Well now.....isn't this a tangled little web... There was this couple that had been married for 20 years. Every time they made love the husband always insisted on shutting off the lights. Well, after 20 years the wife felt this was ridiculous. She figured she would break him of this crazy habit. So one night, while they were in the middle of a wild, screaming, romantic session, she turned on the lights. She looked down ... and saw her husband was holding a battery operated pleasure device ... a vibrator ... soft, wonderful and larger than a real one. She goes completely ballistic. "You impotent fake," she screamed at him, "How could you be lying to me all of these years? You better explain yourself!" The husband looks her straight in the eyes and says calmly: "I'll explain the toy ... if you explain the kids."

Hey throth if ou want to use profanaties to express your displeasure with the article i posted then do so dont let me stop you . Now i read the article, and enjoyed reading it, i didnt subscribe to all the views of John Kamnski but i do share his broader assumptions on the whole article. And your answer as usual do not make much sense at all, i cannot see where hitler and racsim come into this at all. The fact remains that the immediate aftermath of 9-11 saw ur countries administration activily planning military invasion of countries that it was at odd with and didnt fall within its shpere of controll. To date Afganisitan and Iraq have been invaded and Destroyed, and your country had tried unsuccesfull to link various countries including somalia with terrorism with the aim of carrying out there doctrine of premption. Indeed it seems that it would also in one shape or another liek to enagge with syria and iran and deal with N Koera in the not to distant future, who knows. So yes it in my mind at least all ties in with 9-11, and although your govnt my not have staged the events of taht day, it certainly has taken full advantage of ti to pursure its aim of world domination.

Thx for the article Jamaal, i'll reference it afew times when am reading into this.

It depends on what u like to do, mind you there are so many things that are always going on on a day-today basis am sure u wouldnt be stuck for choices. Anyway i will leave it to the nomad sisters to ply you with suggestions

I know whe have been here before nomads but t# thought the article was a usefull one to read as a backdrop to th events that have thus far managed to unfold after 9-11. I must one its very long but its worthwhile reading if u like to keep abreast of the latest/alternaTIVE thinking on this issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- By John Kaminski, skylax@comcast.net Opposed by everyone in the world who was not bought off, the illegal invasion of Iraq was undertaken for many reasons - the imminent replacement of the dollar by the euro as the world's primary currency, the tempting lure of untapped oil reserves, the desire to consolidate U.S./Israeli military hegemony over a strategically vital region - but the most important reason was to further obscure questions about the awesome deception staged by the American government that has come to be known as 9/11. 9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which are: - The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system. In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history. None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses. Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated. Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked. - The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures. The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people. - FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face. In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded. - The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists? - Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy. In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act. - The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it. - The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA. - The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found. - The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner. - The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky. - Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones. - Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing. These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11. They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder. Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq. Otherwise, we face a future of endless war abroad and merciless repression at home. Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job. - Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions? - Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination? - Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets? - Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001? - Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant? Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world. What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest. History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom. Thus the needless wars continue. Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq. Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else. All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11. But the American people will not - and cannot - tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext - the war on terror - to go around killing anyone they like. If the American people DO tolerate such an insane strategy, then they clearly do not deserve to survive as a nation or a people

salam calayakum Hi i came across an interesting article that was quite relevent given the recent events that occured within Alegria and Japan. " It seems that many of us usually remember God in difficult or fearful times. The challenge is to remember God at all times, even when the going is great . " And this is certainly true of my but allahmdulilah am changing my ways slowly. Anyway enjoy reading nomads Acts of God... wa calayakum salam

Salam Calayakum nomads It has been a long and interesting football campagin for the bigg leagues in europe. Some New faces (Rooney), and some old great's have retired from the scene (Aldair, Blanc). But who has been the outstanding player of the season. Which group of players would make your shortlist for the Nxt Gloden Ball award? My nominess perhaps wont be to supprising. 1. Nedved (outstanding campaign in europe and seria for juve, sorely missed in the finaly) 2. Zidane raised his game to a new level this year in the cxhampions league and looked in a class of his own. 3. Ruud Van Nis 44 in top flight competition simply the best striker around. Those are the ones that immediately come to mind when thinking of the potential winners. so com'on nomads lets close of this topic and make our final predicitions and will see who wins in the nxt coming months

