Naxar Nugaaleed You write: You are a moderator, please refrain from bigotry: Judaism dropping allah for Gold... Thank you for the advice, as you know I can always use a good advice from fellow Nomads. But a clarification of why I said that Jews have dropped Allah for gold is due. You see Naxar, Allah sent Prophet Moses to free Jews from bondage and torture of the tyrant Pharaoh. As you recall from the Quraan, or the Bible, as soon as the Jews crossed the sea to safety, they made up a calf statue made from their Jewelry to worship instead of Allah who saved them from Pharaoh. Love of wealth can corrupt a faith, any faith. So, my statement was based on an Islamic account from holy Quraan which is not bigotry. What is bigotry though is to defend Judaism, while attacking Islam and Islamists at will in many of your writings, along with implied clans that you hate ethnically. Bigot is someone who hates others for who they are. In my case I only hate people for what they do regardless of who they are, while you hate people for who they are regardless for what they do. A case in point is your claim that Islamists in Somalia are overwhelmingly of one clan, which smells like utter bigotry to me. Here is what you have written: ... we all know that the overwhelming majority of theses islamist are from a single clan, will they not disrupt the balance of different Somali clans in both parliament and cabinet on which the entire TFG experiment depends? Lastly, may I kindly remind you that the current topic is about Science, God and Atheism, if you have nothing to add, try not to divert discussion to side issues. Nur

Brother BOB InshAllah soon, hopefully this summer, are you coming too? Baarkallahu Feek Nur

Johnny Boy This topic can be of great benefit to Muslims, People of the Book, Agnostics and Atheists alike if we debate with a sincere pursuit to find the truth, after all, our collective fate depends on how we interpret the present and its body of knowledge that we have inherited either through revelation in the case of believers, be they Jews, Christians or Muslims, or science in the case of Agnostics and Atheists. First of all, we need to agree on the definition of science. Because what we refer as science is different things to different people. After a short research, here is what I found: Britain's Science Council has spent the past year working out a new definition of the word 'science'. But how does it measure up to the challenge of intelligent design and creationism? After one of year of debate, the council agreed on the following definition for Science ( Which can change ). "Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." Key words: 1.Knowledge 2.Understanding 3. Natural 4. Social 5. World 6. Systematic 7. Methodology 8. Evidence I tried to simplify the above the following way: WHAT IS SCIENCE! End objective is to find an EVIDENCE! ( Nature of this Evidence is left ambiguous) By Means of METHODOLOGY SYSTEMATIC in its application Applied in NATURAL and SOCIAL WORLD to Gain UNDERSTANDING of a phenomena Which is accepted as KNOWLEDGE ( Nature of Knowledge is left ambiguous) Which leads us to the following question: What is Evidence? definition of evidence? Definition from Dictionary: 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. 4. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 5. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 6. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. What is Methodology? 1. a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given discipline. What is Systematic? having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan: a systematic course of reading; systematic efforts. 2. given to or using a system or method; methodical: a systematic person. 3. arranged in or comprising an ordered system: systematic theology. 4. concerned with classification: systematic botany. 5. pertaining to, based on, or in accordance with a system of classification: the systematic names of plants. What is Natural? 2.existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. 3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. 4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments. 5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. 6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation. 7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11). 8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc. 9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability. 10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed. 11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner. 12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers. 13. consonant with the nature or character of. 14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back. 15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice. 16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. 17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc. What is SOCIAL? pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club. 2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious. 3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event. 4. living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation: People are social beings. 5. of or pertaining to human society, esp. as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank. 6. involved in many social activities: We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now. 7. of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community: social problems. 8. noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor. 9. pertaining to or advocating socialism. 10. Zoology. living habitually together in communities, as bees or ants. Compare solitary (def. 8). 11. Botany. growing in patches or clumps. 12. Rare. occurring or taking place between allies or confederates. What is UNDERSTANDING? mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: My understanding of the word does not agree with yours. 2. intellectual faculties; intelligence; mind: a quick understanding. 3. superior power of discernment; enlightened intelligence: With her keen understanding she should have become a leader. 4. knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing with or handling something: an understanding of accounting practice. 5. a state of cooperative or mutually tolerant relations between people: To him, understanding and goodwill were the supreme virtues. 6. a mutual agreement, esp. of a private, unannounced, or tacit kind: They had an understanding about who would do the dishes. 7. an agreement regulating joint activity or settling differences, often informal or preliminary in character: After hours of negotiation, no understanding on a new contract was reached. 8. Philosophy. a. the power of abstract thought; logical power. b. Kantianism. the mental faculty resolving the sensory manifold into the transcendental unity of apperception. What is KNOWLEDGE? acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. 5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. 6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities. 7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time. Let us agree to base our discussion on the above definitions as much as possible, to narrow ambiguities that can get in the way of reaching true KNOWLEDGE, hence SCIENCE and from there we shall judge the authority Mr. SCIENCE claims to validate existence of GOD. My task will be to show the invalidity of what is known as science to validate the existence of God. Your task is to show that God does not exist through the above definition of science. InshaaAllah , I will be back after your confirmation of this engagement. Nur

