Jinuflection

Rise People Rise – The Global Revolution is Upon Us!

2011-01-29T11:48:00.003+08:00

I have for many years lived with the knowledge that we, the masses, the working class, the poor, the white, the black, the brown, the immigrants, the Christians, the Muslims, the atheists, the soldiers/ex-soldiers, the peaceniks, the communists, the anarchists, the students, the people, across the spectrum, we all have a common cause.

And yet, we have so tragically allowed ourselves to be duped, to be pitted against each other, fighting each other, finding a million ways to divide ourselves, or simply to be indifferent to each other. In this the tyrant’s smile, they laugh and they joke, about how complete their control over us is. They have been laughing for far too long.

I know how this happens, growing up in my white middle-class Californian life; I was a mindless idiot like most, I had no idea that we in the West were living on the back of the blood sweat and tears of countless people around the globe. I was clueless about our reaping the benefits of the plunder of the world. I too was living in that bubble of indifference, a bubble that is finally bursting. I wonder if the billions who have suffered for our indifference can forgive us? I wonder if we will be honest about our criminal complacency which has resulted in an unfathomable amount of suffering and death?

Ah but alas, the American empire is crumbling, it is rotting from within, like every single empire before it. And how poetic that its accelerated demise was ignited by the rage and desperation of one Mohamed Bouazizi, one of the countless victims meant to be just another statistic; no no, this statistic just kicked off a global revolution.

Think about it, if a street vendor can do that, imagine the power of the people united, intelligent, fearless and indomitable.

And the people of the world are beginning to realize that all the bribe money, all the weapons, all the sleazy tyrants and their minions are nothing, they are spineless fleeing cowards, running away as cowards do. Let them run to the grotesquely corrupt hosts who will receive them, their day is coming soon as well. Soon there will be nowhere to hide, no gold for them to steal, no court to shield them and no stolen land to live on.

Moving forward with this revolution I am sure many such scoundrels will come home to America, the most corrupt land of them all, by virtue of the seeds of corruption it has sowed across the globe… America, possessor of the most disgusting, servile, traitorous government of them all, will soon play host to all its servile tin pot dictators.

America… the land of illusions, with the veneer of civility and prosperity, in truth the essence of destitution and lunacy. I know this land; it is my birth nation, I was indoctrinated in this nation and made insane, like the vast majority of its population. And yet I am blessed for my insanity because I have survived it, and more importantly I remember it, thus I can look at all my lost brothers and sisters and see myself.

I realized upon awakening that it was the height of arrogance to expect everybody else to awaken in unison with me, and so I accept people, as they are, collectively insane but capable of retaining their humanity. I knew for sure that if I could break free, anyone can. I remember how crazy and stupid I was, I remember believing my nation this and my nation that, and I remember pledging my allegiance to The United States of Hypocrisy by reciting the words “with liberty and justice for all”; what a bunch of bullshit! But I believed it.

I owe brother Malcolm X an incredible debt of gratitude for teaching me how stupid I was. I owe my native American brothers and sisters for teaching me of the genocidal history never mentioned in school. I owe my Hawaiian (kanaka maoli) brothers and sisters for teaching me true love of the land and the sea, as well as respect for my elders and the beauty of an extended family.

I owe the United States Marine Corps massively, for providing me my first real taste of injustice; undoubtedly the most critical event of my life. They gave me the rage, for having done the right thing and being punished, they connected me to everyone who knows injustice. How ironic… how beautiful.

I thank one president above all, thank you Dubya, my brother George W. Bush. You more than any other president taught my fellow Americans a lesson that I had known for years. I thank you Mr. President for uniting people around the world, like no other president in my lifetime. But most of all I thank you for forcing Americans to ask themselves, honestly; “do I live in the greatest nation on Earth?” And if so, how is it possible that “my president” is a silver spoon suckin, idiot Yale graduate, Skull & Bones tapped, cocaine snorting, Vietnam disserting, un-elected asshole?

Bill Clinton killed a good million and half Iraqis through inhuman sanctions, including 500,000 plus children. But Americans remained in their coma, oblivious to Clinton the mass-murdering war criminal; but then came George, thank you George, no president did more to wake Americans up, you were the turning point.

People were engaged with Dubya, he stirred them from their slumber, but Obama put them back to sleep. “It’s all good, there is a black man in the White House, everything is cool again!” What a joke. Meanwhile Americans sat by, waving flags and losing their jobs, losing their homes and making a bonfire of their Constitution and Bill of Rights. American sons and daughters turned into psychopaths and sacrificial lambs yet again. America, a nation of and for war criminals. America, making orphans by the millions. America, fighting and “leading” a farcical “War on Terror.”

America became some horrible B-movie, one big B-movie set in Fantasy Land, produced by Zionist lackeys. Only a nation and a world gone insane could have believed the movie was reality. Power to the prostitutes of propaganda, they did all they were ever called on to do. Meanwhile the working class continued working hard, bought their tickets and watched the movie, just so they could go further into debt by gifting the bankers trillions and trillions of dollars. “God bless America!”

Remember this my fellow Americans, a street vender from Tunisia kicked your ass; how beautiful is that? Somehow your slave masters could not manage to stop a single, insignificant man from knocking over the first domino and igniting the fire to which you shall soon be engulfed, literally. If you know what’s good for you, you will see your traitors on Wall Street, in the Congress and the White House for who there are, fast.

Speaking of which, let me say to Hillary Clinton and the other prostitute politicians calling for “restraint” in Tunisia and Egypt; fuck you and fuck restraint. Remain angry my brothers and sisters and channel that anger until the result is achieved, a revolution resulting in a dictators flight. He has shamed the Egyptian people for far too long, bought and paid for by the American taxpayer; there is no “reform” absent his departure. Let Egyptian rage manifest in the form of that cowardly, pathetic excuse of a man fleeing Egypt to join some pathetic and corrupt regime suitable of hosting him. I am not alone in waiting for the news that Israel and America’s Pimpdaddy Mubarak, and all his prostitutes, are fleeing Egypt for good.

And I am loving the “financial crisis, loving the fact that people are suffering in Europe and America, let it get worse and worse, please God I pray for a storm of discomfort. Let the middle and upper class people of the West in particular live like the Bedouins of Gaza I met today, nothing will jump start their conscience more. Let them feel a fraction of the pain and suffering we have dealt to the rest of the world. Soak it up, embrace it, live in the street, go hungry and homeless and get beaten for seeking shelter in the wrong place. Then look in the mirror and see the world you created in your own eyes.

Let us realize once and for all the truth, we are all connected, we, the working class, the un-employed, no matter color, religion, sex, nationality, we are the masses, we have the power. And if we have any sense at all we will see any and all attacks on fellow human beings as an attack on ourselves and our family. With this attitude we will crush any so-called leader/politician who even thinks to bamboozle us with the same bogus game that has played out for far too long.

Enough is enough, the world we created has been horrid, let us thank profusely those who fought while sat on our lazy, indoctrinated asses. Let us now stand together, brothers and sisters, with the people of Tunisia and Egypt in particular. Let us turn the page on the nicey nice social gathering protests that serve to diffuse our rage and absolve us of guilt by allowing us to say; “I protested.” No it is time now for much more effective measures. Direct Action is my chosen method, but general strikes are called for big time. It is time for the workers to bring the slave masters to their knees and to seriously, meaningfully, express solidarity with the people of every occupied nation, including but not limited to, Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan and my beloved Hawaiian nation.

It is time to fight fire with fire if necessary and make clear to our police and military that if they turn on the people, then they will feel the wrath of the people.

Every government should be made to fear the people and respect the people, period. Let that be our credo, let us shed the fear and instill fear in every tyrant. The Tunisians and Egyptians have put the fear of god in their governments, so should we; our Western governments are every bit as corrupt.

And if our revolutions begin to be replaced by another form of tyranny, we shall rise again the moment it reveals itself.

As for irony, how about this, let us use the words of a despicable institution (The United Nations) and manifest the meaning of the words;

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,…” – Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Let us live these words and draw a line in the sand. Either you live these values and protect these values or you are an enemy of the people. The bullshit war on terror and all who support that farce must be exposed and put in their place. Wars of aggression and occupation must end immediately. Those that rationalize and justify war and occupation must be exposed and recognized as enemies of the people. Banking, the fractional reserve system and the Federal Reserve, the central banks and the entire ponzi scheme they enslaved us with must be completely destroyed. Every secret society conspiring to benefit the few at the expense of the many must be exposed and destroyed.

Behind every empire remains the hidden powers and the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak is merely the removal of their puppets; they have countless more so it is the powers in the shadows that we must finally see. These anti-humans care nothing for the religions or nations that the masses are so wedded to. They can slither from one place to another. Like a chameleon they can change color or camouflage themselves. They must be seen, the truth tellers are doing their part; we need only open our eyes. And open your eyes for this one, the greatest animated film ever made, The American Dream. Watch this 30 minute cartoon, get angry and get real.

I say again, if a street vendor can kick off a global revolution, imagine the power of the people united, intelligent, fearless and indomitable. We can achieve any damn thing we commit to. I say we destroy the banking system and replace it with genuine currencies of real value serving simply as a means for fair and ethical trade. I say we default on all of our loans to the criminal banks, both personal and national, and start over. I say we make criminals of the merchants of death who produce weapons of mass-destruction. And I say we sail to Palestine by the thousands and turn Israel’s ruthless, mass-murdering, fourth largest military in the world into an impotent irrelevance.

Why not?

Let us realize once and for all, that we the people are one, that we are human, that our most precious gift is that of our humanity. Let us never sacrifice it again. Together we are unstoppable. We are the sleeping giant, we are the waking lion, we are fierce and we are fearless.

If you the tyrants, the bankers, the prostitutes of propaganda and politics, if you are very fortunate indeed we will give you amnesty. But if you seek such mercy, then step down and speak honestly of the crimes against the people to which you aided and abetted and/or committed. Maybe, just maybe, you will become human again. And you can thank us all for being human with you.

If you are the police, the army, the servant of the tyrants, know that you are one of us, and you have the opportunity to serve your true purpose, which is to serve the people. Do this and you will be welcome. Remember, you are commanded by God and/or conscience to serve your fellow human beings; do so at the very moment your traitorous superiors order you to turn on the people. At that moment in which you are being ordered to sacrifice your humanity, put down your weapons and join the people; WE WILL EMBRACE YOU. You will transform from a vassal of tyranny to a hero. You have been placed in your position for this role, do not reject it.

To the tyrants, it matters not what you do to any one of us, we are the people, we are the true power and we are reclaiming it. Do not stand in our way.

To my brothers and sisters in Tunisia and Egypt, my deepest love and respect goes out to all of you. Thank you for showing us the way. May we follow in your footsteps, and without delay; I for one am with you 100%.

click here for video

Why I Support The Return of Palestinians

2010-12-21T21:43:00.004+08:00

- by Israel Shamir

Palestine is not a dead object, it is a living country. Palestinians are her soul. Palestine is what Palestinians are re-creating in real time, in the same way that France is what the French create and re-create every day. It is a vast confusion of mind, to presume one can love France and abhor French, as what kind of France would exist without the French soul. Only silly tourists from rich countries, pestered by beggars, prefer to stay in reclusive posh hotels where they can enjoy the country without encountering the natives. It is like loving a beautiful lady but hating her character and her very essence. To love a country and wish away her inhabitants is the kind of romance that can only appeal to those who have a passion for necrophilia.

The late Russian thinker Lev Gumilev described a country as a symbiosis of people and landscape. Palestine and Palestinians are inseparable, the peasants and their olives and springs of water and the mountains and the domes of the ancestral sepulchres on the hill-tops need each other and have grown to complement each other.

The Palestinians are not an obscure mean folk. They created the Star of Ghassul, wrote the Bible, built the temples of Jerusalem and Garizim, the palaces of Jericho and Samaria, the churches of the Holy Sepulchre and Nativity, the mosques of Haram a-Sharif, the harbours of Caesarea and Akka, the castles of Monfort and Belvoir. They walked with Jesus, defeated Napoleon and bravely fought at Karameh. In their veins, the blood of Aegean warriors, Bene Israel, David's heroes, the first Apostles of Christ and Companions of the Prophet, of Arab riders, Norman Crusaders and Turkmen chieftains blended in the unique composition. Its spark did not run out: the poetry of Mahmud Darwish, the wisdom of Edward Said, the perfect olive oil, the fervour of prayers and the valiant courage of intifada prove it.

Without the Palestinians, Palestine dies. Her rivers run poisoned water, the sources dry out, the hills and valleys are disfigured, her fields are worked by imported Chinese, while her sons are imprisoned in ghetto. The idea of a separate Jewish state collapsed. During last ten years, the mad policies of Israeli government imported over a million of Romanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Thai and African laborers. Some of them claim Jewish descent: Peruvian tribes, Indians from Assam and the endless refugees from the Soviet Union moved in. Now the Jewish Agency plans to import a Lembda tribe from the South Africa, in order to ensure the Jewish character of the state. Paradoxically, those who still bear some part of the Jewish traditions are isolated in the Jewish state, as late Dr Yeshayahu Leibovich or imprisoned as the Moroccan Jewish Rabbi Arie Der'i.

The fantasy of the Jewish ingathering has collided with the reality. We must end the delusion. Let the sons and daughters of Palestine come back and rebuild Suba and Kakun, Jaffa and Akka. Instead of consecrating the Green Line, let us erase it and live together, the children of Palestine, of first settlers, of Moroccans and Russians.

We should live in one state, not only because of the blatant failure of Oslo. The very idea of partition is wrong. We can follow the example of New Zealand, where the European incomers live together with the native Maori, the example of Mandela's South Africa, the example of Caribbean, where children of Spanish settlers, African slaves and native Amerindians blended into the beautiful new race. Let us tear up our Declarations of false Independence and write a new one, of mutual dependence and love.

Belief - John Meyer

2010-09-02T23:45:00.002+08:00

One Love - Playing For Change

2010-01-03T13:01:00.003+08:00

http://playingforchange.com/
From the award-winning documentary, “Playing For Change: Peace Through Music”, comes an incredible rendition of the legendary Bob Marley song “One Love” with Keb’ Mo’ and Manu Chao. This is the third video from the documentary and a follow up to the classic “Stand By Me” and the incredible “Don’t Worry.” Released in celebration of Bob Marley’s birthday on February 6th, this tribute to the legend is performed by musicians around the world adding their part to the song as it traveled the globe.

Sand Artist

2009-10-28T19:22:00.002+08:00

Long Live Gaza - Lowkey

2009-03-22T21:01:00.002+08:00

By Way Of Deception ...

2009-03-06T00:37:00.000+08:00

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Long before WWI, before Leo Frank and the founding of the ADL and long before before WWII, Jewish organizations solicited donations to fight "Hatred of the Jews." In order to raise money to fight an enemy an enemy was needed and in the 1890s Wilhelm Marr was promoted in the media as the enemy of the Jewish people in America. Marr is credited with the creation of the terms "Anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust."

It was this a great source of embarrassment to the fundraisers when word leaked out that Wilhelm Marr was himself Jewish, but in an age before alternative media had made the public aware of the preponderance of hoaxes used to sell the concept of Jewish victimhood, the fundraisers covered their obvious sham by declaring Marr to be a Jewish "renegade".

Wilhem Marr was not the only fake "American Nazi" to surface through the years.

Back in the 1970s, Frank Collin paraded around the media wearing swastikas and screaming race hate against Jews. When his Jewish identity as Frank Cohen was revealed, the old standby of "Renegade" was applied to him as well.

More recently, Bill White the self appointed leader of the American National Socialist Workers Party, an ADL/SPLC front has come under suspicion of being yet another phony based on his funding sources and other reasons too numerous to elucidate here.

Then we have Adam Yahiye Gadahn, the so-called "American Al Qaeda" who parades around the media scaring Americans into supporting war on Israel's enemies. His real name is Adam Pearlman and he is the grandson of a member of the board of the ADL.

War Is Not Peace

2009-01-05T13:53:00.001+08:00

By Jim Kirwan
1-4-9

"What happpened to putting people on trial?" That was when there were real judges and an actual Department of Justice that wasn't in the pockets of those that have committed these war-crimes and crimes against humanity.

Since Bush refused to allow the USA to be a signatory to the International court (to protect himself and his flunkies) from criminal prosecution - there is no impartial court of law that will hear this case. And when there is no law then there is still vigilante justice. It's called 'consequences' for what they have been responsible for.

As for the difference between ordinary Germans and Nazis - that was only a political distinction, German soldiers were acting on orders handed down by the leader of the Nazi party - and had to bear the consequences for their actions, because those orders were in violation of the German Consitution that was very similar to ours before Hitler, like Bush, made their laws meaningless.

To quibble over the details of facts that were kept from the American public, supposedly in the interests of national security - when the truth was that the entire war in Iraq was totally without any foundation; bolstered by lies and twisted facts that served only to get us into that war: knowing full well that we had no exit strategy because we never had any plans to leave; only compounded the depth of this deception and the degree of the treachery that they were willing to add to being traitors to this nation.

The fact that they knowingly have sent hundreds of thousands of US troops into harms way, solely to benefit a bunch of criminal corporate interests that had nothing to do with US national security: When in fact what they actually did has PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN an action designed to undermine -not just this country - but was meant to forever destroy our government and the people of the United States.

In this process they have sold our voices to a gang of lawless fascists in their criminal-fight to subdue the rightful owners of the land that the Zionists have stolen for themselves - that is why the missiles are still flying into Israel - and those attacks were triggered by Israel's violations of the cease fire - which was undertaken to create another justification for yet another pre-emptive strike upon a nearly defenseless civilian population.

As this is being written a million and half people are facing extermination to gratify the infantile fear that the Israeli military suffers from being thought to be the cowards that they clearly are. Their military is nothing but a bunch testosterone-hyped adolescents with only the courage of the mob in their veins driven by a blind hatred of the people they refer to as "cockroaches."

That so-called state of Zionist-Israel is run by terrorists, born and bred, to hate, to envy, and to covet that which has never been theirs: Those human fallacies need to excoriated from that region - beginning with the IDF and all it's brother organizations; which inculdes the USA at the top of that list!

Murdering thousands of civilians does not make any nation's military a "feared" fighting force: Rather it marks the Zionists and the cowboys running US policy for the cowardly knuckle-draggers that they have always been, while they hide behind the blood-stained skirts of the whore that the USA has become.

If these crimes are not something that warrants consequences - then tell me what does...

kirwan

10 false flags operations that shaped our world

2008-12-16T09:24:00.000+08:00

From Nero to 9/11, via Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident... Joe Crubaugh provides an "all time greatest hits" of false flag operations, whereby one scenario is repeated... as the world keeps falling for the same lie.

The most commonly known false flag operations consist of a government agency staging a terror attack, whereby an uninvolved entity gets blamed for the carnage. As at least two millennia have proven, false flag operations, with healthy doses of propaganda and ignorance, provided a great recipe for endless war.
In "War is a Racket", Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler wrote: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."
You may not have heard of these operations, but perhaps you have heard of these?

1. Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome

Rome, the night of July 19, 64 AD. The Great Fire burst through the rooftops of shops near the mass entertainment and chariot racing venue called Circus Maximus. The flames, whipped by a strong wind, rapidly engulfed densely populated areas of the city. After burning uncontrolled for five days, four of the 14 Roman districts were burned to the ground, and seven more were severely damaged.
It was no secret that Nero wanted to build a series of palaces which he planned to name "Neropolis". But, the planned location was in the city and in order to build Neropolis, a third of Rome would have to be torn down. The Senate rejected the idea. Then, coincidentally, the fire cleared the very real estate Neropolis required.

Despite the obvious benefit, there's still a good probability that Nero did not start the fire. Up to a hundred small fires regularly broke out in Rome each day. On top of that, the fire destroyed Nero's own palace and it appears that Nero did everything he could to stop the fire. Accounts of the day say that when Nero heard about the fire, he rushed back from Antium to organize a relief effort, using his own money. He opened his palaces to let in the homeless and had food supplies delivered to the survivors.
Nero also devised a new urban development plan that would make Rome less vulnerable to fire. But, although he put in place rules to insure a safer reconstruction, he also gave himself a huge tract of city property with the intention of building his new palace there.
People knew of Nero's plans for Neropolis, and all his efforts to help the city could not counteract the rampant rumours that he'd help start the fire. As his poll numbers dropped, Nero's administration realised the need to employ False Flag 101: When something - anything - bad happens to you, even if it's accidental, point the finger at your enemy.
Luckily, there was a new cult of religious nuts at hand. The cult was unpopular because its followers refused to worship the emperor, denounced possessions, held secret meetings and they were always talking about the destruction of Rome and the end of the world. Even more luckily for Nero, two of the cult's biggest leaders, Peter and Paul, were currently in town. Nero spread word that the Christians had started the Great Fire. The citizens of Rome bought his lie hook, line and sinker. Peter was crucified and Paul beheaded. Hundreds of others in the young cult were fed to the lions or smeared with tar and set on fire to become human street lamps.

2. Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain

The Spanish Empire was the first truly global empire, reaching its territorial height in the late 1700s. By 1898, Spain was losing territories regularly. Cuba too was becoming increasingly hard to control and a minor revolution had broken out. This wasn't welcome news to people in the United States who owned Cuban sugar, tobacco and iron industry properties valued at over $50 million (worth ca. $1.2 billion today).
The main stream media, then dominated by newspaper magnates Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, exaggerated - and outright fabricated - stories of horrible conditions under Spanish rule. Following the age-old maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads", the newspapers published stories about Spanish death camps, Spanish cannibalism and inhumane torture. The newspapers sent reporters to Cuba. However, when they got there, they found a different story. Artist and correspondent Frederick Remington wrote back to Hearst: "There is no war. Request to be recalled." Hearst's famous reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And he did. His newspaper, continually screaming how Spanish Cuba was going to hell in a hand basket, convinced big business interests in the US to put pressure on anti-war President William McKinley to protect their Cuban investments. McKinley, in response, sent the USS Maine battleship to Havana Harbour as a calming show of force.

Three weeks after arriving, on the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded, killing 266 men. There are two theories for the explosion: some believe the explosion was caused by an external mine that detonated the ship's ammunition magazines. Others say it was caused by a spontaneous coal bunker fire that reached the ammunition magazines. Currently, the evidence seems to favour the external mine theory.
Without waiting on an investigation, America's mainstream media blamed the tragedy on Spain and beat the drums for war. By April, McKinley yielded to public pressure and signed a congressional resolution declaring war on Spain. To help pay for the Spanish-American War, congress enacted a "temporary" tax of 3 percent on long-distance telephone bills. This was essentially a tax on the rich, as only about 1,300 Americans owned phones in 1898. Although the Spanish-American War ended in 1898, the temporary tax was only abolished in... 2005. Over its lifetime, the 107-year-old tax generated almost $94 billion - more than 230 times the cost of the Spanish-American War.

The Spanish-American War put a large nail in the coffin of Spain's global empire. And by the end of 1898, the United States, which was founded in opposition to imperialism, found itself in control not only of Cuba, but of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands as well.

