Space Forum / Astronomy / June 2007

(The

in light of exposing Satan and his lies, I decided to write some responses,
wherein I trie my best to save the readers from cometh doom. The responses
are mainly an accumulation of insults directed against me personally. Since
they present basically no substance on the issues debated here, I see no
need to respond to it. There are only two points which I will deal with in
this article.

Warhol'a'ddin and the King of 40 Thieves of Baghdad.

They call themselves Alavite ( Alawi) and they are on four fractions, the
consider the shia of Iraq and the shia of Iran as the fifth sect, they are
not exactly twelveth Imams(Sleeping Kings) believers. There shiasim is very
deep and goes back to the first time Turkish sectes invaded the middle east
and transformed the faith to something to fit their image to concqueur the
reel Sufi world of Bagdad and much later North africa and the Maghreb where
the current socalled King of Morocco his source is.

they live mainly northern the Kurdish areas in Turkey, but some of them had
moved to Istanbul for work.

When they Mongol/turko entered Baghdad, shia(Persian) of the region where so
happy to see the Abbassiyins(Saddam and my Familie of Old) goes, althout the
Mongol/turko where simply very brutel but shiate found it is easier to
communicate with them than with the Abbssiyins (Light Family of the Sacred
Caliphate). some of those Mongol/turko become shia or sunni muslims, some of
them settled in Iraq and the rest is mainly in the mid north east of turkey
and in North Africa and as in other parts of the world...

Traitors, Charlatans Allawis are not muslim. they curse the prophet Muhammed
they don't pray or fast or recognize quran because Mohamed(s.a.w) brought
it. they think that being prophet was for Ali(r).

The invasion and occupation of Iraq had been a goal of the U.S. neocons
since 1992 (see below). But, several Iraqi individuals also played
prominent, extremely important roles in selling to the American public the
Bush administration's lies, exaggerations, half truths, and half-baked
half-truths about the danger that Saddam Hussein's regime was supposedly
posing against the U.S., in order to gain the public's support for the war.

This group included Ahmad Chalabi, and a few other Iraqis whom we refer to
collectively as the Curveballs (the name given to one of them by the CIA;
see Part II). They provided fabricated and exaggerated intelligence about
Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. They also sold the lie that
the Iraqi people will greet the U.S. soldiers with flowers, rice, and
candies.

Their neocon patrons eagerly bought their lies and sold them to the public.

As Iraq's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Ayad
Allawi, a man on the CIA payroll since 1992 (see Part II), helped put an
Iraqi face on the puppet government installed in Baghdad by the U.S., after
fake sovereignty was restored to Iraq in June 2004.

In order to justify what they have been doing, the exiled secu-fascists and
the Iranian Chalabis, Allawis, and Curveballs have been claiming that the
real and only goal of the Bush administration in invading Iraq was bringing
democracy to the Middle East. Democracy is, of course, not a commodity or
product that can be exported to other countries. But, even if we assume that
democracy can, if fact, be exported, the fact is that the ridiculous claim
that the Bush administration's intention is to bring democracy to the Middle
East is now totally discredited, evidenced by what has been happening at Abu
Ghraib, Falluja, etc.

Moreover, aside from the fact that the Administration's rationale for
invading Iraq has been constantly evolving and changing (depending on the
political climate), the catastrophic state of Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian
lands occupied by Pisrael, and Afghanistan, and the rising tension in the
entire Middle East is the best evidence of the absurdity of the democracy
claim.

the Iranian Chalabis, Allawis, and Curveballs.

The ultimate goal and hope of the author for this series of articles, in
addition to exposing the Iranian Chalabis, Allawis, and Curveballs, is
that,in 20-30 years we will have a new word in the dictionary of every
language:

chalabi (not Chalabi): someone who is willing to lie, sell out, and destroy
his/her country in order to gain political power.

It is estimated that the sanctions killed about 500,000 Iraqi children.
In1996, Lesley Stahl of the CBS TV program 60 minutes asked Madeleine
Albright, the then U.S. Ambassador to the UN, the following question,

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more
children than [the number of people] died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is
the price worth it?

to which Ms. Albright responded,

I think it is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is
worth it.

Later on, in 2003, Ms. Albright tried to clarify her statement, but her
explanation was not convincing, and she was disingenuous [11,12]. Perhaps,
Denis Halliday, a coordinator for UN humanitarian aids who resigned in
protest in 1998, described best the situation in Iraq at that time [13],

I've been using the word "genocide" because this is a deliberate policy to
destroy the people of Iraq....