Jahnny B. Sorry to have missed your discussion with Norf on this topic. But since you are very much enthused to this topic, could you elaborate more on how Atheism relies on more solid ground than Evolution, since you have decoupled the two? Nur

Jahnny boy You write: Since you know the necessity of Atheism relays on more and better solid ground than the young one's wanting but grotesque analogy of a philosophy professor You jumping on the wrong foot saaxib already, this statement does not hold water, I only meant that evolution is the ultimate lie, the professors lie was a hobbyist lie. I do not feed anyone, but I enrich discussions with common sense, apart from your sarcasm, I would like that you take on this issue in an intellectual way, I appreciate if you can start with the reliability of the evolution theory as a basis of the Atheism fallacy. Nur

Hassan bro Atheists have more arguments than the above, their most lethal lie is the evolution theory, which reduces life to chance, their logical fallacies are helped by Christianity which lost its way and Judaism which dropped Allah for the Gold. Its high time Muslims get involved in this area of philosophical Dawa to free non Muslims from their bondage to phoney science and phoney religion to Islam, the only remaining true faith on earth. Jazaakallahu khierna for the piece Nur

What if Osama Calls Obama’s Bluff? By Michael Scheuer June 09, 2009 "Anti War" -- - As is the custom of American interventionists, President Obama spoke in Cairo as if our Islamist enemies have no vote in how their conflict with the United States will henceforth proceed. The adolescent geniuses who wrote Obama’s speech apparently spent no time at all perusing what Osama bin Laden and other Islamists have said or written over the past 13 years, and especially since 2001. At repeated points in that corpus of material, for example, bin Laden has offered a truce to the United States and its allies on terms eerily similar to those Obama described in Cairo as the intentions of his administration. * Complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. * No residual U.S. military bases in either Iraq or Afghanistan. * Self-determination for Muslim peoples now ruled by tyrants. * Termination of Israel’s gradual but unending thievery of Palestinian territory. * U.S. and Western recognition that all Muslims belong to one nation, or ummah, and that the post-World War I subdivision of the ummah into nation-states is a Western-imposed contrivance for subjugating Muslims. Now let us be clear. Obama’s Cairo positions are not optimal for bin Laden; they leave untouched, for example, such core demands as the removal of the U.S. military and civilian presence from the Arabian Peninsula and annihilation of the state of Israel. Still, the president’s stated intentions give al-Qaeda’s leadership not just food for thought, but also perhaps an opportunity to allow ordinary Muslims to judge for themselves whether the president’s offer of a "partnership" with Islam will be matched with deeds, or whether it is just more noxious Wilsonian piety covering the standard U.S. interventionist agenda. In the weeks ahead, then, it is possible that the White House will hear directly from Osama bin Laden and find that the al-Qaeda chief has posed a formidable problem for Obama and his band of Islam-ignorant advisers, as well as for our interventionist elite generally. If so, bin Laden’s statement might run something like the following: In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. Having studied President Obama’s speech in the Mubarak-controlled prison for Muslims that is called Egypt, we retain serious doubts about the seriousness and honesty of his words. But the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, has not only instructed Muslims to fight against those who oppress them and attack their faith, but has told Muslims to incline toward peace if their enemies appear to be so inclined. Therefore, because Muhammad, the best of mankind, may God’s peace and blessings be upon him, requires us to give the foe the benefit of the doubt, we today offer President Obama a long truce and require from him only that which he so clearly promised in Cairo. We first thank God that Obama sees that, with God’s help, the mujahedin – may God be pleased with them – have defeated U.S.-led Crusader forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and that their full withdrawal is essential. We also praise God for Obama’s pledge to leave behind no U.S. bases in either country, a promise verifying that America did not need to invade either in self-defense, and did so only because Bush and his Zionist advisers wanted to kill Muslims, destroy their religion, occupy their holy places, and rob their territory. Obama likewise pledged to stop the Zionist-Crusader theft of more territory from the oppressed and persecuted Palestinian people, may God shield them. All Muslims know that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are merely a prelude to the Zionists’ goal of destroying all Palestinians and taking all their land. Muslims know too that only two things can stop this catastrophe: Obama must order Israel – a state that exists only because of U.S. power – to dismantle the settlements, or, with God’s aid, the mujahedin must wage jihad on the U.S. and Israeli murderers until all Palestine, from the river to the sea, is restored to Islam. Also at Cairo, Obama plainly admitted what we and other believers have long argued, and what God has ordained; namely, that all the world’s Muslims belong to one Islamic nation and that the separate nation-states into which the West divided Muslims are illegitimate and governed by tyrants, against whom Muslims – like all other peoples – have the right to battle until self-determination is achieved. Because of Obama’s words and, more important, because of our prophet’s instructions, may God’s blessings and peace be upon him, to incline toward peace if the enemy so inclines, we hereby offer a truce that will end attacks on America and its interests if Obama matches his peaceful words with peaceful deeds – as God has demanded. For this truce with the United States, we ask only that Obama fulfill the three pledges he made voluntarily in Cairo by the first day of 2010: * By completely withdrawing U.S. and Western forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and dismantling and destroying all military bases and diplomatic facilities in those countries. * By ordering Israel to cease the construction of settlements in the West Bank; by forcing it to dismantle and destroy those already built; and by providing before-and-after videotapes and satellite photos proving the efforts were successful. * By ending all economic aid and military protection for the tyrant rulers who are oppressing and torturing Muslims. We do not ask Washington to remove the tyrants; the mujahedin – with God’s permission – will tend to them after the Americans are gone. O, my fellow Muslims, in God’s name please watch closely for Obama’s response to this fair offer of ours. Abiding by our prophet’s guidance, may God’s peace and blessings be upon him, we have made it easy for the Americans to take a giant step toward peace and to end much of their war on Islam. We in the al-Qaeda organization and you around the ummah can now judge how far Obama’s promises can be trusted. He has only to do what he has pledged to do, and may God help him do so. But if Obama fails, we in al-Qaeda and all Muslims will know that he is no different than Bush, except that he uses honeyed rather than hateful worlds, and that jihad in God’s path is the only means of victory. My closing prayer is that all praise is due to Allah, Lord of both worlds, and may His peace and prayers be upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and companions. With such words, Osama bin Laden could provide a useful service for both Muslims and Americans by forcing Obama and his talk-softly interventionists to either fish or cut bait. Not since the ever lamentable Woodrow Wilson’s "Fourteen Points" speech has an American president provided the enemy a scorecard on which his veracity can be quantified. Once the Great War ended, of course, the hypocrite Wilson abandoned the Fourteen Points as fast as possible, and because German power had collapsed, he paid no price for lying. President Obama has no chance for such good fortune. If he fails to deliver on his Cairo promises, America will confront an undefeated and growing Islamist enemy that will have on its side tens of millions more Muslims who have decided for themselves that Obama cannot be trusted and that U.S. intervention can only be stopped by jihad.

