusch compares this use of mass psychology to the heavy psychological pressure used in Germany to force contributions to the Winter Relief Fund.

Both the New Deal and European fascism were marked by what Wilhelm Röpke aptly termed the "cult of the colossal." The Tennessee Valley Authority was far more than a measure to bring electrical power to rural areas. It symbolized the power of government planning and the war on private business: "The TVA was the concrete-and-steel realization of the regulatory authority at the heart of the New Deal. In this sense, the massive dams in the Tennessee Valley were monuments to the New Deal, just as the New Cities in the Pontine Marshes were monuments to Fascism. . .But beyond that, TVA propaganda was also directed against an internal enemy: the capitalist excesses that had led to the Depression. . ."(pp.160, 162)

This outstanding study is all the more remarkable in that Schivelbusch displays little acquaintance with economics. Mises and Hayek are absent from his pages, and he grasps the significance of architecture much more than the errors of Keynes. Nevertheless, he has an instinct for the essential. He concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn's great pamphlet of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today. "But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. 'It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis'. . .Hitler's story is the same.'. . .Flynn's prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944. . .'We must have enemies, ' he wrote in As We Go Marching, "They will become an economic necessity for us.'" (pp.186, 191)

Here's an interesting article on HuffingtonPost.com about the "difference" between the two Democratic candidates:
Hillary Heeds Hawks: How Obama's and Clinton's Advisors Mirror Their War Stands

The article contends that Hillary is much more disastrous than Obama. Although the article does highlight a few key points as to why Hillary's advisors are highly questionable, it doesn't make any effort to delve into why Obama's advisors had different opinions in the matter. Itleaves the reader with a de facto sense of: 'Obama's got a good head on his shoulders.' But what can we expect from an Obama administration? How will it be different from past administrations?

Here's a very long transcript on the Charlie Rose show.
Charlie Rose interviews Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft
It's quite good, an overwiew of eastern/western affairs, without any real details.

Brzezinski: The political awakening that is happening worldwide is a major challenge for America, because it means that the world is much more restless. It's stirring. It has aspirations which are not easily satisfied. And if America is to lead, it has to relate itself somehow to these new, lively, intense political aspirations, which make our age so different from even the recent past.

Very first statement by Zbigniew in the intereview, and I would say that basically captures the 'drive' behind the Obama campaign. But what policies are we talking about here? What is Zbigniews grand vision? What have been the achievements or disasters in his own historical record?

Here is his very extensive wikipedia entry. Let's see here: NSA, mujaheddin, CFR, Trilateral commission, expansion of NATO...

---------------------
Wikipedia has Ron Paul's Platforms here.
Ron Paul has some of his own advisors. Robert Pape for example. Wikipedia. He is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[This is one of the five books Ron Paul asked Giuliani to read.]

An excerpt from Robert Pape's "Dying to Kill Us" NYtimes article
How should democracies respond? In the past, they have tended to react with heavy military offensives, only to find that this tends to incite more attacks and to stir public sympathy for the terrorists without hampering their networks (this has clearly been the case in the West Bank and Chechnya). In their frustration, some terrorized countries have then changed tacks, making concessions to political causes supported by terrorists.

Yet this doesn't work either: one likely reason suicide terrorism has been rising so rapidly in recent years is that terrorist groups have learned that the strategy pays off. Suicide terrorists were thought to compel American and French military forces to abandon Lebanon in 1983, Israeli forces to leave most of Lebanon in 1985, Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995, and the Turkish government to grant measures of autonomy to the Kurds in the late 1990's. In all but the case of Turkey, the terrorists' political cause made far greater political gains after they resorted to suicide operations.

When one considers the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, it becomes clear that America's war on terrorism is heading in the wrong direction. The close association between foreign military occupations and the growth of suicide terrorist movements shows the folly of any strategy centering on conquering countries that sponsor terrorism or in trying to transform their political systems. At most, occupying countries will disrupt terrorist operations in the short term. But over time it will simply increase the number of terrorists coming at us."