3. The Manchurian Incident

The economic slump following 1929's thorough and convincing near-obliteration of Wall Street hit Japan especially hard: exports fell, unemployment rose. Japan, not being rich in natural resources, needed oil and coal to make power to run machines to produce goods to sell to other countries to make money to buy food to have enough energy. Manchuria, a province of China, had its fair share of oil and coal.
After Japan decided it needed to invade Manchuria, they needed a pretext to justify the invasion. They chose to create a false flag attack on a railway close to Liutiao Lake... a big flat area that had no military value to either the Japanese or the Chinese. The main reason the spot was chosen was for its proximity (about 800 meters distant) to Chinese troops stationed at Beidaying. The Japanese press labelled the no-name site of the blast Liutiaogou, which was Japanese for "Liutiao Bridge." There was no bridge there, but the name helped convince some that the sabotage was a strategic Chinese attack.
Colonel Itagaki Seishiro and Lieutenant Colonel Kanji Ishiwara ordered officers of the Shimamoto Regiment to place a bomb beneath the tracks. The original bomb failed to detonate and a replacement had to be found. Then, at 10.20pm, September 18, 1931, the tracks were blown. Surprisingly, the explosion was minor. Only one side of the rail was damaged, and the damage was so light that a train headed for Shenyang passed by only a few minutes later. But it was a good enough excuse to invade...

The Japanese immediately charged the Chinese soldiers with the destruction, then invaded Manchuria. A puppet government known as Manchukuo was installed. The League of Nations investigated and in a 1932 report denied that the invasion was an act of defence, as Japan had advertised. But rather than vacate Manchuria, Japan decided to vacate the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations.

4. Secrets of the Reichstag Fire

In 1933, just a week before general elections that might place enough Nazis in office to make Hitler defacto dictator, the Reichstag, which housed the parliament of the German Empire, was set on fire. Adolf Hitler assured everyone that communist terrorists started the fire. Hitler's party member Hermann Göring stated that he had secret evidence that would soon be made public; evidence that proved communists did it. These proclamations came on top of weeks of Nazi-organized street violence designed to whip the public into a pathological fear of communists.
The next day, the Nazis convinced a senile President von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Decree. The decree, using defence against terrorism as an excuse, suspended just about every major civil liberty set forth in the Weimar Constitution: habeus corpus (the right to know why you're being put in jail)? Gone. Freedom of opinion? Gone. Freedom of the press? Not any more. Freedom to organise and assemble? Deported. The Reichstag decree even allowed the government to spy on its own citizens' personal mail and telephone conversations without a warrant... something most Americans today could hardly begin to fathom... a precursor to President George W. Bush secret order in 2002 ordering the National Security Agency to do just exactly the same thing.
So what about the fire? The only thing historians seem to agree on is that Marinus van der Lubbe, a former Dutch Communist and mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, was found inside the building. Despite the Nazi attempt to blame the fire on a group of communists, the communists were later acquitted by the Nazi government itself. After years of extensive investigation, most historians believe the Hitlerites themselves set fire to the Reichstag using van der Lubbe as their patsy: they knew a nut was going to try to burn down the building and not only did they let him do it, but they may have befriended him, encouraged him and even helped the blaze spread by scattering gasoline and incendiaries.
Most Germans, feeling safe from terrorism again, didn't mind that their freedom and liberty had been stolen, or that so much of their life and work had become so strictly controlled. On the contrary, they felt very enthusiastic and patriotic about the new government because they ignorantly believed the new government cared about them. And as long as the average citizen worked hard, kept his mouth shut and let his kids take part in the Hitler Youth organization, he stayed out of the detention camps.

5. The Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz

In the late evening of Thursday, August 31, 1939, German covert operatives pretending to be Polish terrorists seized the Gleiwitz radio station in the German/Poland border region of Silesia. The station's music program came to an abrupt halt, followed by frantic German voices announcing that Polish formations were marching toward town. Germany was being invaded by Poland! Then, like a bad imitation of the previous year's infamous War of the Worlds broadcast, the transmission went dead for a moment of dramatic silence. Soon, the airwaves popped and crackled to life again, and this time Polish voices called for all Poles in the broadcast area to take up arms and attack Germany.
In no time, radio stations across greater Europe picked up the story. The BBC broadcast this statement: "There have been reports of an attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz, which is just across the Polish border in Silesia. The German News Agency reports that the attack came at about 8.00pm this evening when the Poles forced their way into the studio and began broadcasting a statement in Polish. Within quarter of an hour, says reports, the Poles were overpowered by German police, who opened fire on them. Several of the Poles were reported killed, but the numbers are not yet known." And thus, Hitler invented an excuse to invade Poland, which he did the next day: September 1, 1939. World War II began.

What really happened? Alfred Helmut Naujocks received the orders from Heinrich Müller, chief of the Gestapo, to put the staged terrorist attack together at the Gleiwitz station. At Naujock's disposal were what the Germans had codenamed "canned goods," which were dissenters and criminals kept alive in detention camps until the Gestapo needed a warm dead body. To add cogency to the Gleiwitz attack, Naujocks brought along one such canned good: Franciszek Honiok. Honiok, a German from the Silesian region, was a known Polish sympathizer. Before arriving at the station, the Gestapo gave him a lethal injection. Then, they dressed him up like a Polish terrorist and brought him to the front of the radio station. Naujocks later testified that the man was unconscious, but not dead yet, when he was shot full of pistol rounds. When the police and press found Honiok's body, they assumed he'd been one of the fictional Polish terrorists that attacked the station.
In all, there were 21 fake terror actions along the border that same night, many of them using "canned goods" from German prisons so there would be plenty of bodies in the morning: evidence of Polish attackers that had been shot in self defence. The next day, after a long night filled with fake terror, Hitler gave a speech to the German Army, complete with synthetic anger: "The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich. In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!"
Had it not been for the Nuremberg trials in 1945, the real story behind the Gleiwitz attack might never have been uncovered. It was there that the operation's leader, Alfred Naujocks, spilled the beans in a written affidavit.

6. The Myth of Pearl Harbour

On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that decimated the US Pacific Fleet and forced the United States to enter WWII. That's what most of us were taught as school children... But, except for the date, everything you just read is a myth. In reality, there was no sneak attack. The Pacific Fleet was far from destroyed. And, furthermore, the United States took great pains to bring about the assault.
On January 27, 1941, Joseph C. Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, wired Washington that he'd learned of the surprise attack Japan was preparing for Pearl Harbour. On September 24, a dispatch from Japanese naval intelligence to Japan's consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. The transmission was a request for a grid of exact locations of ships in Pearl Harbour. Surprisingly, Washington chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl Harbour. Then, on November 26, the main body of the Japanese strike force (consisting of six aircraft carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, nine destroyers, eight tankers, 23 fleet submarines, and five midget submarines) departed Japan for Hawaii.
Despite the myth that the strike force maintained strict radio silence, US Naval intelligence intercepted and translated many dispatches. And, there was no shortage of dispatches: Tokyo sent over 1000 transmissions to the attack fleet before it reached Hawaii. Some of these dispatches, in particular this message from Admiral Yamamoto, left no doubt that Pearl Harbour was the target of a Japanese attack: "The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order."
Even on the night before the attack, US intelligence decoded a message pointing to Sunday morning as a deadline for some kind of Japanese action. The message was delivered to the Washington high command more than four hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour. But, as many messages before, it was withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders.Although many ships were damaged at Pearl Harbour, they were all old and slow. The main targets of the Japanese attack fleet were the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers, but Roosevelt made sure these were safe from the attack: in November, at about the same time as the Japanese attack fleet left Japan, Roosevelt sent the Lexington and Enterprise out to sea. Meanwhile, the Saratoga was in San Diego.
Why did Pearl Harbour happen? Roosevelt wanted a piece of the war pie. Having failed to bait Hitler by giving $50.1 billion in war supplies to Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China as part of the Lend Lease program, Roosevelt switched focus to Japan. Because Japan had signed a mutual defence pact with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt knew war with Japan was a legitimate back door to joining the war in Europe. On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt's military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo detailing an 8-step plan that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Over the next year, Roosevelt implemented all eight of the recommended actions. In the summer of 1941, the US joined England in an oil embargo against Japan. Japan needed oil for its war with China, and had no remaining option but to invade the East Indies and Southeast Asia to get new resources. And that required getting rid of the US Pacific Fleet first.
Although Roosevelt may have got more than he bargained for, he clearly let the attack on Pearl Harbour happen, and even helped Japan by making sure their attack was a surprise. He did this by withholding information from Pearl Harbour's commanders and even by ensuring the attack force wasn't accidentally discovered by commercial shipping traffic. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner stated in 1941: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."

7. Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt

In July, 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell was activated inside Egypt. The ensuing attacks, cleverly designed to look like the work of Arabs, blasted and torched American and British targets. First, the Israeli terrorists firebombed the Alexandria Post Office. Then, they firebombed the US Information Agency libraries: one in Alexandria, and one in Cairo. Then, they firebombed a British-owned Metro-Goldwyn Mayer theatre, a railway terminal, the central post office, and a couple more theatres...
To smuggle their bombs inside the buildings, the terrorists used devices shaped like books, hiding them inside book covers. Once inside, bags filled with acid were placed on top of the nitroglycerin bombs. After several hours, the acid ate through the bags and ignited the nitroglycerin, causing explosions and blazing infernos.

In the early 1950s, the United States was making fast friends with Egypt, taking advantage of the new pan-Arab Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The warming relationship between the US and Egypt caused a very insecure Israel to feel threatened. Nassar also had plans to nationalize the Suez Canal, which had been controlled by the British for decades. Egypt had been known to blockade Israeli shipping through the canal and Israel feared Nassar would make a blockade permanent.
After US President Eisenhower began encouraging the British to leave the Suez Canal Zone, Israel started looking for a way to make the British stay, and a way to remain best buddies with America. And what better way to treat your best friend than to stab them in the back and tell them one of your other friends did it?

David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, thought that Egyptian terrorist attacks against Americans would be a perfect way to cool the growing US/Egypt relationship. Since there were no Egyptians planning attacks against Americans, Ben Gurion's protégés did the next best thing: they recruited Israeli agents to pretend to be Egyptian terrorists.
The top-secret Israeli terrorist cell, Unit 131, had existed since 1948. In 1950, Israel's Directorate of Military Intelligence Aman was created and Israel sent an undercover agent, Colonel Avraham Dar (alias: John Darling, British citizen of the island of Gibraltar), to recruit more members to Unit 131. He also trained them in how to build bombs and terrify Americans and British civilians working and living in Egypt.
Before the terrorist cell was activated, another Israeli agent named Avraham (Avraham Seidenberg) was sent to take control from Avraham Dar. Seidenberg first went to Germany to establish an alias: he assumed the identy of Paul Frank, a former SS officer, complete with underground Nazi connections. By 1954, his new identity was in place and he went to Egypt to take command of Unit 131. Everything was going well for the Israeli terrorists it seemed. But, there was one thing the members of Unit 131 didn't know: their terrorist sleeper cell had itself been infiltrated by the Egyptian intelligence service. The new Unit 131 leader, Seidenberg, had betrayed them to the Egyptians. So, when Unit 131 member Philip Nathanson made his way to bomb the British-owned Rio theatre in Alexandria, not only was he being followed, the Egyptian intelligence service had a fire engine waiting to put out the flames. As Nathanson stood in the ticket line, his bad luck turned worse when one of the bombs in his pocket ignited and then exploded. Nathanson was burned but not killed. As nearby pedestrians shouted warnings and wondered if he was a suicide bomber, Egyptian policemen stepped in, calmed the crowd, and identified Nathanson as one of the terrorists who had been blowing up American and British buildings.
Nathanson was interrogated by Egypt's military intelligence and confessed the whole plot, which led to more arrests. When the Israeli spies were given a public trail, all the details of their terrorist training in Israel came to light.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and Israel's Aman chief, Binyamin Gibli, tried to frame their own Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon. They even offered forged documents as proof. The frame-up worked for a while, so much so that the entire incident is still popularly known as the Lavon Affair. Lavon resigned and Ben Gurion came out of political retirement to replace him as Israel's Defense Minister. However, the truth did finally emerge. In 1960, a review of the inquiry discovered the fake documents, as well as perjury by Seidenberg. A committee of seven Cabinet members cleared Lavon. Although Ben Gurion never admitted fault, he did resign his post as Defense Minister.

8. Operation Northwoods

In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, against American citizens. The head of every branch of the US armed forces gave written approval to sink US ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The idea was to blame the self-inflicted terrorism on Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro, so the American public would beg and scream for the Marines to storm Havana.
The public learned about Operation Northwoods 35 years later, when the Top Secret document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. Among other things, Operation Northwoods proposed:
- Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the US to Jamaica, and having the plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation. An empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial flight's pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed.
- Using a possible NASA disaster (astronaut John Glenn's death) as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for "manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans" if something went wrong with NASA's third manned space launch.
- Blowing up buildings in Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro's involvement in the attacks would be "found" and given to the press.
- Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castro's commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack. That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country's military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war.

Operation Northwoods was only one of several plans under the umbrella of Operation Mongoose. Shortly after the Joint Chiefs signed and presented the plan in March, 1962, President Kennedy, still smarting from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, declared that he would never authorize a military invasion of Cuba. In September, Kennedy denied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation's highest ranking military officer. And by the winter of 1963, Kennedy was dead... killed, apparently, by a Cuban sympathiser in the streets of an American city.

9. Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin

On August 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer, the USS Maddox. The boats reportedly fired torpedoes at the US ship in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, about thirty miles off the Vietnam coast. On August 4, the US Navy reported another unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy.
Within hours, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a retaliatory strike. As the bases for North Vietnamese torpedo boats were bombed, Johnson went on TV and told America: "Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight." The next day, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara assured Capital Hill that the Maddox had only been "carrying out a routine mission of the type we carry out all over the world at all times." McNamara said the two boats were in no way involved with recent South Vietnamese boat raids against North Vietnamese targets.
At Johnson's request, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution pre-approved any military actions Johnson would take. It gave Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam as large as the President wanted. And, true to his large Texas roots, Johnson got a big war: by 1969, over half a million US troops were fighting in Indochina. Despite McNamara's testimony to the contrary, the USS Maddox had been providing intelligence support to South Vietnamese boats carrying out raids against North Vietnam. McNamara had also testified that there was "unequivocable proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the USS Maddox. In fact, the second attack never occurred at all.
At the time of the second incident, the two US destroyers misinterpreted radar and radio signals as attacks by the North Vietnamese navy. It's now known that no North Vietnamese boats were in the area. So, for two hours, the two US destroyers blasted away at nonexistent radar targets and vigorously manoeuvred to avoid phantom North Vietnamese ships. Even though the second "attack" only involved two US ships defending themselves against a nonexistent enemy, the President and Secretary of Defense used it to coerce Congress and the American people to start a war they neither wanted nor needed.
After the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire, Congress decided to put limits on the President's authority to unilaterally wage war. Thus, on November 7, 1973, Congress overturned President Nixon's veto and passed the War Powers Resolution. The resolution requires the President to consult with Congress before making any decisions that engage the US military in hostilities. It is still in effect to this day.

10. The September 11, 2001 Attacks

Like many buildings built in the 1970s, the twin towers were constructed with vast quantities of cancer-causing asbestos. The cost of removing the Twin Tower asbestos? A year's worth of revenues at a minimum; possibly as much as the value of the buildings themselves. The cost to disassemble the Twin Towers floor by floor would have run into the double-digit billions. In addition, the Port Authority was prohibited from demolishing the towers because the resulting asbestos dust would cover the entire city, which it did when they collapsed, resulting in many cancers with a confirmed link to the WTC dust.
Despite its questionable status, in January of 2001, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for the World Trade Center. On July 24, the Port Authority accepted the offer. Silverstein then took out an insurance policy that, understandably, covered terrorist attacks, which happened seven weeks later. To date, Silverstein has been awarded almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies. What was an asbestos nightmare turned into a $1.8 billion profit within seven weeks.

Donald Rumsfeld said about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That bombshell was pretty much forgotten by the next morning. So, as a reward for losing $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, taxpayers patriotically forked over another $370 billion and counting to invade Iraq. True to form, the Pentagon promptly lost $9 billion of that money, too.

Eight days after the attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act was given to Congress. That same week, letters armed with anthrax from a US military lab entered the mail. Subsequently, while Congressional offices were evacuated, examined, cleaned and nasal cavities swabbed, the Patriot Act remained largely unread. Then, with little debate, the Patriot Act became law, giving the Bush administration unprecedented power to access people's medical records, tax records, information about the books they bought or borrowed and the power to conduct secret residential searches without notifying owners that their homes had been searched.

In early 2001, executives from Shell, BP, and Exxon met with Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force while it was developing its new national energy policy. Later, the companies freely admitted interest in profiting from Iraq's oil fields, even before the US invaded Iraq. And now? A new Iraq hydrocarbon law expected to pass in March 2007 will open the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for the next thirty years.

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a Bronze Star recipient with 22 years of experience in intelligence operations, a classified intelligence program codenamed Able Danger had uncovered two of the three 9/11 terrorist cells a year before the attacks and had identified four of the hijackers. Shaffer alerted the FBI in September of 2000, but the meetings he tried to set up with bureau officials were repeatedly blocked by military lawyers. Four credible witnesses have come forward to verify Shaffer's claims.
In August 2001, a Pan Am International Flight Academy instructor warned the FBI that a student (Zacarias Moussaoui) might use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon. The instructor asked "Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?" Moussaoui was then arrested on immigration charges, but despite the repeated urging of the school and local agents, FBI headquarters refused a deeper investigation. The US also received dozens of detailed warnings (names, locations, dates) from the intelligence agencies of Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, India, Argentina, Morocco, Russia, Israel, France and even the Taliban. It would seem that the entire world was onto the bungling Saudi hijackers and somewhat perplexed that the US wasn't taking preventative actions. But in each case the US, as if by design, chose not to investigate. Instead. Condoleezza Rice, on May 16, 2002, stated: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."
We also know that on the morning of 9/11, multiple Air Force war games and drills were in progress. The hijackers would have never made it to their targets without these war games: Operation Northern Vigilance ensured that many jet fighters that would have normally been patrolling the east coast were flying over Alaska and northern Canada in a drill that simulated a Russian air attack, complete with false radar blips.
Remarkably, operation Vigilant Guardian simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector, while real hijackers were in the same airspace. This drill had NORAD and the Air Force reacting to false blips on FAA radar screens. Some of these blips corresponded to real military aircraft in the air posing as hijacked aircraft. That's why when NORAD's airborne control officer, Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, heard Boston claim it had a hijacked airliner, her first words were, "It must be part of the exercise."

Changing colours

If you follow the money, you can see that the people with the most to gain occupied the key military and civilian positions to help 9/11 happen, as well as to cover up the crime. Such is the hallmark of false flag operations throughout history. But the incredible scale of the 9/11 sham, and the sheer number of people who still refuse to see the mountain of truth in front of their eyes...that's what makes the September 11, 2001 attacks the greatest false flag operation of all time.
Hermann Göring stated: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, a book still forbidden in some countries (such as France), wrote: "In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people...will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one."

Joe Crubaugh is a freelance writer, artist, and software consultant. Visit his website.

Source: http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/30/2/

TWENTY-SIX THINGS WE NOW KNOW SEVEN YEARS AFTER 9/11

2008-11-25T13:03:00.002+08:00

http://www.crisispa pers.org/ essays8w/ 26things. htm
<http://www.crisispa pers.org/ essays8w/ 26things. htm>

Has it been so long? - WVNS

Each year around the anniversary of 9/11, I summarize what we ordinary
citizens have learned since that awful day in 2001. This is the seventh
annual look backwards, a 2008 update that contains new information and
surmisings about those horrific events and what followed.

1. One 9/11
Size Fits All. What we now more fully understand is how the CheneyBush
Administration utilized the murderous terrorism of 9/11 as the linchpin
justification for their unfolding domestic and foreign agenda, much of
it illegal, immoral and impeachable. By and large, one can sum up that
overall agenda as: Amass and control power in the U.S. and much of the
world ("full-spectrum dominance"), and, in cahoots with their corporate
supporters such as Halliburton and Blackwater, loot the federal
treasury. All this was to be carried out secretly, with no
accountability.

2. Iraq War Planning Began Before 9/11. We also know more about the
nature of the lies (including forged documents) used by the
Administration to sell the Iraq War, which attack already was in the
planning stages well before 9/11. The first faked document, by CIA
forgers at the behest of White House officials, was a 2005 letter
(back-dated 2001) supposedly coming from the then-Iraqi intelligence
chief to his boss Saddam Hussein mentioning alleged "facts" that
established a tie-in between 9/11, Al-Qaida and Iraq and about Saddam's
supposed purchase of uranium. The official, Tahir Jalil Habbush
al-Tikriti, who had been an informant for the U.S. during the run-up to
the war, actually had written his CIA handlers at the time, reported
author Ron Suskind, that there were no WMD, no 9/11 or Al-Qaida
connections; that letter was deep-sixed by the CIA and the official was
taken into protective custody, hidden away in Jordan and given $5million
for services rendered (which later included his signature on the phony
letter).

The second fake document, which was used by the Brits and Americans in
the run-up to the war, supposedly was from the African nation of Niger.
It was an amateurish botch job (incorrect letterhead, signature of a
minister of state who no longer was in that office, etc.) that came from
the Italian Secret Service, but the idea for it might have originated
elsewhere, perhaps from a clandestine American service. It was designed
to bolster the fiction that Iraq was purchasing uranium "yellowcake"
from Niger. Since the yellowcake theory was of great value to the
CheneyBush plans to bomb Iraq -- as Ambassador Joe Wilson had made plain
in his various articles --the tendency worldwide was to believe that the
U.S. might well have been involved in having the phony letter written.

3. Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11. Similary, we know more about the
illegal and widespread domestic spying ordered by CheneyBush seven
months BEFORE 9/11. We still don't fully understand the reasons for this
top-secret, massive data-mining, to be carried out without proper legal
warrants. But the point is that the CheneyBush Administration, for its
own reasons, and long before 9/11, asked the giant communications
companies to furnish them with the private records of its customers,
which then were passed on to the relevant governmental security
departments. All this new information has made fringe theorists about
9/11 all the more numerous: If CheneyBush did all those illegal things
to fool the population -- the forgeries, the lies, the coverups, the
deceptions, the police-state tactics BEFORE 9/11 -- how far, they ask,
might they have gone to order or carry out or be in some complicit
relationship with the 9/11 attacks?

