The caliphs and the Jinn

If the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w., was the prophet for both man and the Jinn, and he was; and if he was the final messenger for man and the Jinn, and he was; so after he s.a.w.w. departed from this realm, who was the guide for the Jinn? Were the caliphs appointed after him s.a.w.w., the guides of both man and the Jinn?


Think.

Only the Wearer Would Know How Much the Shoe Bites

Ctrl.Alt.Shift


Click: No Way Through

What if the Tables were Turned

Afghans scour Utah for the thousands of buried US nuclear bombs

Al Jazeera English - CENTRAL/S. ASIA - Marines hunt elusive foe in Helmand

english.aljazeera.net

Al Jazeera follows troops on a village "clearing" operation in southern Afghanistan.

To the Sheeple:

Wasn't this a conspiracy theory ...

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2009/08/2009827132632259526.html

... until ...

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Israel admits to organ thefts

english.aljazeera.net

Forensic workers took tissue from dead without families' permission.

?!

Innocence at The Gulf of Tonkin. Or not!

Hasan Shikoh

I would not claim that I am a highly experienced man, or "very old" for that matter; but in my life thus far, I have learnt one thing: one should avoid living a neutral life, remaining undecided about what might be the truth or the false; I think one must take sides when so much evidence might have been released and studied. Waiting for Godot will simply not do! Here, I'll improvise on the "Bush Doctrine", and rephrase it thus: Either you are with the Truth, or against it. True, what may seem to be the truth for one, may seem to be false in the eyes of another. That then is exactly why I suppose one should nurture in oneself the spirit of fairness and the strife towards justice in the larger interest of human growth and evolution.

I write this article because I am a tad confounded, almost flabbergasted perhaps, at how the truth should be considered: Should one accept the veracity of some past or present deed until it is actually proven, or admitted by the perpetrators, or should one doubt it all until proven true? Let me cut to the chase here: The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident". Ah yes, that one! Again!

I have read and heard that the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was a false flag operation, and that the US had admitted it; confessed to it when the documents were declassified. And when I spoke about it, of course, I was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. I was asked to show the document in which the US government actually admits it carried out the false flag operation back in 1963.

The condition, however, is that Pilger - the Australian award winning journalist - is not to be quoted. Hersh - the American award winning journalist neither. Chomsky - Professor Emeritus at MIT - is not to be quoted. Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesotta and former US Navy Seal, is not to be believed. Fisk, no! Klein's well-researched book called The Shock Doctrine is not to be believed because her previous book No Logo "did not really impress".

Only a document from the US Department of Defense or the State Department would do.

Question number 1 a & b: Why are these respected journalists and commentators not to be quoted? Are they to be considered as conspiracy theorists?

Never do I receive any answer. Repeat: Never.

Question 1c: Have any of these award winning journalists and commentators been known to engage in irresponsible journalism?

No answer again; but then a retort: "Don't shift the goal post."

This is not shifting goal posts. This is trying to establish whether these same respected people who say or write that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a staged event are conspiracy theorists, and whether what they say is based on drunken citations made in the pub.

For the tapes and transcripts on the Gulf of Tonkin, visit the National Security Archives of the George Washington University: L. B. Johnson Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident; The McNamara/Sharp Transcript.

But let's also go to the National Security Agency's (NSA) link Declassification Initiatives. It says:

  

    "The Gulf of Tonkin incident, like others in our nation's history, has become the center of considerable controversy and debate. It is not NSA's intention to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material. Instead, through these public releases, we intend to make as much information as possible available for the many scholars, historians, academia, and members of the general public who find interest in analyzing the information and forming their own conclusions."

(Gulf of Tonkin Index - 11/30/2005 and 05/30/2006)

If the quest for the truth be the central interest, and bearing in mind that the NSA admits that the Gulf of Tonkin is a "center of considerable controversy and debate", I ask: why should the US Government, the Department of Defence and the National Security Agency, not take a side: Either they did carry out a false flag attack, or they didn't. Why leave it to the conspiracy theorists and those who so-know-the-absolute-truth-until-otherwise-proven to waste their lives discussing the matter, and never agreeing? After all, it is a matter of national trust, isn't it? The government certainly wants to establish trustworthiness, doesn't it?

But no, I am told, produce the evidence of the US government actually admitting it in plain words.

The men who committed the deeds at the Gulf are dead. And the US Government refuses to confess or refute in writing. It leaves it up to "scholars, historians, academia, and members of the general public who find interest in analyzing the information" to establish "their own conclusions."

So then whose conclusion would be considered reliable and credible? Meanwhile, with nobody winning with their conclusions, the US government remains nicely innocent?

And all that while, the world-respected investigative journalists are a no-read; whether because they are conspiracy theorists or not will never be commented upon.

And of course, drawing analogies of past and present behaviour patterns from the 911 Deception; the Iraq-WMD deception; the open connivance with the illegitimate Israeli set up to maul the Palestinians; Blackwater's deathly deeds committed on behalf of the CIA, hence the US Government; the repeated coup conspiracies against Chavez; the ousting of Iran's democratically elected Mossadeq government etc etc, are not allowed either - because that's "shifting goal posts".

So where does one go?

I then hear someone say: "You've got to use your own judgement in the end." (Yes, someone did actually say that at the table.)

Ah! Making my own judgement would not be a scientific way to establish the veracity of something then, I am told.

And then after studying the history of the United States government particularly since World War II, which says they have directly or indirectly invaded or bombed 72 countries, towards which side of the truth should my judgement make me lean? Its innocence?

Here are some "newly declassified papers" on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Huh? "Newly declassified"?

Are there even more to come for say, 2012?

Until then - until, o most truthful government(s), thou releaseth the remaining information piece meal by piece meal, I guess I should worship the innocence of thy worship, or else, holy government(s) forbid, remain doomed to die a conspiracy theorist.

The Big Bang

One of the most subtle problems in science concerns the expansion of the universe, its tendency constantly to extend its boundaries. This was something completely unknown to the human being until the last century. This mystery is, however, mentioned by the Quran in the following terms, which again bear witness to its remarkable profundity when discussing such matters:

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”
- Al-Quran, Chapter 21 (Sura Anbiya), Verse 30.

“We created the heavens with Our strength and power, and are constantly expanding them.”
- Al-Quran, Chapter 51 (Sura Dhariyat), Verse 47.

This was revealed 1,300 YEARS – yes, that’s one thousand three hundred; yep, 13 C.E.N.T.U.R.I.E.S. – BEFORE Hubble discovered that the universe was actually constantly expanding, and that it had originated as a single “point”.

Why must it be that when a “Western” scientist realises something that it is propounded to be scientific indeed and to have got “discovered for the first time”?

The Disappearing Male | Watch Free Documentary Online

The Disappearing Male | Watch Free Documentary Online