Another addition to the Ron Paul Campaign is Peter Schiff. Read the short PPC Press Release.
He was on FOX predicting the housing bubble bursting. Of course these numnuts laugh at him. Anybody notice any similarities at the way they treat him and the way the pundits have treated Ron Paul? Who was right in the end?
There's a review of Schiff's book by Bob Murphy here.

The point of all this is the fact that people do seem to want change. I think, as you will read in the Charlie Rose interview that there is a dramatic shift across the globe. It is critical we know what we want and how to get it. Those men, Kissinger and Brzezinski are doing what they have been doing for years: manipulating the situation. If you want real change than do not support these people.

Blessed be Allah.

Binny I have studied you for so long I feel like I know you.
And I am praying you will forgive my informality. It has been 6 or 7 years since the first attacks.

"There is no God but Allah; Mohamed is the Messenger of Allah" In the name of God, praise be to God, and praise and blessings be upon the Messenger of God, his family, his Companions, and all those who follow him.

al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen Shura Council have brought many blessings to the Islamic Umma.

My brothers and Allah help me count the blessings.

The Mujahideen Shura Council is composed of eight insurgency groups in Iraq: al-Qaeda in Iraq, Victorious Army Group, the Army of al-Sunnah Wal Jama'a, Jama'a al-Murabiteen, Ansar al-Tawhid Brigades, Islamic Jihad Brigades, the Strangers Brigades, and the Horrors Brigades.

Before al Qa'ida there were 10,000 to 20,000 Americans in the Middle East, blessed be al Qa'ida

By attacking the Americans al Qa'ida have brought and kept 140,000 American and foreign troops within the land of two rivers.

al Qa'ida attacked on 9/11, hoping USA would attack Afghan. My brothers you know USA took Afghan and Iraq, blessed be al Qa'ida

If not continually attacked USA would have left in the first year, with al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen attacks USA troops are still here 3 years later, blessed be al Qa'ida.

No house divided against itself can stand. Blessed be al Qa'ida, for they have turned Sunni against Shia, and kept the crusaders from returning to the USA.

Blessed be al Qa'ida, for they have stopped Iraq from uniting and telling the crusaders to leave.

Blessed be al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen, they have multiplied Islams enemies six fold. And they have Muslims killing Muslims.

MUSLIM KILLING MUSLIM, ALL FOR PERSONAL GLORY OF A FEW munaafiqeen. Blessed be al Qa'ida

They criticize the Muslim religious leaders who are obstruction the path of al Qaeda. The path of al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen are in contravention of the Shura methodology.

Blessed be al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen, for the street man now lives like a dog.

al Qa'ida has taken a switch to the Lion and now wants Islam to bare the burden. Blessed be al Qa'ida and Arab Mujahideen.

We ask God that He send down his victory upon us that he promised to his faithful worshipers, and we are still waiting three years later, How have we offended Allah? Blessed be al Qa'ida.

THE Islamic Umma ARE IGNORANT, so says al Qa'ida.

al Qa'ida has attacked the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. Blessed be al Qa'ida.

And can the Mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? So says al Qa'ida.

And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? Blessed be al Qa'ida.

al Qa'ida has ordered Muslims killed even if they announced Shahadateen and this rule is agreed upon by all Muslims.

So says al Qa'ida: consulting with religious scholars (and this does not necessarily mean accepting their opinion every time, or even most of the time) and having them participate in the matter is a wise policy that is supported by evidence from religious law, reason, history, and the knowledge of nations and their experiences. Blessed be al Qa'ida.

Brother Abu-Musa'b, may God protect and guide you. Bless you, my brother. Know that we (al Qa'ida), like all the Mujahidin, are still weak. We are in the stage of weakness and a state of paucity. Blessed be the weak al Qa'ida.

Allah is great,

Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of the (false moujadeem), Taghut (Satan). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan). Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan the false Moujahedeen). ] al-Nissa:76

Allah said: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." 33:Al-Maeda

Moslem's created the al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen Shura.

