Surah Maryam ( Mary ) Holy Quraan. http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/listenbox.php?audioid=90322&type=wma 1 Kaf. Ha. Ya. A'in. Sad. 2 A mention of the mercy of thy Lord unto His servant Zachariah. 3 When he cried unto his Lord a cry in secret, 4 Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. 5 Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor 6 Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee). 7 (It was said unto him): O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him). 8 He said: My Lord! How can I have a son when my wife is barren and I have reached infirm old age ? 9 He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me, even as I created thee before, when thou wast naught. 10 He said: My Lord! Appoint for me some token. He said: Thy token is that thou, with no bodily defect, shalt not speak unto mankind three nights. 11 Then he came forth unto his people from the sanctuary, and signified to them: Glorify your Lord at break of day and fall of night. 12 (And it was said unto his son): O John! Hold fast the Scripture. And we gave him wisdom when a child, 13 And compassion from Our presence, and purity; and he was devout, 14 And dutiful toward his parents. And he was not arrogant, rebellious. 15 Peace on him the day he was born, and the day he dieth and the day he shall be raised alive! 16 And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, 17 And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. 18 She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. 19 He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. 20 She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste ? 21 He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. 22 And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place. 23 And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm-tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died ere this and had become a thing of naught, forgotten! 24 Then (one) cried unto her from below her, saying: Grieve not! Thy Lord hath placed a rivulet beneath thee, 25 And shake the trunk of the palm-tree toward thee, thou wilt cause ripe dates to fall upon thee. 26 So eat and drink and be consoled. And if thou meetest any mortal, say: Lo! I have vowed a fast unto the Beneficent, and may not speak this day to any mortal. 27 Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. 28 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. 29 Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ? 30 He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, 31 And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive, 32 And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. 33 Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! 34 Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. 35 It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. 36 And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. 37 The sects among them differ: but woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of an awful Day. 38 See and hear them on the Day they come unto Us! yet the evil-doers are to-day in error manifest. 39 And warn them of the Day of anguish when the case hath been decided. Now they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not. 40 Lo! We, only We, inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned. 41 And make mention (O Muhammad) in the Scripture of Abraham. Lo! he was a saint, a prophet. 42 When he said unto his father: O my father! Why worshippest thou that which heareth not nor seeth, nor can in aught avail thee ? 43 O my father! Lo! there hath come unto me of knowledge that which came not unto thee. So follow me, and I will lead thee on a right path. 44 O my father! Serve not the devil. Lo! the devil is a rebel unto the Beneficent. 45 O my father! Lo! I fear lest a punishment from the Beneficent overtake thee so that thou become a comrade of the devil. 46 He said: Rejectest thou my gods, O Abraham ? If thou cease not, I shall surely stone thee. Depart from me a long while! 47 He said: Peace be unto thee! I shall ask forgiveness of my Lord for thee. Lo! He was ever gracious unto me. 48 I shall withdraw from you and that unto which ye pray beside Allah, and I shall pray unto my Lord. It may be that, in prayer unto my Lord, I shall not be unblest. 49 So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah, We gave him Isaac and Jacob. Each of them We made a prophet. 50 And we gave them of Our mercy, and assigned to them a high and true renown. 51 And make mention in the Scripture of Moses. Lo! he was chosen, and he was a messenger (of Allah), a prophet. 52 We called him from the right slope of the Mount, and brought him nigh in communion. 53 And We bestowed upon him of Our mercy his brother Aaron, a prophet (likewise). 54 And make mention in the Scripture of Ishmael. Lo! he was a keeper of his promise, and he was a messenger (of Allah), a prophet. 55 He enjoined upon his people worship and almsgiving, and was acceptable in the sight of his Lord. 56 And make mention in the Scripture of Idris. Lo! he was a saint, a prophet; 57 And We raised him to high station. 58 These are they unto whom Allah showed favour from among the prophets, of the seed of Adam and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the revelations of the Beneficent were recited unto them, they fell down, adoring and weeping. 59 Now there hath succeeded them a later generation whom have ruined worship and have followed lusts. But they will meet deception. 60 Save him who shall repent and believe and do right. Such will enter the Garden, and they will not be wronged in aught 61 Gardens of Eden, which the Beneficent hath promised to His slaves in the unseen. Lo! His promise is ever sure of fulfilment 62 They hear therein no idle talk, but only Peace; and therein they have food for morn and evening. 63 Such is the Garden which We cause the devout among Our bondmen to inherit. 64 We (angels) come not down save by commandment of thy Lord. Unto Him belongeth all that is before us and all that is behind us and all that is between those two, and thy Lord was never forgetful 65 Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them! Therefor, worship thou Him and be thou steadfast in His service. Knowest thou one that can be named along with Him ? 66 And man saith: When I am dead, shall I forsooth be brought forth alive ? 67 Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught ? 68 And, by thy Lord, verily We shall assemble them and the devils, then We shall bring them, crouching, around hell. 69 Then We shall pluck out from every sect whichever of them was most stubborn in rebellion to the Beneficent. 70 And surely We are Best Aware of those most worthy to be burned therein. 71 There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. 72 Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there. 73 And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, those who disbelieve say unto those who believe: Which of the two parties (yours or ours) is better in position, and more imposing as an army ? 74 How many a generation have We destroyed before them, who were more imposing in respect of gear and outward seeming! 75 Say: As for him who is in error, the Beneficent will verily prolong his span of life until, when they behold that which they were promised, whether it be punishment (in the world), or the Hour (of doom), they will know who is worse in position and who is weaker as an army. 76 Allah increaseth in right guidance those who walk aright, and the good deeds which endure are better in thy Lord's sight for reward, and better for resort. 77 Hast thou seen him who disbelieveth in Our revelations and saith: Assuredly I shall be given wealth and children ? 78 Hath he perused the Unseen, or hath he made a pact with the Beneficent ? 79 Nay, but We shall record that which he saith and prolong for him a span of torment. 80 And We shall inherit from him that whereof he spake, and he will come unto Us, alone (without his wealth and children). 81 And they have chosen (other) gods beside Allah that they may be a power for them. 82 Nay, but they will deny their worship of them, and become opponents unto them. 83 Seest thou not that We have set the devils on the disbelievers to confound them with confusion ? 84 So make no haste against them (O Muhammad). We do but number unto them a sum (of days). 85 On the day when We shall gather the righteous unto the Beneficent, a goodly company. 86 And drive the guilty unto hell, a weary herd, 87 They will have no power of intercession, save him who hath made a covenant with his Lord. 88 And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. 89 Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing 90 Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, 91 That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, 92 When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son. 93 There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave. 94 Verily He knoweth them and numbereth them with (right) numbering. 95 And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone. 96 Lo! those who believe and do good works, the Beneficent will appoint for them love. 97 And We make (this Scripture) easy in thy tongue, (O Muhammad) only that thou mayst bear good tidings therewith unto those who ward off (evil), and warn therewith the froward folk. 98 And how many a generation before them have We destroyed! Canst thou (Muhammad) see a single man of them, or hear from them the slightest sound?

Urban bro. FAJR (meaning Dawn)prayer starts with early morning twilight. Fajr ends just before sunrise. Nur

Al Quran is trully a continuous stream of inspiration, if we focus deeply on Quraan's hidden treasures that are found only by those who seek it through ( Camal) active involvement, such was my experience few days back when a verse hit me like a lightening bolt. The verse in Surah Talaaq 2-3, reads: .......And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, Allah will (surely) appoint a way out ( of a dilemma) for him" The Insight: As we carry on with our daily duties to satisfy our commitments toward Allah SWT, and as we make our routine rounds for our livelihood, at times, we come to a point of conflict between our declared beliefs and aspired worldly opportunities, so if we obey Allah SWT, we willingly take the risk to forego preciuos valuables, such as a financial opportunity we feel to be good for us, or to accept and endure a disheartening hardship we dislike. So, by observing Allah's commandments we forego a reachable value we know where to get, thus as a counter value reward, Allah promises the believers that they will reap a better deal than what they have sacrificed. A replacement reward from where WE HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED/EXPECTED OR EVEN OCCURED TO US. In conclusion ( in Somali): Qofkii Allah ka baqa, wuxuu waayaa wuxuu filanayo, meeshuu ka filanayo, sidaa darteed, Allah wuxuu qofkaas wax ka siiyaa meelusan wax ka filaneyn. Meaning : An observing Beleiver risks loss of valuables that he has or knows how/where to get, so Allah SWT rewards him to get replacement value from a source he/she does not anticipate. Nur

S & D sis From last years (Shacbaan) Ramadan preparation, answering same question posed by a Nomad I wrote: " Best way to prepare is to work with the end in mind. What do you want to get out of Ramadan? The answer of this question can lead you to what you have to do to get ready for Ramadan. Because, with the end objective in your mind, your activities in Ramadan will align with your priorities during the same period. So, the higher your objectives, the more time slots you set aside for the preparation of Ramadan. The Preparations for Ramadan do not include stockpiling Sambusa bags and truck load of exotic foods like they do it in the Gulf countries, where supermarkets sell 6 times more food in Ramadan alone than any other month. Instead, its the planning of your time ahead, so that all of your dunyaa commitments in the month Ramadan are minimized to allow for ample time for worship and Quraan, as Ramadan is the month of Quraan" This Year I write: As Reported by the Companion Macli ibn Abil Fadl, " The Sahaaba used to pray to Allah six month before Ramadan to Allah to extend their lifetime to reach Ramadan, and they used to pray the next six months after Ramadan for the acceptance of their fasting and worship" . Ramadan has a special place in our hearts, its a renewable lifetime opportunity, to harness the immense reward in Ramadan we need to prepare for it with utmost detail and attention: 1. Sincere Niyah : a. Plan to fill it with the most ibaadaat, and all good will activities b. Remove all activities that distract you aside from your schedule and life. ( School work never suffers due to fasting, as a matter of fact, fasting aides clear up the cluter in your mind so that you can sit for any exam as calm and as blessed as possible) 2. True Repentence 3. Appreciation of value of time. 4. Practice Sunnah Fasting: Mondays and Thursdays, Full Moon, according to Hadeeth, " Rajab is Allah's month, Shacbaan is my month and Ramadan is month of my Ummah" 5. Eat Less 6. Get ready like an athlete to GO! when Ramadan arrives. Nur