by Ted Turner On Monday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to adopt dramatic rule changes that will extend the market dominance of the five media corporations that control most of what Americans read, see and hear. I am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet -- speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner -- I oppose these rules. They will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete. If these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN. The FCC will vote on several proposals, including raising the cap on how many TV stations can be owned by one corporation and allowing single corporations to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market. If a young media entrepreneur were trying to get started today under these proposed rules, he or she wouldn't be able to buy a UHF station, as I did. They're all bought up. But even if someone did manage to buy a TV station, that wouldn't be enough. To compete, you have to have good programming and good distribution. Today both are owned by conglomerates that keep the best for themselves and leave the worst for you -- if they sell anything to you at all. It's hard to compete when your suppliers are owned by your competitors. We bought MGM, and we later sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, because we had little choice. The big were getting bigger. The small were disappearing. We had to gain access to programming to survive. Many other independent media companies were swallowed up for the same reason -- because they didn't have everything they needed under their own roof, and their competitors did. The climate after Monday's expected FCC decision will encourage even more consolidation and be even more inhospitable to smaller businesses. Why should the country care? When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys; they have to innovate. So they are less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They're willing to take risks. When, on my initiative, Turner Communications (now Turner Broadcasting) bought its first TV station, which at the time was losing $50,000 a month, my board strongly objected. When TBS bought its second station, which was in even worse shape than the first, our accountant quit in protest. Large media corporations are far more profit-focused and risk-averse. They sometimes confuse short-term profits and long-term value. They kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap -- even if it runs counter to local interests and community values. For a corporation to launch a new idea, you have to get the backing of executives who are obsessed with quarterly earnings and afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They often prefer to sit on the sidelines waiting to buy the businesses or imitate the models of the risk-takers who succeed. (Two large media corporations turned down my invitation to invest in the launch of CNN.) That's an understandable approach for a corporation -- but for a society, it's like overfishing the oceans. When the smaller businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? Nor does this trend bode well for new ideas in our democracy -- ideas that come only from diverse news and vigorous reporting. Under the new rules, there will be more consolidation and more news sharing. That means laying off reporters or, in other words, downsizing the workforce that helps us see our problems and makes us think about solutions. Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations -- with massive market power -- could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests. There is always the danger that news organizations can push positive stories to gain friends in government, or unleash negative stories on artists, activists or politicians who cross them, or tell their audiences only the news that confirms entrenched views. But the danger is greater when there are no competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore. Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. That may be true. But it's not their intentions that matter. It's their capabilities. The new FCC rules would give them more power to cut important ideas out of the public debate, and it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent. Some news organizations have tried to marginalize opponents of the war in Iraq, dismissing them as a fringe element. Pope John Paul II also opposed the war in Iraq. How narrow-minded have we made our public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate? Our democracy needs a broader dialogue. As Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1945 opinion: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of large publicly traded media companies. Their job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a certain way, companies will seek profits in a way that serves the public interest. If, on Monday, the FCC decides to go the other way, that should not be the end of it. Powerful public groups across the political spectrum oppose these new rules and are angry about their lack of input in the process. People who can't make their voices heard in one arena often find ways to make them heard in others. Congress has the power to amend the rule changes. Members from both parties oppose the new rules. This isn't over. The writer is founder of CNN and chairman of Turner Enterprises Inc.

I know Q-m It is not a supprise that they (americans) would want to do what tehy do it is in there interest to do whe should be supprised about it at all. What is so disheartning is to see countries/kingdoms such as saudi arabia crow to there demands such a humilation. and it seems there influence doesnt stop there even if the suadi's try to claim otherwise. Ministry Fires 353 Imams, Muezzins