4. McCain and 9/11/Iraq. We also know that one of the two major
contenders for the presidency in the 2008 elections swallowed the
CheneyBush line about 9/11 and propagandized for the Iraq War and
Occupation because, he said, Iraq was tied to the events of 9/11 and to
Al-Qaida and to WMD stockpiles. None of those was true, but even though
John McCain had problems with how Rumsfeld was managing the war, the
Arizona senator placed himself right in the neo-con corner about the
necessity for the war. He continues to this day to justify the U.S.
Occupation as necessary for a U.S. "victory," whatever that term may
mean -- even, he says, if it it takes another hundred years and
trillions of dollars more. (His opponent, Barack Obama, is more
dedicated to drawing down troops in Iraq, "re-deploying" some of them to
the anti-Taliban war in Afghanistan, and sending the rest home.) So,
with that introduction, let's take a look at the rest of the list. Some
of what follows has appeared in my previous articles, and some is new or
expanded:
9/11 and "the War on Terror"

5. 9/11/Anthrax and Iraq. Let's remember the chronology of how we got
here: The Administration' s far-right domestic agenda was bogged down in
2001 after Jim Jeffords left the Republican caucus and joined the
now-majority Democratic one in the Senate. The murderous terrorism of
9/11 occurred several months later. As did the mysterious anthrax
attacks aimed at Congress and the media, which seven years later was
blamed conveniently on a single scientist at the Army's Fort Detrick
biological weapons lab), who committed suicide a few months ago. Both
the anthrax attack and the 9/11 terror attacks had the effect of
providing the CheneyBush Administration pretty much a free ride in
putting police-state tactics in place. Those tactics were embodied in
the so-called "Patriot Act," which superseded Constitutional
protections, and which succeeded in greasing the wheels for all sorts of
questionable domestic legislation that otherwise might have been bottled
up forever. The planning for an attack on Iraq, as Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill later told us, already had begun at the first cabinet
meetings after Inauguration Day in early 2001. After 9/11, those plans
proceeded apace, even when the intelligence indicated that it was not an
Iraq operation but an al-Qaida terrorist attack, out of Afghanistan.

It appeared that the U.S. military over time would capture or kill Osama
bin Laden in Afghanistan and effectively wipe out most of al-Qaida,
which had attacked America on 9/11. But CheneyBush abruptly pulled the
U.S. forces from Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq, a country that was
no real danger to the U.S. and its allies. (Addendum: By Fall of 2008,
the Taliban regrouped and began mounting more and and more attacks on
U.S. and Western coalition forces in Afghanistan and now once again
control a good share of the country. If the U.S. troops had not been
precipitously pulled out and dispatched to Iraq, instead of taking care
of business in Afghanistan, today's reality there might well have been
significantly different.)

6. Unanswered 9/11 Questions. There still are numerous unanswered
questions about the horrific events of September 11, 2001, mainly
centered around: A. Why Bush sat there in the Florida school for seven
minutes reading the "Pet Goat" book after he'd been informed by his
chief of staff, after the second plane struck the World Trade Center,
that "America is under attack," and why the Secret Service, as they are
trained to do when the President is believed to be in danger, didn't
surround him and get him the hell out of that classroom. The clear
implication is that a delay-operation was in progress. B. Why NORAD
didn't scramble its fighters in time to do anything. (Same implication) .
C. Whether World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed into their
footprints as a result of fire/structural damage or from pre-set
demolition charges (there are reputable scientists on both sides of that
one). D. How to explain all the "put" options on American Airlines and
United Airlines stocks just prior to the attacks, clearly suggesting
someone knew which airlines were going to be hijacked and was trying to
profit from the pending attacks?

But regardless of whether CheneyBush were complicit in the deaths and
destruction that day -- and there is no conclusive proof that they were
-- what we do know is that in the months, weeks and days prior to 9/11,
red-hot warnings about a planned terrorist attack, using planes as
weapons aimed at buildings in New York and Washington, were coming into
the White House from a wide variety of other countries. At the very
least then, CheneyBush and a few other key insiders knew that a
"spectacular" attack was coming and did absolutely nothing. Bush was
presented by the CIA on August 6 with a Presidential Daily Briefing
entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.", which talked
about preparations for plane hijackings, suspected terrorists
surveilling federal buildings in New York, teams of terrorists being
inside the U.S. with explosives. But, even following these dire
warnings, there was no heightening of awareness in the Bush
Administration, no alerting airlines, no sending out photos of al-Qaida
suspects to be on the lookout for, no calling an urgent meeting of
counter-terrorism experts inside the White House to coordinate either a
way of minimizing the damage or dealing with a post-attack response.
Nothing.

One is left with two reasonable alternative explanations:

A: These CheneyBush guys in charge were (and remain) totally over their
heads in terms of governance. They simply didn't have a clue what was
about to happen and what to do about it. Administration actions during
the past seven and a half years supply more than enough evidence that
Bush and his crew are total fuck-ups. It's a reverse-Midas syndrome:
everything they touch turns to excrement. Total bumblers, screwups,
incompetent dolts. B: They knew something major was about to go down
(although 3000 deaths may have been way beyond what they imagined), and
did nothing in order to use those attacks as a rallying point to amass
power and push their agenda through a Congress that otherwise was
antagonistic to them.

7. The Facts of 9/11. We know that the Bush
Administration didn't want the public to learn much, if anything, about
the events of that day. Bush&Co. had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into agreeing to the appointment of the official 9/11 Commission, and
they named as the executive director one of their made men, Philip
Zelikow, who later would be named a high-ranking Administration
official.

As it turned out, the Administration stonewalled many of the
Commission's requests for documents. Moreover, Bush would not testify
under oath and would deign to appear only with Cheney by his side,
(here's my imagined transcript of that testimony.) We later learned that
the commission was so angered by the constantly-shifting stories told by
the Pentagon/NORAD that they were ready to urge that legal charges be
filed against those who testified from those two governmental bodies. In
short, the 9/11 Commission's probe was not exhaustive, leaving many
areas of investigation unplumbed, and the documentation provided by the
Administration was insufficient and often late in arriving. Conclusion:
Even today, many questions remain unsatisfactorily unanswered.

8. PNAC & the Neo-Cons. We know that a FarRight segment of the
conservative movement, by and large former Reagan Administration
officials in exile from power during the Clinton presidency, was
dedicated to using America's sole superpower status to move aggressively
in the world while, they believed, no other country or international
force could put up much resistance. The key neo-con leaders who were
placed in charge of U.S. foreign/military policy after the 2000 election
(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle, Khalilzad, et al.) were
founders of, and affiliated with, The Project for The New American
Century (PNAC), a group that urged the U.S. to use its sole-superpower
muscle in creating Pax Americana "hegemony" over key regions of the
world.

The Bush neo-cons realized that presidents enjoy enormous patriotic
support during wartime, but when the war ends, those leaders lose their
compelling luster, as was the case with President Bush#1. Ergo, Bush#2
would become a PERMANENT wartime president, and those who opposed him
could then be tarred forever with the smear of "unpatriotic" and "hating
America," thus marginalizing their political impact. And it worked: the
Democrats cowered and gave Bush virtually everything he wanted, up until
relatively recently, when occasionally they remembered that they have
spines and stood up and fought as an opposition party should. As they
did more of that, and promised to end the war and reign in CheneyBush
lawlessness, the public swept them into majority control of the House
and Senate in the 2006 elections. (Note: After the election, however,
the Democrats continued funding the war, approved the Administration' s
illegal domestic-surveillan ce, and took "off the table" the possibility
of impeaching Bush and Cheney for their gross abuse of power and of the
Constitution. )

We know that Bush&Co. saw, in Condi Rice's apt term at the time, the
"opportunity" offered by the 9/11 attacks to move quickly and forcefully
with the Administration' s foreign and domestic agenda. PNAC talked about
its Pax Americana plan for global "benevolent hegemony" using a retooled
military. This military transformation would take forever to implement,
a PNAC report said, unless a "new Pearl Harbor" changed the equation in
the public mind. 9/11 came along and was used as that "new Pearl
Harbor." (See "How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer").

We know that after 9/11, Bush seemed to bring the entire country along
with him when he launched an attack on al-Qaida and its
Taliban-government supporters in their Afghanistan homebase. But there's
no oil in that destitute country, and, as Rumsfeld reminded us, not much
worth bombing. Thus, no lessons could be drawn by Middle East leaders
from the U.S. attack. But, as Cheney's secret energy panel was aware,
there was another country in the region that did have oil, and lots of
it, and which could be taken easily by U.S. forces. Thus Iraq became the
object-lesson to other autocratic leaders in the Middle East, especially
in Syria and Iran. If you do not do our bidding, prepare to accept a
massive dose of "shock&awe." You will be removed and replaced by
democratic-looking governments as arranged by the U.S. Control of Iraq's
oil has been at the forefront of U.S. occupation policies in Iraq, and
remains so there and elsewhere as oil and gas become even more
sought-after energy sources.

These neo-con members of PNAC and similar organizations, such as the
American Enterprise Institute and Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, had urged Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein in 1998. But he
demurred, seeing a mostly contained dictator there, whereas Osama bin
Laden in Afghanistan, and those terrorists like him, actually were
successfully attacking U.S. assets inside the country and abroad. But
the PNAC crowd had larger ambitions than simply toppling a brutal Iraqi
dictator. They were after effective control of energy sources around the
globe. To get to that hegemonic point, they developed a philosophy that
included: "pre-emptively" attacking countries that were of no imminent
danger to the U.S., abrogating treaties when they conflicted with U.S.
goals, making sure no other nation or organization (such as the United
Nations) could ever achieve power-parity with the U.S., installing
U.S.-friendly governments to do America's will, expressing a willingness
to use tactical nuclear weapons, and so on. All of these extreme PNAC
suggestions, once regarded as lunatic, were enshrined in 2002 as
official U.S. policy in the National Security Strategy of the United
States of America.

The Iraq Invasion and Occupation

9. Sexing Up the Intel. Given the extreme nature of the neo-con agenda
in fomenting support for an invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush&Co.
had their work cut out for them. Therefore, among the first moves by
Rumsfeld following 9/11 was to somehow try to connect Saddam to the
terror attacks. When the various intelligence agencies reported to
Rumsfeld that there was no Iraq connection to 9/11, and since the CIA
and the other intelligence agencies would not, or could not, supply the
intelligence needed to justify a war on Iraq, Rumsfeld set up his own
rump "intelligence" agency, the Office of Special Plans, stocked it with
political appointees of the PNAC persuasion and soon was stovepiping
cherry-picked raw intel, much of it untrue, from self-interested Iraqi
exiles, straight to Cheney and others in the White House. Shortly
thereafter, the White House Iraq Group -- the in-house marketing cabal
for the war, with such major players as Libby, Rove, Card, Rice, Hadley,
Hughes, Matalin, et al. -- went big-time with the WMD and mushroom-cloud
scares and the suspect melding of Saddam Hussein with the events of
9/11.

Based on this sexed-up and phony intelligence, Cheney, Bush, Rice,
Rumsfeld and the others began warning about mushroom clouds over the
U.S., drone planes dropping biological agents over the East Coast (with
phony photos shown to members of Congress), huge stockpiles of chemical
weapons in Iraq, etc. Secretary of State Colin Powell, regarded as the
most believable of the bunch, was dispatched to the United Nations to
make the case, which he did, reluctantly, by presenting an
embarrassingly weak litany of surmise and concocted allegations. While
the U.S. corporate media was unanimous in its opinion that Powell had
cinched the case, the world didn't buy it. (Powell, who resigned in
2004, has since lamented his role in this charade.) The opposition to
the impending U.S. war on Iraq was palpable and huge: 10 million
citizens throughout the world hit the streets to protest, and former
allies publicly criticized Bush. Only Tony Blair in England eagerly
hitched his wagon to the Bush war-plan, dispatching large numbers of
troops, as it turned out over the objections of many of his closest
aides and advisers.

10. The Big Lie & the Downing Street Revelations. We know that those
advisers warned Blair that he was about to involve the U.K. in an
illegal, immoral and probably unwinnable war that would put U.K. and
U.S. troops in great danger from potential insurgent forces. How do we
know about these inner workings of the Blair government? Because someone
from inside that body leaked the top-secret minutes from those
war-Cabinet meetings, the so-called Downing Street Memos. We also
learned from those minutes that Bush & Blair agreed to make war on Iraq
as early as the Spring of 2002. The intelligence, they decided, would be
"fixed around the policy" to go to war, despite their telling their
legislative bodies, the mass media, and their citizens that no decisions
had been made. In fact, the Bush Administration had let it be known
privately that it had decided to attack Iraq a year before the invasion.
"Fuck Saddam," Bush told three U.S. Senators in March of 2002. "We're
taking him out."

We know that many of Blair's most senior advisors thought the WMD
argument rested on shaky ground, and that without specific authorization
from the United Nations Security Council, the legality of the war was
doubtful. The U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq were not finding any
WMD stockpiles, but the Bush Administration rushed to war anyway. The
haste to begin the war meant that there was little or no proper planning
to secure the peace and reconstruct the country after the major
fighting. Some weeks later, Bush prematurely declared, under a "Mission
Accomplished" banner, that the U.S. had "prevailed" in the Iraq war. The
Iraqi "insurgency" was about to blow up in their faces.

The Downing Street Memos make clear that both the U.S. and U.K. were
well aware that Iraq was a paper tiger, with no significant WMD
stockpiles or link to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, the
major thrust of Bush&Co.'s justification for going to war was based on
these non-existent weapons and 9/11 links. The Big Lie Technique,
repeating the same falsehoods over and over and over, drummed those
falsehoods into Americans' heads day after day, month after month, with
little if any skeptical analysis by the corporate mainstream media,
which marched mostly in lockstep with Bush policy and thinking.
Wolfowitz admitted later that they chose WMD as the primary reason for
making war because they couldn't agree on anything else the public might
accept. But frightening people with talk of nuclear weapons, mushroom
clouds, toxins delivered to the East Coast of the U.S. by Iraqi drone
airplanes and the like would work like a charm in convincing Americans
to go to war.

11. Iran Is Beneficiary of U.S. Policy. We know that the real reasons
for invading Iraq had precious little to do with WMD, with Islamist
terrorists inside that country, with installing democracy, and the like.
There were no WMD to speak of, and Saddam, an especially vicious
dictator, did not tolerate religious or political zealots of any stripe.
No, the reasons had more to do with American geopolitical goals in the
region involving oil, control, support for its ally Israel, hardened
military bases and keeping Iran from having free rein in the region.
However, as it turned out, the invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq
removed the one major buffer against the expansion of Iran's political
and military power in the region. In addition, because the U.S.
Occupation was so incompetently carried out, it pushed Iraq and Iran
into a far closer religious and political alliance than would have been
the case if Saddam had been permitted to remain in power. CheneyBush may
have sacrificed thousands of American dead, tens of thousands of
American wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as "collateral
damage," and now the Administration, which has constantly downsized its
definition of "victory," seems quietly willing to accept a stable
Islamic government that may well turn out to be more attuned to Teheran
than to Washington.

12. Iraq As a Disaster Zone. We know that Bush's war has been a thorough
disaster, built on a foundation of lies, and bungled from the start. The
2007 "surge" of U.S. troops has eased the violence in a military sense,
but the political reconciliation that could bring peace still has not
been made by the warring sects and clans and politicians. In short,
peace has not come, and billions of dollars have been (and continue to
be) wasted or lost in the corrupt system of organized corporate looting
that ostensibly is designed to speed up Iraq's "reconstruction. " Indeed,
so much has Bush's war been botched that the "realists" in the
Administration know the U.S. must get out as quickly as possible if they
are to have any hope of exercising their considerable muscle elsewhere
in the Middle East. But, so far, the neo-con strategy still rules, and
"stay-the-course" remains the operating principle, at least until the
new American President is installed.

13. The Stretched-Thin Military. We know that Bush's Greater Middle East
agenda also is suffering because the U.S. military is spread way thin in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the desertion and suicide rates are high, morale
(especially among Reserve and National Guard troops) is way down as a
result of the never-ending multiple tours of duty, soldiers are not
re-enlisting at the usual clip, recruitment isn't working and deceptive
scams are being used to lure youngsters (many of them gang-members,
felons, psychologically damaged) into signing up. In short, there are no
forces to spare on the ground. There is way too much reliance on air
power or from missiles, which merely deliver a message about U.S.
superiority in the air but with no successful follow-up possible on the
ground. The air attacks result in making the civilian citizens of those
countries even angrier at America, and with little likelihood of success
in forging U.S.-friendly "democratic" governments in Iran, Syria, et
al., since bombed populations tend to support their existing
governments. In short, America's failure in Iraq and Israel's failure in
Lebanon demonstrate the limits of muscle-bound, high-tech armies in the
modern, nationalist- guerrillas world.

14. Hiding Facts from the Public. We know that Bush&Co. made sure that
there would be no full-scale, independent probes of their role in using
and abusing the intelligence that led to war on Iraq. This is the most
secretive Administration in American history, and they want no
investigations of any of their mistakes or corruptions of the democratic
process. The Senate Intelligence Committee, then led by Republican Pat
Roberts, held hearings on the failures lower down the chain, namely at
the CIA and FBI level, and promised there would be followup hearings on
any White House manipulation of intelligence. But, following the 2004
election, Roberts said no purpose would be served in launching such an
investigation. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission did not delve deeply into
how the Bush Administration misused its pre-9/11 knowledge. In short,
this secretive administration made sure that everything was done to head
off at the pass any investigations whatsoever.

After the 2006 elections, many years too late, the now-majority
Democrats eventually began their probe into the Administration' s use of
intelligence to promote the Iraq War. The committee concluded that the
Administration "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in
reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a
result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from
Iraq was much greater than actually existed." Chairman Jay Rockefeller
added: "There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But,
there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect
intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people
that you know is not fully accurate."

The Turn to Tyranny at Home

15. Perilously Close to Dictatorship. We know that Bush has no great
love for democratic processes, certainly not inside the United States.
(On at least three occasions, he has "jokingly" expressed his preference
for dictatorship, as long, he said, as he can be the dictator.) He much
prefers to rule as an oligarch, but to do that, he had to invent legal
justifications that would grant him the requisite power. So he had
longtime lawyer-toady Alberto Gonzales, and Cheney's now-chief-of- staff
David Addington, devise a legal philosophy that would permit Bush to do
pretty much what he wants -- ignore laws on the books, disappear U.S.
citizens into military prisons, authorize torture, spy on citizens'
phone calls and emails, declare martial law and rule by decree, etc. --
whenever Bush says he's acting as "commander-in- chief" during "wartime."

And, since "wartime" is the amorphous "war on terror," a war against a
tactic, there is no end and Bush is home free. There always will be
terrorists trying to do anti-U.S. damage somewhere around the globe, or
inside America, and the "commander-in- chief" will need to respond. Ergo,
goes this logic, Bush (and any successor) is above the law, untouchable,
in perpetuity. Bush&Co. also made sure that U.S. officials and military
troops would not be subject to indictment by any international court or
war-crimes tribunal. However, even with ultra-conservative Bush
appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled several times that the Administration has gone beyond
constitutional limits with regard to its treatment of suspected
terrorist "detainees." But somehow Bush&Co. always manage to postpone
and delay implementation or find ways around the court rulings.

16. Torture As Official U.S. Policy. We know that Gonzales, Addington
and Pentagon and DoJ lawyers beholden to Rumsfeld devised legal
rationales that make torture of suspects official state policy. These
Bush-loyalist lawyers also greatly widened the definition of what is
acceptable interrogation practice -- basically anything this side of
death or terminally abusing internal organs. They also authorized the
"rendering" of key suspects to countries specializing in extreme
torture. After all this, Bush and Rumsfeld professed shock, shock! that
those under their command would wind up torturing, abusing and
humiliating prisoners in U.S. care. But the Administration made sure to
stop all inquiries into higher-up responsibility for the endemic
torture. The buck never stops on CheneyBush's desk. If something goes
wrong (and they never will admit to mistakes), it's always someone
else's fault. If and when Iraq "falls," the names of scapegoats are
being prepared: al-Maliki, Democrats, the "liberal media" and bloggers,
Bill Clinton, et al. Never Cheney, never Bush.

17. The Bill of Rights Goes "Quaint." We know that the Bush
Administration has been able to obtain whatever legislation it needs in
its self-proclaimed "war on terror" by utilizing, and hyping, the
understandable fright of the American people. John Ashcroft and Tom
Ridge emerged periodically to manipulate the public's fright by
announcing yet another "terror" threat, based on "credible but
unverified" evidence. As he departed from his directorate of the
Homeland Security Department, Ridge admitted that he was required to
issue many of those "terror" warnings when there was no justifiable
reason for doing so. It has been demonstrated and Ridge seemed to be
suggesting that those warnings were activated usually when the
Administration was facing an election or when they were having an
especially bad-news day. Meanwhile, Congress (shame on you, Democrats!)
made most of the Patriot Act laws permanent. Unless those can be
repealed, and the juridical tradition of habeas corpus (where a court
has to rule on the legality of a suspect's arrest) re-introduced into
American jurisprudence, that vote will be a nail into the coffin housing
the remains of the Bill of Rights.

18. Outing CIA Agents for Political Reasons. The Bush Administration,
for its own crass political reasons, compromised American national
security by revealing the identity of two key intelligence operatives.
The first was CIA agent Valerie Plame, who had important contacts in the
shadowy world of weapons of mass destruction, especially in dealing with
Iran's nuclear capabilities. Whoever else also was responsible for the
agent's outing, it is clear that Cheney (through Libby) and Rove
disclosed Plame's covert identity in an attempt to punish her husband
for exposing Bush's lie to the nation that Saddam was seeking supplies
of uranium from central Africa. Revealing the identity of a covert CIA
agent is a felony. The other outing of a CIA operative, by Condi Rice,
apparently to show off how successful the Administration was in its
anti-terrorism hunt, was that of a high-ranking mole close to bin
Laden's inner circle. This operative could have kept the U.S. informed
as to ongoing and future plans of al-Qaida. That's Bush's
"war-on-terrorism" at work.

And, no surprise, after Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice
and perjury, Bush commuted his sentence just before Libby was to head
for prison. As usual, there is no accountability for illegal behavior in
the Bush Administration, and miscreants know that if they keep their
mouths shut or tell lies to the police and get caught, they have a
guaranteed Get-Out-of-Jail- Free card.

19. Do You Know If Your Vote IsCounted?
We know that America's vote-counting system is corrupted.
Sophisticated statistical analysis along with wide-scale exit-polling,
suggests strongly that the 2000 and 2004 presidential election results
were fiddled with by the private companies that tally the votes. These
companies are owned by far-right Republican supporters, but the same
objection would be lodged if Democrats owned the companies. It has been
demonstrated publicly that those who control the software or who hack
into the easily-penetrated system can manipulate the vote totals without
anybody being the wiser.

There are no good reasons to "outsource" vote-counting to private
corporations. These are the same companies who make and program the
voting machines, who refuse to permit inspection of their software, and
whose technicians have behaved suspiciously on election nights in 2000
in Florida, in 2002 in Georgia, and in Ohio and Florida in 2004.