Privatising War As quelling foreign populations becomes a staple of warfare, private mercenary forces are increasingly relied upon as a tool of foreign policy By Galal Nassar 31/05/08 "Al-Ahram" --- It is not just government forces, the resistance and sectarian strife that have wrought chaos in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq and subsequent policies were what triggered the security breakdown and unleashed the chaos. To make matters worse, on the heels of the occupying forces followed thousands of personnel from private firms that offer military services for hire. The corporate mercenary business is a relatively recent phenomenon and this article attempts to probe what function it plays and how it operates in Iraq and elsewhere. There are now more than 50 private security firms currently operating in Iraq and their number is likely to increase, according to recent reports. Officially their function is to protect vital facilities (from government buildings to oil wells) and important persons (the US ambassador, for example). Some of these companies have special information gathering and analysis departments whose staff has access to state-of-the-art military and security technologies. Global Risks is one such company. Charged with protecting Baghdad International Airport, it has hired for this purpose 500 Nepalese and 500 Fijian soldiers who are apparently the cheapest of the 30 nationalities of mercenaries currently in Iraq. The existence of these types of firms in Iraq was first brought to public attention by the London Times, which reported in May 2004 that the number of British employees such firms posted to Iraq had doubled to 1,500 since the previous year. Among these employees were former British police, navy and paratrooper officers and soldiers. Iraqi officials at the time admitted to having no idea of how many mercenaries were operating in the country. A year later, former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that they were by then in the neighbourhood of 100,000 and that they were needed because coalition forces were unable to supply the number of forces necessary to protect foreign diplomats and businessmen. He added that about ¨1 billion was paid out annually to such private security firms. It has apparently become Pentagon policy to hire mercenaries in American wars, despite official denials. According to Peter Singer, a security analyst at the Brookings Institution and author of Corporate Warriors, private companies offering specialised military services for hire played a major support role in most of the wars in which the US was involved in the 1990s, including Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, the Balkans and East Timor. But this role has increased exponentially in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A certain kind of murkiness surrounds these companies. It is often difficult to pin down exactly what functions their personnel are supposed to perform in their overseas postings. The titles and job descriptions given to them by their companies only compound the mystery. There have also been growing concerns over their lack of restraint. Former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, for example, expressed his dismay over the mounting brutality of mercenaries whose status and activities are not covered by the laws and conventions governing the presence of conventional armed forces. The practice of importing foreign mercenaries to perform special military tasks is undoubtedly a factor that has aggravated strife and turmoil in Iraq. Indeed, there is mounting suspicion that mercenaries may be involved in the kidnappings, killings, assaults on international agencies, and other such terrorist activities that taint the images of Iraq and Islam. One thing is clear: mercenaries earn much, much more than their counterparts in the armed forces. BANKING ON WAR: The firms themselves, the majority of which are American or British owned, offer services ranging from guarding important persons and facilities, and supplying equipment and provisions, to intelligence gathering and actual field combat. The growth of this phenomenon has added a new term to the late 20th century military lexicon. On top of "remote control warfare", "proxy wars" and "pre-emptive war", we now have "privatised war", or war fought or supported by forces and personnel subcontracted from private military firms and who are not subordinate to the official military hierarchy. In October 2006, The Independent reported that the British government had been accused of promoting the privatisation of the war on Iraq as a part of its exit strategy. The newspaper quoted John Hillary, director of the charity organisation War on Want, as saying "there are genuine worries that the government is trying to privatise the Iraq conflict. The occupation of Iraq has allowed British mercenaries to reap huge profits. But the government has failed to enact laws to punish their human rights abuses, including firing on Iraqi civilians." What initially prompted the British and American government to turn to private security forces was their ability to recruit sufficient traditional troops to meet the unanticipated force of the Iraqi resistance. Soon, as the resistance escalated, coalition forces were overstretched and morale deteriorated -- mercenaries were needed to plug the gaps of growing numbers of conscripts gone AWOL or refusing double or sometimes triple tours of duty. Officials in Washington and London quickly perceived another advantage to mercenaries. Their dead and wounded are not included in official military casualty figures, which enables officials to project to the public an incomplete picture of the actual losses incurred by the occupation. Soldiers of fortune could also come in handy for operations that fall outside the pale of international law because recourse to them would spare members of official occupation forces from being brought before international courts on charges of crimes against humanity or violating international humanitarian law governing occupation. If Washington continues the pursuit of the American global enterprise, one could well envision an increasing reliance on privatised military forces, or PMFs -- a term that certainly has a more respectable ring than "mercenaries", reflecting a business that has become a legal and increasingly lucrative industry. PMFs in Iraq are equipped with or have access to the most sophisticated military equipment (armoured four-wheel vehicles, helicopters, super computers and various satellite surveillance, positioning and guidance services). They offer very attractive incentives, more than enough to tempt individuals into quitting their jobs at home as truck drivers, prison wardens or private security guards and seeking employment in a PMF that will send them to the world's most violent hotspots. Pay ranges from $500 to $1,500 a day, whereas an ordinary career army soldier earns around $3,000 a month and an Iraqi policeman earns less than $400 per month. Such figures cast new light on ways Iraq is being drained of its national resources. Consider, too, that private security firms represent $100 billion worth of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan and that one of these companies -- a British one -- increased its revolving capital from ¨554,000 in 2003, before the war on Iraq, to ¨62 million in 2005. Not all personnel are British or American; they could just as well be from South Africa, Nepal, Chile, Columbia, San Salvador, Honduras, Ireland, Spain, Poland, Brazil, Israel and, more recently, Russia and Lebanon. Private security personnel undertake a broader range of tasks than ever in military history and the history of the mercenary profession. They guard Iraqi reconstruction projects, VIPs such as former civil administrator Paul Bremer and the US ambassadors to Iraq that followed him, supply convoys that pass through areas controlled by resistance forces, key buildings in Baghdad and sensitive government agencies, and the headquarters of the occupation in the so-called Green Zone. A former Russian paratrooper recently told a Russian newspaper that a PMF had approached him with an offer of employment as a guard for humanitarian aid convoys, visiting foreign delegations and American petroleum facilities. The officer maintained that such offers did not detail all the job requirements that security personnel would be required to undertake, such as combing residential quarters for resistance fighters, reconnaissance missions and conducting searches at roadblocks. He said that private security firms preferred to hire Russians because of the combat expertise they acquired in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Not a few Arabs have signed up with mercenary outfits, which have been linked to some of the most atrocious crimes against Iraqi civilians, and for less money than their fellow mercenaries from other countries. The Lebanese Al-Nahar newspaper writes, "Many Lebanese have joined the ranks of the mercenaries in Iraq at salaries ranging from $1,000 to $4,000 a month, which is relatively low compared to the salaries received by their French, American and even Croatian counterparts. Experienced experts from these nationalities make anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 a day." FARMING OUT KILLING: Contrary to the impression Washington has tried to convey to the world, reports on massacres perpetrated against Iraqi civilians reveal that the US army has farmed out more than just security functions to PMF personnel. As though the American invasion and occupation of Iraq outside the framework of international law was not already a crime by all international legal and humanitarian standards, the importation of thousands of mercenaries can only be regarded as a flagrant violation of human rights and a crime against Iraqi civilians. Baghdad has become the international capital of PMFs and hired killers. Of the thousands of PMFs in the world, more than 50 now exist in Iraq. Although most of these are British or American owned, some are Israeli and South African. It appears, too, that mercenaries have begun to fill the ranks of the US army itself. So desperate has the US military become that it has recruited more than 35,000 soldiers who are not US citizens. Instead, these recruits possess or have been awarded the much-coveted "Green Card" and the promise of naturalisation if they should be fortunate enough to live out their tour of duty in Iraq. Most of these recruits are originally from Spanish speaking countries, but many were in for disappointment. As the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, "US nationality does not come automatically after military service. Of the 13,500 non-American soldiers who applied for naturalisation in 2002, only 8,000 were granted citizenship." Some in Iraq believe that mercenaries are much more widespread in various official and unofficial capacities than authorities are willing to recognise. They also suspect that official guard duties are only a cover for more questionable assignments, especially in view of the fact that many mercenaries have criminal records or are even wanted by Interpol. They further hold that such mercenaries form the backbone of organised crime gangs which are used by occupation forces, foreign intelligence agencies or political forces inside Iraq for carrying out vendettas, assassinations and other acts of violence intended to achieve certain political or economic ends. With the US-British occupation of Baghdad, all existing controls over border crossings collapsed, allowing the infiltration of various elements from neighbouring countries, notably Iran and Kuwait. Among the most important groups to walk into Iraq at the time were some 1,000 Iraqi officers and soldiers who had been trained in the US or Hungary and who had been captured during the 1991 Gulf War, along with some Iraqi criminal types who had been arrested in Gulf countries and released several months before the 2003 invasion. At the same time, from the Iranian side arrived several thousands of Shia Islamist militants who had been trained in Iran and who came to form the backbone of the Badr militia. Many of these included Iraqis who had been captured in the Iraq-Iran war and later released. Not only do many of these continue to regularly receive their monthly salaries from Iran, several of them are members of the current Iraqi parliament, as was revealed by the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation in 2007. MERCENARIES IN HISTORY: The mercenary business will remain if, in the wake of major wars when armies are demobilised, discharged soldiers continue to find a lucrative market for their combat skills. Many military analysts believed that the end of the Cold War would bring an end to the phenomenon of soldiers for hire. What happened was the reverse. Mercenaries have proliferated, under new guises and godfathers, many of who call themselves "military consultants". On 30 January 1968, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution condemning mercenary activities. Mercenaries were condemned again in the Geneva Diplomatic Conferences of 1974 and 1977. In the latter year, the term was given a comprehensive definition in Article 47 of the first Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. It states that a mercenary is any person who: "Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." To be sure, there has always been a connection between "making money" and "making war". The soldier of fortune is one of the oldest professions in history. In ancient Middle Eastern texts from Pharaonic Egypt to Mesopotamia, there are frequent mentions of "Hebrews" (Habiru or Hapiru) which referred variously to stateless peoples or marauding tribes or brigands that voluntarily entered into the service of kings as slave-armies, and to bands of mercenaries willing to attach themselves to an army in exchange for pay or a share in the booty. Wherever there has been combat there have been fighters solely on the lookout for profit, even if their forms of recruitment have changed, their methods have become more sophisticated and their functions have grown increasingly specialised and diversified. The 20th century world was a crucible of global wars, regional conflicts and civil strife, and a period of alarming advancements in military technology that sapped developing nations of their wealth and exacerbated their poverty. Since the Americans dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has seen at least 172 wars. In most of these wars, mercenaries not only took part but also contributed to aggravating and prolonging them. After all, they are in business not to defend a nation, humanitarian principles or the oppressed, but to make money -- lots of it. The longer a war lasts, the more money they make. Camouflage describes more than just the type of uniforms they might wear. Like chameleons they change colour in order to appeal to the highest bidder for their services, and their services are to spread death, terror and destruction. They are entirely without compunction and they suffer no pangs of conscience, traits which apply as much to the companies that have made the mercenary business their stock in trade as it does to the individuals themselves. Whether we call them mercenaries, private security firms or the neat and fashionable PMF, they are a taint on the military profession and blight on the history of human progress. GLOBAL PROFITEERING: The fact that some wars erupt for ethnic or religious reasons, as in Kosovo, or over the struggle for power, as in Uganda and Congo, or due to organised crime and the drug trade, as in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Columbia, suggests that in many of today's wars profiteering is a fundamental ingredient -- all the more so in countries rich in natural resources and rife with government corruption. Warfare in such countries offers incentives to criminal elements, if not into participating in actual conflict in exchange for pay, then at least indirectly by offering the necessary cover of violence for smuggling and other illegal operations, which in turn require their own private guards and militias. Africa is the world's most politically unstable region. Its countries seem embroiled in virtually uninterrupted ethnic strife and civil wars that have wrought massive human carnage and genocide. Some of these countries have deteriorated into total chaos after their governments brought in mercenaries in order to help them reassert control over their respective countries. The mercenary industry boomed in Africa in part because the traditional notion, still widely held in certain areas, that power should go to the party that possesses the most money and buy the most supporters encourages a mercenary culture. In part, too, because the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa gave rise to a surplus of military and intelligence experts with extensive knowledge of neighbouring countries in which they have fought before. These fighters, no longer welcome in South Africa due to their ignominious record and their unwillingness to adjust to civilian life, find many lucrative opportunities elsewhere in the continent. As for the worldwide boom in the mercenary business, it dates to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and Washington's drive to fill the gap resulting from the withdrawal of the great powers from Africa. In this regard, the US fostered strategic relations in Africa via NGOs and transnational companies, instead of by means of state-state relations as had prevailed in the previous era. Also the end of the Cold War all but turned off the taps on the flow of free weapons -- to the governments of sub-Saharan Africa in particular. This combined with the relatively poor military resources at their disposal, a weakness inherited from the colonialist era when colonial powers deliberately kept local armies as minimally equipped and trained as possible, diminished their ability to maintain control over their respective countries. The end of the US-Soviet rivalry over spheres of influence did not alleviate explosive conditions in Africa. It merely reduced the strategic importance of this continent. Now that Moscow was out of the picture, the US had no more need to solicit the friendship of African governments in order to win more strategic friends and allies. At the same time, European nations, whether out of deference to custom or due to a lack of sufficient will, were reluctant to intervene in Africa outside the NATO framework. As the largest former coloniser of Africa, France's position was particularly significant. In the 1990s, Paris began to turn its attention closer to home and concentrate on matters connected to European unity. In addition, since the French parliament's vote to abolish obligatory military service, France has begun to reduce the levels of its forces in six African countries: Senegal, Gabon, Central Africa, Ivory Coast, Djibouti and Chad. It is expected that by the end of another four years France will have no more than 5,000 troops left on the continent, compared to 30,000 in the 1960s. In addition, the victory of capitalism over communism unleashed the competitive commercial spirit, even in the domain of security. Up-and-coming mercenary firms were quick to perceive the opportunities, and in Africa where tensions bred by the Cold War were no longer restrained the opportunities were rife, especially in Congo, Zaire and Sierra Leone. This said, outside of Africa the mercenary business found abundant offerings in trouble spots in Asia, parts of Europe and Latin America. HIDING BEHIND MASKS: One of the earliest best-known modern mercenary firms was the South African-based Executive Outcomes. The pioneering private military company specialised in covert warfare and aerial combat patrols. With thousands of recruits on its rosters, it won hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts with various African countries. According to the contracts, the firm was paid for its "security" services in the form of mining concessions in gold, diamonds or other valuable mineral resources. Executive Outcomes officials, drawn primarily from former South African police and army officers, claimed that they only worked with governments or with the approval of the governments concerned. Other key personnel included Ukrainian pilots, being capable of flying the company's MIG-27 fighters and Russian-made M-24 helicopters. (Executive Outcomes was dissolved in 1999 when South Africa moved to stop mercenary activities.) Another major mercenary firm is the US-based Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI). Also staffed by former military or quasi-military personnel, the company has a website on which it promotes itself as an organisation that offers helicopter piloting training services. MPRI officials maintain that they abide by US law and policy, that they are licensed to operate by the State Department, and that they are not mercenaries. In Britain, a number of mercenary outfits were discovered. Operating out of luxurious headquarters, they hire out arms and forces to such countries as Sierra Leone, in defiance of UN prohibitions. One of the most important British firms in this field is Defence Systems Limited (DSL), which rents out the "special air force services" of former RAF officers. DSL has provided counter-insurgency training programmes to the governments of New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Mozambique and Columbia. Definitive Results, registered in both the UK and South Africa, boasts an army of 5,000 fighters and a fleet of civilian and military aircraft, including reconnaissance and espionage planes and several MIG-24 assault helicopters. It also operates a commercial airline company that offers flights to destinations in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. So successful has this company been that it has managed to buy up several rival firms, as well as a company that manages the petroleum and mining concessions in Angola, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. In 1996, it won the contract from the Sierra Leone government to repel the anti-government Revolutionary United Front (RUF) forces led by Fodaj Sankoh, a task in which it achieved remarkable results. According to Definitive Results' director, his company's strategy is "to enter into dialogue with the UN and the African Union in order to let them know who we are, what services we provide and how important these services are. We want to explain to them why we can perform the operations they need better and yet at only 10 per cent of what they currently cost them." A more modest operation is Africa Security. Founded by former French army officer Patrick Tourne in 1990 and staffed by about 2,500 recruits, it has helped put down anti-government opposition movements in Rwanda, Gabon and Cameroon. At the time, Africa Security paid its soldiers 20-30,000 francs a month plus living expenses. The South African-based company pays a monthly salary of $10,000 to its pilots and $2,000 to its non-commissioned officer equivalents. The salaries are four times higher than what their counterparts would earn in the South African army. THE PR GAME: Yet the more their business thrived, the more the so-called PMFs had to work on their image and -- specifically -- to disassociate themselves from the concept of the mercenary. PMFs naturally find supporters. They are of the opinion that it is important to distinguish between so-called private security firms and internationally proscribed mercenaries. But they also have their detractors who argue that there is little difference between what mercenaries and PMF operatives do. In all events, no one has yet brought charges against governments for violating humanitarian law by granting lucrative contracts to such firms. Yet some of the activities of such firms have prompted investigation by the US army itself. Investigations were triggered by a video circulating on the Internet depicting personnel belonging to a British-owned security firm opening fire on Iraqi civilians in cars. The investigative panel eventually recommended against bringing charges against the firm and its operatives. In spite of such notorious black marks, PMF officials and employees insist that their companies aim to promote security and stability in weak nations. Their business, they claim, is to help equip and train these nations' armies so as to enable them safeguard their internal and national security. They adamantly refuse to be called mercenaries, preferring instead the term "contracted soldiers". Mercenary, they agree, conveys the pejorative connotation of ruthless and unbridled rampage, pillage and bloodshed. Contracted soldiers, by contrast, are respectable law-abiding citizens, operating out of proper offices and performing protection and training services clearly laid out in legal contracts. As modern and professional as their offices may be and as tidily as their contracts are worded, it is obvious that much goes on behind the façade and that PMFs are willing to hire out their personnel to perform more than the contractually stipulated services. They engage in espionage, carry out assassinations, and engage in guerrilla warfare against countries near to the country that contracted them. They import and smuggle in weapons, train rebel forces, plan and execute propaganda campaigns, carry out surveillance and sabotage operations in "enemy" territory, protect the wealth and power of corrupt rulers, and otherwise help to spread poverty, destruction and chaos, for the simple reason that, uncontrolled by law as they are, they can -- and will -- so long as there is money to be made. What is the Facilities Protection Service? The Facilities Protection Service (FPS) was established on 4 October 2003, according to Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 27. The order says that, "The FPS may also consist of employees of private security firms who are engaged to perform services for the ministries or governorates through contracts, provided such private security firms and employees are licensed and authorised by the Ministry of Interior as provided in Section 7 herein." According to Global Security, "The FPS works for all ministries and governmental agencies, but its standards are set and enforced by the Ministry of Interior. It can also be privately hired. The FPS is tasked with the fixed site protection of ministerial, governmental, or private buildings, facilities and personnel. The FPS includes oil, electricity police and port security. "The majority of the FPS staff consists of former service members and former security guards. The FPS will now secure public facilities such as hospitals, banks, and power stations within their district. Once trained, the guards work with US military forces protecting critical sites like schools, hospitals and power plants." Which private security firms are operating in Iraq? "According to a February 2006 Government Accountability Office report, there were approximately 48,000 private military contractors in Iraq, employed by 181 different companies. There may now be many more." As a former CIA agent, the author knows how mercenaries work: in the shadows. But how did a notorious former British officer, Tim Spicer, come to coordinate the second largest army in Iraq -- the tens of thousands of private security contractors (AEGIS)? The report also mentions Blackwater, Dyncorp, Hart Security, Erinys ... "Private military companies -- companies providing security in the field -- make up a $30-billion-a-year industry globally..." In Iraq, there are about 50 known private security firms working. These include: AEGIS PLC: (AEGIS Special Risk Management) AEGIS is a British security firm, it has about 1,000 employees in Iraq, 250 of which are Iraqis. A film recently showed AEGIS members happily shooting Iraqi civilians. Sourcewatch information on AEGIS: "AEGIS Defence Services was initially awarded a $300 million contract by the Pentagon in May 2004 to act as the 'coordination and management hub' for the 50-plus private security companies in Iraq. As of December 2005, that contract was worth in excess of $430 million. They also contributed 75 teams of eight armed civilians each to assist and protect the Project Management Office of the United States. They also provided protection for the Oil-for-Food Programme Enquiry." According to The Washington Post (12 August 2007), the US military has paid $548 million over the past three years to two British security firms that protect the US Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction projects, more than $200 million over the original budget, according to previously undisclosed data that shows how the cost of private security in Iraq has mushroomed. The two companies, AEGIS Defence Services and Erinys Iraq, signed their original Defence Department contracts in May 2004. By July of 2007, the contracts supported a private force that had grown to about 2,000 employees serving the Corps of Engineers. The force is about the size of three military battalions. The size of this force and its cost have never been documented. The Pentagon has said that about 20,000 security contractors operate in Iraq, although some estimates are considerably higher. AEGIS and Erinys work side-by-side in Baghdad's Green Zone. Erinys Iraq Ltd: According to Global Security, "Erinys Iraq Ltd is the private security company hired to protect Iraq's oil pipelines under a $40 million contract awarded in August 2003. Erinys Iraq, an affiliate of Erinys International formed in 2001, landed the Iraq contract to supply and train 6,500 armed guards charged with protecting 140 Iraqi petroleum wells, 7,000km of pipelines and refineries, as well as power plants and the water supply for the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum. A majority of Erinys' workforce [15,000 Iraqi and 350 international staff] in Iraq are Kurdish peshmerga." Sourcewatch information on Erinys: "Erinys Iraq Ltd, which won an $80 million contract from the Coalition Provisional Authority to provide security for the petroleum infrastructure in Iraq, has had some powerful alliances in Iraq." Erinys set up a Joint Venture with Nour USA Ltd. Nour's founder is Abul-Huda Farouki, a wealthy Jordanian-American who lives in northern Virginia and whose companies have done extensive construction work for the Pentagon. A founding partner and the director of Erinys Iraq is Faisal Dhaghistani. Faisal is the son of Tamara Dhaghistani, who played a major role in the development of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. The firm's counsel in Baghdad has been Chalabi's nephew, Salem Chalabi. "Many among the 14,000 guards recruited by Erinys to protect the petroleum infrastructure came directly from the Iraqi Free Forces, a militia that had been loyal to Chalabi's movement." Blackwater USA: Blackwater was the security firm hired to protect Paul Bremer in Iraq. Sourcewatch information on Blackwater: "Blackwater is one of two companies which make up the Prince Group, the other being Prince Manufacturing... The Prince Group bought Aviation Worldwide Services [which] consists of STI Aviation, Inc, Air Quest, Inc, and Presidential Airways, Inc. These companies provide the logistical and air support for Blackwater operations. Blackwater itself consists of Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting and Blackwater Canine." Blackwater vs Falluja: The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force took over Falluja on 27 March 2004. During a demonstration on the following day, the US killed 18 Falluja civilians. The Iraqi response to this was the murder and hanging of four Blackwater employees on 31 March 2004. War crimes committed by the United States followed. Najaf was also affected. Sourcewatch says: "According to Russel Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, a few days after the Falluja killings, "Blackwater Security Consulting engaged in full-scale battle in Najaf, with the company flying its own helicopters amidst an intense firefight to re-supply its own commandos... The increased scrutiny of security firms led Blackwater to hire the Alexander Strategy Group [now involved in three K Street scandals] for crisis management, public and media relations." Armorgroup: ArmorGroup operates in 40 countries worldwide and is a leading international risk management, security services, mine action, and information service provider. ArmorGroup has bid for what is believed to be the largest US security contract in Iraq, worth about $475 million. ArmorGroup is already one of the largest security firms in Iraq, with more than 1,200 employees. It says it is the largest convoy escort contractor in Iraq -- accounting for about 30 per cent of convoys -- including about 1,200 missions last year. The potential bidders also include AEGIS Defence Services. The list includes: - Bearing point - CACI - Control risks group - Crescent security group - CTU security consulting inc - DYNCORP International - EODT - Gardaworld - GSI - Halliburton/ KBR - Northrop Grumman - Parsons - TITAN - TOKAI - Triple Canopy - General - AD Consultancy - AKE Limited - Baghdad Fire & Security - CSS Global - Custer Battles - Dehdari General Trading & Contracting Est - Diligence Middle East - Genric - Global Risk Strategies - Group 4 Falck A/S - Henderson Risk Limited - Hill and Associates, Ltd - ICP Group - ISI - Meteoric Tactical Solutions - Meyer & Associates - NSR (Nauthiz Strategic Resources) - Olive Security (UK) Limited - Optimal Solution Services - Overseas Security & Strategic Information, Inc/Safenet -- Iraq - RamOPS Risk Management Group - SOC-SMG, Inc. - Sumer International Security - The Steele Foundation - TOR International - Triple Canopy Inc. - Wade-Boyd & Associates LLC - Unity Resources Group (Middle East) LLC (source: www.globalsecurity.org,www.globalsecurity.org,www.brusselstribunal.org and www.sourcewatch.org)"]www.sourcewatch.org)www.sourcewatch.org)[/url] Private security companies lack oversight and regulation -- UN working group A growing number of private security and military companies are operating domestically and internationally without effective oversight or accountability, the United Nations working group on the use of mercenaries warned on 10 March 2008. Presenting its report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the working group said that private security companies in such conflict-wracked countries as Iraq, Colombia and Afghanistan are recruiting former policemen and members of the military from developing countries as "security guards" in their operations. Once there, those guards in fact become "militarily armed private soldiers", which is essentially a new way to describe mercenaries, who are often responsible for serious human rights abuses, the working group stated. War-torn states also frequently lack the capacity to control and regulate the private companies, the report noted, with national legislation granting immunity to the companies -- which are sometimes transnational -- in some cases. When this happens, the private guards are only accountable to their employers, and the working group said immunity can soon turn into impunity. The working group, established in 2005 and composed of five independent experts serving in personal capacities, called for the wider ratification of the International Convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. It noted that as holders of the monopoly of the legitimate use of forces, states are and should be the main actors responsible for protecting and promoting human rights. The working group's members are José Luis Gómez del Prado of Spain (chairperson-rapporteur), Libya's Najat Al-Hajjaji, Amada Benavides de Pérez of Colombia, Russia's Alexander Nikitin and Shaista Shameem of Fiji. (source: www.globalsecurity.org)"]www.globalsecurity.org)www.globalsecurity.org)[/url]