La kulanka uu la kulmay Sheikh Sharif Culimada Suufiyada iyo hanjabaadda dagaalka uu u hanjabay is-caabbinta uu shaly ka tirsanaa wexey muujineysa soona saareysa dareen shaki laga qabay, laakin anugu weli rajo ayaan ka qabaa inuu Sheikhu Caqliga howl geliyo, saa xoog wax la isaga qaadi waayayee. Nur

Chocolate&Honey sis you write: "Our hands are already full with Al-Shabaab and other ahlu's who are forever declaring Jihad and issuing assisanations based on who is the "munaafiq" or "kaafir" of the day" Tom Engelhardt writes: "Our drone wars also represent a new chapter in the history of assassination. Once upon a time, to be an assassin for a government was a furtive, shameful thing. In those days, of course, an assassin, if successful, took down a single person, not the targeted individual and anyone in the vicinity (or simply, if targeting intelligence proves wrong, anyone in the vicinity). No more poison-dart-tipped umbrellas, as in past KGB operations, or toxic cigars as in CIA ones -- not now that assassination has taken to the skies as an every day, all-year-round activity. Today, we increasingly display our assassination wares with pride. To us, at least, it seems perfectly normal for assassination aerial operations to be a part of an open discussion in Washington and in the media. Consider this a new definition of "progress" in our world " Two questions on your note and Engelhardt's: 1. What is the difference between the Jihad declared by Al Shabaab on foreign invaders and the Aerial and Military Invasions of Ethiopia and USA on poor fragmented Somalia? isn't a defensive resistance against a foreign invasion? 2. What is the difference between the Ethiopian-American Assassinations of clerics and the Al Shabaab's response of hunting down of the paid warlord drug dealer assassins? isn't all the same game? Nur

Well put Hassan bro. Now let us go back to the original topic, Sophist bro writes: Al Naqlu Muqaddamun Canil Caql! That the revelation has a priority over the intellect! since our intellect has a limited capacity. What is your take on that as the starter of this topic? Nur