^^^^^^ lol com'on geezer nothin @ all... Before i start.... whilst the majority of our boys seem to have difficulty in comprehending the use of a belt loooooool thats quality. Alright well let me say my piece. I think that what your saying is, i suppose if i were to generlize, not too far off the mark. But in saying that i have to be frank and say that i have come across some unsavoury sisters in my time for too often to just brush of as some weird unfortunate incidents. General speaking your correct most of the somali sisters that i have come across have seemed (on the surface @ least)ambitous & normal. But with the gents, the problem you highleted of them, get in all sorts of trouble is very true, but unsuprising to me. Its a given that this problem is likely to occur and continue to increase, given the fact that these youths you describe come from difficult backgrounds i.e. broken homes, domestic troubles etc etc. I mean i should know some of my good friends have gone through these stages and lucky have managed to sort themsleves out. Unfortunately there isnt 'A', and i would like to stress the A'once more, National UK somali Orgainsation that should be dealing with these exact problems you have listed i.e. Drug abuse, getting in into crime and even homelessness. Rather, as am sure u are aware, there are several organisations, separate and distinict, all doing there own things and claiming the represent there one little communities. But these youths are youths and the lions share of the blame shouldnt be approtioned to them. The need help and guidence otherwise they will end up no where broke mest up and stuck in this countries system.

For me the can be no doubt. It was: -------------------------MONEY WELL SPENT---------------------- **********and well invested i might add ************** 10 chicken nuggets, 1 portion of chips and a can of 7 up's for £2.75

I agree^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^but then we my both be be wrong. The extract in qouation made sense to me until you didnt conclude ((like i was assuming you were about to)) that it was refering to a non-muslim.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ great repost.

Ramapage That was the best Champions League Final i saw for time, dont know what match you where watching Bruv . It was shame though that davids went off, i think if he stayed on the match would have been decided in normal time but AC deserved to win it in the end. And the Real winner in the end was Italian Football as it Confirmed itself as the best league in the world.

Easing into Islamic democracy

The case for war is blown apart By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City 29 May 2003 Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war. Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war. Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction". But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation. Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House. Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer." Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons". But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything. "It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong. "Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right." Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists. "We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons." He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction." Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made." Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real." But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations." Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important". The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out. Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes." Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441." The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground." The build-up to war: What they said Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003 We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003 Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003 Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit Tony Blair 28 April, 2003 It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003 29 May 2003 09:38

I dont no if you can. One things for sure the Evangelical branch of the christian movement is the one that is more of the active it seems in trying to convert people

Salam Calayakum Nomads. I am not the author of the poem rather i recived it from a dear friend. Like u said DV you dont have to accept the story as being baised on a true event (like they do with some of them holywood films ) but you got the point of the poem. CM Your right bro :confused: . I didnt quite read that. I thougt the extract you got in qoutaion marks referd to student. I am gonna have to edit the poem now to avoid others getting confussed. Thx for the alert. Jazzak'Allahu khayran.

Hell Is Real I went into my classroom, Ready for another year at school, I didn't want the work, Just wanted to hang and be cool. I had on new clothes, New sneaks on my feet, I was there for class on time, Went to the back and took my seat. Yeah, I'm moving up, I'm already grown, Soon I'll be graduating, And out on my own. I talked to some of my friends, We were all having fun, Said some things I shouldn't have said, Did stuff I shouldn't have done. I knew I was different, I felt God touch my heart, I knew I should set a standard, But then I'd be set apart. Walking to the bus, I was not looking for strength, I heard the car tires screeching, But now it's too late. I'm standing in this room, And I can see the heavenly gate, Oh no! I never prayed, I thought I had time to get it straight. An angel walked to me, He had a book in his hand, I knew it was the Book of Life, When would this dream end? I told him my name, And he began to look, then he looked at me sadly and said, Your name is not in this book. Angel, this is a dream, No, I can't be dead! He closed the book and turned away, He whispered-You cannot proceed ahead. No.....no this can't be real, Angel, you can't turn me away, Let me talk to God, Maybe he'll let me stay. He led me to the gate, Allah came to me, He did not let me in but said, Beloved what is your need? Allah, I cried, please, Don't cast me away from you, Tears ran down his face as he said, You knew what you needed to do. Lord, please I'm young, I never thought I would die, I thought I'd have plenty of time, Death caught me by surprise. Lord, I went to mosque, Please Allah, I believe, He said you would not accept me, My love you would not receive. Lord, there were too many hypocrites, they weren't being true, He took a step back and asked, What does that have to do with you? Lord, my family claimed to be saved, They weren't real. Now I have to go. I fell to my knees crying to him, Lord, I planned to be real tomorrow, I couldn't make Him understand, I had never--felt such sorrow. Then it hit me hard, I said, Lord, where will I go? He looked into my eyes and said, My child you already know. Please Allah, I begged, The place is so hot, It seemed to trouble and grieve him, He whispered, DEPART FROM ME, I KNOW YOU NOT. Lord, you're supposed to be love, How can you send me to damnation? He replied, with your mouth you said you loved me, But each day you rejected my salvation. With that in an instant, Day turned into night, I never knew such torture could be, Now too late, I know the Quran is right......... If I can tell you anything, Hell has no age, It is a place of torture, Separated from God and full of rage. You know, I thought it was funny--a joke, But this one thing is true, If you never accept Allah HELL IS WAITING FOR YOU! So please, ask Him into your heart,