And we haven't even mentioned Rove's dirty-tricks department whose
function has been, by hook or by crook, to lower the number of potential
Democrat voters, especially minority voters; a favorite tactic is to
purge hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters from the voting
rolls in advance in key states such as Florida and Ohio. (As I write
this, the GOP in Ohio is lobbying for 600,000 voters to undergo
electoral scrutiny, most of them probably leaning Democratic, with many,
perhaps several hundred thousand, to be stricken from the voting rolls.)
Various states were concerned enough about touch-screen computer-voting
to order significant changes in equipment. But because the same
companies control the secret counting of the votes, unless the
vote-tabulating system can be changed soon, the integrity of our
elections will be suspect into the far future. Even if all the other
reforms were implemented for November's federal election, they would
mean nothing without the guarantee of honest tabulation.

20. No Privacy Anymore. We also now know that even before 9/11,
CheneyBush authorized massive data-mining of Americans' phone calls and
emails, along with other domestic spying operations, many of them in
clear violation of the FISA law establishing a separate, secret court to
rule on requests for eavesdropping warrants. There was a flurry of
outrage about citizens' privacy being breached in such an obviously
illegal manner, but a few months ago Democrats joined Republicans in
giving retroactive cover for such domestic-spying and even gave
post-facto immunity to the giant communications corporations who joined
in breaking the law.

21. Purging the Body Politic. We now know that CheneyBush, angered by
the unwillingness of the intelligence analysts at the CIA and State
Department to cook the intel books for political reasons, conducted
purges of recalcitrant analysts at CIA and State.

There also were purges in the Justice Department -- including the use of
illegal partisan criteria in an attempt to keep independent- minded
jobseekers from being hired -- so that only "loyal Bushies" (their term)
would be in place, those who would do the bidding of the White House
without opposition or questioning. And so the DOJ, under Bush toady
Alberto Gonzales, fired at least nine U.S. Attorneys around the country
and replaced them with their own guys. They tried to pretend that the
firings were the result of poor performance ratings, but that wasn't the
case. It was simply partisan, to help guarantee GOP control of the
election and indicting process through which the Democratic Party and it
supporters could be legally hassled in court or likely Democratic voters
kept from the polls. A side-effect of Bush&Co. putting their own U.S.
Attorneys in power would be protection for themselves and their
supporters from criminal charges. The resulting public furor got
Gonzales canned, but his replacement, Michael Mukasey, continues in the
same tradition of representing Bush and Cheney as presidential counsel,
rather than representing the Constitution and the American people's
interests. In short, not much has changed at the DoJ.

22.There Is No Real Economic Plan. We know that the Bush Administration
paid off its backers (and itself) by giving humongous tax breaks, for 10
years, to the already wealthy and to large corporations. In addition,
corporate tax-evasion was made easier via offshore listings and by
laying off thousands of IRS auditors of high-end returns. All this was
done at a time when the U.S. economy was in a sorry state and when the
treasury deficit from those tax-breaks was growing even larger from the
Iraq/Afghanistan/ "war-on-terror" costs. (Those war costs are now closing
in on a TRILLION dollars! and Congress continues to grant Bush's
requests for several hundred billion more). So far as we know, the Bush
Administration has no plans for how to retire that debt and no real plan
(other than the discredited "trickle-down" theory) for restarting the
economy and creating well-paying jobs for long-time employees, many of
whom have had their positions outsourced to foreign lands. The economy
is in such desperate shape in late-2008 that the Administration' s and
McCain's lack of a plan to turn things around is at the heart of the
upcoming election, and the issue could decide the race.

23. Drowning Government In a Bathtub. We know that the HardRight
conservatives who control Bush policy don't really care what kind of
debt and deficits their policies cause; in some ways, the more the
better since, as GOP honcho Grover Norquist has admitted, they want to
shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the
bathtub." They want to decimate and starve popular social programs from
the New Deal/Great Society eras, including, most visibly, Head Start,
Social Security, Medicare (and real drug coverage for seniors), student
loans, welfare assistance, public education, etc. Bush's plan to
privatize a huge chunk of the Social Security System is still out there
as a goal -- McCain is on board -- though Republicans are keeping quiet
about it.

24. Privatizing Government Functions. We know that in addition to trying
to privatize Social Security and other government programs, CheneyBush
have begun privatizing the military, partially through its all-volunteer
army and by employing mercenaries ("independent contractors" ) to carry
out numerous national-security functions, such as
intelligence- gathering. (It's estimated that about 130,000 such
mercenaries are on the ground in Iraq, close to the same number as
official U.S. military forces.) The corporate army known as Blackwater
is used not only in Iraq but was used domestically as well, to police
New Orleans after the Katrina disaster. Private corporations built and
presumably will run internment centers around the U.S. in the event of a
natural or terrorist disaster. Under the ambiguous provisions of
martial-law, it is possible that those who too actively oppose
government policy could be classified as aiding and comforting
"terrorists" and be housed in those camps.

25. Who Cares What You Drink or Breathe? We know that Bush environmental
policy (dealing with air and water pollution, mineral extraction,
national parks, and so on) is an unmitigated disaster, giving pretty
much free rein to corporations whose bottom lines do better when they
don't have to pay attention to the public interest. It's the worst sort
of grab-the-money- and-run scenario. Perhaps the best worst example of
the Administration' s attitude toward protecting the public's health can
be seen in the EPA giving the green light for residents and workers to
safely return to their homes and jobs in Lower Manhattan shortly after
the WTC Towers fell seven years ago, even though EPA scientists had
determined that the air was grossly polluted and dangerous.

26. It's Faith Over Science, Myth Over Reality. We know that this "my
mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts" attitude shows up most
openly in how science is disregarded by the Bush Administration in favor
of faith-based reasoning. A good example would be the issue of global
warming. Some of this non-curiosity about reality may be based in
fundamentalist religious, even Apocalyptic, beliefs. Much of Bush's
bashing of science is designed as payback to his fundamentalist base,
but the scary part is that a good share of the time he actually seems to
believe what he's saying, about evolution vs. creationism, stem-cell
research, abstinence education, censoring the rewriting of government
scientific reports that differ from the Bush party line, cutbacks in R&D
grants for the National Science Foundation, etc., ad nauseum. This
closed-mind attitude helps explain, on a deeper level, why things aren't
working out in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. Reality, to them,
is an annoyance that is best ignored.

AMERICA OR GERMANY IN THE '30S?

In sum, we know that permanent-war policy abroad and police-state
tactics at home are taking us further into a kind of American fascism
domestically and an imperial foreign policy overseas. All aspects of the
American polity are infected with the militarist Know-Nothingism
emanating from the top, with governmental and vigilante-type crackdowns
on protesters, dissent, free speech, freedom of assembly happening
regularly on both the local and federal levels. (You need look no
further than the martial-law behavior of federal, state and local
agencies in pre-emptively arresting and disciplining would-be protesters
at both the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2008.) More and
more, America is resembling Germany in the early 1930s, with group
pitted against group while the central government amasses more and more
power and control of its put-upon citizens, and criticizing The Leader's
policies is denounced as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

The good news is that after suffering through seven-plus years of the
CheneyBush presidency, and despite the Bush-compliant corporate
mass-media that often disgraces the journalistic profession, the
public's blinders are falling off. The Republicans can rely on no more
than 35% of the voting population for "base" support. The 2006 defeat of
the Republicans in the House and Senate and Tom DeLay's fall from power
are good symbols of this, and the true nature of these men and their
regime is finally starting to hit home. Cheney is widely acknowledged as
the true power behind the throne, and Bush is seen for what he is: an
insecure, uncurious, arrogant, dangerous, dry-drunk bully who is
endangering U.S. national interests abroad with his reckless and
incompetently- managed wars, his wrecking of the U.S. economy at home,
and with his over-reaching in all areas. It goes without saying that had
a Democratic president and vice president behaved similarly to Bush and
Cheney, they'd have been in the impeachment dock in a minute. Given all
these scandals and more, and the loss of public support for the Iraq war
and Republican policies in general, it would seem that the Democrats are
in an enviable position to take back the White House in 2008.

DEMS DOING "BUSINESS AS USUAL"

But the Democrats, who were given the majority in Congress by voters
anxious and desperate for major change, seem content to fritter away
their political advantage by nibbling around the edges of CheneyBush
policy but rarely attacking them frontally, especially on the continuing
war in Iraq and a possible attack on Iran coming down the pike, and on
impeachment. It's more or less business as usual in the nation's
capitol.
It's possible that this inaction of Democratic leadership is a result of
their own complicity in many of the worst decisions of the past eight
years. Or perhaps they believe that because the war is so unpopular and
the scandal-ridden GOP is self-destructing from within, the Dems should
just keep their heads down and coast to a victory in 2008. In Barack
Obama, they have a charismatic candidate who mobilizes millions with his
promise of hope and change.

But a lot can happen between now and November that could prove
disastrous or wonderful for Democratic chances. It's possible that the
positive GOP momentum with Sarah Palin could lead the Republican ticket
to victory. Or the never-ending series of scandals in Sarah Palin's
political life could help sink John McCain's chances. Or Bush could make
some sort of "peace" agreement with Iran. Or he could bomb Iran. Or
announce the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Or Biden or Obama
could self-destruct in some embarrassing way. Anything is possible in
American politics. The Democrats are not politically pure, to be sure.
Too many (including, to a certain extent, Obama) are beholden to the
same interests that have corrupted the Republicans during the CheneyBush
years. However, in enough instances that matter -- moving away from the
Iraq War, naming less ideological judges to the Supreme Court, paying
attention to Constitutional protections of citizens' rights, acting on
global warming, beefing up governmental regulation to protect the
environment, etc. -- the Democrats would be different enough to start to
turn the ship of state away from its reckless, dangerous extremism and
back more toward the center and maybe even, on some issues, in the
direction of progressive liberalism.

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has
taught at universities in California and Washington, worked as a
writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and
currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers. org). To comment: crisispapers@ hotmail.com .

Two stories worth reading!

2008-11-09T16:34:00.003+08:00

(Both true stories)

Story One

Many years ago, Al Capone virtually owned Chicago. Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic. He was notorious for enmeshing the windy city in everything from bootlegged booze and prostitution to murder.

Capone had a lawyer nicknamed "Easy Eddie". He was his lawyer for a good reason - Eddie was very good! In fact, Eddie's skill at legal manoeuvring kept Big Al out of jail for a long time.

To show his appreciation, Capone paid him very well. Not only was the money big, but also, Eddie got special dividends. For instance, he and his family occupied a fenced-in mansion with live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. The estate was so large that it filled an entire Chicago City block.

Eddie lived the high life of the Chicago mob and gave little consideration to the atrocity that went on around him. Eddie did have one soft spot, however. He had a son that he loved dearly.

Eddie saw to it that his young son had clothes, cars, and a good education. Nothing was withheld. Price was no object. And, despite his involvement with organized crime, Eddie even tried to teach him right from wrong. Eddie wanted his son to be a better man than he was.

Yet, with all his wealth and influence, there were two things he couldn't give his son - he couldn't pass on a good name or a good example.

One day, Easy Eddie reached a difficult decision. Easy Eddie wanted to rectify wrongs he had done. He decided he would go to the authorities and tell the truth about Al "Scarface" Capone, clean up his tarnished name, and offer his son some semblance of integrity.

To do this, he would have to testify against The Mob, and he knew that the cost would be great.

So... he testified.

Within the year Easy Eddie's life ended in a blaze of gunfire on a lonely Chicago Street. But, in his eyes, he had given his son the greatest gift he had to offer, at the greatest price he could ever pay.

Police removed from his pockets a rosary, crucifix, religious medallion and a poem clipped from a magazine. The poem read:

The clock of life is wound but once,
And no man has the power
To tell just when the hands will stop
At late or early hour.
Now is the only time you own.
Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time.
For the clock may soon be still.

Story Two

World War II produced many heroes. One such man was Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare. He was a fighter pilot assigned to the aircraft carrier Lexington in the South Pacific.

Wikipedia tells of the early life of Edward O'Hare.

Butch became the Navy's first Ace of WWII, and the first Naval Aviator to win the Congressional Medal of Honor.

A year later Butch was killed in aerial combat at the age of 29.

His home town would not allow the memory of this WW II hero to fade, and today, O'Hare Airport in Chicago is named in tribute to the courage of this great man.

So, the next time you find yourself at O'Hare International give some thought to visiting Butch's memorial displaying his statue and his Medal of Honor. It's located between Terminals 1 and 2.

What do these two stories have to do with each other?

Butch O'Hare was Easy Eddie's son.

Leave No Comrade Behind

2008-08-25T18:04:00.002+08:00

(The eighth wonder of the world - how we go on with our lives while they lie to us every second of every minute of every hour of every day. Damn! - jin)

August 7, 2008 — crescentandcross

Leaving no one behind is a time-honored tradition, from the battle fields of Gettysburg, Hamburger Hill, Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Bulge, Wake Island, etc, etc, etc. This is not a tradition of the United States but of all countries that find themselves in wars and conflicts, whether on the ground, in the skies or on the seven seas.

On the battle fields of this once-great nation called the United States they would bury the dead with honor so as not to forget their service in fighting for their country. Whether it was the North or South, in Europe, Asia or wherever Americans have fought and died they have been honored for the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Many brave men in all wars have risked their own lives so they may save the life of another, and as Jesus Himself said, ‘no greater love exists than that a man lay down his life for another’. You can’t teach this type of dedication in any school nor can you order anyone to put himself in harm’s way to save another and guarantee that that order is followed.

The type of men who put themselves in harm’s way to save another is in the soul of that person. With no hesitation you react–there is no time for thinking, it just happens and it is a gift that comes from God. In most wars, even the enemy has the dignity to treat and care for the captured or killed, just as they would want there own treated. I am not suggesting this is always the case, as indeed some are tortured or abused in many different manners. Unfortunately this happens in war. When it does happen however, normally the abusers are tried in a court and hung until dead or in prison as they very well should be.

I was in a situation during the six day war between Israel and the Arab states,

being on a ship called the USS Liberty. What a wonderful name, to be put on a ship which stands for what is so great about America–our freedoms, our respect for one another, the constitution, bill of rights, all meant to protect the citizens of America.

All of that pride for my country and for what it stands all flew out the window at two o’clock in the afternoon on June 8, 1967, a bright sunny day when our beautiful flag with her beautiful stars and stripes were flying in the warm breeze coming over our deck. In just seconds our flag was in tatters, holes in her and shot down. The men on deck where screaming in agony from shrapnel wounds peppering there flesh and leaving huge wounds that bled profusely. I saw the greatness in mankind that day, the greatness of the American fighting men aboard Liberty as other sailors put their lives on the line to save their helpless comrades, braving rockets, canons, amour-piercing fifty-caliber machine gun fire as the Jewish state and its assassins shot at our fire-fighters and stretcher bearers. I saw men put their lives on the line to retrieve the dead on the exposed weather decks, I saw men fighting fires on the bridge bravely from the napalm Israel dropped on our ship that engulfed it in flames. Men below the water line bravely stood their ground with five torpedoes on their way to sink our ship, the Liberty. In the communication spaces the men stayed, awaiting certain death in the engine room and the same in the fire room as these brave American sailors would not abandon their general quarters stations and all for the greater good of the crew and our ship.

One of the torpedo’s struck our ship on the starboard side in the communication spaces, resulting in the deaths of twenty five sailors and Marines who were blown to bits. The blast was so powerful it picked our ship up out of the water and dropped her back onto the sea with a thunderous rumble.

The word was passed to abandon ship. All of our life rafts had been destroyed except for three. We put them over the side to put our most seriously wounded in them. Two of rafts were shot out of the water and a third was taken aboard one of the three attacking Israeli torpedo boats, a blatant war crime to say the very least. Troop-carrying helicopters sent to our ship hovered overhead with armed commandoes ready to board us and kill the rest of us. They were so close you could see the hate in their bloodthirsty eyes and to call it frightening is the understatement of the century. They stayed for awhile and left, but we did not find out until much later why the did not board our ship and murder the rest of the crew. To add insult to injury we had been identified by Israel as American and friendly many hours before the attack but they attacked the only ‘friend’ they have nevertheless.

When all was said and done the attack lasted about as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor and left behind two thirds of the crew either dead or wounded. Over eight hundred rocket and cannon holes in her skin, napalm burning us up, and a hole in the side of our ship you could fit a house in it. We were listing badly to the starboard side and praying our ship would not roll over on us.

The Liberty crew is one of the most decorated ships in Naval history. Our ship was so heavily damaged it is second to none including if it can be believed during WWII. Only the hand of God kept our good ship Liberty afloat and all the experts say we should have gone down and gone down fast.

Now the most shameful part of American history is not that our ship was attacked by an enemy of the United States but rather by our so called ‘ally’– Israel. They used unmarked jet aircraft to attack our virtually unarmed ship to mask the true identity of our attackers. We got a message out to the sixth fleet that we were under attack to the USS Saratoga battle group and the USS America battle group within fifteen minutes of the start of the attack. Rescue aircraft were sent to our aid only to be recalled by John McCain JR. Admiral Commander in Chief United States Naval Forces, it is none other that his own son, Senator John McCain son who is in the Presidential race. Can you imagine the gaul it took to recall rescue air craft when an American ship is under attack by an unknown government? Our ship was in international waters doing what we were ordered to do and had every right to be there.

We had no idea who was attacking us until the torpedo boats came after us, then we could see the boats markings and the Star of David on their flags. We almost fell over in shock, as we thought it was an Arab state doing the murdering, not Israel. Help never did come to our aid, unbelievable as it may sound, until eighteen hours after the attack, disgraceful indeed.

On Sunday Admiral Isaac Kidd came aboard our ship and put the fear of God in all of us, ordering us never to speak of the attack to anyone–family members, friends, not even to God Himself–NO ONE. It was made clear to us that if we broke those orders he would make sure we ended up in prison or worse and worse meant DEAD and thus made us part of the cover up.

At Arlington National Cemetery there is a mass grave with six men buried, only body parts, never to be identified. On the very large head stone there is no mention of who killed these Americans. The only reason for that is to protect Israel and to keep the 41-year old cover-up in place.

Israel gets a pass on cold-blooded murder and our government is their biggest fans. They will not tell the truth about what really happened to the finest ship that ever was commissioned into the United Sates Navy fleet.

Bringing it full-circle, ‘Leave no comrade behind’ does not pertain, does not mean a thing when it comes to Israel. Our government left the United States behind. Israel not only attacked our ship and got by with it, ISRAEL ATTACKED YOU, MY FELLOW AMERICANS, AND GOT BY WITH IT.

And as bad as this is, it gets worse my friends, for history will repeat itself if ‘we the people’ don’t react to this brutal crime, get the truth out and let America know what Israel did to all of us and continues to do so with the help of our very own government since June 8 1967. No one should get by with cold-blooded murder of America’s sons and the United States of America should not get by with leaving their comrades behind to be slaughtered. This is a crime in itself.

Phillip F Tourney

Survivor USS Liberty

June 8 1967

tonktime5@yahoo.com

Are All Muslims Terrorists?

2008-08-04T19:14:00.003+08:00

This is an interesting watch.
Shows that humanity is still alive.
The question is - for how much longer?

Everybody Knows!

2008-07-22T10:48:00.003+08:00

Everybody Knows!
Jim Kirwan
7-21-8

"CHANGE" sounded like a really catchy thought two years ago, before we began this non-stop farce of political selections, amid the mountains of propaganda that rise from the open wastelands of the never-ending lies.

'Everybody knows' that all government's lie; the bigger the government, the bigger the lies. Most people also lie, but only politicians and criminals seek to make a career out of lying. Yet most Americans still believe that they live in a free country with laws that govern this society and protect the citizens from any and all attacks: because to fail to believe in this; is to be "Un- American" in some way.

The truth is that we have been using Doublespeak & Newspeak for so long now that many actually believe that "lies are truth" and that "freedom is slavery." The facts are that we have been living on the edge of CHANGE almost exclusively, or at least since Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "The Great Society."

The real history is far too long and dusty for most to care about. So let's begin with the beginning of the end of our own time, which seriously began during Harry S. Truman's stint in the Oval Office. HST brought us the Atom Bomb and the end of the Second World War in the Pacific. He also created the CIA and the National Intelligence Agency; the same NIA that took over the day-to-day running of the federal government from the congress. Truman also pushed the idea of "Israel," as a "new state" to be decided upon by the U.N. "Harry" was however known to the public for his famous desk plate which read "The Buck Stops Here," and for firing General Douglas MacArthur.

HST was followed by Eisenhower who presided over the formation of the military-industrial (and congressional) complex, while he slept his way through his presidency, between golf games. He was remembered for the single line of warning he left for the world upon his departure from office: warning us all about the creation that was actually formed on his watch. It was during these years that the revolving doors of government service began to lead directly to multi-million dollar profits for the connected who had figured out how to vote themselves money at the public's expense. This was the era of the Gray Flannel Suit and all things 'Corporate' were great and good.' America was in love with consumerism and two-car garages, in the Burbs: however the price for all this company loyalty was the beginning of the end of anything beyond the all-consuming passionate pursuit of money!

It was the 50's and the 'Beats' were heard from in small towns and cities across the land As Allen Ginsberg's HOWL made its paperback way into the heartland; the revolt of the young against this mindless pre-occupation was finally on ~

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,

starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for

an angry fix,

angelheaded hipsters, burning for the ancient heavenly connection

to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,"

~ And the youth of the late 1950's began to vote with their feet against the sell-out by their parents and the sterile corporate lives that too many had begun to hate. The 'Beats' were educated but not tempted by the kind of 'security' offered by the soulless corporate world. Thought mattered to these people, as did excesses of all kinds, which killed so many in the end.

With the end of the Beats, came the beginnings of the Viet Nam War and a whole new generation called the Hippies. Drop-outs druggies, flower-children free-love advocates and a whole range of wanderers, drifters and general non-conformists, most of whom simply hated any limitations on their 'care-free' lives. But with the war, the 'purity' of the pre-pubescent children in the streets of San Francisco and elsewhere begin to lose its promise, in the direct degree, to which the drug culture began to reclaim the ancient ways of capital, and all the "isms" that naturally flow from that.

During this same period the old-world-order was re-inventing itself once more and beginning to test the limits of its new found status, beneath the ominous shield of the Cold War. 'Communism' was the boogie man of the hour, especially since it was internationally linked with the labor movement which threatened the elite with loss of control over the economic-slavery-class-which is where their corporate wealth came from. So discrediting communism became synonymous with stopping the international growth of trade unions, at any price!

They used the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings, to drive home their points, by instilling terror and fear into people in the government and the motion picture industry. Senator Joe McCarthy led this charade and was assisted by staff attorney's Richard Nixon and Robert Kennedy; with Ronald Reagan serving as the scapegoat, who was then the head of the Screen Actors Guild. The Blacklist was created by this committee and valuable lives were destroyed, in this opening bid to marginalize "political thought" for the nation-despite constitutional provisions against exactly that!

At the same time the fledgling Corporatocracy was beginning to get its collective act together, while they used Corporate Welfare, the IMF and the World Bank to subjugate dozens of struggling nations around the planet-supposedly in the "national security interests" of the United States. However in reality this was just bare- knuckled bloody-capitalism, and it worked!