Somaaaliyey toosoo, toosoo isku tiirsdaee, hadba kiinna taag daranee taageera waligiinnee! Waxaa loo baddalay Soomaalieyey seexdoo, seexdoo ha soo kicineee Hadba kiinna dhiidhiya oo is-caabbiya ee, soo jiida soona seexiya ee! Nur

Jazaakallahu Kheiran brother Sophist for the Links. Nur

Precisely Brother Hassan!, Sunnah actually means the HOW of delivering the Message of Allah SWT. So the way to deliver the message of Allah SWT is SUNNAH WAY or MERCY WAY! you can use both terms exchangeably. The Prophet SAWS has even taught HOW to teach people the Sunnah like you've said. So, in that regard, if we follow SUNNAH as it should be, we will be kind and merciful in our ways of delivering the Message of Allah SWT to people. Mercy is an embedded wisdom in all of Sunnah, if you fail to see Mercy in an action, rest assured that said action is not Sunnah! The problem as I see is the lack of common sense and wisdom that at times projects the Sunnah to be harsh when administered by the very people who claim that they are championing Sunnah behavior. Nur

Goodir bro you write: The front runner of the promoting team is Aweys, a religious politician, who time and again demonstrated well how these demons destroyed the country. This sounds interesting, could you elaborate some more please. Nur

Obama's Great Illusion By Yvonne Ridley June 02, 2009 "ICH" -- I wonder how many of you have woken up to the fact that America's latest leader is really a political Houdini ... an illusionist on a presidential scale. Infront of our very eyes he has morphed from a gentle intellectual, and strong defender of human rights into a war-mongering bully who sponsors targetted assassinations and orders pre-emptive strikes with casual ease. It took George W. Bush years before he dared to unveil his true intentions and invade Iraq, displacing three million people in a war which cost the lives of thousands of US soldiers and the slaughter of countless civilians. Whereas the smooth-talking Obama has achieved the same in just a few months since he arrived in The White House by launching an illegal war on Pakistan ... but he's using someone else's army instead of his own. He is twice as clever as the previous White House incumbent and far, far more deadly. Obama is quite possibly one of the world's most skillful manipulators and his greatest illusion so far is fooling the public as well as the media. While blatantly using Pakistan's army as a cheap source of military labour he holds the country's leader Asif Ali Zadari in suspended animation, trapped helplessly in an almost hypnotic state, induced by the promise of millions of dollars and the support of the world's biggest military machine. Of course we must lay some blame at Zadari's feet for allowing himself to be used like a magician's assistant instead of acting with the dignity and honour his office, country and people demand. Obama is far more lethal than his predecessor - and yet his transformation from Mr Nice Guy to something more sinister seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the world's watching media which appears to be intoxicated by the powerful charisma emanating from his rich, but smooth seductive tones. He has already reneged on promises over closing down Guantanamo, ending military tribunals and releasing to the public the entire archive of shame which captured the torture and abuse of the previous administration's War on Terror in video and film from 2001 onwards. Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee remarked recently over one of his u-turns: "President Obama has recently granted immunity to CIA agents ... if the desire to get at what went wrong is so blatantly covered up under cover of "national security concerns", there will be no end to this. And once again, the warmongers will get away with another odious and criminal cover-up". He has the power to make Guantanamo's vile prison disappear and for a few glorious weeks human rights activists across the world waited with baited breath for the cages of Cuba, Bagram and elsewhere to fly open. Just how difficult is it for the media to dip into their own archives and remind Obama about the pledges he made on the campaign trail and hold him to account? His first promise on the White House website was that his administration would be the most transparent in US history. Sadly these grand statements have not been followed through. But this journalistic amnesia is all too convenient - what happened to his determination to bring home all combat troops from Iraq within 18 months? Is there no journalist from the White House lobby prepared to remind him of how he said during televised presidential debates that getting Usama bin Ladin was "our biggest national security priority"? Perhaps the hypnotic Obama Affect has wiped their computer hard-drives and their memories but if you listen to his very first TV interview as the Commander-in-Chief of America he said Usama was more than a symbol. His actual words were: "He’s also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets,” adding that “capturing or killing bin Ladin is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaida.” Having secured the votes from red neck territory by saying Obama will get Usama, he now says that killing or capturing the al-Qaida chief is no longer necessary to “meet our goal of protecting America.” However, American Armenians are not so gullible and quite a few were shocked out of their trance following the US President's recent visit to Turkey when he executed with the greatest of ease yet another presidential flip flop. "As President, I will recognise the Armenian genocide," he declared loud and proud during his campaign, but when he arrived in Turkey he sort of muttered, when asked about the hugely sensitive subject: "My views are on the record, and everyone knows my views." And then he refused to elaborate and state them! "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" said Obama before he took the keys to the White House - may be that's why, when I watch the US President perform under the glare of the spotlights on the world stage, I can see something of the night lurking around his presidential shadows. There are a few of us who are immune to the charms of the new president. Like me, they believe that the sheep's clothing has vanished and what we now have is a dangerous wolf stalking the corridors of power on Capitol Hill. Yes, there's a new act in the White House these days but while Harry Houdini built his reputation performing death-defying escapes and magic tricks his political Doppelganger is certainly the master of dark arts and mass illusion. This president has gone from charming to harming and few have noticed. Journalist Yvonne Ridley is a patron of the human rights organisation Cage Prisoners at www.cageprisoners.co m and a member of the RESPECT political party as well as being a presenter of the weekly political show The Agenda on Press TV