I would agree with you there Ogun, they are all indeed the same. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neo-cons move quickly on Iran By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON - Reports that top officials in the administration of President George W Bush will meet this week to discuss US policy toward Iran, including possible efforts to overthrow its government, mark a major advance in what has been an 18-month campaign by neo-conservatives in and out of the administration. Overshadowed until last month by their much louder drum-beating for war against Iraq, the neo-cons' efforts to now focus US attention on "regime change" in Iran have become much more intense since early May, and have already borne substantial fruit. A high-level, albeit unofficial, dialogue between both countries over Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues of mutual interest was abruptly broken off by Washington 10 days ago amid charges by senior Pentagon officials that al-Qaeda agents based in Iran had been involved in terrorist attacks against US and foreign targets in Saudi Arabia on May 12. Tehran strongly denied the charge. Now, according to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the administration is considering permanently cutting off the dialogue - which included its senior envoy for both Iraq and Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad - and adopting a far more confrontational stance vis-a-vis Tehran that could include covert efforts to destabilize the government. Pentagon hawks, particularly Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, who have long been closely associated with neo-conservatives outside the administration centered at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), reportedly favor using the heavily armed, Iraq-based Iranian rebel group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization, which surrendered to US forces in April, as the core of a possible opposition military force. They are also pursuing links with the Iranian exile community centered in southern California, which has rallied increasingly around Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran who was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. According to a recent story in the US Jewish newspaper The Forward, Pahlavi has cultivated senior officials in Israel's Likud government with which the neo-conservatives in Washington - both in the administration and outside it - are closely allied. Besides charges - considered questionable by the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) - that Iran may be sheltering al-Qaeda operatives allegedly involved in the May 12 attacks in Riyadh - the administration has voiced several major concerns about the country's recent behavior. Senior officials have accused Tehran of accelerating a major nuclear program that they say is designed to produce weapons and of infiltrating "agents" into Iraq in order to create problems for the US-dominated occupation there. They have also continued to call Iran a major supporter of international terrorism, primarily due to its backing for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It was Tehran's backing for Hezbollah that earned it a prominent place on the target list produced by the Project for the New American Century in an open letter to Bush on September 20, 2001, just nine days after al-Qaeda's attack on New York and the Pentagon. The letter's 41 mainly neo-conservative signers urged Bush to retaliate directly against Iran if it failed to cut off Hezbollah. The same letter anticipated virtually every other step so far taken by the administration in its "war on terror", including invading Afghanistan, severing ties to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. In October, 2001, influential figures at the AEI and like-minded think tanks launched a new line of attack on Iran by publishing articles in sympathetic media, most notably on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, arguing that the Iranian people were so disillusioned by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, including the "reformists" around President Mohamed Khatami, that they were ready to rise up against the government in a pro-US revolution. "Iran is ready to blow sky-high," wrote AEI scholar Michael Ledeen back in November 2001. "The Iranian people need only a bright spark of courage from the United States to ignite the flames of democratic revolution." When, much to the State Department's dismay, Bush named Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in late January, 2002, both Israel and the neo-conservatives pressed their advantage, arguing repeatedly that dialogue even with Khatami was a waste of time and that Washington should cast its lot instead with "the people" against the regime. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and Ledeen's AEI colleague, argued last August in the neo-conservative Weekly Standard that the mere presence of US troops in Iraq would bring about revolution next door. "Popular discontent in Iran tends to heat up when US soldiers get close to the Islamic Republic," he wrote. "An American invasion could possibly provoke riots in Iran - simultaneous uprisings in major cities that would simply be beyond the scope of regime-loyal specialized riot-control units." But the intensity and frequency of the campaign against Tehran picked up dramatically earlier this month. On May 5, Standard Editor William Kristol, whose office is six floors below the AEI, wrote that the United States was "already in a death struggle with Iran over the future of Iraq" and that "the next great battle - not, we hope, a military battle - will be for Iran". The very next day, the AEI hosted an all-day conference entitled "The Future of Iran: Mullahcracy, Democracy and the War on Terror", whose speakers included Ledeen, Sobhani, Gerecht, Morris Amitay of the neo-conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Studies and Uri Lubrani from the Israeli Defense Ministry. The convenor, Hudson Institute Middle East specialist Meyrav Wurmser (whose husband David worked as her AEI counterpart until joining the administration), set the tone: "Our fight against Iraq was only one battle in a long war," she said. "It would be ill-conceived to think that we can deal with Iraq alone ... We must move on, and faster." "It was a grave error to send [Khalilzad] to secret meetings with representatives of the Iranian government in recent weeks," Israeli-born Wurmser said, complaining that, "rather than coming as victors who should be feared and respected rather than loved, we are still engaged in old diplomacy, in the kind of politics that led to the attacks of September 11." Just days later, the Khalilzad channel was abruptly closed, and a Christian Right ally of the neo-conservatives, Senator Sam Brownback, introduced the "Iran Democracy Act" that sets as US policy the goal of "an internationally monitored referendum to allow the Iranian people to peacefully change their system of government". "Now is not the time to coddle this terrorist regime," he said. "Now is the time to stand firm and support the people of Iran - who are the only ones that can win this important battle." (Inter Press Service) ----------------------------------------------------------------