SOL eNuri Initiatives Series Applied Sunnah Practioner Certification! I am sure that you come across all kind of Certification programs from IT to Real Estate Brokerage. The question is why all in a sudden there is this rush to certify these professionals? Well, the Diploma mills are graduating bad crops, so reliable controls are set at the intake of these professionls to test if they are worth the words on their resumes. As usual, eNuri adapts the trends for the Islamic Dawa Practioners who preach on all waves, including the mighty Internet. In Madina Al Munawara University, the Hadeeth Science Degree takes full 4 year program (plus the language competency year for nonspeakers) after which the new graduate seeks to work as a teacher , Dawa worker, Imam , councellor at community centers, a reseracher , writer or a Hadeeth Science blogger. So where is the need for certified Hadeeth Professionals? Well, the communities in the west are the most in need to employ a Certified Hadeeth Practinoner for the following reasons: 1. Tafseer al Quraan by Hadeeth. 2. Fiqh, supporting a viewpoint, substantiating the validity of the Daleel. ( to aid family counselling) 3. Seerah, and biographies of the narrators. 4. Jurisprudence, the axkaam as related to the Hadeeth to aid Sharia judgements in Community. And much much more! If the communities begin employing these practioners, a budget will be needed to attract qualified practinoers, which calls for an Independent Standard Of Certification, so that all graduates from different colleges of Hadeeth worldwide can sit for the same rigorous examintions for Certification. So, Nomad Sisters and Brothers, let us hear from your views for concerns of your respective communities and their need for a certified Hadeeth Practioners. Do you think that there is a need for such a program? Nur