Sheikh Sharif and Company are the new contractors for the "Country Sale Security" on behalf of Western Investors to buy Somalia for peanuts. During the slave trade era, West African tribal leaders used to sell their goods and people as slaves to western traders who in turn sold them to the Americn colonies. Today, Sheikh Sharif represents the new breed of African leaders who are promising to sell the country and its people to western interests, the problem he is facing is that times have changed, and Somalians are a breed of people who are not used to slavery to other than Allah SWT. The current events are interesting, but the final objective is the Sale of the Nation. Nur

This president has gone from charming to harming and few have noticed. Yvonne Riddley Afghan Taliban Responds To Obama`s Cairo Speech By Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Posted June 09, 2009 In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. US President Obama has been trying to restore the dignity and credibility that America has lost since his election (as US president). Now he has turned to the Muslim world. Besides other preparations for this visit, the western media has been trying to mentally prepare Muslims for Obama`s speech for some weeks. The contents of the speech, which he delivered under the title “Address to the Muslim World” on Thursday afternoon (4 June) in Cairo, did not have anything which could play a crucial role in reducing the hatred between America and Muslims. Obama`s speech lasted for 48 minutes. However, he failed to deliver a clear and true message to the Muslim world. Obama`s speech mainly consisted of symbolic and political terms and its body was vague. Contrary to expectations, there was no sign of practical change in the hostile policy of America towards Muslims. The Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan regards Obama`s speech to the Muslim world as part of the US` misleading slogans and gives the following explanations about it: 1. Barack Obama claims good-will and tolerance towards Muslims at a time when their occupation forces are committing mass murder and disturbing and imprisoning Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. They violate their legal rights and mercilessly martyr them to defend their rights. They put them in the most hateful prisons of the world. Given these wild and illegal actions by Americans, Obama`s baseless speech has no importance. 2. As a groundless claimant, Barack Obama justified the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by Americans in his meaningless speech. He said the ongoing efforts of their crusader forces against the Muslim nations of these countries were a legitimate struggle to secure US interests. According to national and international laws, the occupation of independent countries and hostile war against their free nations cannot be called a legitimate war. 3. Barack Obama wants to create divisions among Muslims and the Muslim world and to separate Muslims from their real protectors and defence force (mojaheddin) (as published) in line with his hostile policy through such speeches. These Muslim nations have willingly trained and strengthened them (mojaheddin) with their support. He is trying to create divisions among Muslims and to exploit the divisions among them. However, the religious beliefs and relations of Muslims are not so weak that they can be broken by a few words of the supreme commander of the occupation forces like Obama. Today, all vigilant Muslims are engaged in jihad in one way or the other. Therefore, the US war against the mojaheddin is considered a war against all Muslim nations and Islam. 4. He claimed that Americans were not trying to permanently remain and establish military bases inside Afghanistan in Islamic countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and that it did not want to betray the nations of the world. This claim runs counter to the current facts and realities in the region because Americans are currently busy establishing major military bases and airports. They have established 12 new military airports. Some of them are very large where any kind of large military planes can land. This large number of airports and countless number of military bases are established at a time when they do not need even half of them given the number of their forces and daily military flights. This shows that Americans are intending to permanently remain in and occupy the region. Therefore, it is sending additional forces to the region. The countries and nations of the world, particularly the region should stay vigilant to foil their destructive plans in a timely fashion. 5. Obama said that the continuation of war in Afghanistan was costly and politically difficult for him and, therefore, if peace is ensured in the region, American forces will happily leave Afghanistan. It is quite funny that he links the end to the US occupation to the restoration of security in the region. The presence of Americans is the main cause of violence and the current problems in the region. Jihad and resistance against American forces will continue as long as they are present in Afghanistan. If Obama truly wants peace to be ensured in Afghanistan and the region, he should put an end to the (US) military presence and illegal occupation to pave the way for restoration of security. If foreign forces leave (Afghanistan), Afghans will have no intention to harm anyone. No one can use Afghanistan`s soil against the international community. 6. The issues of Middle East, particularly Palestine, were also part of Obama`s address. In his address to the Muslim world, he tried to change the mindset of Muslims (Pashto: la sara warozi) regarding Israelis. He emotionally started the story of the innocence of the Jews. He described Israel as the most innocent and worthy nation of the world and that Muslims, particularly Palestinians, should officially recognize it. He spoke on the holocaust and the massacre of 6m Jews. However, he summarized the nearly 70-year crises in Palestine in a few misleading words. Mass murders are committed every moment (in Palestine). He also instructed Arab leaders to improve their ties with Israel. However, he did not speak about those surrounded in Gaza or about the supply of medicines and basic food items to them. It seems that Obama did not come to the Muslim world with a friendly message, but with an arrogant notion to give instructions (to the Muslim world). He told Muslims what they should do in order to secure the interests of America and Israel. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan believes that Muslims` hatred will steadily rise towards America until a fundamental and true solution is found to these problems and practical steps are taken. This speech by Obama is another failed attempt to mislead the Muslim world. We call on the entire Muslim nation, particularly the oppressed (Pashto: mostazafo) Muslims to stress continuation of jihad against Americans to defend their soil and religious places. They should fight the infidel forces until they achieve their real freedom and independence. It is worth pointing out that US President Barack Hussein Obama delivered a long speech, entitled “A New Beginning” in the capital of Egypt, Cairo, yesterday (4 June) in which he stressed the fight against the Taleban and Al-Qa`idah in Afghanistan. By reading out a few verses from the Koran, he tried to persuade Muslims of the world that the ongoing US war is not against Islam, but terrorists. A number of Islamic countries and organizations have called Obama`s speech a positive step. However, a number of Islamic organizations of the world are suspicious of his intentions. Obama became the US president on 20 January 2009. He said he would change the international mindset regarding America during his election campaign. However, no practical step has been taken yet to truly change the world`s, particularly Muslims`, mindset about America because there are still US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people are being killed daily there. Observers believe that America should take practical steps on Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure peace in the region and help people achieve their independence and freedom in practice. The Supreme Council of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Rethink Afghan War