In 1970 Nixon replaced Johnson until he was forced out without facing impeachment proceedings that should have been held, but because too many key congressional players would have also been charged, Nixon was allowed to resign. He was followed by Ford who pardoned him (as was pre-agreed by all involved) and that gave us Carter & the Iran hostages that led directly to Reagan.

But back when JFK was in the White House, America was not afraid of itself or of much of anything else. Then it was November 22, 1963 and JFK had been in the middle of denying nuclear weapons to Israel only weeks before, when he was assassinated in Dallas and now the American-world turned black. Jack was replaced by a blood enemy of his, Lyndon Baines Johnston of Texas, and America had its second treasonous 'leader' since Harry Truman.

With Kennedy's death the Vietnam War belonged to LBJ who then brought us the Great Society, The War on Poverty, and the Age of Contradictions. "The Great Society" was the first blow against a living wage for the middle class; just as "The War on Poverty" was created not to solve poverty, but to expand that condition to the middle class by initiating the first of many redistribution of wealth schemes. These masqueraded as "WARS" to improve the lot of Americans and their hard won earnings. But the "New Age" LBJ ushered in was marked by the introduction of Doublespeak for government officialdom as well as for everyone else who wanted to be seen as "players" in the New (NOT Great) Society. (1)

LBJ was duplicitous and the second of several would-be dictators of America. His social engineering packages began the cultural destruction of the nation and the set-up the socialist-corporate- models for the unfettered greed of the ever-expanding corporate states within this country: Socialism for the Corporations; and Fascism for the poor and middle classes-but at this stage velvet gloves still covered the iron fists of state-fascism.

Along the way a gruesome and unbelievable thing took place during the 'Six-Day-War' in 1967. That is when Israel tried to sink the USS Liberty, an unarmed American spy ship off the coast of Israel. During the attack the ship managed to get out a call for assistance and US Navy fighters were scrambled to come to her aid. But at the last minute the fighters were ordered to turn back by the Pentagon. Not satisfied with this order the US squadron commander ordered the jets to return to help the Liberty, at which point LBJ told that commander to stand down and 'I want that ship on the bottom of the Mediterranean!' The 'investigation of this "incident" was a charade that has no equal in US military history, and it was successfully covered up by the Pentagon and the US media until very recently-to the disgrace of everyone involved. (2)

This cover-up left bloody footprints, because until very recently few could fathom why any American president would ever dare to order such a thing to happen. Who could be that powerful to order LBJ to call for that outcome; only one country comes to mind and that is Israel. Who stood to gain the most from JFK's death, if not LBJ: Who had the motive and means to carry out the assassination of a sitting US president? I cannot prove that this is true, but it would certainly explain a great deal about why the US never challenges anything that Israel wants done in the world- regardless of the cost. At the very least this ought to be officially investigated-and that'll happen on the 32nd day of next month-no doubt!

Simultaneously, back in the late 1970's the extreme left with its Political Correctness was also busy tearing this nation to pieces, and creating barriers everywhere for their own twisted 'new- realities.' The War upon Americans was an equal-opportunity attack, in which CHANGE was the one true weapon that was used to destroy and desecrate everything of critical value to the lives of most of us. It was from the Left that we got Political Correctness and Zero Tolerance along with every kind of barrier between all the different races, religions and even genders.(3)

All of the above was "CHANGE" yet nobody apparently knew that. Because it received no in-depth coverage, and soon the radical nature of its real purposes joined the political sideshow of the investigations into the death of Kennedy-that ended in the official pack of lies issued by the Warren Commission.

Many potential leaders were also murdered most prominently among these were RFK, and Martin Luther King along with others like Malcolm X, and more recently Senator Wellstone and John F. Kennedy Jr. Isn't it strange that only those opposed to the Owners seem to meet with violent ends-while the dinosaurs in power just keep on living like animated cadavers.

Vietnam was the first of the 'new wars' for corporate greed and global power, in the middle of the Cold War with the USSR. But that war was televised and covered to a degree that let the public know enough to demand an end to it. Afterwards, the Corporatocracy bought up the media in order to prevent this situation from ever- again interfering with the plans for the NWO, or any of its global plans for world dominance over all jobs, while at the same time removing all controls over price-fixing, Anti-trust laws, excess- profits taxes, and virtually everything else that had once kept our criminally-minded would-be-owners at bay.

With the 1980's came "Morning in America" and the Regan Revolution which began to decimate the remaining key components in everyday life. "Greed is Good" was their motto. When Ronnie crushed the Air Traffic Controller's Union and essentially fired all 11,000 members-that marked the official end of any thoughts about the viability of unions in the USA. Simultaneously Regan's Vice- President, George H.W. Bush, fresh from a stint as head of the CIA, negotiated the release of the American hostages held for 444 days in Iran (this was done before the election so that when Ronnie won, the first thing that would happen is that all the hostages would be released). He did this by agreeing to secretly and illegally sell weapons to Iran (the Arms for Hostages Scandal) and Poppy was granted total immunity from any disclosure in the first official act of his son, the 43rd president, George W. Bush.

The Reagan administration went on to create the Death Squads that were used in Central and South America in the 1980's and early 1990's. This involved drug running and weapons smuggling by the CIA and the DEA, in an effort to maintain control over drugs and guns in the Western Hemisphere. With this failure of the War on Drugs, government itself became the dealer. The adventures of Oliver North were part of this charade and America quietly became a rogue-state, no different than the so-called 'Banana Republics' where we were supposedly still fighting communism!

By 1995 Newt Gingrich declared his 'Contract on America' that featured shutting down the government as the way of coercing congress to "play ball" or face certain failure in any political future: This very public political murder killed politics and ended the pretence of a two-party system that we once had. While there had always been degrees of corruption in the past, with the arrival of the Reagan Era the three braches of government became officially just two; and with the death of congress we lost our "public representation." This was followed on December 12, 2000 (with the interference in the Florida vote) when the Supreme Court too lost its independence and left the nation with only one branch of government-the now criminally-treasonous 'executive' and his powers as 'the Decider.'

The presidency has been a dictatorship since even before George W. Bush took his stolen oath of office! And now eight years on we still behave as if the two year long campaign for the presidency has meaning to the public. The game is fixed, the choice was rigged by the owners-and after two stolen elections the public apparently still believes that voting matters and that the people they pay to represent them will actually listen to them. Can the public still believe that congress will go against their own private interests just to honor their oath to the Constitution: That same founding document which these same people have been destroying, both secretly and publically for the last eight years! The selections do matter, but not to ordinary people because this is no longer "our" government.

By the time Clinton began we were already finished, but there were still some loose ends that needed to be cleaned up. Clinton's job was to privatize all that was left of what the public had once owned and controlled. The FCC was tasked with destroying all competing interests in media: newspapers, television, radio and print: and they've been very thorough! One of Clinton's star accomplishments was the Telecommunications Act, and all of its subsequent expansions. He and Hillary also oversaw the gutting of much of the social legislation that remained from Roosevelt's days and the congress joined with the White House in removing the fire- walls that would have prevented the current crisis in banking and commerce, which allowed the financial outrages that have led us to the brink of collapse today. But Slick-Willy also brought us the big-time fast-tracking of GATT and NAFTA and paved the way for similar trade associations throughout this Hemisphere as well. Clinton also secretly oversaw the beginnings of the North American Union, (NAU), and the creation of a number of the components so necessary to the chessboard for the acting out of what came after 911. (4)

Then came "the Decider" to wrap it all up into a very public and very ugly Empire! This too has been composed of nothing but change: CHANGE that now threatens the entire world, with massive slaughter and destruction for the private profits of the few that will end the planet as we knew it, and hasten the collapse of all authority that doesn't come from the barrel of a gun!

Why do we pay taxes, or the salaries of these imposters that occupy those offices in the state houses or in Washington D.C.? The servants have taken over the mansion and we have refused to do anything about it. Consequently our silence is taken for compliance and the abuse gets worse with every passing day! In fact it has been all these CHANGES that have brought all this about-yet-the newbie's in this presidential year haven't got a clue!

Our foreign policies are courting oblivion, and yet the 'players' are the same ones that got us into this nightmare with our eyes wide shut against all constructive doubt or even any questions. Have you noticed that no one is ever fired for their failures on the job! This has to do with why the Decider began his political tyranny with; "You're either with us or against us," the true mind-set of any professional criminal. There is no longer any loyalty to the Constitution or the moral imperative, there is only loyalty to the Corporations and to the power-structure that controls them all. The US is no longer a nation of laws-we are a Barbarian rogue-state-that answers to no law except the law of the corporate jungle!

That's a bit of what happened to us, but what our silence and inattention has created goes far beyond destroying just our nation- we have threatened the world with semi-extinction. We have created crimes against humanity and supported a state that makes Nazi Germany look like an amateur. Millions of people have died and millions more have been crippled, tortured, deported or emotionally destroyed, not to mention the millions that our actions have permanently displaced: all because our owners want it all! This appears to be a CHANGE from what we once said we stood for, but since everything is secret how can these be measured!

If we really sought to CHANGE things we could make a carburetor that gets between 60 and 100 miles to the gallon and we could commit to changing everything about the way we look at our union with the natural world and the environment. There is at least three times as much of an economy to be made from resource uses and infrastructure repair than from oil and gas, but that will not happen so long as this private-stranglehold remains upon the world for the rights to all the oil and all the water.

We could put every man woman and child to work revitalizing our infrastructure (instead of selling off our roads and natural resources wholesale to other nations): and if we were really serious we could bring back jobs and punish those who fled this country for no regulations and unlimited profits. But all of this takes work and a real commitment to living under the rule of law- and that is much harder to resurrect than any commercial challenge could ever be!

On the plus side, the one thing that the Owners are not counting on is that thanks to the volume and variety of all the lies that have undercut our national foundations-the public is rapidly approaching saturation with this farce on every front. There is the whisper of a thought-form growing with every new lie poured over all the old ones. No longer can the public simply accept the word of any government agency or uniformed person; in fact because these people now work for a fascist police state: they should be challenged at each and every turn about every single thing, no matter how small. It the government or any of its minions say anything-if they're lips are moving then it must be assumed that they are lying! No sane person can come to any other conclusion! (5)

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) The State of the Nation 1966
http://www.kirwanesque.com/politics/oklahoma/oklahoma.htm

2) The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty - video
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/18.html

3) Endgame Revisited
http://www.kirwanesque.com/politics/articles/2004/art18.htm

4) Local Agenda 21 - The U.N. Plan for your community
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

5) Israeli involvement in shadow-government operations internationally
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/373.html - video from Montreal

The Palestinian Issue

2008-06-16T00:16:00.005+08:00

The day will come when people will look back on us and wonder how in the world we managed to ignore the pain in occupied Palestine.

Our media has failed totally in its responsibility to inform us of the true situation, but in the age of the internet, that excuse seems a little lame.

In the words of Capt Ward Boston, USN (Ret) :

"It was his visit to Israel some years back that clinched it for this man in terms of his feelings for the ‘great experiment’ in Jewish self-rule. ‘The way they treat the Arabs…it’s unconscionable’ he said. ‘You go into Israel, into the only places where they allow the tourists, and it’s the picture of paradise, just as the Soviets used to do. Then you take a detour off the approved itinerary and you see what it is really like…The poverty, misery, abuse. Arab kids being gunned down in broad daylight. It’s worse than South Africa. Only a person with ice water in his veins could see the way the Arabs are treated and not be outraged’.

Capt Ward Boston was the senior legal council for the Naval Board of Inquiry concerning the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli Air and Naval forces that resulted in 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded.

Read that story here.

Well, gotta go. EURO 2008 match coming on soon.

Two Superheroes That Too Few Knew

2008-05-17T22:47:00.003+08:00

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong." -Ecclesiastes 9:11
By Douglas Herman
6-17-8

Superheroes are big business in Hollywood now. Everywhere you turn, you see another so-called star play-acting the superhero role while millions of viewers flock to these inane flights of fantasy.

American moviegoers love Superman and Batman, Spiderman and Ironman. But not one of these well-muscled fantasy figures ever stood a thousand feet up, at the edge of the world stage, and bravely gave their lives for truth in the face of overwhelming evil.

You probably have never heard the names of either superhero. Hollywood does not inundate us with the names and faces of real heroes, only the fake ones. Yet you may know the two well, from what they SAID and what they DID on September 11, 2001.

They were eyewitnesses from the inside out.

Her name was Edna Cintron. What she did was defy danger and deny the validity of official, fraudulent, after-the-fact scientific theories.

According to these official apologists, among them American Society of Civil Engineers experts, Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, Edna stood on the edge of red hot steel for the longest time. She stood upon or adjacent to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit of radiant, conductive steel, if you believe these experts.

Yet Edna remains forever frozen in the famous photograph, her image forever poised at the brink, appearing calm although her fear must have been overpowering. She stood at the edge of an abyss, her arm grasping a wrecked window frame while her foot slips perilously close to space.

Befitting the moment, her image grows indistinct the more one tries to focus. She has been identified by her husband as Edna Cintron, who worked for Marsh & McLennan at the North Tower.

"Edna stood waving for rescue in the North Tower plane shape hole for at least 20 minutes," wrote Peggy Carter. "Her picture is in the NIST reports, waving to us, (revealing) that their tales of thousand degree heat from jet fuel is a lie. There is effort afoot to deny her reality and her valor."

A great lie, bolstered by the paid media and academia apologists, for the benefit of the plotters.

We see the doomed heroine standing there, minutes from death. Forthright in appearance, she appears almost delicate, like a curious child. Yet she must have been terrified. She must have been shocked. But mostly she must have been very brave.

She was, before the terrorists killed her and nearly 3,000 others, a verifiable witness that the temperature of the WTC steel was NOT anywhere near 1,000F. We owe Edna an amazing debt of gratitude. Because she made herself visible, a bold rebuttal to cowards and criminal accomplices like Bazant and Zhou, Van Romero and Eduardo Kausel, John Gross and Thomas Eagar, alleged scientists eager to explain away the gross inconsistencies of 911.

There were NO sustained 1,000F temperatures. Thus NO heat-related structural failure occurred.

"All this have I seen," wrote one eyewitness to evil long ago, an eyewitness called the Preacher, who might as well have been speaking of FDNY Chief, Orio Palmer. "There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who lives long in his evildoing." (7:15)

Those who killed Chief Palmer and his 343 brethren got away with the crime. Before that massacre happened Palmer and a partner got to the 78th floor of the South Tower.

Palmer radioed to fellow FDNY firefighters. "I'm going to need two of your firefighters, Adam stairway, to knock down two fires. We have a hose line stretched, we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay?"

The widow of Chief Palmer heard the transcripts much later. "I didn't hear fear; I didn't hear panic."

If we carefully dissect Palmer's remarks we hear a man going about the risky business of putting out fires. Nowhere does Palmer report 1,000F steel. Instead he calmly requests TWO men, to help him with a hose. The house line (the on site water hose) had water. Palmer requested TWO firemen for TWO fires. How huge could those fires be?

The so-called experts would have you believe Palmer and his partner were standing on or under 1,000F steel. Chief Palmer would never have put additional men in danger. He recognized immediately the fires were controllable, the structure sound.

The experts lied then and they are lying now.

"I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there." (3:16)

And so, I too saw how the righteous are cast down and how murderers are allowed to escape, and I too was filled with rage. I was filled with rage at how the plotters delight in the crime and bestow medals on each other and good men remain silent. Like the mystical superhero of Ecclesiastes, I too was filled with anger and I too said in my heart: "God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work."

But unlike the Preacher, I believe it is not only our right but our duty to speak truth to power, especially when we see that power abused and corrupted, when we realize good men and women were murdered. We discover that villainy is cowardice, comfort, fear and complicity, rather than pure evil for the sake of evil. The jihadists of government and academia lock step like imperial storm troopers but we have the above example of two superheroes to guide us. Godspeed.

Certified firefighter and Alaska commercial fisherman, Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly.
Email douglasherman7@yahoo.com

Abe Lincoln Was A Racist

2008-04-22T10:39:00.000+08:00

Who would've thought that?

Damn .... wonder what else they've been lying to us about?

An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him."

~ Lerone Bennett, Jr.,
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, p. 114

The gigantic collection of myths, lies, and distortions that comprise The Legend of Abraham Lincoln is the ideological cornerstone of the American warfare/welfare state. It has been invoked for generations to make the argument that if the policies of the U.S. government are not "the will of God," then at least they are the will of "Father Abraham." Moreover, this legend – this false history of America – did not arise spontaneously. It was invented and nurtured by an intergenerational army of court historians who, as Murray Rothbard once said, are absolutely indispensable to any government empire. All states, said Rothbard, depend for their existence on a series of myths about their benevolence, heroism, greatness, or even divinity.

Since very few Americans have spent much time educating themselves about Lincoln and nineteenth-century American history (much of which has been falsified anyway), it is easy for members of what I call the Lincoln Cult to dismiss all literary criticisms of Lincoln as the work of "neo-Confederates," their code-word for "defenders of slavery" (as though anyone in America today would defend slavery), or "racist." Although they label themselves "Lincoln scholars," the last thing they want is honest scholarship when it comes to the subject of Lincoln and his war. They are, at best, cover-up artists and pandering court historians who feed at the government grant trough, "consuming" tax dollars to support their "research" and their overblown university positions.

But they’ve got a big problem (more than one, actually). The big problem is the publication of a 662-page book by the distinguished African-American author Lerone Bennett, Jr. entitled Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. The book was originally published in 1999 and was recently released in paperback. Bennett was a longtime managing editor of Ebony magazine and, among other things, the author of a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., What Manner of Man. Although several "Civil War" publications have labeled yours truly as the preeminent Lincoln critic of our day, Forced into Glory is a much more powerful critique of Dishonest Abe than anything I have ever written. The Lincoln Cult, which would not dare to personally attack a serious African-American scholar like Bennett, has largely ignored the book instead.

When they are not ignoring the book and hoping that it (and the author) would just go away, they "have responded by recycling the traditional Lincoln apologies," writes Bennett. (Being a "Lincoln scholar" means taking some of Lincoln’s unsavory words and deeds, such as his lifelong support for the policy of "colonization" or deportation of all black people in America, and dreaming up excuses for why he was supposedly "forced" into taking that position).

Bennett argues that "academics and [the] media had been hiding the truth for 135 years and that Lincoln was not the great emancipator or the small emancipator or the economy-sized emancipator." He presents chapter and verse of how the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, since it only applied to "rebel territory," and specifically exempted all the slave-owning/Union-controlled border states and other areas that were occupied by the U.S. army at the time. He quotes James Randall, who has been called the "greatest Lincoln scholar of all time," as writing, "the Proclamation itself did not free a single slave." It was the Thirteenth Amendment that finally ended slavery, he correctly notes, and Lincoln was dragged into accepting it kicking and screaming all the way.

Read the rest

World's Coolest Boat

2008-04-16T17:37:00.002+08:00

Datuk Azhar Mansor has inspired more people than he'll ever know.

The Pretender - Jackson Browne

2008-03-16T01:59:00.005+08:00

(songs, i feel, need to have a purpose.
this one hits the spot in ways i can't describe
"Are you there?
Say a prayer for the Pretender.
Who started out so young and strong
Only to surrender.")


I'm going to rent myself a house
In the shade of the freeway
Gonna pack my lunch in the morning
And go to work each day
And when the evening rolls around
I'll go on home and lay my body down
And when the morning light comes streaming in
I'll get up and do it again
Amen.
Say it again
Amen.

I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?
I've been aware of the time going by
They say in the end it's the wink of an eye
When the morning light comes streaming in
You'll get up and do it again
Amen.

Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender
Where the sirens sing and the church bells ring
And the junk man pounds his fender.
Where the veterans dream of the fight
Fast asleep at the traffic light
And the children solemnly wait
For the ice cream vendor
Out into the cool of the evening
Strolls the Pretender
He knows that all his hopes and dreams
Begin and end there

Ah the laughter of the lovers
As they run through the night
Leaving nothing for the others
But to choose off and fight
And tear at the world with all their might
While the ships bearing their dreams
Sail out of sight

I'm gonna find myself a girl
Who can show me what laughter means
And we'll fill in the missing colors
In each other's paint-by-number dreams
And then we'll put our dark glasses on
And we'll make love until our strength is gone
And when the morning light comes streaming in
We'll get up and do it again
Get it up again

I'm gonna be a happy idiot
And struggle for the legal tender
Where the ads take aim and lay their claim
To the heart and the soul of the spender
And believe in whatever may lie
In those things that money can buy
where true love could have been a contender
Are you there?
Say a prayer for the Pretender.
Who started out so young and strong
Only to surrender.

Say a prayer for the pretender
Are you there for the pretender?
Say a prayer for the pretender
Are you there for the pretender?
Are you prepared for the pretender?

Listen to the song

Barbarians At the Gates - By Manuel Valenzuela

2008-02-28T12:46:00.001+08:00

Into the Valley of Catastrophe

Crusade of Surge and Siege, Part Four - Read Part Three

Barbarians At the Gates

By Manuel Valenzuela

27/02/08 "ICH" --- - From the very beginning, the American crusade of surge and siege – with much of it predating the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; think to early 20th century agreements with Saudi royalty of protection for petroleum, or the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected nationalist leader, or CIA coups and installing of tyranny, or support for Saddam, or provocations of war, or fanning the flames of violence, or importation of billions worth of weapons – has been a catastrophe for the people of the Middle East. For years the United States has guided policy and fates in the region, with its unchallenged domination of and immoral support in the regimes of the Middle East causing a complete devolution of a dynamic, intelligent and proud amalgam of peoples, continuing a stagnation of a civilization that has given humanity so much, and which has so much yet to offer.

It has been the support of tyrants, dictators, generals, kings, princes and sheiks which has had the most profound effect in the lives of tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims, altering, perhaps indefinitely, the very foundations of a culture, and religion, that has for centuries been bombarded by the Judeo-Christian values of the western world. From Napoleon to Hitler, from the British Empire of old to the American Empire of today, from French domination of the Levant to the ceaseless criminality of Little Sparta in Palestine, the Middle East has been invaded, colonized, raped, pillaged, oppressed and exploited by western powers for decades.

It has been divided and torn apart according to the desires of colonial powers; it has been invaded countless times by Christian Crusaders seeking some combination of god and glory, power and control, hegemony and imperialism. Throughout European, and later American, interventions in the region, countless numbers of Arabs and Muslims suffered and died. It has been the west, and not the peoples of the Middle East, that have for centuries been the aggressors, the barbarians at the gates of Muslim cities, those doing the invading and occupying, those raping and pillaging, those with the messianic delusion to convert and civilize and control the Arab world.

It has been the west that thinks itself the superior race, thinking Middle Easterners inferior, sub-human heathens. It has been the west that ignores the plight of the dehumanized and the oppressed, all the while enjoying the spoils of plunder, over time becoming morbidly obese with the gluttony and greed cheap oil engenders.

The people of the Middle East were not, after all, the ones responsible for the Napoleonic Wars, nor the creators of two World Wars, nor the destroyers of entire cities, nor the barbarians giving rise to Holocausts, or thousand year old persecutions, nor the ones responsible for the death of tens of millions of human beings during the 20th century. The people of the Middle East were not planting puppet regimes throughout Europe and the Americas, nor were they wishing to convert, civilize and control the western world. They are not the ones in pursuit of imperialism and hegemony.