Pain and Conscience By Charles Sullivan 30/05/08 "ICH" -- -- It is evident that a substantial majority of U.S. citizens are, in principle, opposed to the most destructive governmental policies stemming from the nation’s capital. These include, but are not limited to—the continuing war and occupation of Iraq, as well as the pervasive consumer fraud that preys upon the innocent and the unwary and causes them undue hardship. These charges are born out by the abysmal approval rating of Congress and the president. It is equally evident that the government, while pretending to be sympathetic to these views, continues to carry forth those same policies both at home and abroad. It does so without the consent of the people and, therefore, it has abrogated its responsibility to them. These destructive policies are formulated in the various branches of government and in the corporate board rooms of America. They are a prominent feature of the run amok presidency of George W. Bush, where they manifest themselves to the world. However, their history precedes Bush and his corporate gangsters by generations, and they are an outgrowth of the exploitive capital system. In some respects the presidency serves as a distraction from the machinations that are operating behind the scenes to spew forth one disastrous policy after another. With so much attention given to Bush, the people are failing to confront the root cause of which George W. Bush is but a single manifestation: the sociopolitical system that put the present criminal regime in power. Beyond capitalism, other destructive paradigms are operating to produce a hybridized and even more virulent form of economics. One might call it hyper capitalism. This explains why the American form of capitalism is so much more destructive than most of its European counterparts. For example, most European workers enjoy a shorter work week, higher wages, and have more paid vacation than do American workers; and most of them have union representation and, therefore, more and better benefits. In Germany, even Wal-mart is unionized. One of these harmful paradigms that interact synergistically with capitalism is the idea of American exceptionalism: the persistent belief that America knows best and everything we do is good for the world. This synergism is tinged with powerful elements of racism, sexism, and other belief systems that are rooted in bigotry, hate, and religious intolerance. It is this lethal combination that gave rise to the concept of Manifest Destiny. It was these paradigms that attempted to sweep the continent clean of its indigenous population, and is blowing across the planet, touching ground in the Middle East and beyond like a violent cyclone. What is so exasperating to many of us is that the corruption of the political system is widely understood and yet so little is done about it. The people continue to participate in it; they continue to vote in the absence of meaningful choice and they continue to support it with their taxes. There have been peace marches and other forms of token protest, but they have had little bearing on the continuing policies of economic disparity, environmental destruction, and imperial war that are prominent features of American capitalism. Because protest in America has become more symbolic than effective, those in power can afford to ignore it. Even when participation in protest is great, it is of short duration; it does not cause serious economic or political disruption, and it does not pose a real threat to the established orthodoxy. After a few hours of peaceful marching, the people pack up and go back to their lives and everything remains as it was before they came. Effective protest causes economic and political disruption. It persists until the just demands of the people are met. The established orthodoxy feels pain and discomfort from it; it feels a palpable threat and understands that the injustice cannot continue. Either it addresses the demands of the people, or it perishes. This is a manifestation of democracy. It is serious stuff that requires enormous sacrifice from those who protest in this way. The Montgomery bus boycott of the 60s was that kind of protest; and it was a protest that was won by the people, despite a constant threat of violence and death. These days few people are willing to put anything tangible on the line. One wonders: Is there anything that the American people are willing to fight and die for? Is there anything real that we really believe in? Or do we relish the symbols of freedom more than we love freedom itself? American exceptionalism is fostered in all of our social and political institutions. This includes the educational system and religious institutions. Thus, these beliefs are continually reinforced from cradle to grave, and never more so than in the corporate media. So it is not surprising that our political leaders behave as if they were endowed with the powers of deities, even though they are nothing more than fallible human beings like everyone else. It requires enormous hubris for anyone to adopt such doctrines, but there appears to be an inexhaustible supply of hubris in this country and a paucity of humility and compassion. Those who think in this way are prone to behaving toward the world with vitriol, as we witness daily. The collective result of so many individually destructive paradigms is dehumanization. When we allow people to be dehumanized it is easy to hate them and to exploit them; to see them as entities endowed with less inherent value than ourselves or our chosen kind. It is easy to kill or subjugate inferior people and inferior beings. That is also how the government (the economic elite) perceives the working class and in their eyes that perception makes working people exploitable and expendable. Giving our continued allegiance to such government is irrational and immoral; it is also cowardly and self-destructive. We are faced with a situation in which the body politic not only does not care what the American people think; it disdains populism as much here as it does in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Populism and its close cousin—democracy—pose an enormous threat to the established order; and that order provides wealth and privilege to a select few, while denying it to everyone else. This is why corrupt politicians and so many academicians spare no effort to suppress and crush democratic movements, and cover up their crimes through a disingenuous rendering of history. Yet with so much of the population aware of the government’s disdain of the people’s needs, why isn’t there effective organized resistance to it? Why isn’t there widespread social and economic disruption? Why do the people not revoke their consent to be governed and refuse their allegiance to a government that is not only corrupt and devoid of moral capital but is also clearly predatory or even cannibalistic? Why do we continue to fund criminal governments, including our own, with our taxes? Why isn’t there social unrest and civil disobedience in the streets? Why are those who expose these crimes punished and the criminals go free and reap financial reward for their malfeasance? One explanation for the widespread social malaise in this country is that people are overwhelmed by it; shocked and awed by it; disorientated by it. They cannot believe the audacity of the Bush regime. Disorientation makes the plunder of the commonwealth easy to carry out. Even while dazed and confused, so many people remain wed to the idea of America’s inherent goodness and moral superiority to the rest of the world, despite mountains of evidence against such views. Thus, they view the criminal Bush regime as an aberration rather than a continuation of an historical pattern. Social justice advocates are rightly infuriated to know that amidst this worsening climate a solid majority of the people can remain indifferent and willfully ignorant of what is being done in their names. There is a reason for this. The American people do not want to acknowledge any wrong doing on the part of their government, which is, in theory, an extension of the people. Of course, that is not the actual practice. This refusal psychologically absolves them from guilt or complicity and it permits them the luxury of apathy. By refusing to acknowledge wrong doing, no further action is required of them. They can go on consuming, falling asleep in front of the television and sending their offspring to die in unnecessary wars, while sinking ever deeper into debt and economic servitude. Furthermore, the inert masses are mentally and spiritually ill equipped to deal with reality; so they block it out of their minds—aided, of course, by the corporate media and the propaganda apparatus of the government, itself. This is why fantasy is freely substituted for reality; plutocracy is mistaken for democracy, and the majority of the people do not know the difference. Millions of good people thus refuse to allow into their psyche the suffering and misery that U.S. policy has produced and exported to the world, even as that reality is closing in upon them. Unfortunately, I can point to my own family as an example of such delusional thinking, as no doubt can many of my readers. Understanding this, the greatest obstacle to creating a vibrant and effective social justice movement is convincing the inert masses that they must acknowledge the suffering we have caused and are continuing to inflict upon the world. The multitudes must see the wisdom of looking behind the veneer of propaganda and confronting an ugly and often painful truth: the brutal and violent history of our nation, including the suppression of democracy wherever it is encountered. Eventually, perhaps very soon, they must also come to grips with the demise of capitalism. We the people must find the courage to confront reality, and that means that we must be willing to feel the pain and suffering we have inflicted on others. We must admit that we are not exceptional or superior, and that we are not more entitled to our share of the world’s bounty than any other people. But we must go even deeper than that: we must bring about restitution for our past wrong-doing. The citizens of the United States must become one with the world and look beyond nationality; beyond race, sex, and religious creed. Suffering and joy are conditions of life and they should be kept in balance as much as possible. Because suffering causes discomfort that few people want to experience, the alleviation of suffering is powerful motivation to demand justice; and that is the force that motivates most good people to do what they do, which is resist the tyranny of evil government. Once our indiscretions have been acknowledged and acted upon, we will find that the world is more than willing to forgive our past transgressions. This act alone will allow us to rejoin the world, so to speak. Many years ago I questioned my mother about eating meat and the suffering it caused so many innocent animals. Her response revealed much about the American consciousness. She did not witness the suffering of those animals. She did not hear their cries of pain. She saw no blood in the sanitized product that was sold in the grocery store, wrapped in clear plastic and served up on pristine styrofoam. So their suffering was not real to her; it was too far removed from her experience. But the suffering of those animals and their cries of pain are very real indeed; and so is the suffering the United States government is inflicting upon the world. Were we on the receiving end of our government’s foreign policies, we would have a very different perception of them. But like wrapped meat in the grocery store, we do not see the pain and the blood—or the suffering. So for many people it is not real; it is not happening…but it is. By admitting some of this pain into our lives we are simultaneously admitting all of the other things into our lives that define our collective humanity; among them hope and joy. Then, and only then, can we take a principled stand for social and environmental justice and build an effective movement toward these ends. We must pry open closed minds and allow reality to penetrate delusion, as witnessing cause and effect often does. By this process sheeple are transformed once again into people, each of them endowed with a conscience capable of distinguishing right and wrong. This moral evolution is itself a revolutionary act of monumental import to any justice movement. It provides the means for people to act according to the dictates of conscience, and that is an act of liberation from dogma. Revolution begins by altering consciousness. We stand at the brink of a multitude of possible futures, many of them tragic. The failure to act and rebel when the conditions demand it is a betrayal not only of our own humanity; it is a crime of great magnitude. The world’s foremost thinkers and visionaries have always understood this. Can we? Charles Sullivan is a nature photographer, a naturalist, an environmental educator and free-lance writer residing in the Ridge and Valley Province of geopolitical West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan@copper.net(no spam).