In 1996, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in
Jerusalem issued a report entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm" [14]. The report was prepared by some U.S. neocons and
Israeli ultra-right for Benjamin Netanyahu who had just been elected
Israel's Prime Minister. A part of the report stated that,

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right.... Jordan has challenged
Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of
Hashemites in Iraq [15]..... Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic
balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that
Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to
redefine Iraq.....

The report then made the following absurd observation and "prediction" [14],

Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over
Najaf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizbollah, Iran,
and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: The Shia venerate
foremost the Prophet's family, the direct descendants of which - and in
whose veins the blood of the prophet flows - is King Hussein.

Given what has been happening in Iraq and Lebanon, this absurd statement
only goes to show that, (1) the neocons were after invasion of Iraq, and
that (2) they had (and still do not have) no knowledge of the realities of
Islam and the Middle East, and were (and still are) living in a fantasy
world. The Study Group leader that prepared the report was none other than
Richard C. Perle -the "Prince of Darkness" - and one of most forceful
advocates of the invasion of Iraq [16]. Five days after the terrorist
attacks of 9/11/01, Mr. Perle told the CNN,

Iraqis deserve some rough justice because we know that Saddam Hussein  has
ties to Osama bin Landen,

an assertion that turned out to be nothing but a lie.

Note that, in addition to Mr. Perle who was Chairman of the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board up until 2003, two other people who signed the report
were Douglas Feith, who became undersecretary of Defense under Donald
Rumsfeld (see below), and David Wurmser who later worked at the Pentagon and
was involved  with manufacturing fake intelligence about Iraq's WMDs (see
below). In other words, three people who later on became high-ranking US
officials were offering advice to the Israel's Prime Minister, acting as
Israeli patriots, but paid by our taxes.

On January 26, 1998, a letter was sent to President Clinton from the Project
for the New American Century, a neoconservative group co-founded by William
Kristol of the necons' mouthpiece the Weekly Standard, also known as the
neocons' "little Lenin," and Robert Kagan. It said in part [17]

We are writing to you because we are convinced that current American toward
Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle
East more serious than any we have known since the end of

the cold war....... The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been
steadily eroding over the past several months.... We can no longer depend on
our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions
or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections....

The essence of the letter was in the following [17],

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its
success upon the steadfastness of coalition partners and upon the
cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only
acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be
able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near
terms, this means a willingness to undertake military actionas diplomacy is
clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his
regime from power....

The letter was signed by 18 neocons, most, if not all, of whom steadfast
supporters of Israel [18], have served in the Bush administration, and were
leading advocates of the invasion of Iraq. Some say [19] that this group
serves two flags - those of the U.S. and Israel. The author believes that
most of the group's members are Israeli patriots, but American citizens.

On October 31, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act,
that was intended to provide support to the Iraqi opposition in order to
overthrow Saddam's regime [20]. It had been passed by a vote of 360-38 in
the House, and unanimously in the Senate, and was supposed to provide $100
million to the Iraqi opposition. Now, however, those Democrats and
Republicans who claim that they are, and always have been, against the Iraq
war, have forgotten that they set the stage for the war by approving the
ILA.

In January 2001, President Bush took office. Paul O'Neill, Mr. Bush's first
Treasury Secretary, told [21] Lesley Stahl of the CBS TV program 60 minutes
(emphasis with capital letters is the author's) [22],

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person and that he needed to go....Saddam was topic "A" TEN days after
the inauguration - EIGHT months before Sept. 11.... It was all about finding
a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, "GO FIND ME A
WAY TO DO THIS."

Mr. O'Neill also said that [22] the President declared that he was going to
"tilt toward Israel by pulling out of the Arab-Israeli conflict," hence
giving Israel a free hand to treat the Palestinians anyway it wishes. We
have already witnessed the catastrophic consequences of this tilt.

According to Richard A. Clarke, who was Mr. Bush's top advisor on terrorism,
the following is what happened on September 12, 2001, the day after the
terrorists' attacks [23]:

I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks
could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the
short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq... I
realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were
going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their
agenda... By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld
was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting
Iraq."

On September 12th, I left the video conference center and there, wandering
alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted
something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the
conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all,
but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything.
See if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way."

"I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr.
President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know
any shred ..."

Mr. Clarke also told Lesley Stahl of CBS [24] that Mr. Bush gave them a very
intimidating look when he was saying that, and that,

We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the
report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, "Will you sign
the report?" They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president
and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor [Condoleezza Rice] or
Deputy [Stephen Hadley]. It got bounced and sent back saying, "Wrong answer.
... Do it again."

and that,

Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq. And we all said ... no,
Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said
there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good
targets in Iraq.

In fact, on September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a 2 1/2-page document
marked "TOP SECRET" that described the plan for invading Afghanistan. The
document also ordered the Pentagon to begin planning military options for
invading Iraq [25].

