Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Idris

Pages: [1] 2 ... 13
1
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9402

White Phosphorous
The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal

by David Swanson

The U.S. military used white phosphorous as a weapon in Fallujah, and the U.S. military says such use is illegal.  That's one heck of a fog fact (Larry Beinhart's term for a fact that is neither secret nor known).  This fact has appeared in an article in the Guardian (UK) and been circulated on the internet, but has just not interested the corporate media in the United States.

It interests Congressman John Conyers, however.  Last week, Conyers released a 273-page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War."  This 273-page report covers many war-related crimes, including the use of white phosphorous.  http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769

On page 165, following discussion of other crimes against humanity, the report states: "Finally, there is evidence that the U.S. Military used an incendiary weapon in combat known as White Phosphorus, even though the U.S. Battle Book states, 't is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets,' and which would be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act."

That's an impressive criminal feat, violating multiple U.S. laws and international laws at one shot.  But it may be a greater feat of hypocrisy and irony.  After all, this war was supposedly launched in order to prevent the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction.  While that lie has been exposed, we now know that WMDs have been wantonly employed in the course of this war by the so-called liberators.  That fact is not yet widely known within the United States.

The Battle Book is published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and does indeed contain this sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

As George Monbiot makes clear in the Guardian, a chemical weapon is illegal, according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, regardless of whether the people targeted with it are civilians.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1647998,00.html

"The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people," Monbiot wrote, "rather than poisoning them, and is therefore covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the U.S. has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC, 'If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.'"

Blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the U.S. Department of Defense, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical," which makes clear that the U.S. military understands white phosphorous to be a chemical weapon.  "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships. ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas."  http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Conyers' report, on page 102, cites evidence that the United States used white phosphorous in Fallujah:

"Recent reports coming out of Iraq verify the use of a weapon called white phosphorus (WP) in combat.  An Italian state broadcaster, RAI, recently reported that American forces used WP in Fallujah last year against insurgents.  According to a former American soldier who fought in Fallujah, 'I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah.  In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete. . . . Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone . . . I saw the burned bodies of women and children.  Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud.  Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.'"

The RAI story reached British readers and perusers of the internet via a November 8th article in the Independent by Peter Popham titled "US Forces Used Chemical Weapons During Assault on City of Fallujah."  

It remains unclear when that information will reach consumers of U.S. television news.

2
General Issues / Questions / My Thoughts On These Debates So Far
« on: November 25, 2005, 12:08:19 PM »
peace be unto all,

I've been looking at all the debates going on and I thought I'd get a new thread going to change up the frame of debate, so far its been one side going on secular democracy vs. religious laws. The implication of this set up is that the Qu'ran/reading is a religious book whose laws are religious and that the imposition of its laws would be some sort of religious theocracy that forces the people into accepting the religion. This framework has gotten us little or nowhere on the debate and caused confusion such as in the poll because I know mquran and others such as myself dont adhere to this idea of religion so the debate has been argued from different perspectives with no common ground found. Its time to stop debating when we dont have common adherence to the simplest general assumption in the debate, so lets discuss several things

1. Is the Qu'ran/reading a religious book with religious laws? Lets discuss the true meaning of deen and your views on it, because believe it or not this almost what it all comes down to

2. Is implimentation of the Qu'ran/reading as a constitution of a social order the same as coercion against one's religion? (mind u that your view on the reading is particulary important in this so answer the first one first)

3. Is secular democracy an oxymoron? Are you not submitting to the desires of the majority, therefore making the people your god? As submitting to a dictatorship making the dictator your god? Is not every system a form of theocracy? (excluding anarchy which may still be if you look into some of its teachings, its actually a form of extreme particapatory democracy) Just some take one man a god while others take the people as gods?  Should we take God as our god in the system?

4. Wouldn't it be an oxymoron to say the Qu'ran/reading is for running a country because it does not recognize the validity of the nation/state concept in itself and affirms that mankind is one with all boundaries being manmade (we can go all into this and the verses but if you already agree with me than we can speak on it)

5. Does one need every single law spelled out for us in the Qu'ran/reading to use it as a Constitution basis for establishing a social order? Does the American Constitution spell out every single law? Do not they rule laws based on whether they are constitutional or not?

My Own Question

If we have a democracy couldn't the majority religion support legislation and vote to impose its religion on everybody else? Wouldn't the stopping of this go against the will of the people and therefore democracy?


Anyways my view is that the social order should judge with the Qu'ran/reading as its constitution (5:44-48), so speaking from that general framework
Should our ruler be elected? Is there an example of an elected ruler in the Qu'ran/reading?
Does consultation mean the imposition of our will on the leader or merely providing advice and ideas?