They were not bombing and killing and seeking vengeance outside their region until after the Second World War, after America, with help from her allies, decided the Middle East was to become part of its sphere of influence. Indeed, for centuries living in peace and respect, in the same lands, cities and neighborhoods, Arabs of Muslim, Christian and Jewish faith have long maintained a balance of tolerance between Muslim majority and Jewish, Christian minorities that has only been disrupted with the arrival, and the manipulations and gross injustice, of the western colonial powers.

For decades preferring to control the region by proxy, in a clandestine manipulation of populations and territory, the United States has become a catastrophe upon the peoples of the Middle East. Its vast assortment of puppets and castrated proctors have proceeded to decimate the lives and futures of millions, over the years maintaining a firm grip over nations through the devastation of freedoms and liberties and rights, along with the implementation of authoritarian and despotic policies. Unwavering in its support of these tyrants, America has condemned millions to the brutality of dictatorships, to the censorship by despots, to the corruption of incompetents, to the regressive policies of control, to the backwardness of monarchs.

Sponsoring Tyranny

Possessing the largest, most plentiful and best developed oil fields known to man, one would be inclined to believe the Middle East a bastion of equality and justice, with standards of living equal to or surpassing those of the industrialized world. We would expect a thriving democracy pregnant with the freedoms and liberties inherent in wealthy nations. We would also expect, as we do with rich European and American nations, that the countries of the Middle East would possess a high degree of education among its population, allowing for rule of law and foundations of secularism to prevail. We would expect a thriving middle class, with employment at levels supportive of such dynamics. We would expect peace and balance.

Instead, in the land of black gold there exists not a shred of democracy, nor an ounce of freedom and liberties, nor an appearance by redistribution of oil wealth. In the lands where humankind first developed civilization, Machiavellian authoritarians rule, police states flourish, and backwardness prevails. Here, where a few elite are reaping the bountiful rewards of having oil below their feet, or having the lands deemed strategic to the Empire, accumulating millions and billions of dollars in profit, building majestic palaces and living the lives of gods, the vast majority struggle to survive and make a decent living. Here, in the land of kingdoms and fiefdoms and gold-plated palaces, the majority of Arabs and Muslims live in indigence, finding work only as the serfs enabling their Arab lords to live in luxury. Millions manage to survive only because their masters throw a few insignificant crumbs and bones their way, a minute sum of the enormous oil and gas windfall they greedily ensnare for themselves.

While millions subsist on meager jobs, millions more struggle to find meaningful employment. Unemployment in the region is therefore high, with military-age males the hardest hit. Without employment there is no source of income to survive; there is no morale to feel proud of; there is no sign of opportunity, no sign of a future. With an education that is insignificant, for that is how kings and dictators want it, millions have no option but to become easy targets to the propaganda and the manipulations of their lords.

Indeed, in order to better control the population, education has become a tool of indoctrination, with millions of dollars invested by the elite into religious institutions that brainwash and mold vulnerable minds to the fantasy of theology and the backwardness of extremist ideology. Subsidized and sponsored by the same kings and tyrants, these schools, rather than move society forward towards progressive goals, instead succeed in devolving into backwardness and fundamentalism. Many Muslims simply have no choice but to attend these schools, for oftentimes they are the only schools around, in the process helping indigent families cope with the realities of daily life.

So long as ignorance prevails, and as long as knowledge and leanings of modernity are sequestered and mired in the inescapable grip of poverty, the Middle East’s despotic leaders will remain secure and without fear of their own people. So long as their people are not educated to the methodical condemnation of their lives by kings and despots, leaders will reign, sitting on the thrones of gold, feasting on the spoils thrown at them by the Empire. This reality the Empire tolerates and even encourages, for a controlled, undereducated and powerless people are more likely to remain compliant and passive than those who see with open eyes the pillage of their land and the injustice of their leaders.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon of fundamentalist religious indoctrination, together with lack of education and feelings of injustice, oppression and inequality lends itself to the fomentation of extremism, just as it does in any culture, especially a form of extremism which lashes out both at domestic despotism and foreign control and support of that same despotic rule. Using fundamentalist theology to manipulate desperate minds experiencing desolate, unfulfilled lives, radical men of Islamic faith reach out to the many whose lives have been castrated by leaders supported by the Empire.

Radicalism in the Middle East, born of frustration, oppression and lack of opportunity, growing due to inequality, unfairness, injustice and persecution, nurtured by a corrupted and hijacked interpretation of modern Islamic faith, and manifesting itself through violent acts of terrorism, is a symptom of the disease called market colonialism, of an imperialism that cares nothing for people living in misery and perpetual suffering, where the west props up and supports and finances its cadre of despots and tyrants in the region, with their full array of crimes against humanity being protected by the Empire itself, at the expense of the native populations, in order to control the region’s, and the world’s, most valuable resource. Turning to Islamic extremism, then, is a symptom of anger, of hopelessness, of the presence of the Empire itself.

Islamic fanaticism, like its American, and Christian counterpart, thrives on the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the ignorant, and in those searching for meaning to lives heavy in suffering and pain. Like all forms of fanaticism, the Islamic variety grows and thrives by listening to the angry and the oppressed, providing answers and solutions that help maintain a semblance of understanding in a cruel world. It is those who have become easily manipulated and easily deceived that fanaticism aims to reach, for in these lost souls new, molded flames can be lit.

Thus, by combining the fanaticism all theologies possess with the living, walking carcasses left behind by America’s propped up tyrants and kings, gorging on the spoils of oil, too greedy to share with their people, together with American interference in the region, a grassroots resistance is birthed that finds solace and solutions in the beliefs of the past, thinking, rightly, that the devastation of their lives is a result of modernity –albeit a debased form of it – and its corruption by authoritarians sponsored by the west.

Deceived by extremism to hate all things western, because the root of their ills is indeed a product of the western world, they fail to see the reality that true fault lies not in western progressiveness, which is humanitarian, communal and universal in nature, but in the despotic character and oppressive policies of leaders that will not free their subjects to the great virtues of real democracy.

Here, America and her puppet allies in the region have made a vital and egregious error, for in inducing high levels of indigence, uneducation and dissatisfaction, in allowing despotism to rule and the voice of the people to disappear, thereby creating a Molotov cocktail of anger and resentment aimed at the Empire and Arab leaders, they have fostered instability and resistance, some in the form of anti-Americanism, some in the form of terrorism, most in the form of a society that grows more eager for change every year. Together with a perception that America has embarked on a Crusade of Surge and Siege against the Muslim world, and that her armies are engaging in mass murder and destruction of Muslim peoples, the only avenue for change is being found inside the mosques of radical ideology.

Error Personified

Instead of giving Middle East populations a larger share of the oil bonanza pie; instead of decreasing the verticality of the hierarchical pyramid, thus making society more just, fair and equal, with better standards of living, better education and more progressiveness; instead of allowing the Empire a just, balanced and reduced access and control to oil; instead of banning the pillage of revenues and resources, where capital benefits only the elite; instead of investing in enlightened education, helping to bring out of darkness millions of minds; instead of using oil revenues and investing in the wellbeing of their people; instead of halting billion dollar purchases in the west’s defense industry, amassing arms for wars that will never come, using weapons sales to funnel petro dollars back to the Empire; instead of alleviating hardship, resentment and anger; instead of sponsoring freedom and liberty and greater rights; instead of abiding by and protecting human rights; instead of encouraging an open, democratic society, the American amalgam of dictators, tyrants, kings, princes, sheiks and generals have done the complete opposite, thereby cementing in stone continued resistance, continued acts of terror, continued anti-Americanism and continued efforts to violently overthrow the region’s rulers.

In order to suppress, repress and control those elements seeking to bring down the region’s tyrannical regimes, the leaders of these states have created a ruthless police state based on oppression, fear, intimidation and paranoia. To combat the anger prevalent in the population, America’s puppets must enhance a surveillance and spying society, creating a police state that has perfected the art of despotic rule. Torture, disappearances, the evisceration of human rights, unlawful arrests, persecution and false imprisonment are but some of the weapons used by these rulers. Yet the Empire maintains firm support of these leaders, a fact not lost on the population at large.

Right to assembly, right to free speech, freedom of the press, the right of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, the right of due process and of protections against unreasonable search and seizure are freedoms not afforded to the peoples of the Middle East. These are freedoms and rights America does not care to ask or demand of its puppets. Free elections and the will of the people are but hollow dreams that cannot be given to the masses, for if allowed to vote, tyrants and kings and dictators and generals would be thrown out. To the Empire, democracy is only democracy when the people elect America’s chosen leaders, her new puppet upgrade. If the masses elect someone other than America’s champion, democracy becomes null and void, the will of the people become obsolete and collective punishment becomes policy, and state-sponsored terror. To the Empire, democracy is valid only when fraud or theft returns to power her most loyal and obedient proctors.

The people of the Middle East do not hate the Empire for its freedom and liberties, nor for its way of life. On the contrary, they would love the same freedoms and liberties, the same respect for human rights, and perhaps a better standard of living than they presently enjoy. They hate the Empire for its transgressions in the region, for its continued support for tyranny, for its hypocrisy in talking democracy and systemically supporting despotism, for its rape and pillage of both land and people, for its addiction to oil that has brought nothing but ruin to the people of the region, for its one-sided support for Israel and its apartheid and state-sponsored terrorism in Palestine, for its genocide and destruction of Iraq and its people, for promising Afghan reconstruction but only succeeding in furthering a decline to a failed state, for its quite obvious indifference to the misery and suffering of Arab and Muslim peoples, for its continued Crusade of Surge and Siege that only threatens to engulf the region in flames and further decimate the lives of millions.

Democracy and freedom cannot prosper in these conditions, for despotic rule and free societies are mutually exclusive. In fact, the populations of these nations have very few, if any, freedoms and rights to speak of, and millions are handcuffed to the heavy handed rules and regulations of the state, many of which resemble those of the Middle Ages. When democracy is spoken of, it represents illusions and mirages, not the will of the people, but the charades of the elite. In the Middle East, democracy is a whispered demand, yet an unfulfilled reality. It remains a dream of millions, and an enemy of the few. In the Middle East of reality, and not that of American fiction, tyranny dominates and democracy is nonexistent and all the while, American hypocrisy festers in the mind of the disillusioned.

Of course the United States is fully aware of the methods used by its tyrants to control the population, yet the support, whether diplomatic, financial and militarily, is as constant as it is unwavering. This tacit support of tyranny by the Empire, even when it speaks of bringing freedom and democracy, speaks of the high level of hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in the Empire. That American sponsored tyranny has catapulted the region into backwardness, that it has furthered the evolution of fanaticism, that it has given rise to resistance and terror, that it has made impotent the infinitesimal attempts at building democracy, and that it has created decades of suffering, poverty, oppression and lost opportunity can only be denied, as it usually is, inside the Empire itself. Inside the fires of imperialism, that is to say inside the Middle East, this truth is well known, and understood.

That human beings resent despotism and tyranny is a self-evident truth; that they build resistance and resentment to colonial machinations and imperialist assaults on their lives is earthly reality. That most human beings want simply the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness without barriers or hindrances or the control of the state is an absolute manifestation of who we are. To be human – and yes, the people of the Middle East are, in fact, human – is to seek and want justice, fairness, equality and fundamental human rights. It is to fight oppression and stand for dignity and honor.

What we abhor as a species are illegal, aggressive invasions and brutal occupations of innocent states, exploitations and repression of the individual and criminality and mass murder that is allowed to transpire and go unaccountable. What the people of the Middle East want is exactly what the western world already has. What they want is freedom from imperialism, freedom from tyranny, freedom to exploit their own resources, for their own benefit, for their present and future generations. What they seek is a chance to be human at the dawn of the 21st century.

What they ask is that they be seen the same as any other person in this planet, possessing the same emotions, fears and opinions, the same behaviors and desires. What they seek is the empathy and understanding for the lives they must endure, the tyranny they must live under and the Crusade of Surge and Siege the Empire has imposed on them.

So close your eyes, contemplate reality and not spoon-fed fantasy, envision and empathize, try to understand alien pain and suffering, put yourself in the shoes of the millions being strangulated by the Empire, and prepare to enter the fires of imperialism.

Manuel Valenzuela is a social critic, commentator, Internet essayist and author of Echoes in the Wind, a novel now published by Authorhouse.com . His essays appear regularly at various alternative news websites from around the globe. Mr. Valenzuela welcomes comments and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net .

Palestinians should seek reparations from Germany

2008-02-26T01:01:00.001+08:00

by Khalid AMAYREH

February 21, 2008

In the early months of the Aqsa intifada against the Israeli occupation, an Israeli officer in the Nablus region told dozens of handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainees that "we are treating you like the Nazis treated us, and maybe when you are free from our grip, you will find another people whom you will treat the same way we are treating you."

These were not facetious remarks. That officer was actually displaying definitive symptoms of a chronic collective psychosis permeating through theIsraeli Jewish society. It is this collective mental sickness that make Israelis commit the most heinous crimes without feeling the slightest shred of guilt.

Didn’t Dan Halutz, the former Israeli air-force commander and later chief of staff boast that he slept well at night and felt no compunctions after he ordered an F-16 fighter warplane to drop a one-ton bomb on a residential apartment building in downtown Gaza , killing sixteen sleeping people, including 11 children.

In truth, there is an umbilical relationship between the holocaust and Israel’s nefarious behavior toward the Palestinians. In the final analysis, the Palestinians are the victims’ victims as the late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said put it.

In fact, one would not cross into the realm of the absurd by arguing that had Jews not been victims of the holocaust, the Palestinians would most likely have not been victimized by Jews in such a diabolical manner and for that long.

In a certain sense, one can say with very little exaggeration that it was Nazi Germany that created Israel. Yes, Zionism predated the holocaust; but it was the holocaust that gave Zionism the ultimate argument for Jewish statehood.

Not only that, the holocaust proved to be, even today, the ultimate blocker of any meaningful objections to Israeli criminality against the peoples of the Middle East. This explains why and how Israel, which can be viewed, more or less, as an incarnation of Nazi Germany, is treated by the world community as above the laws governing the rest of the world.

Moreover, Israelis continue to evoke the holocaust to justify their harsh repression of Palestinians. Even calls by Jewish settlers for "sending the Arabs to the oven" (which any visitor to Hebron can see scrawled on the walls at the Jewish settler enclave in the city) are justified by the holocaust. Every criticism of Israeli criminality and supremacy, every legitimate objection to the wanton repression meted out to the Palestinian, every criticism of the marauding settlers is always met with the holocaust mantra.! In short, every Palestinian, man, woman, and child, is made to suffer and die because of the holocaust.

Today, every conscripted Israeli soldier, especially those serving in the West Bank, is made to visit the Yad va Chem holocaust museum in Jerusalem right before he or she is deployed to Palestinian population centers to repress and torment these helpless people who had nothing to do with the holocaust.

And one doesn’t have to be a great psychologist to connect the dots and understand the real ghoulish implications of associating the Nazis, the tormentors of the Jews, with the Palestinian, the victims of Zionism

For most Israeli soldiers, the mental message is unmistakable. The Palestinians are today’s Nazis…and by killing and brutalizing them in the harshest of manners, the Jews are only preventing the recurrence of another holocaust. Some Israelis feel that by savaging the Palestinians they are actually avenging the holocaust vicariously, which gives them immense psychological satisfaction.

In their subconscious thinking, many Israeli Jews actually admire the Nazis and their brutality. This is why some of these soldiers and officers often seek to emulate Nazi brutality and project it on Palestinians, since for them might is always right.

Moral blindness

This brings us to post-war Germany and its moral surrender to Zionist blackmail. For nearly sixty years now, Germany has been trying to atone for the holocaust by enabling Israel to commit another holocaust against the Palestinians, never mind that it is a holocaust without gas chambers.

Germany from Konrad Adnauer to Angel Merkel behaved toward Israel in a manner that callously and completely disregarded the monumental oppression meted out by Israel to the Palestinian people.

Germans in general and the German political elite in particular passively watched Israel commit every conceivable crime against the helpless Palestinians, but turned their faces away for fear of displeasing their powerful former victims who came to be in control of powerful nations, such the United States.

Germany was always afraid and reluctant to call the spade a spade, especially when the spade happened to be in Jewish hands, lest it be reminded of the brutal ugliness of its recent past.

Germany, an economic and political giant, but obviously a moral dwarf, actually not only kept silent in the face of Israeli crimes all these years. Germany gave Israel the technical wherewithal to murder Palestinian children. Germany also gave Israel, reportedly free of charge, state-of-the art submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

I don’t know when Germany will wake up from its long moral slumber and deliver itself from the sinister stranglehold of Zionism.

Is it not the time Germany realizes that the holocaust was diabolical in itself, , not necessarily because its victims were primarily Jewish? Would a holocaust against any other ethnic or religious group have been less diabolical? Would Germany have behaved differently had the holocaust targeted non-Jews? Are Germans absorbed so much in the holocaust because of its moral enormity or just because of the post-war Jewish power?

Such questions are vital and relevant since they can eventually contribute to liberating Germans from this haunting moral dilemma whereby they are morally bound to help their former victims savage, murder and brutalize another helpless people that had nothing to do with the holocaust, a people whose sole crime is their weakness and helplessness and determination to be free.

It is probably useless to appeal to the political establishment in Germany, which like its equally evil sister in the United States, is not based on morality but sheer immediate political expediency.

None the less, one is encouraged by certain recent indications that Germany might finally be getting sober from decades of moral blindness and criminal indifference toward the Palestinians, its ultimate victims.

According to media report, a group of German intellectuals have called on Berlin to change the holocaust-rooted blind support of Israel, arguing correctly that the creation of the Jewish state turned the Palestinians into victims of the Nazi holocaust as well.

The intellectuals, who include 25 prominent figures, argued that it was the holocaust which Germany perpetrated that brought about the suffering that has persisted in the Middle East for the last six decades and has at the present become unbearable.

Furthermore, these intellectuals argued that "without the holocaust of the Jews, Israel wouldn’t see itself as entitled, or forced to ride over the human rights of the Palestinians and the inhabitants of Lebanon.

Of course, the language used here is extremely mild since what Israel has been doing in Palestine and Lebanon goes far beyond merely riding over Palestinian and Lebanese human rights.

Israel is effectively committing genocide. For example, the dropping of 2-3 million cluster bomblets over populated areas in southern Lebanon is par excellance a genocidal act of the highest order since 2-3 cluster bomblets are sufficient to kill 2-3 million children. The same can be said about the ongoing blockade of Gaza which is killing innocent Palestinians in the hundreds.

Reparations

In light of the proven umbilical relationship between the holocaust and the ongoing Palestinian plight, one can say that the Palestinian people have a legitimate moral right to demand holocaust reparations from Germany.

The Palestinians nearly lost everything. And every Palestinian under the sun has a story of suffering. This writer for example lost three paternal uncles to Zionist bullets on a single day. And up to this day, there has been no acknowledgment of guilt, no compensation, nothing! from Israe.

I know such talk is likely to raise many eyebrows in Germany. However, if Germans have the moral courage to look deep into their souls, they undoubtedly will discover that the Palestinians are more than justified in seeking adequate and just reparations from Germany for the enormous calamities Nazi Germany had inflicted on us.

Original article published on 21st February 2008

This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source and author are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=4680&lg=en

:: Article nr. 41370 sent on 22-feb-2008 10:17 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=41370

Link: www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=4680&lg=en

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

Some UN Resolutions Regarding Palestine

2008-02-15T13:30:00.002+08:00

(from http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/un_resolutions.html )

Here are some of the United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. For the full text, dates and numbers of all UN GA/SC resolutions, please visit The question of Palestine at the United Nation.

United Nations General Assembly Resolutions

· UN Resolution 181, 29 November 1947

· UN Resolution 194, 11 December 1948

United Nations Security Council Resolutions

· UN Resolution 242, 22 November 1967

· UN Resolution 338, 22 October 1973

· UN Resolution 465,

· UN Resolution 681

· UN Resolution 181 II B

UN Resolution 181

Palestine partition plan as approved by the United Nations 128th plenary session Nov. 29, 1947

(The resolution was approved by the general assembly, 33 votes in favor, 13 votes against, with 10 abstentions. The vote was as follows: voting for approval: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian soviet socialist republic, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, library, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian soviet socialist republic, union of south Africa, union of soviet socialist republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Voting against approval: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

Abstaining from the vote: Argentina, Chile, china, Columbia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, united kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The general assembly,

Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory power to constitute and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine at the second regular session.

Having constituted a special committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and Having received and examined the report of the special committee (document a/364) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the special committee.

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one, which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations.

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 august 1948.

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory power for Palestine, and to all other members of the United Nations the adaptation and implementing, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the plan of partition with economic union set out below.

Requests that:

1) The Security Council takes the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation.

2) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain the international peace and security, the security council should supplement the authorization of the general assembly by taking measures under articles 39 and 41 of the charter, to empower the united nations commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution.

3) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with article 39 of the charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.

4) The trusteeship council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan. Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect.

Appeals to all governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action that might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations,

And, Authorizes the secretary general to reimburse travel and subsistence appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the commission by the general assembly.

TOP

UN Resolution 181(II) B

The general assembly,

Authorizes the secretary general to draw from the working capital fund a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 for the purposes set forth in the last paragraph of the resolution on the future government of Palestine.

TOP

UN Resolution 194

1) In view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis. the most southern, Bethlehem, the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa). and the most northern Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control .

2) The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

3) Resolution instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations.

TOP

UN Resolution 242

Sponsored by the United Kingdom and France, the resolution is deliberately ambiguous. It has been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. It has also been accepted by the PLO.

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.

Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter

A) Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

1) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict.

2) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

B) Affirms further the necessity for:

1) Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.

2) Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.

3) Guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

3) Requests the Secretary General to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts within the state concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.'

(N.B. The official French text refers to withdrawal des territories.)

Accepted by the PLO

TOP

UN Resolution 338

The Security Council,

1) Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all fighting and to terminate all military activity Immediately, no later than 12 hours after the movement of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy.

2) Calls upon the parties concerned to start Immediately after the cease fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts.

3) Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned to establish a just and a durable peace in the Middle East.

The resolution was sponsored by the USA and the former USSR jointly, and adopted unanimously by most UN members. China abstained, accepted by the PLO.

TOP

UN Resolution 465

1) Affirming once more that the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

2) .Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure of status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of setting parts of its population and new Immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

3) Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

4) .Calls upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the Occupied Territories.

5) Requests the commission to continue to examine the situation relating to the settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution.

TOP

UN Resolution 681

The Security Council,

1) Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of Security Council resolutions 672 and 673.

2) Deplores the decision of the government of Israel to resume deportations of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

3) Urges the government of Israel to accept de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the said convention.

4) Calls on the high contracting parties to the Geneva Convention to ensure respect by Israel for its obligations under the convention.