Malika, Abu Salman, Ameen and Sulekha Jazakumullahu kheiran for your informative and educational quality experiences. Many nomads will surely benefit from these stories. I just want you to read Surah Mariam - Mary (Aleyhaa al Salaam) and put yourself in her place, can you imagine how bad she felt about the prospect of slander, and in hands is the irrefutable evidence, a baby boy? Mary wished not only to die, but to have not exisited in the first place ( Nasyan mansiyan), so she is not even remembered. InshAllah, in light of Quraan and Sunnah, let us suggest ways to: 1. Control this evil from happening. 2. After it takes off, how to deal with it. Nur

Warrior of Light Xanta in Somali language is gossip, False Accusation aka (Character assasination) is Buhtaan, or " Been ku Abuurasho" in Somali. Nur

Islam's holiest city set for 130-skyscraper redevelopment Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent The Guardian, Thursday May 29 2008. The holiest city in Islam is to get a £6bn facelift, it was announced yesterday, with homes and hills being flattened to make way for hotels, apartments, shopping malls and transport facilities for pilgrims. Six development projects ordered by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, will transform Mecca, which struggles to accommodate the millions of Muslims who pour into the city every year to perform hajj. The biggest change will be to the courtyards of the Grand Mosque, which can hold at least 100,000 worshippers during prayer times. An ambitious expansion programme has led to the demolition of 1,000 properties in the immediate Shamiya area and Saudi authorities have set aside an estimated £80m to compensate the homeowners. There will also be a new residential district to the south-west of the mosque. Construction firms have begun to level hills to create a 230,000 square metre area that will include high-rise apartments and air conditioned prayer facilities for up to 120,000. A new ring road, four kilometres (2.5 miles) long and 80m wide, will ease congestion and link to the Jeddah highway, while a project to the south of the mosque will increase prayer space from 1,170 to 30,000 square metres and provide parking space for more than 1,000 cars. But Irfan Al Alawi, the founder and former executive director the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, said: "It's the Manhattanisation of Mecca. The Saudis want to build skyscrapers. The worry is that as they level hills and mountains they will destroy sites of cultural interest." A report by the Saudi British Bank, one of the kingdom's biggest lenders, estimates that £15bn will be invested by local and foreign companies in construction and infrastructure in Mecca in the next four years. Up to 130 new skyscrapers are anticipated, including the Abraj Al Bait Towers, a seven-tower project that will be one of the largest buildings in the world, with a 2,000-room hotel, a 1,500-person convention centre, heliports and a four-storey mall that will house hundreds of outlets. The pilgrims already have the opportunity to stop at Next, TopShop and Starbucks in between their religious rituals. For developers, Mecca is a concrete business investment, with the guarantee of millions of visitors each year. The world's estimated 1.4 billion Muslims are obliged to complete hajj once in their lifetime if they have the means to do so. Last year up to 4 million people completed hajj, with millions more visiting during the rest of the year. Next week Mecca - which is strictly off limits to non-Muslims - will host a three-day conference on the importance of dialogue with other religions. The event, to be opened by King Abdullah, will feature scholars and academics from the Islamic world

Christian fundamentalism and Zionism Time To Terminate This Unholy Alliance? By Alan Hart 23/08/08 "ICH " -- - In the light of the revelation (devine or not) about Pastor John Hagee’s assertion that Hitler was God’s agent, is it too much to hope that Jews everywhere, and Jewish Americans especially, will insist that Zionism terminate its unholy alliance with Christian fundamentalism? This alliance has always seemed to me to be the greatest madness and also the biggest obscenity in the continuing story of conflict in and over Palestine. Historically speaking, Christian fundamentalists were classic Jew haters on the grounds, they said, that the Jews were the “Christ killers”. So what explains Christian fundamentalism’s support for Israel right or wrong - support which today includes much of the money to fund Zionism’s on-going colonisation of the occupied West Bank? The evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell gave this answer. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was the most crucial event in history since the ascension of Jesus to heaven and “proof that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh… Without a State of Israel in the Holy Land, there cannot be the second coming of Jesus Christ, nor can there be a Last Judgement, nor the End of the World.”. Another answer is that provided by Yakov M. Rabkin, the Jewish Canadian Professor of History at the University of Montreal. In his book A Threat From Within, A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM, he writes: “The massive support extended to the State of Israel by millions of Christian supporters of Zionism is overtly motivated by a single consideration: that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land will be a prelude to their acceptance of Christ (when he returns) or, for those who fail to do so, to their physical destruction.” (My emphasis added). Simply stated, Christian fundamentalism’s only interest in the Zionist state of Israel is in assisting it to become the instrument for bringing about, as foretold by the Christian Bible, the end of the world in a final battle at Armageddon between the forces of good and evil. In this scenario the Jews will have a choice - either to junk their Judaism and become Christians, in which case they will be beamed up to heaven, or to be annihlated… It seems to me that there’s a case for saying that Christian fundamentalism is, potentially, a far bigger threat to Jews and Judaism than all the Arabs and other Muslims of the world put together, including a nuclear-armed Iran! So why is Zionism in alliance with Christian fundamentalism? The short answer needs only two words - political expendiency. On its own and in its various manifestations, the Zionist (not Israel!) lobby is awesomely powerful. It is even more influential, in America especially, in association with Christian fundamentalism. In May 2002, the BBC’s admirable Stephen Sackur presented a remarkable radio documentary, A Lobby to Reckon With. It was honest, investigative journalism at its very best. The programme explained why it was no longer accurate to talk about the Zionist lobby (which in my view was wrongly called the Israel lobby) as the main influence on American policy for the Middle East. There was now a more powerful lobby, one that had been formed, effectively if not institutionally, by the Zionists joining forces with Christian fundamentalism. As Sackur observed, “It is an alliance of the two best organised networks in the U.S.” Another way to put it would be to say that America’s elected representatives, almost all of them including their Presidents, are frightened of offending Zionism too much and sometimes at all, and terrified of offending Zionism in alliance with Christian fundamentalism. A truth about Zionism is that it’s always been ready, willing and able to use or be used by any power or interest when doing so advanced its own cause. It has never needed a spoon, long or short, to sup with the devil. Those who are familiar with the most intimate details of Zionism’s history know that in 1940 there was a Zionist offer to collaborate with Nazi Germany - to participate in the war on Germany’s side and to assist the establishment of Hitler’s New (totalitarian) Order in Europe. To this day Zionism and all supporters of Israel right or wrong deny there was ever a Zionist proposal for collaboration with Nazi Germany, just as they deny Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948/49 and on-going; but 45 years after the offer was made in writing, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving director of Military Intelligence, made the following observation about it in his book, Israel’s Fateful Hour: “Perhaps, for peace of mind, we ought to see this affair as an aberrant episode in Jewish history. Nevertheless, it should alert us to how far extremists may go in times of distress, and where their manias may lead.” (My empassis added). It could also that there was a financial consideration in Zionsm’s decision to use and be used by Christian fundamentalism. At some point in the future it’s not impossible that the more American and European Jews realise that Zionism is their enemy, the less they will be willing to pump money into the Zionist state.. In that event, Zionism may have calculated, it will need Christian fundamentalist money more than ever. I’ve never believed that enough Americans would be ****** enough to put Senator John McCain in the White House, and hopefully his better-late-than-never rejection of Hagee’s endorsement will guarantee his defeat. The only “end of times” I wish for is the termination of the unholy alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Zionism. Amen

Delilah sis It was reported that the Messenger of Allah SAWS said " The reward you get when Allah guides a human soul through your efforts is better than possession of the whole Dunyaa and everything inside it" Alahmadulillah sister, a real opprortunity is presenting itself for you to havest, but like Juwairiyah said, within the the limits of our Deen. Nur

With Friends Like These... By Uri Avnery 20/05/08 "ich' -- - Lately we are flooded with friends. The Great of the Earth, past and present, come here to flatter us, to fawn on us, to grovel at our feet. “God, save me from my friends, my enemies I can deal with myself!” says an old prayer. They disgust me. Let’s take, for example, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Her pandering was free of any criticism and she reached new heights of obsequiousness in her speech to the Knesset. I was invited to attend. I relinquished the privilege. I shall also pass the pleasure when I am invited to the session with the hyper-active Nicholas Sarkozy, who will try to break the flattery record of his German rival. Before that we were visited by John McCain’s mentor, the evangelical pastor John Hagee, the one who described the Catholic Church as a monster. Oozing sanctimonious flattery from every pore, he forbade us, in the name of (his) God, to give up even one inch of the Holy Land and commanded us to fight to the last drop of (our) blood. However, not one of them has come close to George Bush. Approaching the end of the most disastrous presidency in the annals of the Republic, he really forced a lighted match into the hand of our government, encouraging it to ignite the barrel of gunpowder between our feet. BUT THE list of present-day leaders who participate in the pandering competition pales in comparison with the long parade of Has-Beens who lay siege to our gates. A world-wide swarm of Has-Beens is flying from place to place like bees, all for one and one for all. This week they alighted in Jerusalem, on the invitation of Has-Been No. 1: Shimon Peres, a politician who in all the 84 years of his life has never won an election, and who was finally handed, out of sheer compassion, the largely meaningless title of President of Israel. The common denominator of this group is that their prestige at home is close to nil, while their standing abroad is sky-high. Their mutual adoration compensates them for the lack of respect in their own countries. One of the senior members of this club is Tony Blair, who has been pushed from power in his own country but is not content to enjoy his pension and raise roses. As a consolation prize he has been granted the pleasure of playing around with our conflict. Every few weeks he convenes a press conference to present the good tidings of his phenomenal success in ameliorating the lot of the Palestinians, while the actual situation in the occupied territories goes from bad to worse. Our security establishment treats him like a bore who has to be thrown a crumb from time to time to keep him happy. In the conference that took place this week there were also some good people, but the scene was stolen by the Has-Beens, from the retired war criminal Henry Kissinger to the dethroned peace hero Mikhail Gorbachev (whom I still consider a hero for preventing bloodshed during the collapse of the Soviet empire.) Pity to see him in this company. All the participants in this orgy heaped mountains of fawning adulation on Israel. Not one of them had a word of criticism. No occupation. No settlements. No Gaza blockade. No daily killings. Just a wonderful, peace-loving state that the bad, bad terrorists want to throw into the sea. Not one of the guests stood up to warn us against going on with the present policy. Not one of them stood up to proclaim the truth: that the continuation of this policy may lead our state to disaster. He who has friends like these has no need for enemies. A person who sees his friend playing Russian roulette and offers him bullets - is he a real friend? One who sees his friend standing on the brink of an abyss and tells him “go ahead” - is he a friend? Among the fraternity of flatterers, the ones that attracted the most attention were the Jewish billionaires from America (who also paid for the extravaganza). Several of them were summoned to police headquarters immediately on arrival to give evidence on the affair that is rocking Israel now - the corruption investigation of Ehud Olmert. A smell of corruption has accompanied Olmert right from his beginnings in politics, 45 years ago. But this time, the smell is overpowering. The police has made it known that the American-Jewish billionaire Moshe Morris Talansky has been supplying him with cash-filled envelopes for years. Where have we seen this before? Of course, in American movies and TV-series. Somebody opens a suitcase stuffed with bundles of banknotes. The donor invariably belongs to the Mafia, and the recipient is generally a corrupt politician. Can it be that Olmert has never seen these films - he of all people, who started his career with demagogic speeches denouncing “Organized Crime”? But it is not Olmert who interests me in this affair so much as Talansky. He belongs to a species of “Israel-loving” billionaires, most of them resident in the US, but also in Canada and Switzerland, Austria and Australia and other places. They are all Israeli patriots. They are all philanthropists. All contribute millions to Israeli politicians. And almost all of them support our extreme Right. What makes them run? What induces these billionaires to do what they are doing? A research in depth discovers that a great many of them made their money in dark corners. Some are gambling barons, casino-owners with all the inevitable connections with violence, crime and exploitation. One at least made his fortunes from brothels. Another was involved in a scandal involving old people’s homes. Yet another is a scion of a family who made their money bootlegging during prohibition days. Some are arms merchants of the most despicable kind, selling weapons to the political gangs which sow death and destruction in Africa. But money, as is well known, does not smell. Most of the multi-millionaires of this kind feel that they are not receiving the honor due to them. Their co-billionaires, high society people, treat them with disdain. A person reaching this position is not satisfied with money alone. He craves honor. Such honor can be bought in Israel, on the cheap. Israel is selling honor of all kinds, no questions asked. For a suitable donation, even a gambling-hell owner will be received by the Prime Minister, dine with the President, put his name on a university building. (Once I wrote a light-hearted piece about the Third Temple, may God build it soon, Amen: the Rosenstein Holy of Holiest, the Rosenzweig altar, the Rosenberg cherubim, etc.) Just after the Six-day War, during the great days of our generals, a new fashion spread among the best Jewish billionaires: to keep an Israeli general, in order to present him to friends as a pet. Some generals found no fault in this. It was owed to them, after all. One billionaire kept Ezer Weizman, the Air Force hero (who had to resign from the presidency when it came out). Two billionaires adopted Ariel Sharon and set him up in the largest farm in the country. Shimon Peres was no general (and not even a soldier), but at least three billionaires took him under their golden wings. No billionaire ever lost money by keeping an Israeli general, supporting an Israeli politician or making a generous donation to an Israeli cause. Ego is ego, patriotism is patriotism, but business is business. That’s where the corruption set in. A person who donates millions to a politician in Israel (or, for that matter, the US, or Italy or any other place on the globe) knows full well that he will get it back with interest. When the politician becomes a minister, or Prime Minister, or President, the supporter has hit the jackpot. In politics there is no innocent donation. One way or another, the donor will reap his reward - many times over. That’s true in the US, that’s true in Italy, that’s true in Israel, too. If the donor declares to the police that he has no business interests in Israel, all it means is that they must dig deeper. The Olmert affair confirms anew what we have known for a long time: the fuel Israeli politics runs on is not just money, but money from abroad. To win primaries and campaign in elections, a candidate needs millions, and these almost always come from foreign donors. Foreign billionaires financed Olmert in the party primaries, and they financed him in the general elections, in which he was assured of becoming Prime Minister. After being elected, he started Lebanon War II, with all its death and destruction. It can be said: American Jewish billionaires killed the soldiers and civilians, Israeli and Lebanese, who lost their lives in the war. In his speech to the Jerusalem conference, Shimon Peres lauded Israeli chutzpa. What we need is more chutzpa, he said. That sounded fetching and naughty, but was pure poppycock. I want to speak about another chutzpa. Not metaphorical, but real. Simple chutzpa. The chutzpa of billionaires in New York and Geneva and all the other places who interfere in our elections and determine the fate of our nation. The chutzpa of donating for a war in which not their sons, but ours, are killed. The chutzpa of sending billions for the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and especially in Jerusalem, which are put there for the express purpose of preventing peace and imposing on us a permanent war, a war that threatens our future - not theirs. Let’s be clear: I am not criticizing well-meaning donors, who feel a moral need to contribute to a hospital wing or a university building in Israel. I appreciate people who send a few hundred dollars to a political cause close to their heart. I object to foreign billionaires who aspire to dictate the direction of our state. Perhaps in other countries, too, politicians receive donations from foreign sources. But it is generally a marginal phenomenon. Here it is a major factor. That is one of the ill effects of the definition of Israel as a “Jewish State”. Because of this, these donors do not look like what they are - impertinent foreigners who interfere in our lives and corrupt our state - but like “warmhearted Jews” who support a state that belongs to them as well. Gideon Levy has recently written an article in which he begged them to “leave us alone”. Being a less refined person than he, I shall say this in a ruder way: Go home and take your money with you. We are not for sale. Stop trying to manage our life (and death)!