Predictions for tonight?? I myself would like to see Juve win, and i think they will win coz they are the better team...........but i got a seenky feelin about Milan. Anyway my Prediciton is a 3-2 win for Juve and a Match to rember.

As-Salaamu-Alaikum 'Verily, We have sent it down as an ARABIC Qur'an in order that you may understand.' (12:2) 'And thus have We sent it (the Qur'an) down to be a judgement of authority in ARABIC' (13:37) 'And thus We have sent it down as a Qur'an in ARABIC and have explained therein warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause them to have a lesson from it' 'An ARABIC Qur'an without any crookedness...'(39:28) 'A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail a Qur'an in ARABIC for people who know' ((41:3) 'And thus We have revealed to you a Qur'an in ARABIC....' (42:7) 'We verily, have made it a Qur'an in ARABIC that you may be able to understand' (43:3) Know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Arab is not by blood. The Arab is by tongue" The Prophet(peace be upon his) as also said: ".....the Qur'an is Arabic and the tongue of the People of Paradise is Arabic" Know that Sheikh Abdalqadir al-Murabit says in his at-Tarbiyat al- Islamiyyat al-Asliyya: "....for someone approaching Islamic education there would be a primary requirement which we would not even list it -it would be the 'given', ....it is frankly, and there is no escaping it, a clear grasp of the Arabic language. And I would say for the ajami who does not speak Arabic, it is necessary for him to take it on and get it by the most traditional means possible in order to arrive at an Arabic which is in itself more related to fusaha, more connect you to the Qur'an and Islamic 'ilm." Let us be clear from the outset...to be a Muslim and derive the wonderful blessings of this great deen, one does not have to be fluent in Arabic language! Many beautiful and wonderful Muslims do not speak Arabic! However clearly it is off great benefit for us to learn and fully grasp arabic as a language.

Mashallah what a story. My allah Grant Hiba the highest level of Janaah for her Martadom for she has become a Mujahiid.

Like I said, my future-husband will not have to pay for everything; we'll have a shared union...like it should be. I have no objections with that