5) Requests the Secretary General, in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross to develop further the idea from his report of convening a meeting of the high contracting parties, to discuss possible measures that might be taken by them under the convention.

6) Requests the Secretary General to monitor and observe the situation regarding Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation, making new efforts in this regard on an urgent basis, and to utilize and designate or draw upon the United Nations and other personnel and resources present there in the area and elsewhere to accomplish this task, and to keep the Security Council regularly informed.

7) Requests further the Secretary General to submit a first progress report to the Security Council by the first week of March, 1991, and every four months thereafter.'

President's statement:

The members of the Security Council reaffirm their determination to support an active negotiating process in which all relevant parties would participate leading to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this context they agree that an international conference should facilitate efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

However, the members of the council are of the view that there is not unanimity as to when would be the appropriate time for such a conference.

In the view of the members of the council, the Arab- Israeli conflict is important and unique and must be addressed independently on its own merits.

TOP

Source: The Palestine permanent observer mission to The United Nations.

For a complete list of resolutions made by the United Nations security Council, and the General assembly since the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, please got to The question of Palestine section of the UN web site, or just click here.

Why Do Muslims Follow Madhhabs?

2008-02-14T11:40:00.002+08:00

from http://shadhilitariqa.com/

The work of the mujtahid Imams of Sacred Law, those who deduce shari‘a rulings from Qur’an and hadith, has been the object of my research for some years now, during which I have sometimes heard the question: “Who needs the Imams of Sacred Law when we have the Qur’an and hadith? Why can’t we take our Islam from the word of Allah and His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which are divinely protected from error, instead of taking it from the madhhabs or “schools of jurisprudence” of the mujtahid Imams such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi‘i, and Ahmad, which are not?”

It cannot be hidden from any of you how urgent this issue is, or that many of the disagreements we see and hear in our mosques these days are due to lack of knowledge of fiqh or “Islamic jurisprudence” and its relation to Islam as a whole. Now, perhaps more than ever before, it is time for us to get back to basics and ask ourselves how we understand and carry out the commands of Allah.

My talk tonight will first discuss the knowledge of Islam that all of us possess, and then show where fiqh enters into it. We will look at the qualifications mentioned in the Qur’an and sunna for those who do fiqh, the mujtahid scholars. We will focus first on the extent of the mujtahid scholar’s knowledge—how many hadiths he has to know, and so on—and then we will look at the depth of his knowledge, through actual examples of dalils or “legal proofs” that demonstrate how scholars join between different and even contradictory hadiths to produce a unified and consistent legal ruling.

We will close by discussing the mujtahid’s relation to the science of hadith authentication, and the conditions by which a scholar knows that a given hadith is sahih or “rigorously authenticated,” so that he can accept and follow it.

Knowledge of Qur’an and Hadith. The knowledge that you and I take from the Qur’an and the hadith is of several types: the first and most important concerns our faith, and is the knowledge of Allah and His attributes, and the other basic tenets of Islamic belief such as the messengerhood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Last Day, and so on. Every Muslim can and must acquire this knowledge from the Book of Allah and the sunna.

This is also the case with a second type of general knowledge, which does not concern faith, however, but rather works: the general laws of Islam to do good, to avoid evil, to perform the prayer, pay zakat, fast Ramadan, to cooperate with others in good works, and so forth. Anyone can learn and understand these general rules, which summarize the Sirat al-Mustaqim or “Straight Path” of our religion.

Fiqh. A third type of knowledge is of the specific details of Islamic practice. Whereas anyone can understand the first two types of knowledge from the Qur’an and hadith, the understanding of this third type has a special name, fiqh, meaning literally “understanding.” And people differ in their capacity to do it.

I had a visitor one day in Jordan, for example, who, when we talked about why he hadn’t yet gone on hajj, mentioned the hadith of Anas ibn Malik that

the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Whoever prays salat al-Fajr in a group and then sits and does dhikr until the sun rises, then prays two rak‘as, shall have the like of the reward of a hajj and an ‘umra.” Anas said, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Completely, completely, completely’” (Tirmidhi (b00), 2.481: 586 (a1)).

My visitor had done just that this very morning, and he now believed that he had fulfilled his obligation to perform the hajj, and had no need to go to Mecca. The hadith was well authenticated (hasan). I distinguished for my visitor between having the reward of something, and lifting the obligation of Islam by actually doing it, and he saw my point.

But there is a larger lesson here, that while the Qur’an and the sunna are ma‘sum or “divinely protected from error,” the understanding of them is not. And someone who derives rulings from the Qur’an and hadith without training in ijtihad or “deduction from primary texts” as my visitor did, will be responsible for it on the Day of Judgment, just as an amateur doctor who had never been to medical school would be responsible if he performed an operation and somebody died under his knife.

Why? Because Allah has explained in the Qur’an that fiqh, the detailed understanding of the divine command, requires specially trained members of the Muslim community to learn and teach it. Allah says in Sura al-Tawba:

“Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain understanding of the religion, and to admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning” (Qur’an 9:122)

—where the expression li yatafaqqahu fi al-din, “to gain understanding of the religion,” is derived from precisely the same root (f-q-h) as the word fiqh or “jurisprudence,” and is what Western students of Arabic would call a “fifth-form verb” (tafa‘‘ala), which indicates that the meaning contained in the root, understanding, is accomplished through careful, sustained effort.

This Qur’anic verse establishes that there should be a category of people who have learned the religion so as to be qualified in turn to teach it. And Allah has commanded those who do not know a ruling in Sacred Law to ask those who do, by saying in Sura al-Nahl,

“Ask those who recall if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43),

in which the words “those who recall,” ahl al-dhikri, indicate those with knowledge of the Qur’an and sunna, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of this Umma. Why? Because, first of all, the Qur’an and hadith are in Arabic, and as a translator, I can assure you that it is not just any Arabic.

To understand the Qur’an and sunna, the mujtahid must have complete knowledge of the Arabic language in the same capacity as the early Arabs themselves had before the language came to be used by non-native speakers. This qualification, which almost no one in our time has, is not the main subject of my talk tonight, but even if we did have it, what if you or I, though not trained specialists, wanted to deduce details of Islamic practice directly from the sources? After all, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said, in the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim: “When a judge gives judgement and strives to know a ruling (ijtahada) and is correct, he has two rewards. If he gives judgement and strives to know a ruling, but is wrong, he has one reward” (Bukhari (b00), 9.133: 7352 (a2)).

The answer is that the term ijtihad or “striving to know a ruling” in this hadith does not mean just any person’s efforts to understand and operationalize an Islamic ruling, but rather the person with sound knowledge of everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) taught that relates to the question. Whoever makes ijtihad without this qualification is a criminal. The proof of this is the hadith that the Companion Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah said:

We went on a journey, and a stone struck one of us and opened a gash in his head. When he later had a wet-dream in his sleep, he then asked his companions, “Do you find any dispensation for me to perform dry ablution (tayammum)?” [Meaning instead of a full purificatory bath (ghusl).] They told him, “We don’t find any dispensation for you if you can use water.”

So he performed the purificatory bath and his wound opened and he died. When we came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), he was told of this and he said: “They have killed him, may Allah kill them. Why did they not ask?—for they didn’t know. The only cure for someone who does not know what to say is to ask . . . .” (Abu Dawud (b00), 1.93: 336 (a3)).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, is well authenticated (hasan), and every Muslim who has any taqwa should reflect on it carefully, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) indicated in it—in the strongest language possible—that to judge on a rule of Islam on the basis of insufficient knowledge is a crime. And like it is the well authenticated hadith “Whoever is given a legal opinion (fatwa) without knowledge, his sin is but upon the person who gave him the opinion” (Abu Dawud (b00), 3.321: 3657 (a4)).

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also said:

Judges are three: two of them in hell, and one in paradise. A man who knows the truth and judges accordingly, he shall go to paradise. A man who judges for people while ignorant, he shall go to hell. And a man who knows the truth but rules unjustly, he shall go to hell (Sharh al-sunna (b00), 10.94 (a5)).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and others, is rigorously authenticated (sahih), and any Muslim who would like to avoid the hellfire should soberly consider the fate of whoever, in the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), “judges for people while ignorant.”

Yet we all have our Yusuf ‘Ali Qur’ans, and our Sahih al-Bukhari translations. Aren’t these adequate scholarly resources?

These are valuable books, and do convey perhaps the largest and most important part of our din: the basic Islamic beliefs, and general laws of the religion. My talk tonight is not about these broad principles, but rather about understanding specific details of Islamic practice, which is called precisely fiqh. For this, I think any honest investigator who studies the issues will agree that the English translations are not enough. They are not enough because understanding the total Qur’an and hadith textual corpus, which comprises what we call the din, requires two dimensions in a scholar: a dimension of breadth, the substantive knowledge of all the texts; and a dimension of depth, the methodological tools needed to join between all the Qur’anic verses and hadiths, even those that ostensibly contradict one another.

Knowledge of Primary Texts. As for the breadth of a mujtahid’s knowledge, it is recorded that the student of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydullah ibn al-Munadi, heard a man ask him [Imam Ahmad]:

“When a man has memorized 100,000 hadiths, is he a scholar of Sacred Law, a faqih?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “200,000 then?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “Then 300,000?” And he said, “No.” The man asked, “400,000?” And Ahmad gestured with his hand to signify “about that many” (Ibn al-Qayyim: I‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in (b00), 4.205).

In truth, by the term “hadith” here Imam Ahmad meant the hadiths of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in all their various chains of transmission, counting each chain of transmission as a separate hadith, and perhaps also counting the statements of the Sahaba. But the larger point here is that even if we eliminate the different chains, and speak only about the hadiths from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that are plainly acceptable as evidence, whether sahih, “rigorously authenticated” or hasan “well authenticated,” (which for purposes of ijtihad, may be assimilated to the sahih) we are still speaking of well over 10,000 hadiths, and they are not contained in Bukhari alone, or in Bukhari and Muslim alone, nor yet in any six books, or even in any nine. Yet whoever wants to give a fatwa or “formal legal opinion” and judge for people that something is lawful or unlawful, obligatory or sunna, must know all the primary texts that relate to it. For the perhaps 10,000 hadiths that are sahih are, for the mujtahid, as one single hadith, and he must first know them in order to join between them to explain the unified command of Allah.

I say “join between” because most of you must be aware that some sahih hadiths seem to controvert other equally sahih hadiths. What does a mujtahid do in such an instance?

Ijtihad. Let’s look at some examples. Most of us know the hadiths about fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa for the non-pilgrim, that “it expiates [the sins of] the year before and the year after” (Muslim (b00), 2.819: 1162 (a6)). But another rigorously authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Friday alone (Bukhari (b00), 3.54: 1984 (a7)), and a well authenticated hadith prohibits fasting on Saturday alone (Tirmidhi (b00), 3.120: 744 (a8)), of which Tirmidhi explains, “The meaning of the ‘offensiveness’ in this is when a man singles out Saturday to fast on, since the Jews venerate Saturdays” (ibid.). Some scholars hold Sundays offensive to fast on for the same reason, that they are venerated by non-Muslims. (Other hadiths permit fasting one of these days together with the day before or the day after it, perhaps because no religion venerates two of the days in a row.) The question arises: What does one do when ‘Arafa falls on a Friday, a Saturday, or a Sunday? The general demand for fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa might well be qualified by the specific prohibition of fasting on just one of these days. But a mujtahid aware of the whole hadith corpus would certainly know a third hadith in Sahih Muslim that is even more specific, and says: “Do not single out Friday from among other days to fast on, unless it coincides with a fast one of you performs” (Muslim (b00), 2.801: 1144 (a9)).

The latter hadith establishes for the mujtahid the general principle that the ruling for fasting on a day normally prohibited to fast on changes when it “coincides with a fast one of you performs”—and so there is no problem with fasting whether the Day of Arafa falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

Here as elsewhere, whoever wants to understand the ruling of doing something in Islam must know all the texts connected with it. Because as ordinary Muslims, you and I are not only responsible for obeying the Qur’anic verses and hadiths we are familiar with. We are responsible for obeying all of them, the whole shari‘a. And if we are not personally qualified to join between all of its texts—and we have heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal discuss how much knowledge this takes—we must follow someone who can, which is why Allah tells us, “Ask those who recall if you know not.”

The size and nature of this knowledge necessitate that the non-specialist use adab or “proper respect” towards the scholars of fiqh when he finds a hadith, whether in Bukhari or elsewhere, that ostensibly contradicts the schools of fiqh. A non-scholar, for example, reading through Sahih al-Bukhari will find the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared a thigh on the ride back from Khaybar (Bukhari (b00), 1.103–4: 371 (a10)). And he might imagine that the four madhhabs or “legal schools”—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, and Hanbali—were mistaken in their judgment that the thigh is ‘awra or “nakedness that must be covered.”

But in fact there are a number of other hadiths, all of them well authenticated (hasan) or rigorously authenticated (sahih) that prove that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) explicitly commanded various Sahaba to cover the thigh because it was nakedness. Hakim reports that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) saw Jarhad in the mosque wearing a mantle, and his thigh became uncovered, so the Prophet told him, “The thigh is part of one’s nakedness” (al-Mustadrak (b00), 4.180 (a11)), of which Hakim said, “This is a hadith whose chain of transmission is rigorously authenticated (sahih),” which Imam Dhahabi confirmed (ibid.). Imam Baghawi records the sahih hadith that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) passed by Ma‘mar, whose two thighs were exposed, and told him, ‘O Ma‘mar, cover your two thighs, for the two thighs are nakedness’” (Sharh al-sunna (b00) 9.21: 2251 (a12)). And Ahmad ibn Hanbal records that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When one of you marries [someone to] his servant or hired man, let him not look at his nakedness, for what is below his navel to his two knees is nakedness” (Ahmad (b00), 2.187 (a13)), a hadith with a well authenticated (hasan) chain of transmission. The mujtahid Imams of the four schools knew these hadiths, and joined between them and the Khaybar hadith in Bukhari by the methodological principle that: “An explicit command in words from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is given precedence over an action of his.” Why?

Among other reasons, because of the fact that certain laws of the shari‘a applied to the Prophet alone (Allah bless him and give him peace). Such as the fact that when he went into battle, he was not permitted to retreat, no matter how outnumbered. Or such as the obligatoriness for him alone of praying tahajjud or “the night vigil prayer” after rising from one’s sleep before dawn, which is merely sunna for the rest of us. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of not breaking his fast at night between fast-days. Or such as the permissibility for him alone of having more than four wives—the means through which Allah, in His wisdom, preserved for us the minutest details of the Prophet’s day-to-day sunna (Allah bless him and give him peace), which a larger number of wives would be far abler to observe and remember.

Because certain laws of the shari‘a applied to him alone, the scholars of ijtihad have established the principle that in many cases, when an act was done by the Prophet personally (Allah bless him and give him peace), such as bearing the thigh after Khaybar, and when he gave an explicit command to us to do something else, in this case, to cover the thigh because it is nakedness, then the command is adopted for us, and the act is considered to pertain to him alone (Allah bless him and give him peace).

We can see from this example the kind of scholarship it takes to seriously comprehend the whole body of hadith, both in breadth of knowledge, and depth of interpretive understanding or fiqh, and that anyone who would give a fatwa, on the basis of the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, that “the scholars are wrong and the hadith is right” would be guilty of criminal negligence for his ignorance.

When one does not have substantive knowledge of the Qur’an and hadith corpus, and lacks the fiqh methodology to comprehensively join between it, the hadiths one has read are not enough. To take another example, there is a well authenticated (hasan) hadith that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves” (Tirmidhi (b00), 3.371: 1056 (a14)). But scholars say that the prohibition of women visiting graves was abrogated (mansukh) by the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith “I had forbidden you to visit graves, but now visit them” (Muslim (b00), 2.672: 977 (a15)).

Here, although the words “now visit them” (fa zuruha) are an imperative to men (or to a group of whom at least some are men), the fact that the hadith permits women as well as men to now visit graves is shown by another hadith related by Muslim in his Sahih that when ‘A'isha asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) what she should say if she visited graves, he told her: “Say: ‘Peace be upon the believers and Muslims of the folk of these abodes. May Allah have mercy on those of us who have gone ahead and those who have stayed behind; Allah willing, we shall certainly be joining you’” (Muslim (b00), 2.671: 974 (a16)), which plainly entails the permissibility of her visiting graves in order to say this, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) would never have taught her these words had visiting them been disobedience. In other words, knowing all these hadiths, together with the methodological principle of naskh or “abrogation,” is essential to drawing the valid fiqh conclusion that the first hadith in which “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) cursed women who visit graves”—was abrogated by the second hadith, as is attested by the third.

Or consider the Qur’anic text in Sura al-Ma’ida:

“The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them” (Qur’an 5:5).

This is a general ruling ostensibly pertaining to all their food. Yet this ruling is subject to takhsis, or “restriction” by more specific rulings that prove that certain foods of Ahl al-Kitab, “those who have been given the Book,” such as pork, or animals not properly slaughtered, are not lawful for us.

Ignorance of this principle of takhsis or restriction seems to be especially common among would-be mujtahids of our times, from whom we often hear the more general ruling in the words “But the Qur’an says,” or “But the hadith says,” without any mention of the more particular ruling from a different hadith or Qur’anic verse that restricts it. The reply can only be “Yes, brother, the Qur’an does say, ‘The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you,’ But what else does it say?” or “Yes, the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari says the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared his thigh on the return from Khaybar. But what else do the hadiths say, and more importantly, are you sure you know it?”

The above examples illustrate only a few of the methodological rules needed by the mujtahid to understand and operationalize Islam by joining between all the evidence. Firstly, we saw the principle of takhsis or “restriction” of general rules by more specific ones, both in the example of fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa when it falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and the example of the food of Ahl al-Kitab. Secondly, in the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari about baring the thigh and the hadiths commanding that the thigh be covered, we saw the principle of how an explicit prophetic command in words is given precedence over a mere action when there is a contradiction. Thirdly, we saw the principle of nasikh wa mansukh, of “an earlier ruling being abrogated by a later one,” in the example of the initial prohibition of women visiting graves, and their subsequently being permitted to.

These are only three of the ways that two or more texts of the Qur’an and hadith may enter into and qualify one another, rules that someone who derives the shari‘a from them must know. In other words, they are but three tools of a whole methodological toolbox. We do not have the time tonight to go through all these tools in detail, although we can mention some in passing, giving first their Arabic names, such as:

—The ‘amm, a text of general applicability to many legal rulings, and its opposite:

—The khass, that which is applicable to only one ruling or type of ruling.

—The mujmal, that which requires other texts to be fully understood, and its opposite:

—The mubayyan, that which is plain without other texts.

—The mutlaq, that which is applicable without restriction, and its opposite:

—The muqayyad, that which has restrictions given in other texts.

—The nasikh, that which supersedes previous revealed rulings, and its opposite:

—The mansukh: that which is superseded.

—The nass: that which unequivocally decides a particular legal question, and its opposite:

—The dhahir: that which can bear more than one interpretation.

My point in mentioning what a mujtahid is, what fiqh is, and the types of texts that embody Allah’s commands, with the examples that illustrate them, is to answer our original question: “Why can’t we take our Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, which are divinely protected, instead of taking it from mujtahid Imams, who are not?” The answer, we have seen, is that revelation cannot be acted upon without understanding, and understanding requires firstly that one have the breadth of mastery of the whole, and secondly, the knowledge of how the parts relate to each other. Whoever joins between these two dimensions of the revelation is taking his Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, whether he does so personally, by being a mujtahid Imam, or whether by a means of another, by following one.

Following Scholars (Taqlid). Allah Most High says in Sura al-Nisa’,

“If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter” (Qur’an 4:83)

—where alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum, “those of them whose task it is to find it out,” refers to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences directly from evidence, which is called in Arabic istinbat.

A person who has reached this level can and indeed must draw his inferences directly from evidence, and may not merely follow another scholar’s conclusions without examining the evidence (taqlid), a rule expressed in books of methodological principles of fiqh as: Laysa li al-‘alim an yuqallida, “The alim” [i.e. the mujtahid at the level of instinbat referred to by the above Qur’anic verse] “may not merely follow another scholar” (Juwayni: Sharh al-Waraqat (b00), 75), meaning it is not legally permissible for one mujtahid to follow another mujtahid unless he knows and agrees with his evidences.

The mujtahid Imams trained a number of scholars who were at this level. Imam Shafi‘i had Muzani, and Imam Abu Hanifa had Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan Shaybani. It was to such students that Abu Hanifa addressed his words: “It is unlawful for whoever does not know my evidence to give my position as a fatwa” (Hamid: Luzum ittiba‘ madhahib al-a’imma (b00), 6), and, “It is not lawful for anyone to give our position as a fatwa until he knows where we have taken it from” (ibid.).

It is one of the howlers of our times that these words are sometimes quoted as though they were addressed to ordinary Muslims. If it were unlawful for the carpenter, the sailor, the computer programmer, the doctor, to do any act of worship before he had mastered the entire textual corpus of the Qur’an and thousands of hadiths, together with all the methodological principles needed to weigh the evidence and comprehensively join between it, he would either have to give up his profession or give up his religion. A lifetime of study would hardly be enough for this, a fact that Abu Hanifa knew better than anyone else, and it was to scholars of istinbat, the mujtahids, that he addressed his remarks. Whoever quotes these words to non-scholars to try to suggest that Abu Hanifa meant that it is wrong for ordinary Muslims to accept the work of scholars, should stop for a moment to reflect how insane this is, particularly in view of the life work of Abu Hanifa from beginning to end, which consisted precisely in summarizing the fiqh rulings of the religion for ordinary people to benefit from and follow.

Imam Shafi‘i was also addressing this top level of scholars when he said: “When a hadith is sahih, it is my school (madhhab)”—which has been misunderstood by some to mean that if one finds a hadith, for example, in Sahih al-Bukhari that is inconsistent with a position of Shafi‘i's, one should presume that he was ignorant of it, drop the fiqh, and accept the hadith.

I think the examples we have heard tonight of joining between several hadiths for a single ruling are too clear to misunderstand Shafi‘i in this way. Shafi‘i is referring to hadiths that he was previously unaware of and that mujtahid scholars know him to have been unaware of when he gave a particular ruling. And this, as Imam Nawawi has said, “is very difficult,” for Shafi‘i was aware of a great deal. We have heard the opinion of Shafi‘i's student Ahmad ibn Hanbal about how many hadiths a faqih must know, and he unquestionably considered Shafi‘i to be such a scholar, for Shafi‘i was his sheikh in fiqh. Ibn Khuzayma, who was known as “the Imam of Imams” in hadith memorization, was once asked, “Do you know of a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that Shafi‘i did not include in his books?” And he said, “No” (Nawawi: al-Majmu‘ (b00), 1.10). And Imam Dhahabi has said, “Shafi‘i did not have a single hadith that he made a mistake about” (Ibn Subki: Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyya al-kubra (b00), 9.114). It is clear from all of this that Imam Shafi‘i's statement “When a hadith is sahih, it is my position” only makes sense—and could result in meaningful corrections—if addressed to scholars at a level of hadith mastery comparable to his own.