Jazakallahu Kheiran Hassan bro for your thoughts on Intellect. Yours are Inspiring and encouraging thoughts First please can you tell us the source of the story of conversations that you have posted on the intellect and Allah, and the Nafs and Allah, we need to authenticate the sources of the Hadeeth. Your tagline reads: If you put the Sunna before mercy, you have lost both. Brother Allah sent Muhammad SAWS as a Mercy for mankind, how can the Sunnah contradict with Mercy? Allah says in Quraan " We have not sent you ( O Muhammad) except as a Mercy for Mankind" Nur

War Is A Racket A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. Smedley Butler WAR is a racket. It always has been It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations. For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out. Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor. The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit. There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making. Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers? Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it." Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later. Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months. Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000. Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men. Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well. Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends. But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children? What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits? Yes, and what does it profit the nation? Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars. It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit. CHAPTER TWO WHO MAKES THE PROFITS? The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war. The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it. Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples: Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent. Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year! Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad. There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times. Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year. Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period. Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000. A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent. Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather. For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent. International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent. American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded. Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings. And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body. But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits. Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed. There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet. Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France! Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam. There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order. Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent. Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs. Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time. There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war. One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam. Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit. The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits. It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few. The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface. Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure. Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life. There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed. Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters. CHAPTER THREE WHO PAYS THE BILLS? Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits. But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill. If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home. Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed. Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone. In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone. There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it. That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby. But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too. Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't. Napoleon once said, "All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them." So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War. In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army. So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed. And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious. Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure." Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month. All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed. But wait! Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left. Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days. We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds! Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters. When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices. And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying. CHAPTER FOUR HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET! WELL, it's a racket, all right. A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get. Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers – yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches! Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds. Why shouldn't they? They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are! Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else. Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers. Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war. There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote. A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only. At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation. To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket. We must take the profit out of war. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes. CHAPTER FIVE TO HELL WITH WAR! I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war. Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany. In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die. Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly? Money. An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group: "There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars. If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't. So..." Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars." Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy. And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars. Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens? The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments. The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe. There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough. The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases. Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too. But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers. So...I say, TO HELL WITH WAR. Click here to purchase "War Is A Racket" Smedley Darlington Butler Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired] Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881 Educated Haverford School Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905 Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 Distinguished service medal, 1919 Retired Oct. 1, 1931 On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 Lecturer - 1930's Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932 Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

Prophet Ibrahim's Bird Coming Soon TO A Screen Near YOU 2009 eNuri Forecasting Service Wa Laa Tahinuu Wa Laa Taxzanuu, Wa Antumul Aclawna In Kuntum Muminiin