Only Moslem's can stop the al Qa'ida and the Mujahideen Shura

Asking the Lord to accept. The overall objective of this bulletin : Brothers and sisters urged to publish this article to relatives and friends, and in the mosques, and read on boards and also through sent by e-mail and e-mail Different groups, and chat rooms, and other ideas that have a positive impact.

Comment by Barb 4/21/07

.

I wish I could say this was from me, but it wasn't.   

Please do as she asks, copy/paste to your email and send it to friends and family. The response will be coming, I am pretty sure you can guess what that will be like. Trust me when I say, even I was amazed at the vicious nature of the attack.

I would also like it if some of my Muslim friends would tell me what some of the things she is talking about mean. Like what is "Shahadateen" and "Shura", and "Munaafiqeen". There are even more words I don't understand in the coming post, but if they are swear words, I don't need to know them.  I already know too many .

These questions were asked under a blog entry where the writer of the blog claims that American snipers, shot a child in the stomach and his intestines came out. I am always amazed at the garbage they come up with that is suppose to be true fact. And the actual facts on the ground. I never got an answer on how they knew it was a US sniper that shot the child. I do know that our snipers are highly trained, they can hit a target from unbelievable distances (like a mile plus) and they don't shoot children.

During the Vietnam war, there were many soldiers killed because they could not shoot kids. Not because they weren't allowed to defend themselves, but because they just couldn't do it. So they want me to believe that a sniper, shot some kid just for the heck of it. I don't think today would be any different than back in Vietnam, even if a kid were running up on them with a gun or bomb or something, our troops would die before pulling the trigger. We can see here, what he thinks of our facts.

Eagles comment:

You seem learnedly(yes it is a word), can you answer these questions for me??

What do you think about the 500 killed in Iraq by 3 suicide truck bombers??  (Remember, the village that was attacked was between 2 Sunni villages, and the Sunni's had told the people in the village that was bombed to leave.)

I thought it was against the rules to kill women, children and the elderly??

What do you feel were those peoples crimes??

How does the Mujaahideen justify the killing of women and children??

I have been trying to find where it is written, that this is OK, do you know??

Jihadist comment:

Eagle, All we say to you is: Prove that the Mujaahideen, more specifically the Islamic State of Iraaq, carried out that operation. And no, I don't want Western sources because it has been proven way too many times that they lie regarding the operations of the Mujaahideen, and are very quick to point fingers at them.

Give me the source/statement where a Jihaadee group said they did such an operation. You will come to realize that your media (the Western media) will spoon feed you lies upon lies. And you'll be even more surprised to find out that your army (the US army) carries out such operations...some Western reporters, have reported on this cruelty. ((really?!?!?)) ((I would be really surprised, since the news media sets upon any possible bad news, with joy, especially if it paints the war in a bad light)) It is a well-known tactic in US military history called, "False Flag Operations." America has a long history of it; google it. (())

I want to add here, this is what happens when you have people like Alex Jones and other idiots that want so bad to have democrats in office, that they make all kinds of baseless accusations. It is then vomited back up and used for propaganda by our enemies. This fool acts like he watches the "View"...google it, give me a break. America has a long history of false flag operations...can you give me some examples of false flag operations?? Since we have a long history of it you should have no problem with giving me some examples......Nothing

Eagles comment:

Are you saying that all the suicide bombings at various locations around Iraq, are not Mujaahideen??

And you didn't answer my question about when it is OK to kill women and children. I ask because, from what I have read from your Holy books, killing women, children and elderly is not permitted.

However, I am no scholar when it comes to Islam. That's why I am asking you. You seem to be learned, so I thought you might know.

Jihadist comment:

No, did I say that?