Hadith Authentication. This last point raises another issue here that few people are aware of today, and I shall devote the final part of my speech to it. Just as the mujtahid Imam is not like us in his command of the Qur’an and hadith evidence and the principles needed to join between it and infer rulings from it, so too he is not like us in the way he judges the authenticity of hadiths. If a person who is not a hadith specialist needs to rate a hadith, he will usually want to know if it appears, for example, in Sahih al-Bukhari, or Sahih Muslim, or if some hadith scholar has declared it to be sahih or hasan. A mujtahid does not do this.

Rather, he reaches an independent judgment as to whether a particular hadith is truly from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) through his own knowledge of hadith narrators and the sciences of hadith, and not from taqlid or “following the opinion of another hadith scholar.”

It is thus not necessarily an evidence against the positions of a mujtahid that Bukhari, or Muslim, or whoever, has accepted a hadith that contradicts the mujtahid’s evidence. Why? Because among hadith scholars, the reliability rating of individual narrators in hadith chains of transmission are disagreed about and therefore hadiths are disagreed about in the same manner that particular questions of fiqh are disagreed about among the scholars of fiqh. Like the schools of fiqh, the extent of this disagreement is relatively small in relation to the whole, but one should remember that it does exist.

Because a mujtahid scholar is not bound to accept another scholar’s ijtihad regarding a particular hadith, the ijtihad of a hadith specialist of our own time that, for example, a hadith is weak (da‘if), is not necessarily an evidence against the ijtihad of a previous mujtahid that the hadith is acceptable. This is particularly true in the present day, when specialists in hadith are not at the level of their predecessors in either knowledge of hadith sciences, or memorization of hadiths.

We should also remember what sahih means. I shall conclude my talk tonight with the five conditions that have to be met for a hadith to be considered sahih, and we shall see, in sha’ Allah, how the scholars of hadith have differed about them.

(a) The first condition is that a hadith must go back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) by a continuous chain of narrators. There is a difference of opinion here between Bukhari and Muslim, in that Bukhari held that for any two adjacent narrators in a chain of transmission, it must be historically established that the two actually met, whereas Muslim and others stipulated only that their meeting have been possible, such as by one having lived in a particular city that the other is known to have visited at least once in his life. So some hadiths will be acceptable to Muslim that will not be acceptable to Bukhari and those of the mujtahid imams who adopt his criterion.

(b) The second condition for a sahih hadith is that the narrators be morally upright. The scholars have disagreed about the definition of this, some accepting that it is enough that a narrator be a Muslim who is not proven to have been unacceptable. Others stipulate that he be outwardly established as having been morally upright, while other scholars stipulate that this be established inwardly as well. These different criteria are naturally reasons why two mujtahids may differ about the authenticity of a single hadith.

(c) The third condition is that the narrators must be known to have had accurate memories. The verification of this is similarly subject to some disagreement between the Imams of hadith, resulting in differences about reliability ratings of particular narrators, and therefore of particular hadiths.

(d) The fourth condition for a sahih hadith is that the text and transmission of the hadith must be free of shudhudh, or “variance from established standard narrations of it.” An example is when a hadith is related by five different narrators who are contemporaries of one another, all of whom relate the same hadith from the same sheikh through his chain of transmission back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Here, if we find that four of the hadiths have the same wording but one of them has a variant wording, the hadith with the variant wording is called shadhdh or “deviant,” and it is not accepted, because the difference is naturally assumed to be the mistake of the one narrator, since all of the narrators heard the hadith from the same sheikh.

There is a hadith, for example (researched by our sheikh, hadith specialist Shu‘ayb Arna’ut) related by Ahmad ((b00), 4.318), Bayhaqi ((b00), 2.132), Ibn Khuzayma ((b00), 1.354: 714), and Ibn Hibban, with a reliable chain of narrators (thiqat)—except for Kulayb ibn Hisham, who is a merely “acceptable” (saduq), not “reliable” (thiqa)—that the Companion Wa’il ibn Hujr al-Hadrami said that when he watched the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) kneeling in the Tashahhud or “Testification of Faith” of his prayer, the Prophet lifted his [index] finger, and I saw him move it, supplicating with it. I came [some time] after that and saw people in [winter] over-cloaks, their hands moving under the cloaks (Ibn Hibban (b00), 5.170–71: 1860 (a17)).

Now, all of the versions of the hadith mentioning that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) moved his finger have been related to us by way of Za’ida ibn Qudama al-Thaqafi, a narrator who is considered reliable, and who transmitted it from the hadith sheikh ‘Asim ibn Kulayb, who related it from his father Kulayb ibn Shihab, from Wa’il ibn Hujr al-Hadrami. But we find that this version of “moving the finger” contradicts versions of the hadith transmitted from the same sheikh, ‘Asim ibn Kulayb, by no less than ten of ‘Asim’s other students, all of them reliable, who heard ‘Asim report that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not move but rather pointed (ashara) with his index finger (towards the qibla or “direction of prayer”).

These companions of ‘Asim (with their hadiths) are: Sufyan al-Thawri: “then he pointed with his index finger, putting the thumb to the middle finger to make a ring with them” (al-Musannaf (b00), 2.68–69: 2522 (a18)); Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna: “he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Ahmad (b00), 4.318 (a19)); Shu‘ba ibn al-Hajjaj: “he pointed with his index finger, and formed a ring with the middle one” (Ahmad (b00), 4.319 (a20)); Qays ibn al-Rabi‘: “then he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Tabarani (b00), 22.33–34: 79 (a21)); ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn Ziyad al-‘Abdi: “he made a ring with a finger, and pointed with his index finger” (Ahmad (b00), 4.316 (a22)); ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Awdi: “he had joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and raised the finger between them to make du‘a (supplication) in the Testification of Faith” (Ibn Majah (b00), 1.295: 912 (a23)); Zuhayr ibn Mu‘awiya: “and I saw him [‘Asim] say, ‘Like this,’—and Zuhayr pointed with his first index finger, holding two fingers in, and made a ring with his thumb and second index [middle] finger” (Ahmad (b00), 4.318–19 (a24)); Abu al-Ahwas Sallam ibn Sulaym: “he began making du‘a like this—meaning with his index finger, pointing with it—” (Musnad al-Tayalisi (b00), 137: 1020 (a25)); Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal: “and I saw him [‘Asim] say, ‘Like this,’—and Bishr joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Abu Dawud (b00), 1.251: 957 (a26); and Khalid ibn Abdullah al-Wasiti: “then he joined his thumb and middle finger to make a ring, and pointed with his index finger” (Bayhaqi (b00), 2.131 (a27)).

All of these narrators are reliable (thiqat), and all heard ‘Asim ibn Kulayb relate that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) “pointed with (ashara bi) his index finger” during the Testimony of Faith in his prayer. There are many other narrations of “pointing with the index finger” transmitted through sheikhs other than ‘Asim, omitted here for brevity—four of them, for example, in Sahih Muslim ((b00), 1.408–9). The point is, for illustrating the meaning of a shadhdh or “deviant hadith,” that the version of moving the finger was conveyed only by Za’ida ibn Qudama from ‘Asim. Ibn Khuzayma says: “There is not a single hadith containing yuharrikuha (‘he moved it’) except this hadith mentioned by Za’ida” (Sahih Ibn Khuzayma (b00), 1.354: 714).

So we know that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to point with his index finger, and that the version of “moving his finger” is shadhdh or “deviant,” and represents a slip of the narrator, for the word ishara in the majority’s version means only “to point or gesture at,” or “to indicate with the hand,” and has no recorded lexical sense of wiggling or shaking the finger (Lisan al-‘Arab (b00), 4.437 and al-Qamus al-muhit (b00), 540). This interpretation is explicitly borne out by well authenticated hadiths related from the Companion Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to point with his index finger when making supplication [in the Testification of Faith], and did not move it” (Abu Dawud (b00), 1.260: 989 (a28)) and that he “used to point with his index finger when making supplication, without moving it” (Bayhaqi (b00), 2.131–32 (a29)).

Finally, we may note that Imam Bayhaqi has joined between the Za’ida ibn Qudama hadith and the many hadiths that apparently contradict it by suggesting that moving the finger in the Za’ida hadith may mean simply lifting it (rafa‘a), a wording explicitly mentioned in one version recorded by Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) “raised the right finger that is next to the thumb, and supplicated with it” (Sahih Muslim (b00), 1.408: 580 (a30)). So according to Bayhaqi, the contradiction is only apparent, and raising the finger is the “movement” that Wa’il saw from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the people’s hands under their cloaks, according to Za’ida’s version, which remains, however, shadhdh or “deviant” from a hadith point of view, unless understood in this limitary sense.

(e) The fifth and final condition for a sahih hadith is that both the text and chain of transmission must be without ‘illa or “hidden flaw” that alerts experts to expect inauthenticity in it. We will dwell for a moment on this point not only because it helps illustrate the processes of ijtihad, but because in-depth expertise in this condition was not common even among top hadith Imams. The greatest name in the field was ‘Ali al-Madini, one of the sheikhs of Bukhari, though his major work about it is now unfortunately lost. Daraqutni is perhaps the most famous specialist in the field whose works exist. In the words of Ibn Salah, a hafiz or “hadith master” (someone with at least 100,000 hadiths by memory), the knowledge of the ‘illa or “hidden flaw” is:

among the greatest of the sciences of hadith, the most exacting, and highest: only scholars of great memorization, hadith expertise, and penetrating understanding have a thorough knowledge of it. It refers to obscure, hidden flaws that vitiate hadiths, “flawed” meaning that a defect is discovered that negates the authenticity of a hadith that is outwardly “rigorously authenticated” (sahih). It affects hadiths with reliable chains of narrators that outwardly appear to fulfill all the conditions of a sahih hadith (‘Ulum al-hadith (b00), 90).

It may surprise some people to learn that one example often cited in hadith textbooks of such a hidden flaw (‘illa) is from Sahih Muslim, all of whose hadiths are rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Ibn Salah has said, “except for a very small number of words, which hadith masters of textual evaluation (naqd) such as Daraqutni and others have critiqued, and which are known to scholars of this level” (‘Ulum al-hadith (b00), 29). The hadith of the present example was related by Muslim from the Companion Anas ibn Malik in several versions, which might convince those unaware of its flaw to believe that someone at prayer should omit the Basmala or “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the beginning of the Fatiha. According to the hadith, Anas ibn Malik (Allah be well pleased with him) said,

I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,” not mentioning “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim” at the first of the recital or the last of it [and in another version, “I didn’t hear any of them recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’”] (Sahih Muslim (b00), 1.299: 399 (a31)).

Scholars say the hadith’s flaw lies in the negation of the Basmala at the end, which is not the words of Anas, but rather one of the subnarrators explaining what he thought Anas meant. Ibn Salah says: “Its subnarrator related it with the above-mentioned wording in accordance with his own understanding of it” (Muqaddima Ibn Salah (b00), 99). This hadith is given as an example of a “hidden flaw” in a number of manuals of hadith terminology such as hadith master (hafiz) Suyuti’s Tadrib al-rawi ((b00), 1.254–57); hadith master Ibn Salah’s Ulum al-hadith ((b00), 92); hadith master Zayn al-Din ‘Iraqi’s al-Taqyid wa al-idah ((b00), 98–103); and others. ‘Iraqi says, “A number of hadith masters (huffaz) have judged it to be flawed, including Shafi‘i, Daraqutni, Bayhaqi, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr” (ibid., 98).

Now, Bukhari has related the hadith up to the words “and they opened with ‘al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin’”; without mentioning omitting the Basmala (Bukhari (b00), 1.189: 743 (a32)), and Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud relate no other version. Scholars point out, in this connection, that the words “al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin” were in fact the name of the Fatiha, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his Companions often used the opening words of suras as names for them; for example, in the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari of Abu Sa‘id ibn al-Mu‘alla, to whom the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I will teach you a sura that is the greatest sura of the Qur’an before you leave the mosque.” Then he took my hand, and when he was going out, I said to him, “Didn’t you say, ‘I will teach you a sura that is the greatest sura of the Qur’an before you leave the mosque’?” And he said: “‘Al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin’: it is the Seven Oft-Recited [Verses] (al-Sab‘ al-Mathani) and the Tremendous Recital (al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim) that I have been given” (ibid., 6.20–21: 4474 (a33)).

In this hadith, “Al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin” is plainly the name of the Fatiha, and means nothing besides, for otherwise, it is one verse, not seven. ‘A'isha, who was one of the ulama of the Sahaba, also referred to names of suras in this way, as in the hadith of Bukhari that

the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), when he went to bed each night, joined his hands together, blew a light spray of saliva upon them, and read over them “Qul huwa Llahu Ahad,” “Qul a‘udhu bi Rabbi l-Falaq,” and “Qul a‘udhu bi Rabbi n-Nas”; then wiped every part of his body he could with them (ibid., 233–34: 5017 (a34)),

which clearly shows that she named the suras by their opening words (after the Basmala), as did other early Muslims (such as Bukhari in his chapter headings in the section of his Sahih on the Virtues of the Qur’an, for example). So there is no indication, in the portion of the Anas hadith’s wording that is agreed upon by both Bukhari and Muslim; namely, “I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and they opened with ‘al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,’” that the Basmala was not recited aloud. Says Tirmidhi: “Imam Shafi‘i has said, ‘Its meaning is that they used to begin with the Fatiha before the sura, not that they did not recite “Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim.”’ And Shafi‘i held that the prayer was begun with ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ and that it was recited aloud in prayers recited aloud” (Tirmidhi (b00), 2.16).

Hadith scholars who are masters of textual critique, like Daraqutni and others, consider the words of the Anas hadith “not mentioning ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’” which outwardly seem to suggest omitting the Basmala, to be vitiated by an ‘illa or “hidden flaw” for many reasons, a few of which are:

—It is established by numerous intersubstantiative channels of transmission (tawatur), that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “There is no prayer for whoever does not recite the Fatiha” (Bukhari (b00), 1.192: 756 (a35)). That the Basmala is the Fatiha’s first verse is shown by several facts:

First, the Sahaba affirmed nothing in the collation of the Qur’an (mushaf) of ‘Uthman’s time except what was Qur’an, and they unanimously placed the Basmala at the beginning of every sura except Sura al-Tawba.

Secondly, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “When you recite ‘al-Hamdu li Llah,’ recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ for it is the Sum of the Qur’an (Umm al-Qur’an), and the Compriser of the Scripture (Umm al-Kitab), and the Seven Oft-Repeated [Verses] (al-Sab‘ al-Mathani)—and ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’ is one of its verses” (Bayhaqi (b00), 2.45 (a36); and Daraqutni (b00), 1.312 (a37)), a hadith related with a rigorously authenticated (sahih) channel of transmission to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and through another chain to Abu Hurayra alone (Allah be well pleased with him).

Thirdly, Umm Salama relates: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite: ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim. al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin,’ separating each phrase”; a hadith which Hakim said was rigorously authenticated (sahih) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, which Imam Dhahabi corroborated (al-Mustadrak (b00), 1.232 (a38)). Daraqutni also relates from Umm Salama that “the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) when he used to recite the Qur’an would pause in his recital verse by verse: ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim: al-Hamdu li Llahi Rabbi l-‘Alamin: ar-Rahmani r-Rahim: Maliki yawmi d-din.’” Daraqutni said, “Its ascription is rigorously authenticated (sahih); all of its narrators are reliable” (Daraqutni (b00), 1.312–13 (a39)). These hadiths show that the Basmala was recited aloud by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as part of the Fatiha.

Fourthly, Bukhari relates in his Sahih that when Anas was asked how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite, “he answered: ‘By prolonging [the vowels]’—and then he [Anas] recited ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ prolonging the Bismi Llah, prolonging the r-Rahman, and prolonging the r-Rahim” (Bukhari (b00), 6.241: 5046 (a40)), indicating that Anas regarded this as part of the Prophet’s Qur’an recital and that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) recited it aloud.

Fifthly, Daraqutni has recorded two hadiths, both from Ibn ‘Abbas, and has said about each of them, “This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) chain of transmission, there is not a weak narrator in it,” of which the first is: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to recite ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim,’ aloud”; and the second is: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to begin the prayer with ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’” (Nawawi: al-Majmu‘ (b00), 3.347 (a41)).

—Imam Mawardi summarizes: “Because it is established that it is obligatory to recite the Fatiha in the prayer, and that the Basmala is part of it, the ruling for reciting the Basmala aloud or to oneself must be the same as that of reciting the Fatiha aloud or to oneself” (al-Hawi al-kabir (b00), 2.139).

—Imam Nawawi says: “Concerning reciting ‘Bismi Llahi r-Rahmani r-Rahim’ aloud, we have mentioned that our position is that it is praiseworthy to do so. Wherever one recites the Fatiha and sura aloud, the ruling for reciting the Basmala aloud is the same as reciting the rest of the Fatiha and sura aloud. This is the position of the majority of the ulama of the Sahaba and those who were taught by them (Tabi‘in) and those after them. As for the Sahaba who held the Basmala is recited aloud at prayer, the hadith master (hafiz) Abu Bakr al-Khatib reports that they included Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Qatada, Abu Sa‘id, Qays ibn Malik, Abu Hurayra, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, Shaddad ibn Aws, ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, Husayn ibn ‘Ali, Mu‘awiya, and the congregation of Emigrants (Muhajirin) and Helpers (Ansar) who were present with Mu‘awiya when he prayed in Medina but did not say the Basmala aloud, and they censured him, so he returned to saying it aloud” (al-Majmu‘ (b00), 3.341).

These are some reasons why scholars regard the Anas hadith in Sahih Muslim to be mu‘all or “flawed.” We cannot here discuss other aspects of the hadith such as the flaws in its chain of narrators, which are explained in detail in Zayn al-Din ‘Iraqi’s al-Taqyid wa al-idah ((b00), 100–101), though the foregoing may give a general idea why it has been considered flawed by hadith masters (huffaz) such as Suyuti, ‘Iraqi, Ibn Salah, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Daraqutni, and Bayhaqi—and why the shari‘a ruling apparently deducible from the end of the hadith; namely, omitting the Basmala when reciting the Fatiha at prayer, has been rejected by Shafi‘i, Nawawi, and others, who hold that the Basmala is recited aloud whenever the Fatiha is. (The position of Abu Hanifa and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, it may be noted, is that one recites the Basmala to oneself before the Fatiha, thus joining between hadiths on both sides by interpreting the “omitting” in the Anas hadith in other than its apparent sense, to mean merely “reciting to oneself.”) In any case, it is clearly not a story of “the hadith in Sahih Muslim that the Imams didn’t know about,” as some of the unlearned seriously suggest today, but rather a difference of opinion in hadith authentication involving the highest levels of shari‘a scholarship.

Finally, this illustration shows us that the statement which has become a commonplace nowadays, to the effect that the books of Bukhari, Muslim, and others were not yet in existence in the times of the four mujtahid Imams, is true, but trivially true: first, because Bukhari and Muslim’s sheikhs took their hadiths from the same sheikhs that Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi‘i, and Ahmad took their hadiths from, with the same chains of transmission, back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace): the hadiths were the same hadiths. But secondly (and perhaps more tellingly), it is trivial because the Imams reached independent judgements on the authenticity of particular hadiths based on their own knowledge, not merely on following the conclusions (taqlid) of other hadith experts, as we do.

Studying the five conditions above for a sahih hadith and the differences about them among specialists shows us why the mujtahid Imams of the schools sometimes differ with one another about whether a particular hadith is really from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Whoever believes that a single scholar, whether Bukhari, Muslim, or a contemporary sheikh, can finish off all differences of opinion about the acceptability of particular hadiths, should correct his impressions by going and studying the sciences of hadith. What we can realize from this is that when we find a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari that one school of fiqh seems to follow and another does not, it may well be that differences in fiqh methodology, hadith methodology, or both, play a role.

Conclusions. Let me summarize everything I have said tonight. I first pointed out that the knowledge you and I learn from the Qur’an and hadith may be divided into three categories. The first is the knowledge of Allah and His attributes, and the basic truths of Islamic belief such as the messengerhood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the belief in the Last Day, and so on. Every Muslim can and must learn this knowledge from the Book of Allah and the sunna, which is also the case for the second kind of knowledge: that of general Islamic laws to do good, to avoid evil, to perform the prayer, pay zakat, fast Ramadan, to cooperate with others in good works, and so on. Anyone can and must learn these general prescriptions for him or herself.

Then we discussed a third category of knowledge, which consists of fiqh or “understanding” of specific details of Islamic practice. We found in the Qur’an and sahih hadiths that people are of two types respecting this knowledge, those qualified to do ijtihad and those who are not. We mentioned the sahih hadith about “a man who judges for people while ignorant: he shall go to hell,” showing that would-be mujtahids are criminals when they operate without training.

We heard the Qur’anic verse that established that a certain group of the Muslim community must learn and be able to teach others the specific details of their religion. We heard the Qur’anic verse that those who do not know must ask those who do, as well as the verse about referring matters to “those whose task it is to find it out.”

We talked about these scholars, the mujtahid Imams, firstly, in terms of their comprehensive knowledge of the whole Qur’an and hadith textual corpus, and secondly, in terms of their depth of interpretation, and here we mentioned Qur’an and hadith examples that illustrate the processes by which mujtahid Imams join between multiple texts, and give precedence when there is ostensive conflict. Our concrete examples of ijtihad enabled us in turn to understand to whom the Imams addressed their famous remarks not to follow their positions without knowing the proofs. They addressed them to the first rank scholars they had trained and who were capable of grasping and evaluating the issues involved in these particular proofs.

We then saw that the Imams were also mujtahids in the matter of judging hadiths to be sahih or otherwise, and noted that, just as it is unlawful for a mujtahid Imam to do taqlid or “follow another mujtahid without knowing his evidence” in a question of fiqh, neither does he do so in the question of accepting particular hadiths. Finally, we noted that the differences in reliability ratings of hadiths among qualified scholars were parallel to the differences among scholars about the details of Islamic practice: a relatively small amount of difference in relation to the whole.

The main point of all of this is that while every Muslim can take the foundation of his Islam directly from the Qur’an and hadith; namely, the main beliefs and general ethical principles he has to follow—for the specific details of fiqh of Islamic practice, knowing a Qur’anic verse or hadith may be worlds apart from knowing the shari‘a ruling, unless one is a qualified mujtahid or is citing one.

As for would-be mujtahids who know some Arabic and are armed with books of hadith, they are like the would-be doctor we mentioned earlier: if his only qualification were that he could read English and owned some medical books, we would certainly object to his practicing medicine, even if it were no more than operating on someone’s little finger. So what should be said of someone who knows only Arabic and has some books of hadith, and wants to operate on your akhira?

To understand why Muslims follow madhhabs, we have to go beyond simplistic slogans about “the divinely-protected versus the non-divinely-protected,” and appreciate the Imams of fiqh who have operationalized the Qur’an and sunna to apply in our lives as shari‘a, and we must ask ourselves if we really “hear and obey” when Allah tells us

“Ask those who know if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43).