All the President's Nazis (Real and Imagined): An Open Letter to Bush By Larisa Alexandrovna Dear Mr. Bush, 19/01/08 "Huffington Post" -- 15/05/08 -- -- Your speech on the Knesset floor today was not only a disgrace; it was nothing short of treachery. Worse still, your exploitation of the Holocaust in a country carved out of the wounds of that very crime, in order to strike a low blow at American citizens whose politics differs from your own is unforgivable and unpardonable. Let me remind you, Mr. Bush, of your words today: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. "We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Well Mr. Bush, the only thing this comment lacked was a mirror and some historical facts. You want to discuss the crimes of Nazis against my family and millions of other families in Europe during World War II? Let me revive a favorite phrase of yours: Bring. It. On! The All-American Nazi Your family's fortune is built on the bones of the very people butchered by the Nazis, my family and the families of those in the Knesset who applauded you today: WASHINGTON -- President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show. Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp. (search), a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press. Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. --snip-- Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II. Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Oh, but there is much more too: The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war, Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty". I cannot think of one Democrat who can boast this kind of lineage. Can you? No, I don't think so. But you can lie brazenly and attack a sitting US Senator on foreign soil by comparing him to Nazi sympathizers? Let us continue down memory lane to help those who applaud you understand just what it is they are celebrating. The All American Traitor Your family did not stop with supporting fascists and Nazis abroad, did they Mr. Bush? Surely you must know of your grandfather's role in the treasonous plot of 1933 to overthrow democracy in America? Let me remind you. Grandpa Bush -- that is to say, your grandfather -- wanted fascism imported into the United States, or as you now call this type of transformation, "exporting democracy." Prescott went so far as to subsidize a coup attempt in order to achieve his dream of a fascist America (see BBC report below): Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American In other words, not only was your grandfather a self-professed fascist, he was a Nazi sympathizer and a war profiteer who should have stood trial at the Hague instead of buying his way into the US Senate. He was also a traitor, twice over. Now clearly the crimes of Prescott Bush are not your fault, Mr. George W. Bush. Let us therefore judge your actions and words on their own merit. Iraq is your Poland Your reminiscence today about the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany should have been seen as your own condemnation of your own abhorrent actions against Iraq. The morbid irony of what you said will likely never register with your or your speechwriter. To truly grasp the grotesqueness of what you said requires that you have both a conscience and some understanding of history. We know you possess neither. I will therefore make your history lesson brief, but to the point. The unprovoked attack on Poland by Germany was a war crime just as your attack against Iraq -- based on lies -- is a war crime. This is not my opinion. This is not a political attack. This is a fact. Consider the words of the esteemed former chief prosecutor in the Nuremburg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, regarding your war of aggression against Iraq: "...Prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation." Moreover, your reckless verbiage and partisan pandering using something as tragic and criminal as Germany's war of aggression against Poland is an insult to all victims of those atrocities. My grandfather's sister and parents were having supper in their Warsaw home when a German bomb erased them from this planet. Your evoking the German atrocities against Poland in order to play dirty politics against Democrats is as offensive to me as if you had pinned a swastika onto your lapel. Even your own words appear to be penned by Hitler's ghost all the while you imply that Democrats are Nazis and/or terrorists -- something you have done over and over. Your lies and Hitler's lies even have the same purpose. When you, Mr. Bush, said "see in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," were you aware of Adolf Hitler's eerily similar statement? Hitler said "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." Yet if words alone were your only weapon and words strung together into lies your only crime, you might be seen as simply the loathsome, unethical dilettante and despot that you are. Unfortunately, your crimes are many and so similar to those of the Nazi regime that at times one wonders if you are not yourself reenacting that very history you used today as an insult against a political opponent. Your very own concentration camps You ordered the creation of secret camps all over the world and on US territory where you also authorized the torture of countless men, women and children is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, international law, and domestic law. In other words, you authorized war crimes. We don't know the number of people you have had disappeared, tortured, and possibly murdered. Although we have some idea of what these numbers may be, I doubt the full truth of it all will ever be known. In 2005, I had a CENTCOM document leaked to me illustrating that since the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, more than 70,000 men, women, and children have been detained at one of your various camps Mr. Bush. We don't know what happened to them, if they were tortured, raped, or murdered. What we do know is that less than 2% of those 70,000 had any sort of charge brought against them in a court of law. None of those alleged crimes, by the way, were acts of terrorism. We don't know if that 70,000 figure was the actual and full count of detainees in US custody around the world in 2005. But it is safe to say that in the last 3 years since this document was published, the number of detainees has likely grown. What we also now know, in great horror, is that at least one of your camps had a crematorium in it, which some of the US soldiers stationed there suspected was used for burning bodies: "We had some kind of incinerator at the end of our building," Specialist Megan Ambuhl said. "It was this huge circular thing. We just didn't know what was incinerated in there. It could have been people, for all we knew -- bodies." Sergeant Davis was not in doubt. "It had bones in it," he said, and he called it the crematorium. "But hey, you're at war," he said. "Suck it up or drive on." What we also now know is that Dick Cheney and senior members of your administration carried out a plan of torture and abuse that violated international and domestic law with regard to human rights, down to the type of torture tactics that would be used against prisoners in our custody. This plan, we now know, was approved by you. Has the mirror cracked yet from this much fact or are you still peering into the political sphere hoping to ascribe your own crimes to others? It won't work. It never has and it certainly won't work now. We know far too much about you and yours. I could continue listing the litany of your crimes, both against the United States and against foreign nations. I won't. We know what you are and what you have done. Having roughly 1,000,000 dead Iraqis under your belt should have shamed you into the parasitic hole you came out of, attaching yourself to the blood of this nation and sucking it dry. Instead, you parade around, the globe-trotting horror show and anti-Semite that you are. Yes, you are an anti-Semite Would you say no, you are not an anti-Semite? Consider your own words when you thought no one was keeping score: "You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" a then Governor George W. Bush allegedly asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman. When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly delivered the punch line: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell." Only an anti-Semite would think this type of humor is acceptable. Did you tell the Jews of Israel they were going to hell? No, instead, you told them that American Democrats are Nazi sympathizers and in an act of sheer indecency, the right wing Likud party orchestrated the greatest applause you ever got. For shame! What this blind adoration finally proves to me is that the right-wing regime that has overtaken Israel cares nothing for its people, its heritage, and the tragic history that they now honor by applauding a man whose family-fortune was built on the bodies of their loved ones. Like their Republican (and Lieberman) counterparts in the United States, Likud does not represent its people, rather, it represents its owners. Likud has traded Israel, its Jews, their heritage and history for the same golden calf purchased and sold by the far-right wing in the United States. I am ashamed of you Mr. Bush. I am ashamed of those who applauded your political porn played out against the hallowed backdrop of the Holocaust. I am ashamed of those reporters with you, who between them could not muster the moral courage to call you out on your ugly rhetoric and ask you about your own family Nazi ties. You are, sir, the most abhorrent human being of my lifetime. I dare say, in the lifetime of this nation.