The Mujaahideen do confirm martyrdom operations when they do it; but if they don't confirm the ones in the marketplaces (i.e., the ones that the Americans do), (( he wrote that not me)) ((my thinking is, if they had any proof at all, that America was doing any "false flag" operations at all, they would be SCREAMING it from the rooftops, not, as they say, not giving a crap)) then we don't give a crap what the media says because we trust the trustworthy ones (( )) over the liars and disbelievers.  ((more oxymorons, or just morons, trustworthy murders??))

The general principle is that it is forbidden to kill women and children. There are exceptions to this principle such as if a child or a woman is fighting in the army.

It appears to me that the enemy is ALL, troops, whether Sunni or Shiite.  ALL Shiite's whether men, women, or children.  Since they don't have an answer on women and children being murdered, they claim that the Mujaheddin, didn't do it.  

Eagles comment:

I'm still not understanding, about the women and children rule...sorry...Do you know of the exceptions to the rule?? It seems that there should be more than just if a woman or child is fighting in the army.

With the martyrdom operations that have taken place in various places, a lot of women and children have been killed. So I was wondering what all the exceptions were.

You appear to be one of the main writers of this blog, and have a lot of information, so I thought you would know that too.

Jihadist comment:

Let me make this clear: whenever an explosion happens in a marketplace, don't ever expect the Mujaahideen to do such an operation since, most of the time, it kills Sunni Muslim women and children intentionally. ((and we all know that Shiite women never go to marketplace)) Therefore, don't even allow the idea in your head that the Mujaahideen would do such an operation because they all came to fight the Crusaders, her allies, and whoever the enemies are. Men have traveled thousands of miles to Iraaq to give up their lives nobly; not to kill people who have nothing to do with the enemies.

Just to interject here, I wonder how crushed this guy would be, if he found out the truth of the matter. I am sure he will say they were apostates of some matter, as you will see below. And in case you are wondering he uses the term "Islamic State of Iraaq" all the time. What he is referring to is the parts of Iraq that are Sunni and go along with Al Qaeda. That is the theme with these guys, you have to be Sunni and believe like the Taliban . Now back to his comment.

Again, you cannot make this general statement that "wherever the martyrdom operations occur, women and children are killed..." because you cannot prove that the Mujaahideen did those operations in the first place. America wants you to believe that they did it, but have you ever thought about what the Mujaahideen say?

Can't say that I have. But I do know that you level a whole lot of accusations at American troops without one ounce of proof. Such as this post for example, of a sniper shooting a boy in the stomach. Got any proof?? NO,...but I am suppose to believe you because.....

Alright moving on, here is a comment by another Jihadist:

Eagle, did you see what had happened to that little boy? HIS INTESTINES ARE COMING OUT!!!!!!!

No American or British child has complained of such. If it happened, none of them are denied medical care to alleviate it. That kid in IRAQ IS GONNA DIE FOR NO CRIME OR SIN AT ALL! If he hasn't already!

Muslims fighting in Allah's way avoid women and children, especially so children since women might join the fight. Ask that sniper about killing kids, maybe he can tell you about!

Yeah!!, nothing like a little self righteous indignation. Too bad he doesn't get worked up by the untold numbers of Iraqi's murdered by his friends. Sorry pal I have a hard time buying it.

Eagle's comment:

Why is it that when you see something that is purported to be the act of an American, you take it at face value. But when I ask about the scores of women and children killed in Iraq by IED's and suicide bombings, I am told that the Mujaahideen didn't do it.

How do we know that the child was shot by a military sniper??

I was not there so I don't know who did it, but it seems a bit suspicious that all those killings that are taking place over there, only have to do with the Mujaahideen when it falls under certain guidelines. That is why I asked about the guidelines on killing women and children. All I know is what I had been told, that it was against Allah to kill women and children. And all (so and so) said was if they were in the army...Surely there are no little kids in the army.

He also tells me of a book I could read. Where can I get this book?? I asked (so and so) because he writes the majority of the stories on this website and I thought that since he knew so much about Islam, he would be able to answer my question. Can you answer my question??