Sherban Shabeel bro you write: If saying that Somalia is a Muslim country, or that Lebanon is a Christian & Muslim country has meaning, not the same can be said about many Western countries, who are practically atheist. You will find that very few people practice their faith (if indeed they recognize a faith). Even in Italy, where the Vatican is situated, not many people are religious. If I may add to your logic which makes sense, even Somalia is not a "Muslim Country" in that sense, nor other countries, because, that requires adherence to Islam as a basis of moral behaviour and law. We can say though that Somalia is country of Muslims. What is disturbing though is that when it comes to morality, little faith is better than no faith, in that sence, Catholics are far worthy of our trust than Atheists . Today, the western world is suffering from lack of morality due to lack of interest in any religion, which is far worse than the problem with perverted priests. Can we trust our kids to an Atheist teacher instead? Either way, Muslim parents who care for the moral fiber of their kids need to pay attention to where they send their kids for education, because as the western secular societies legalize perversion, kids will remain at more risk than Catholic schools in my opinion. Nur

Another 2001 eNuri Prediction of this thread is proven True! "we will persuade A-rabs and even I-ranians who hate Taliban Sunnis, you see this is the best strategy, and to make it decisive, we tell everybody to choose either Freedom or Terrorism" eNuri 2001 Iran Secretly Helped U.S. Bomb Taliban Units, Find Al Qaeda By Jeff Stein May 31, 2009 "CQ" May 28, 2009 -- Iran supplied U.S. diplomats with the location of Taliban military units in Afghanistan after the initial bombing campaign in the fall of 2001 failed to rout them, according to former officials in the George W. Bush administration. The Islamic regime also gave the Bush administration "really substantive cooperation" on al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, at one point providing Washington with a list of 220 suspects and their whereabouts, said one official, former White House National Security Council Iran expert Hillary Mann Leverett. Leverett said that in December 2002, after the U.S. gave Tehran the names of five al Qaeda suspects it believed were in Iran, the regime found two, which they delivered to the U.S. air base at Baghram, in Afghanistan. But the budding relationship died on the vine. Hardliners in the Bush administration prohibited Mann and Ryan Crocker, two of the principal diplomats dealing with the Iranians, from building on the contacts to pursue al Qaeda. And then a month later, President Bush labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," lumping it with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But even then, Leverett said, Tehran continued to provide Washington with intelligence on al Qaeda and expel them from Iran. "They deported hundreds of [al Qaeda] people," she said. At the same time, Bush officials were accusing Iran of harboring al Qaeda terrorists - a claim they and their allies continued to make until the end of the administration. But Leverett, backed up by other officials, tells an entirely different story. "The foreign ministry took the evidence - passports, vital information - and gave us pages and even a chart showing the disposition or what they'd done with each person," broken down by "those who had been turned away at the border, or been detained or deported," she said. At one point the Iranian foreign ministry asked the Americans to help it set up "a mechanism" to help it deport Egyptian suspects to Cairo, with which it had no diplomatic relations, Leverett said Thursday by telephone. But White House hardliners rejected the idea of helping Iran in any way, she said. "We said, 'Too bad, you're evil. You'll be a target yourself if you don't just get rid of them.'" Richard N. Haass, the State Department's chief of planning at the time, was also frustrated that Bush officials were scuttling Iranian attempts at rapprochement, which he and others believed might have led to a "grand bargain" on other thorny issues. "We couldn't get support from the NSC, the Pentagon, from the Vice president's office. And in every case we ran up against this belief in regime change," Haass said in a BBC documentary that aired in the U.K. in February. "Iran and the West" has yet to be televised here, and a spokesperson for PBS, the usual venue for such fare, said the public broadcasting network has no plans to pick it up. In the third segment of the three-part documentary, Leverett described the Iranians' secret offer to help the American bombers destroy Taliban units in the fall of 2001. "The Iranians were willing to do whatever was necessary to help ensure that the U.S. military campaign [against the Taliban] could succeed," Leverett told the BBC. She had previously described some of the back channel meetings with Iran in an October 2007 story by John H. Richardson in Esquire magazine. But neither that nor the BBC's "Iran and the West" documentary has elicited detectable news media interest here, despite its incessant descriptions of Iran as an uncompromising, implacable foe. Iran's hardliners, led by "Holocaust-denying, Israel-hating, America-bashing" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appear to hold the upper hand now, but things could change in elections two weeks from now. Iran's president in 2001, Mohammad Khatami, sought to get around the hardliners and establish better relations with Washington. "He had sought reconciliation with America (before), but his political opponents stopped him," the BBC reported. "With America poised to attack the Taliban, he had a chance to win the argument in the parliament." "The Taliban was our enemy," Khatami explains on the program. "America thought the Taliban was their enemy too. If they toppled the Taliban, it would serve the interests of Iran." Iran had discreetly offered help to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, Leverett and other officials say. But nothing happened until November. American heavy bombers had been pounding Taliban units for weeks, but the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance rebels were still bottled up. One of the Iranians Leverett was meeting with lost his temper over the stalemate, she says. He began pounding the table. "And then he took out a map, and he unfurled the map on the table, and started to point at targets that the U.S. needed to focus on, particularly in the north," Mann said. "We took the map to CENTCOM, the US Central Command, and certainly that became the US military strategy." Said Colin Powell, Secretary of State at the time: "We took a fourth-world force, the Northern Alliance, riding horses, walking, living off the land, and married them up with a first world air force. And it worked." Leverett told Esquire that Khatami's representatives believed that helping the U.S. defeat the Taliban - and al Qaeda - would help bridge a quarter-century long estrangement marked by hostage taking, terrorism, name calling and outrage over Iran's clandestine nuclear program. "They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in twenty-five years," Leverett said. Obviously, any chance was lost. Bush officials have refused to discuss the issue. When Leverett submitted a piece she had written for the New York Times about her U.S.-Iran contacts to administration censors, swaths were blacked out. (The Times printed it that way.) "They said it was classified," she said by telephone Thursday. "But nothing had ever been written down."