The Old Titans All Collapsed. Is the U.S. Next? By Kevin Phillips Sunday, May 18, 2008; B03 20/05/08 "Washington Post" -- - 18/05/08 -- Back in August, during the panic over mortgages, Alan Greenspan offered reassurance to an anxious public. The current turmoil, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman said, strongly resembled brief financial scares such as the Russian debt crisis of 1998 or the U.S. stock market crash of 1987. Not to worry. But in the background, one could hear the groans and feel the tremors as larger political and economic tectonic plates collided. Nine months later, Greenspan's soothing analogies no longer wash. The U.S. economy faces unprecedented debt levels, soaring commodity prices and sliding home prices, to say nothing of a weak dollar. Despite the recent stabilization of the economy, some economists fear that the world will soon face the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s. That analogy is hardly a perfect fit; there's almost no chance of another sequence like the Great Depression, where the stock market dove 80 percent, joblessness reached 25 percent, and the Great Plains became a dustbowl that forced hundreds of thousands of "Okies" to flee to California. But Americans should worry that the current unrest betokens the sort of global upheaval that upended previous leading world economic powers, most notably Britain. More than 80 percent of Americans now say that we are on the wrong track, but many if not most still believe that the history of other nations is irrelevant -- that the United States is unique, chosen by God. So did all the previous world economic powers: Rome, Spain, the Netherlands (in the maritime glory days of the 17th century, when New York was New Amsterdam) and 19th-century Britain. Their early strength was also their later weakness, not unlike the United States since the 1980s. There is a considerable literature on these earlier illusions and declines. Reading it, one can argue that imperial Spain, maritime Holland and industrial Britain shared a half-dozen vulnerabilities as they peaked and declined: a sense of things no longer being on the right track, intolerant or missionary religion, military or imperial overreach, economic polarization, the rise of finance (displacing industry) and excessive debt. So too for today's United States. Before we amplify the contemporary U.S. parallels, the skeptic can point out how doomsayers in each nation, while eventually correct, were also premature. In Britain, for example, doubters fretted about becoming another Holland as early as the 1860s, and apprehension surged again in the 1890s, based on the industrial muscle of such rivals as Germany and the United States. By the 1940s, those predictions had come true, but in practical terms, the critics of the 1860s and 1890s were too early. Premature fears have also dogged the United States. The decades after the 1968 election were marked by waves of a new national apprehension: that U.S. post-World War II global hegemony was in danger. The first, in 1968-72, involved a toxic mix of global trade and currency crises and the breakdown of the U.S. foreign policy consensus over Southeast Asia. Books emerged with titles such as "Retreat From Empire?" and "The End of the American Era." More national malaise followed Watergate and the fall of Saigon. Stage three came in the late 1980s, when a resurgent Japan seemed to be challenging U.S. preeminence in manufacturing and possibly even finance. In 1991, Democratic presidential aspirant Paul Tsongas observed that "the Cold War is over. . . . Germany and Japan won." Well, not quite. In 2008, we can mark another perilous decade: the tech mania of 1997-2000, morphing into a bubble and market crash; the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; imperial hubris and the Bush administration's bungled 2003 invasion of Iraq. These were followed by OPEC's abandoning its $22-$28 price range for oil, with the cost per barrel rising over five years to more than $100; the collapse of global respect for the United States over the Iraq war; the imploding U.S. housing market and debt bubble; and the almost 50 percent decline of the U.S. dollar against the euro since 2002. Small wonder a global financial crisis is in the air. Here, then, is the unnerving possibility: that another, imminent global crisis could make the half-century between the 1970s and the 2020s the equivalent for the United States of what the half-century before 1950 was for Britain. This may well be the Big One: the multi-decade endgame of U.S. ascendancy. The chronology makes historical sense -- four decades of premature jitters segueing into unhappy reality. The most chilling parallel with the failures of the old powers is the United States' unhealthy reliance on the financial sector as the engine of its growth. In the 18th century, the Dutch thought they could replace their declining industry and physical commerce with grand money-lending schemes to foreign nations and princes. But a series of crashes and bankruptcies in the 1760s and 1770s crippled Holland's economy. In the early 1900s, one apprehensive minister argued that Britain could not thrive as a "hoarder of invested securities" because "banking is not the creator of our prosperity but the creation of it." By the late 1940s, the debt loads of two world wars proved the point, and British global economic leadership became history. In the United States, the financial services sector passed manufacturing as a component of the GDP in the mid-1990s. But market enthusiasm seems to have blocked any debate over this worrying change: In the 1970s, manufacturing occupied 25 percent of GDP and financial services just 12 percent, but by 2003-06, finance enjoyed 20-21 percent, and manufacturing had shriveled to 12 percent. The downside is that the final four or five percentage points of financial-sector GDP expansion in the 1990s and 2000s involved mischief and self-dealing: the exotic mortgage boom, the reckless bundling of loans into securities and other innovations better left to casinos. Run-amok credit was the lubricant. Between 1987 and 2007, total debt in the United States jumped from $11 trillion to $48 trillion, and private financial-sector debt led the great binge. Washington looked kindly on the financial sector throughout the 1980s and 1990s, providing it with endless liquidity flows and bailouts. Inexcusably, movers and shakers such as Greenspan, former treasury secretary Robert Rubin and the current secretary, Henry Paulson, refused to regulate the industry. All seemed to welcome asset bubbles; they may have figured the finance industry to be the new dominant sector of economic evolution, much as industry had replaced agriculture in the late 19th century. But who seriously expects the next great economic power -- China, India, Brazil -- to have a GDP dominated by finance? With the help of the overgrown U.S. financial sector, the United States of 2008 is the world's leading debtor, has by far the largest current-account deficit and is the leading importer, at great expense, of both manufactured goods and oil. The potential damage if the world soon undergoes the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s is incalculable. The loss of global economic leadership that overtook Britain and Holland seems to be looming on our own horizon. Kevin Phillips is the author, most recently, of "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism."

The Incredible Shrinking Superpower By MASSIMO CALABRESI/AL JANADRIYAH 20/05/08 "Time" -- 19/05/08 -- Worried about the high cost of filling up? President Bush is on the case. Last Friday he arrived in Riyadh to urge King Abdullah, the leader of the world's largest petroleum producer, Saudi Arabia, to put more oil on the market. At the sun-bleached airport, Bush was greeted with the Gulf's signature mix of garish oil wealth and tinpot amateurism. A large retinue of royalty watched as a band played an off-key version of the U.S. national anthem. Bush walked through the cavernous air terminal to his motorcade and drove to the monarch's "farm" at al Janadriyah. Through the enormous gates and along alleys of dying shrubs and trees fed by miles of futile drip hoses, he made his way to the King's "villa," a marble-clad, poured concrete palace. Through a foyer with a statue of a cheetah felling an antelope and anterooms full of attendants, Bush strolled deep into Abdullah's inner sanctum, past the portly King's private exercise pool, his Stair-Master and his "Vibromass" anti-cellulite belt-massager, to his personal study, where a console of 24 small TVs filled one wall and two overstuffed chairs coddled the leaders. It was there, after much pomp and circumstance, that Bush made his request. And it was there that the King still said no. That was the sum result, anyway, of Bush's efforts to ease your gas bills on his visit to Saudi Arabia. In fact, Bush didn't do much better on the rest of his five-day trip to the region. Oil prices aren't the only issue America faces in the Middle East; they may not even be the most important. The Iranian regime is busy gaining the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Bush made no progress convincing allies to pressure it to change course. Iran is also arming and training anti-Israeli forces in Gaza and Lebanon. Instead of backing down, those groups stepped up attacks on America's allies before and during Bush's trip. Even the nominal purpose of the trip, bolstering Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, produced no progress, unless progress includes the inauguration of a general election battle between Bush and Barack Obama over national security. But if a record number of Americans disapprove of Bush's performance as President, the issues he spent five days not fixing in the Middle East may not be ones he — or anyone else in America — can do much about. Bush is a lame duck, and foreigners know it. But his successor, Republican or Democrat, will find that America's influence in the world is at its lowest point since the end of the Cold War. The question these days isn't "how weak is Bush?", it's "how weak is America?" Bush's trip offered a sobering answer. After the President's meetings with the Saudis, his National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, came to the "villa" where the traveling press corps was working and made a prolonged effort to explain why, even if the Saudis did boost oil production, it wouldn't reduce the cost of gas in the U.S. "The bottom line is," said Hadley, "the problem of high gas prices is more than just about oil, it's more than just about Saudi, and it's more than just about short-term production." All of which is true. Unsaid was the fact that even if the Saudis could reduce gas and oil prices, why would they? They're making a lot of money and the U.S. doesn't have much leverage to convince them they ought to make less. The Arab-Israeli peace process is no one's idea of an easy fix, but it's failing now, in part, because of American weakness. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to work on a framework for an eventual settlement that could be signed by the end of the year, even if the two sides couldn't make peace on the ground while they are negotiating. But the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, opposes a peace deal and is gaining power from Abbas and launching attacks on Israel with greater frequency, taking advantage of public skepticism there for any kind of peace agreement. The U.S. has tried to rally Arab pressure on Hamas, only to see it grow stronger. The most important of the tough issues Bush's successor will inherit in the region is the confrontation with Iran. In Israel and the Arab states there is mounting unease, in some cases outright fear, at the idea of a nuclear Iran. But Iran is shrugging off U.N. sanctions that Russia and China are ensuring remain half-hearted. And with the U.S. pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan there's little Washington can do to scare Iran into changing its ambitions. On Sunday, on the flight back to Washington, when Condoleezza Rice was asked if there was any progress on pressuring Iran, she said, "The important thing is that the President significantly advanced the discussion about really using the strengths that this community of states [in the region] has." Translation: no. Americans tend to think of the presidency as all-powerful, but much of its authority comes from the ability to convince the public to follow, and the same is sometimes true in diplomacy. The time when George W. Bush could perform that trick has long passed. But if Americans are adjusting to the idea of a weak Bush, an even tougher mental leap awaits them once he leaves office: accepting that the U.S. isn't the force abroad it was just a few years ago. The next President's hardest job may be getting the country used to that.

Farid bro. It would help if you could narrow the neighborhood for ease of access. Nur

Adduun iyo aakhiro bro. You write: "I read a book by this lady called Ayn rand in defence of capitalism and she asks people to notice that those that have prospered meaning the west have freedom and those that lag behind and are crippled by poverty ,disease etc etc are those that lack freedom. A glance of the state of the world today or even a look at history will probably support her claims in my opinion." I think She is defintely right for the wrong reason, that is why poor people should struggle to be free from humans who exploit them unfairly, and accept to be slaves to Allah alone, because its slavery to humans that makes other humans poor, if all humans were slaves of Allah alone, then , all of us would live in harmony and peace. But we know that is not possible due to the fact that this life is a playground for testing our choices not the final resting place. Nur

Malika sis Great thought provoking points indeed! Society brings us up with norms that are acceptable and norms that are frowned upon. Islam on the other hand, sets criteria MIZAN of what is right and what is wrong, morally that is, so it takes courage at times to break with societal acceptable norms if it 1. Conflicts with revelations, 2. Conflicts with Sunnah, and lastly if does not add value. At the end, it boils down to a deal between a Muslim couple, only they can assess its real value of risk. In the above stories, both real people I know of personally, (fictitious names), the situation can be like the Hindu situation in which if a man dies, his wife is also burned with as a sign of eternal loyalty. I have even heard of a couple who got divorced when the wife got so jealous that her husband was contmplating to marry in the even that she dies, although, I find it morally damaging for a husband to marry when his wife is sick, since that is when she needs him more than when she is well. Nur

eNuri Social topics revisited, Disclaimer: eNuri and Company only develops and builds points of controversial topics for the sake of debate, it does neither endorse polygamy nor monogamy as a crystal ball solution for a social ailment, just marriage or chastity for the sake of the deen, so its up to readers to find what works for them. 2008 eNuri Inspirationals

Haneefa sis You write: "Thus, I sort of fail to undestand the connection you are making between greed and these global environmental initiatives/commitments; please enlighten me on this issue, Insha'Allah." You see sis, Capitalism main concern is growth of capital, major companies board rooms understand one number, Quarterly return on their investments, shareholder values etc. The common good of the planet is not factored on most decisions for investment. So, at Kyoto they came up with a brilliant idea, since these multinational companies are polluting the environment in search of more money over dead people, they must limit their GHG emmisions by 5% of 1990 levels by 2012 or pay a hefty $100/MTon of pollutants they release into environment. Since this is a tough target, the UN allowed them to trade credits between them and also encouraged them to participate in what is called CDM ( Clean Development Mechanism) in non Annex 1 countries (Developing Countries). So, when they build an alternative energy power plant ( Wind Turbine ) in Somalia they get a credit from the UN equivalent to the amount of fossil fuel that was substituted by clean energy, in order for these companies to offset their defficiency in meeting their GHG reduction quota. So, when helping develping nations earns these western companies credits to offset their defficiency and saves them money, the poor benifts. So these companies will be helping the poor not because they believe in Allah to do good on earth, but, because they believe in the Euro ( The Dollar is the terminally ill God of Capitalists). Nur