I can tell you that ANY child or person who is in a life or death medical status, will be helped at a US field hospital. Once they are out of life threatening situation, they are transferred to Iraqi hospital. Also, some children who have had medical problems that are too advanced for Iraqi or military hospitals, have been flown to American hospitals for advanced treatments.

Also the US military hospitals treat all injuries caused by the US military. Even when a case seems to be hopeless, the medical personnel put as much effort into saving enemy life, as in saving soldiers lives.

As I am sure most of you have already figured out, that last comment of mine was promptly erased . Can't have any truth up at that website, now can we. In a different post, they show the murder of a Iraqi citizen. Here we see what they have to say about the video:

This video shows the Mujaahideen executing an Apostate. And all the praises and thanks belongs to Allah as our lions of Tawheed cleanse the earth from filth.

Nice guy, if he really wanted to "cleanse the earth from filth", he had the gun pointed in the wrong direction. I asked him why he was considered an apostate...his response was:

Because he was caught working with the Iraaqi Army (who works with and supports America).

Hmmm and I thought being an apostate was about turning your back on your religion. I asked him that and if he considered anybody working in the Iraqi army an apostate, he said:

There are various nullifications of Islaam. It seems you only know one of them where if a person converted to another religion, he's an apostate.

Another nullification is to take the disbelievers as Awliyaa' (allies, helpers, protectors, friends) against the Muslims.

One of the evidences for this is the verse:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely his is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (5:51)

Another nullification is that if you rule a land according to laws other than the laws of Islaam, then you have become an apostate.

Needless to say, what is apostate to him, covers a multitude of people. So I said: WOW, by that, it appears there is a whole world of apostates. What will become of them??

I thought that the guys who joined the Iraqi army, did so to protect their country. Every nation needs an army, if they didn't have one then a neighbor could decide that they should go in and take over. His reply:

Yes, there are lots of Apostates. Every Muslim Country that has an army is in actuality an army of Apostates.

As for for those who defend their nation, that is why we have the Mujaahideen. Whosoever wishes to defend their nation against foreign occupiers, must join the Mujaahideen because it is forbidden by Islaamic Law to fight for any cause except the cause of Allah; so if they fight to protect and defend Muslim countries that establish non-Islaamic laws (which is all of them today), then they are Apostates.

When I asked if the Mujaahideen would try and kill apostates he said:

Well it's currently occurring in Iraaq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Algeria, Pakistan, Philippines, and other places.

He may not want it to get out, but it appears he answered the question from the earlier post. Maybe those women and children were killed because they were seen as being "protected" by the US military(not very well it appears). Who knows what is really going on in this idiots head.

As I was closing all my pages, getting ready for bed, I noticed another Jihadist had made a comment on the post about the murdered Iraqi citizen. It was soooo out there that I had to let you guys read it. So here it is:

Any questions?? Its a bleak picture I know, but one that must be listened too.

From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. "

The Power of Nightmares, Episode 1: Baby It's Cold Outside.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177]

The Power of Nightmares, Episode 2: The Phantom Victory

[googlevideo=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876]

The Power of Nightmares, Episode 3: The Shadows in the Cave

[googlevideo=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254]

Other works by Adam Curtis:

1988: An Ocean Apart. Episode One "Hats Off to Mr. Wilson” (concerning the process by which the United States was involved in the First World War).

1992: Pandora's Box examined the dangers of technocratic and political rationality. It received the BAFTA Award for Best Factual Series.

1995: The Living Dead investigated the way that history and memory (both national and individual) have been used by politicians and others.

1996: 25 Million Pounds a study of Nick Leeson and the collapse of Barings Bank. Won the Best Science and Nature Documentary in the 1998 San Francisco International Film Festival.

1997: The Way of the Flesh tells the story of Henrietta Lacks, the "woman who will never die". It received the 1997 Golden Gate Award.