What about this........ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Church World Service Welcomes First Somali Bantu Refugees to Denver, Phoenix -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Church World Service(CWS) - USA Website: http://www.churchworldservice.org May 19, 2003 DENVER, CO & PHOENIX, AZ – Global humanitarian agency Church World Service is welcoming the first two families of Somali Bantu refugees to be resettled in the U.S., on Thursday May 22, in Denver, Colorado, and Phoenix, Arizona. The Bantu families’ arrival marks a new chapter in the life of a people who have lived in constant oppression for almost two centuries. The two families are the first of a group of approximately 12,000 Somali Bantu that the U.S. State Department has approved for resettlement in nearly 50 U.S. cities over the next two years. WHO: One Bantu family of five is arriving in Denver on Thursday, where they will be settled by Ecumenical Refugee Services (ERS) of Denver (the local affiliate of Church World Service) and the Denver congregation that has agreed to co-sponsor the family, St. Francis Cabrini Catholic Church. In Phoenix that same day (5/22), Church World Service affiliate Lutheran Social Ministry of the Southwest is greeting another family of nine Somali Bantu, along with a welcoming community interfaith group including the city’s new Somali Association and the refugees’ host congregations in Phoenix, the Congregational Church of Tempe and The Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of Tempe. WHAT: Church World Service spokespersons and local affiliate agency directors are available for interviews prior to and after the Somali Bantu’s arrivals. Media are invited to make advance arrangements for visuals and interviews with Somali Bantu individuals (via interpreter) within approximately two weeks, after the new refugees complete necessary entry and settlement processes. BACKGROUND: After almost two centuries of slavery, persecution, and dispersion across Africa and the Middle East – and, more recently, a decade of life in refugee camps – "the Somali Bantu come to us as a very special group of people," says Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program Director Joe Roberson. "The Bantu have proved their adaptability under all circumstances, but in their early days in the U.S., they will need solid support as they adapt to their new lives and a vastly different culture." "That’s the strength of CWS' network of faith-based and other community organizations," Roberson adds. "It’s the capacity and willingness of CWS affiliate agencies and local communities of faith who become hosts to the refugees that help guide even the least acculturated through the system’s processes, then into the education, training, and employment they need to become contributing people in their communities." CWS expects to resettle more than 900 Somali Bantu by the end of the program, with about 500 over the next 12 months, and the first hundred arriving in the next few months. Up to 12,000 Somali Bantu were approved by the U.S. State Department in 1999 for resettlement in about 50 U.S. cities. However, following 9/11 and tightened U.S. security, refugee admissions dropped from 85,000 in 1999 to a trickling 10,500 in mid-2002. Caught in the squeeze, the Somali Bantu remained in suspension, living in Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya during the past year. Many Somali Bantu young people have never known anything but life within a refugee camp. With a history of oppression and slavery since the 1800s, the Somali Bantu – a rural, agricultural people denied education – have lived at the lowest levels of African society. From their home in East Africa, the Bantu were traded on the Zanzibar slave market and scattered across Africa and the Middle East. After slavery was abolished, the Bantu in Somalia continued to be persecuted and work in subservient jobs. During the 1990 Somali civil war, most Somali Bantu fled to Kenya, where they remained in Dadaab Refugee camp for a decade – along with Somali refugees who had been the Bantu’s oppressors – while the United Nations High Commission on Refugees unsuccessfully sought a home for them. In 1999, the U.S. agreed to accept 12,000 of the Somali Bantu, moving them in 2002 from Dadaab to Kakuma Camp some 900 miles away. Considered one of the best run refugee camps, Kakuma is home to about 80,000 people from various African countries, cultures, and ethnicities. But the Bantu’s arrival in the U.S., expected in mid-2002, was delayed due to continued U.S. homeland security pressures on immigration. Now the U.S. State Department has assured the first 1,200 entry and resettlement over the next year, beginning this month. Church World Service Executive Director Rev. John L. McCullough says the global humanitarian agency is "pleased and relieved that the doors are finally opening on the possibility of a better life for the Bantu." But he notes, "We’re still deeply concerned over the rapid decline in numbers of refugees that the U.S. is admitting." McCullough says that "admitting 12,000 of Africa's most profoundly and historically deprived people doesn't let the U.S. off the hook for maintaining its foundational role as a place of hope and asylum for the world’s oppressed." There are currently 15 million refugees and asylum seekers and 20-25 million internally displaced people worldwide. And less than one percent of the world's uprooted are addressed by resettlement programs. Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of State, Church World Service administers virtually all U.S. refugee processing in sub-Saharan Africa. A global humanitarian agency of 36 Protestant, Orthodox, and Anglican denominations, CWS works in partnership with indigenous organizations in more than 80 countries including the U.S., supporting sustainable self-help development, meeting emergency needs, aiding refugees, and advocating to address the root causes of poverty and powerlessness. For more information about the Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program or the Somali Bantu, please visit: http://www.churchworldservice.org/Immigration/