Zaylici bro you write: ps. was this a SOmali only thread. Give me 5 years, sxb, i shall be a fluent writer in Somali and Arabic, inshallah. No bro, if you get the gist of the message you can respond in any language of your choice. I am sure that you can do better than 5 years if you are either married to, or marry the right Haliimo, just spend more time with her and you will be fluent in Somali inshaaAllah! Nur

Sherban Shabeel bro. Here is the link Saaxib ( means Amigo in Spanish). Since 1990 hundreds of thousands of somali familes migrated to the west, countries like Italy and France predominantly Catholic, many to other Protestant countries, however one thing is common on all these countries; Child abuse is not reported immediately, its usually triggered by an incident and then an inquiry is made just like what had happened in Ireland. The question I was raising has thus a merit, the answer could either be positive or negative, but there is a ground of worry for a Somali parent who lives in these countries after such a story. I Hope that is not a stretch! Nur

Minarets Vs Missiles The true war in the world today is not between cultures or religions, its between the Missiles and the Minarets, and the Missiles are scrambling to find a purpose in the face of a changing balance of power, where more and more Minarets are going up every day on the planet while the missiles face the danger of rusting in peace. So the architects of Evil on our planet are using all means in their hands to find a place for their Missiles while planning the removal of the Minarets that are is in their way by tagging them as legitimate targets for mass conversion to capitalist consumerism. The mere thought of a world full of Minarets and no Missiles is sending shock waves of TERROR to manufacturers of weapons of Mass destruction. Imagine the number of workers in the weapons industry that can be out of work? So how can the Missile stop the Minarets? Divert the attention of Minarets builders to a side war that takes their attention away from the effectiveness of the Minarets. The number of Minarets in the world is increasing exponentially, from the far East to the far west, almost everyday a new Minaret is going up somewhere on the planet pointing to the heavens in search for peace for the purpose of salvation of humanity from the menace of sins and Missiles hovering over it's heads. The US, a peace loving nation has a stockpile of only 11,000 Nuclear Warhead Missiles that can ruin your weekend, followed by Russia with half of that amount, UK, France, Israel, China and India, Pakistan, and now North Korea and the Somali Pirates who just bought a leaky used Nuclear warhead from the underpaid American Navy Captain of the SS-Somali-Tuna Carrier in the Indian Ocean. Don't you feel safe and warm at night in your Nuclear blanket from Alaska to TelAviv which is under safe hands, (if you exclude past misuse of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki sacrificing few hundred thousand Japanese souls to save Hawaiian tourist beaches and the good judgment of western politicians in pinpointing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the sacrifice of 1.5 Million Iraqi souls for that purpose) while chasing the bearded guys with box cutter chisels who are conspiring to topple the Missile Power? Fortunately there is a balance of power that offsets the Missiles hovering over our heads. Alhamdulilah, the Muslim world has a scary monster stockpile of approximately 25 Million Minarets some armed with CNN cameras beaming a message of peace from Makkah and Madina to the far corners of the planet, converting the Missile followers everyday by the numbers for the Minaret. Five times a day, the Minarets energize the faithful to serve the Soul Super Power, not the fake Missile SOLE superpower. Comparison of the Two Powers Missiles are weapons for Mass Destruction Minarets spread messages of Mass Redemption Missiles carry a message of Terror Minarets carry a message of international and Interracial brotherhood. Minarets guide to permanent Happiness Missiles guide you to Temporary Shelters Minarets Salute Missiles Pollute To Be continued inshAllah........... .................... ...... 2009 SOL eNuri Inspirational Series Give Peace A Chance, Prosecute Criminals!