1999: The Mayfair Set looked at how buccaneer capitalists were allowed to shape the climate of the Thatcher years, focusing on the rise of Colonel David Stirling, Jim Slater, James Goldsmith, and Tiny Rowland, all members of The Clermont club in the 1960s. It received the BAFTA Award for Best Factual Series or Strand in 2000.

2002: The Century Of The Self (BBC Two) documented how the rise of Freud's individualism led to Edward Bernays' consumerism. It received the Broadcast Award for Best Documentary Series and the Longman-History Today Award for Historical Film of the Year. It was released in the US through art house cinemas and was picked as the fourth best movie of 2005 by Entertainment Weekly. View The Century of The Self online here

2004: The Power of Nightmares (BBC Two) suggested a parallel between the rise of Islamism in the Arab world and Neoconservatism in the United States in that both needed to inflate a myth of a dangerous enemy in order to draw people to support them.

Currently running on BBC Two:

2007: The Trap (BBC Two), with the first of 3 parts broadcast 11 March 2007; a series regarding the modern concept of freedom.

The Trap - What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom is a BBC documentary series by British filmmaker Adam Curtis, well known for other documentaries including The Century of the Self and The Power of Nightmares. It began airing on BBC Two on 11 March, 2007.

The series consists of three one-hour programmes which will explore the concept and definition of freedom, specifically: "how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom."

In the first episode shown on 11th March, Curtis examined the rise of game theory during the Cold War and the way in which its mathematical models of human behaviour filtered into economic thought.

The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the formulae of John Nash, whose paranoid schizophrenia coloured his entire outlook of human behaviour (film of an older and wiser Nash recanting his earlier ideas about people is also shown).

Nash believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly. He invented system games reflecting this belief, including one called Fuck You Buddy, in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode's title is taken.

Curtis examines how game theory was used to create the USA's nuclear strategy during the Cold War. Since no nuclear war occurred, it was believed that game theory had been correct in dictating the creation and maintenance of a massive American nuclear arsenal - because the Soviet Union had never attacked America with its nuclear weapons, the supposed deterrent must have worked. This is a subject Curtis examined in his first series, Pandora's Box, and he reuses much of the same archive material in doing so.

A separate strand in the documentary is the work of R.D. Laing, whose work in psychiatry led him to model familial interactions using game theory. His conclusion was that humans are inherently selfish and shrewd and spontaneously generate strategems during everyday interactions. Laing's theories became more developed when he concluded that some forms of mental illness were merely artificial labels, used by the state to suppress individual suffering. This belief became a staple tenet of counterculture duing the 1960s. Reference is made to the Rosenhan experiment, in which bogus patients surreptitiously self-presenting at a number of American pychiatric institutions were falsely diagnosed as having mental disorders, while institutions informed that they were to receive bogus patients "identified" numerous supposed imposters that were actually genuine patients. The results of the experiment fundamentally challenged the ability of psychiatric medicine to genuinely diagose and treat mental illness.

All these theories tended to support the beliefs of what were then fringe economists such as Friedrich von Hayek, whose economic models left no room for altruism, but rather depended purely on self-interest.

As the 1960s became the 1970s, the theories of Laing and the models of Nash began to converge, producing a widespread popular belief that the state (a surrogate family) was purely and simply a mechanism of social control which calculatedly kept power out of the hands of the public.

Curtis shows that it was this belief that allowed the theories of Hayek to look credible, and underpinned the free-market beliefs of Margaret Thatcher, who sincerely believed that by dismantling as much of the British state as possible - and placing former national institutions into the hands of public shareholders - a form of social equilibrium would be reached. This was a return to Nash's work, in which he proved mathematically that if everyone was pursuing their own interests, a stable yet perpetually dynamic society could result.

The episode ends with the suggestion that this mathematically modelled society is run on data - performance targets, quotas, statistics - and that it is these figures combined with the exaggerated belief in human selfishness that has created "a cage" for Western humans. The precise nature of the "cage" is to be discussed in the next episode:

• 2. "The Lonely Robot" (18 March, 2007)
• 3. Title not known (25 March, 2007)