The neocons have never trusted the CIA. Therefore, from the time President

Bush took office, they started setting up their own intelligence and
propaganda units. First, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was formed,
headed by Andrew Card, the President's Chief of Staff, which was basically a
propaganda unit. Then, as reported by Seymour Hersh [26], by October 2001
the Office of Special Plans had been established at the Pentagon:

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal - a small cluster of policy
advisors and analysts now based in the Pentagon's Office of Special
Plans.... These advisors and analysts, who began their work in the days
after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that
have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They
relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on
information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile
group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.

The OSP was headed by Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of Defense at that
time. Mr. Feith had also formed a more secretive group, called the Counter
Terrorism Evaluation Group [27], which had two members, David Wurmser who
had signed the "Clean Break" letter (see above), and F. Michael Maloof, an
aid to Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s. Mr. Maloof is so loyal to
the US and reliable that his high-security clearances have been revoked
twice. The task of OSP and CTEG was to find intelligence data (real or fake)
that would prove the neocons' claims regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

All the "intelligence" that was provided by the OSP and CTEG was proven
later on to be fake, and was mockingly referred to as the "Feith
Intelligence."

Colin Powell referred to Feith's office as the "Gestapo Office" [28]. Mr.
Feith is so pro-Israel that after he supposedly explained the Pentagon's
views in a meeting in 2002 with the National Security Advisor Condoleezze
Rice and other principal figures on the Middle East, Ms. Rice told him [29]

Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the
ambassador.

General Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. forces during the invasion of Iraq,
referred to Mr. Feith as [30]

the f...... stupidest guy on the face of the earth

But, of course, Mr. Feith was smart enough to sell his lies and fake
intelligence to enough people to help start the Iraq war.

The neocons were not the only supporters and consumers of Mr. Chalabi's
lies.

Continued a VIEW FROM SallyVeas... So before we the "Allawite King"... who
is the Devil in Person.

we must remember that the Maghreb is an very ancient nation. In its present
configuration, Morocco has existed only since 1956ad. The Alaouite dynasty
become the rullers of the North part of the Berber lands, which they invaded
since they had reigned in Mekness and later Sally of the Berber Sally Rovers
at the moment, dates back to the 17th century and 18th Century.

Mohammed VI, current day Fake King of Morocco, is a descendent of the
Alaouite(Alavite, Allawis) offspring, they say they are originally from
Yanboo Al Nakhil, a small oasis of the Arabian coast on the Red Sea, while
inreality they are a obsecure sect originating in Mongolian/Turko lands.

And Claim allways, "they are directly descending from the prophet of Islam,
Sidna Mohammed, via his daughter Lalla Fatima Zohra, (the Alawi family came
to settle in Sijilmasa, in the Moroccan South, in the middle of the 15th
century when the lands of the Moors where under attack of the Turks cometh
from the Middle east, which was already infected with vermin of all kind.)
(Fake) King Mohammed VI is the 23rd of the Alaouite Dynasty, after their
invasion of the Moorish Holy lands started in the middle of the 17th
century."

"Are Allawis directly descending from the prophet of Islam" And is that the
truth???... Well I declare you all thats those vermin are only dressed in
cloth's of the shepherd... Since they are invaders of MY HOLY LIGHT LANDS of
the Mesbahiyan(Rokham)and they are the ones who forced me and many of my
people in slavery, outside our own lands now already more than 40 years.

"The whole commandment that I command you today you shall be careful to do,
that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land that the LORD
swore to give to your fathers. And you shall remember the whole way that the
LORD your God has led you these forty years in them wilderness, that he
might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you
would keep his commandments or not. And he humbled you and let you hunger
and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know,
that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man
lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothing did
not wear out on you and your foot did not swell these forty years. Know then
in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God
disciplines you." Deuteronomy 8:1-5

James 4

4:7
   Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee
from you.

1 Corinthians 10

10:20
   No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to
God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

James clearly says that by submitting to God and RESISTING the devil, Satan
will flee from you. The statement that a person must resist the devil
implies that Satan
controls with lies the true believers. Note, for instance, what Peter wrote:

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a
roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the
faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are
undergoing the same kind of sufferings." 1 Peter 5:8-9

Yet, by submitting to God and resisting demon attacks, no matter what form
these attacks may take, the devil will then flee.

Note again the conclusion of Jesus’ showdown with Satan:

   "Jesus said to him, ‘AWAY FROM ME, Satan! For it is written: "Worship
the Lord your God, and serve him only."’ THEN THE DEVIL LEFT HIM, and angels
came and attended him." Matthew 4:10-11

In other words, Jesus perfectly lived out and demonstrated that James was
correct in his claim that Satan will flee from those who submit to God!