Young Geeljireyaal. Two ways to cool down this summer when facing hot pants. First Hadeeth It was reported by Abdallah ibn Masud RAA that teh Messneger of Allah SAWS said: " You burn you burn, so when you pray morning prayers it washes it out (sins that caused the burning fire), afterwards You burn you burn, so when you pray noon prayers it washes it out, You burn you burn, so when you pray Afternoon prayers it washes it out, You burn you burn, so when you pray Sunset prayers it washes out it , You burn you burn, so when you pray Nightly prayers it washes out it , then you fall asleep and no sin will be recorded against you until you wake up". It was reported by Abdallah ibn Masud RAA that the Messneger of Allah PBUH said: A caller ( Angel) will be sent at every prayer time saying: " O mankind rise and put off what (fire due to sins) you have inflamed, then they they rise (for prayers) and their sins fall from the Eyes , as they pray, they are forgiven sins committed between the two prayers.........continues" . Same sequence, I truncated the Hadeeth for simplicity. The Moral of the Two Hadeeths. We are constantly picking up violations with our eyes, ears, mouth and other body parts, and if the body can become sick due to eating the wrongs foods or smoking, the soul can become corrupted with unsettled sins committed by our body parts. So, make a habit to: 1. Stay out of trouble. 2. If you get in trouble, and most of us do, remember to focus in your prayers as they will wipe the unintentional sins, as well as intentional sins that we intend to repent from, even if we fail again and again. Nur

Brother Awakener. Quraan is revealed in Arabic and in addition to the eloquent prose carried within the message, the Quran covers, with detail at times, events that took place during the formation of Islamic community as well as old accounts of the Prophets, thus, a deeper understanding of the Quraan requires an equal depth in the Arabic, the Seerah, the Hadeeth (which expains the Quraan). My Questions for you today are: 1. Can a person become an Arif without the sound command of the Arabic, Seerah, Hadeeth etc. aka Sharia as opposed to Haqeeqah!? 2. What explains the abundance of Arifs among those whose mother tongue and curriculum did not include the above requirements? 3. Has anyone during the time of Rasulullah SAWS classify the term Arif from other followers? 4. Did Prophet Muhammad SAWS deliver Allahs message both spiritual and judicial in its entirety or did He depart with some unfinished work work to be completed by an Arif and then added to the body of Islam? 5. Does boasting to be an Arif conflict with the verse " Fa laa tuzakuu anfusakum, huwa aclamu biman ittaqaa"? Nur

A Dispute about Ideas? A war with Islam ? Or A War On Terror? Find Out below! Alastair Crooke, The Guardian, Monday March 24 2008, This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday March 24 2008 on p33 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:02 on March 24 2008. The French philosopher Michel Foucault notes that in all societies discourse is controlled - imperceptibly constrained, perhaps, but constrained nonetheless. We are not free to say exactly what we like. The norms set by institutions, convention and our need to keep within the boundaries of accepted behaviour and thought limit what may be touched upon. The Archbishop of Canterbury experienced the backlash from stepping outside these conventions when he spoke about aspects of Islamic law that might be imported into British life. Once, a man was held to be mad if he strayed from this discourse - even if his utterings were credited with revealing some hidden truth. Today, he is called "naive", or accused of having gone "native". Recently, the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) marshalled former senior military and intelligence experts in order to assert such limits to expression by warning us that "deference" to multiculturalism was undermining the fight against Islamic "extremism" and threatening security. Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, in a recent interview with a German magazine, embellished Rusi's complaints of naivety and "flabby thinking". Radical Islam won't stop, he warned, and the "virus" would only become more virulent if the US were to withdraw from Iraq. The charge of naivety is not limited to failing to understand the concealed and duplicitous nature of Hamas and Hizbullah, Iran and Syria; it extends to not grasping the true nature of the wider "enemy" the west is facing. "I don't like the term 'war on terror' because terror is a method, not a political movement; we are in a war against radical Islam," says Kissinger. But who or what is radical Islam? It is those who are not "moderates", he explains. Certainly, a small minority of Muslims believe that only by "burning the system" can a fresh stab at a just society be made. But Kissinger's definition of "moderate" Islam sounds no more than a projection of the Christian narrative after Westphalia, by which Christianity became a private matter of conscience, rather than an organisational principle for society. If radical Islam, with which these experts tell us we should be at war, encompasses all those who are not enamoured of secular society, and who espouse a vision of their societies grounded in the values of Islam, then these experts are advocating a war with Islam - because Islam is the vision for their future favoured by many Muslims. Mainstream Islamists are indeed challenging western secular and materialist values, and many do believe that western thinking is flawed - that the desires and appetites of man have been reified into representing man himself. It is time to re-establish values that go beyond "desires and wants", they argue. Many Islamists also reject the western narrative of history and its projection of inevitable "progress" towards a secular modernity; they reject the western view of power-relationships within societies and between societies; they reject individualism as the litmus of progress in society; and, above all, they reject the west's assumption that its empirical approach lends unassailability and objective rationality to its thinking - and universality to its social models. People may, or may not, agree, but the point is that this is a dispute about ideas, about the nature of society, and about equity in an emerging global order. If western discourse cannot step beyond the enemy that it has created, these ideas cannot be heard - or addressed. This is the argument that Jonathan Powell made last week when he argued that Britain should understand the lessons of Northern Ireland: we should talk to Islamist movements, including al-Qaida. It has to be done, because the west needs to break through the fears and constraints of an over-imagined "enemy". Camouflaged behind a language dwelling exclusively on "their" violence and "their" disdain for rationality, these "realists" propose not a war on terror, nor a war to preserve "our values" - for we are not about to be culturally overwhelmed. No Islamist seriously expects that a "defeated" west would hasten to adopt the spirit of the Islamic revolution. No, the west's war is a military response to ideas that question western supremacy and power. The nature of this war on "extremism" became evident when five former chiefs of defence staff of Nato states gathered at a think-tank in Washington earlier this year. Their aim was not to query the realism of a war on ideas, but to empower Nato for an "uncertain world". "We cannot survive ... confronted with people who do not share our values, who unfortunately are in the majority in terms of numbers, and who are extremely hungry for success," Germany's former chief of defence staff warned. Their conclusion was that the security of the west rests on a "restoration of its certainties", and on a new form of deterrence in which enemies will find there is not, and never will be, a place in which they feel safe. The generals concluded that Nato should adopt an asymmetrical and relentless pursuit of its targets regardless of others' sovereignty; to surprise; to seize the initiative; and to use all means, including the nuclear option, against its enemies. In Foucault's discourse, he identified a further group of rules serving to control language: none may enter into discourse on a specific subject unless he or she is deemed qualified to do so. Those, like the archbishop, who penetrate this forbidden territory - reserved to security expertise - to ask that we see the west for what it has become in the eyes of others, are liable to be labelled as naively weakening "our certainties" and undermining national resolve. But do we, who are brushed out of this discourse by the blackmail of presumed expertise, really believe them? Do we really believe, after so much failure, that Islamist alternative ideas will be suppressed by a Nato plunged into an asymmetrical warfare of assassinations and killings? The west's vision for society holds power only so long as people believe it holds power. Do we really think that if force has not succeeded, that only more and greater force can restore belief in the western vision? If that is the limit to western thinking, then it is these "realists", these armchair warriors fighting a delusional war against a majority who "do not share our values", who are truly naive. · Alastair Crooke is a former security adviser to the EU and founder and director of the Conflicts Forum conflictsforum.org

By Ramzy Baroud 10/05/08 "ICH" -- - -The data provided in the US State Department's annual terrorism report for 2007 points to some interesting if puzzling conclusions. The much publicised document, made available 30 April via the State Department's website, makes no secret of the fact that Al-Qaeda is back, strong as ever. It also suggests that violence worldwide is nowhere near subsiding, despite President Bush's repeated assurances regarding the success of his "war on terror". Will the report inspire serious reflection on the US's detrimental foreign policy and its role in the current situation? Let's look at some of the data. To start with, take Pakistan. Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda-inspired attacks in the country more than doubled (from 375 to 877) between 2006 and 2007. These attacks have claimed the lives of 1,335 people, compared to 335 in a previous report. That is a jump of almost 300 per cent. Then there's Afghanistan, which was supposedly "liberated" shortly after 11 September 2001. The number of attacks reported there increased a sharp 16 per cent in 2007. Some 1,127 violent incidents killing 1,966 people represent a significant surge in violence compared to 2006's 1,257 deaths. There have also been many other violent incidents around the world, including but not limited to North Africa, the terrorist bombings in Algeria in particular. But this is barely half the story -- or 40 per cent of it, if we want to be as specific as the terrorism report. Iraq accounted for 60 per cent of worldwide terrorism fatalities. Considering the fact that the horrifying violence currently witnessed in Iraq was unheard of prior to the US invasion of 2003, will the Bush administration take a moment to connect the dots? Even a third grader could figure this one out: the US occupation was a major, if not sole factor, in Iraq's relentless bloodbath. In order to right the wrong in Iraq, the US military should clearly just withdraw, and Bush -- or whoever next claims the White House -- should stop fabricating pretexts to justify a prolonged mission. On 1 May 2003, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. As he stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln a huge banner behind him bore the words "Mission Accomplished". The New York Times then wrote, "the Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall." Instead, more than five years after Bush's speech, the administration seems determined to maintain a military surge, having added 20,000 soldiers. Making no apologies for the war's contribution to an increase in terrorist activities, Bush's officials continue to rationalise the surge as a commonsense response to ongoing violence, conveniently omitting the US's own part in this violence. The State Department report doesn't classify any of the thousands of innocent victims killed by US or coalition forces as victims of terrorism. Russ Travers, deputy director of the Counterterrorism Centre, stated on the day the report was published, "It's a fair statement that around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing other people." While Travers' assertion is undoubtedly true, there seems to be no intention of providing any context, no connection drawn to the US's direct invasions, or indirect but equally devastating role in campaigns of violence, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. But what the State Department's terrorism report didn't fail to do was once again identify Iran as the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism. As reported in the Associated Press on 1 May, Iran was responsible for "supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, whereة elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and funding." The irony is that the report further contributes to the US's long-touted case for war against Iran; ironic because the report's findings, if viewed responsibly, substantiate the claim that the Bush administration's policies have only made the world more unsafe. Wouldn't a war against Iran hike up the number of violent or terrorist incidents? It also remains unclear how powerful Al-Qaeda really is, and how much of its capabilities were hyped in order to enable the Bush administration to continue its mission. Consider the two occasions Al-Qaeda was back in the news recently. News media cited official Afghani reports attributing the recent assassination attempt on US-ally Afghani President Hamid Karzai to Al-Qaeda. In other reports, the US rationalised its own assassination of a leading Somali militia leader Aden Hashi Eyrow on 1 May as targeting a key Al-Qaeda member. It's not the logic of the assassination that is key here, but rather the fact that while Al- Qaeda has reached a position of strength that can penetrate several layers of defences in Afghanistan, the US is getting itself involved in a regional feud in Somalia. Why would the Bush administration be chasing Al-Qaeda in Somalia, as in Iraq, if the group is reportedly in the most powerful position in Afghanistan? Moreover, if Al-Qaeda indeed exists on such a large and influential scale in so many countries, isn't it time to question the logic used by the Bush administration's "war on terror" that was meant to weaken and destroy Al- Qaeda in the first place? It may be, of course, that Al-Qaeda's power and outreach is inflated for political reasons, where every conflict the US is involved in becomes immediately reduced to those who support, shield or host Al-Qaeda or Al- Qaeda inspired groups, thus justifying US military intervention anywhere. Instead of dealing with the obvious truths that the terrorism report highlights, the authors of the report have resorted to another logic that places blame squarely on external circumstance, never holding the US government accountable for its actions. Finally, is there really a need for lengthy reports that cost large sums of money and thousands of work hours if the lessons gleaned are always the wrong ones, leading to more blunders that prompt more violence, and more terrorism reports?