3
General Issues / Questions / Sex more for pleasure than procreation?
« on: August 13, 2005, 09:08:42 AM »
peace be upon all,

I read this somewhere

Quote
So, long ago, I think that sex was done for reproduction purposes only. However, as animals that procreated through direct fertilization (meaning that they had to be joined together to reproduce) evolved, their bodies evolved to get pleasure from the sexual act. If you look at fish, insects, or reptiles (the vast majority of which do not reproduce through direct contact, but rather fertilze eggs etc.) they do not have nervous systems capable of registering what we would call pleasure, in the levels that mammals and birds register it. I believe that the development of pleasure in animals (most mammals, birds etc.) that procreate through direct (and sometimes prolonged...meaning over several minutes) sexual conact, changed the nature of sexuality. No longer was the sexual act done only for procreation...it was done for pleasure. That meant that animals would be driven by both the desire to procreate and the desire to have sexual urges satisified by anything that could satisfy them. This in turn led to the presence of homosexual beings. They can, and do, procreate, but PREFER to be with the same sex because that is what gives them the most sexual pleasure. To them, the sexual act and the pleasure derived from it overpowers the urge to have sex merely for procreative reasons.

Is masturbation unnatural? Judging by the fact that all of you tough guys around here are all beating your chests about this issue, I sense a lot of sticky keyboards. All of us here beat off; some 5 times a day! Is that unnatural? Nope. Apes masturbate constantly and they do it for reasons other than procreation.

The key is that there is a preference. It is not a CHOICE, but rather a preference. Entities that engage in primarily homosexual acts derive the most pleasure from that act...their body gets the most sexual high from homosexual acts. Can a straight human male have sex with another human male? Yes. Does that straight male like it? Maybe, but let's assume that he doesn't. he PREFERS sex with women but CAN have sex with men. He can chose to have sex with men, but will not enjoy it because his natural preference is for women. If it was completely unnatural, it would be almost totally impossible. If you throw in inter-species mating, you move closer to unnatural, however, it is not impossible (mules for example)...All I am saying is that preferneces are largely set before someone is an adult. Natural preferences and inclinations can be supplemented by environment...however, you cannot divorce the two. Nature and nurture are one and the same when it comes to sexuality. If you are born gay, socialization can make you hate yourself, but you will not stop being gay or feeling the attraction (natural preference, that is uncontrollable) to the same sex. If it was unnatural, it wouldn't happen in nature...So using terms like those do not add anything to the debate.

How do we know that gay people are not "normal" and that heterosexual relationships done for anything other than procreative reasons are totally wrong? What if the natural order is to have heterosexual sex only for procreation and homosexual sex is meant to occur in much greater frequency for social reasons? There are animals that act like that. Sexuality is complicated and the gay-straight binary applies to very few people...


what are your thoughts? perhaps Andya, being a scientist, can clarify some of that first paragraph

4
General Issues / Questions / Speaking of Lotetree and Devout Skeptic
« on: August 09, 2005, 09:21:24 AM »
peace be upon you all,

Quote
Peace,

Below are the rules for people who wish to post in this forum (these rules may be expanded or amended as seen fit).

1. Mind your language (foul and/or obsene langauge will not be tolerated).
2. Respect other users (this includes personal insults or remarks).
3. Do not repeat posts that have been moved or deleted.
4. Do not disrupt existing threads with non-related posts (posts will be deleted and user may be banned).
5. Post in the correct category (posts in the wrong category risk being deleted entirely)
6. Do not use multiple usernames.

Moderators have the right to amend, remove, or delete any posts as they see fit.

Users who are not willing to comply with the rules of this forum will be banned without notice.

Respect these rules and you will be respected...Otherwise, there is none to blame but ones self.

Free-Minds.Org / ProgressiveMuslims.Org


Many people in the past have been banned for multiple user names, I have yet to see somebody who has been caught and not banned, so why not the same for Lotetree? I mean I'd like to see him stay on longer, not sure why he would make another name like that but I also don't want to see the admin selectively choosing who to ban and not to ban

5
Salat & Zakat (The Contact & Purification) / Links For Salat
« on: August 05, 2005, 08:10:36 AM »
peace be upon all,

I am presenting links to articles that will help newbies and perhaps even vets in their study of salat, I am presenting all the current understandings I am aware of the links to articles that support the understanding

if anybody has any other articles please post them, thanx

Commitment(s)
Arab Conspiracies Against Islam first edition
Arab Conspiracies Against Islam second edition
Arab Conspiracies Against Islam Third Edition
An Indepth Reseach on Salat by Hafeez Kafi

Reaching Out
Salat=reaching out by Genuine Islam

Process (of meditation)
The Human and the Process of Rememberance by idolfree
Meditation

Reading
Salat by Mirghani Hamed (he mixes commitment with it though and says that the term salat is used to emphasize that studying the reading is our obligation/duty)

Go/Turning Towards (highlighted because I personally find this understanding the most logical)
An Understanding of Salat from Al Quran (The Reading)

Learning Connection
What's In A Name by Ayman

Contact Method
Salat In The Quran by Layth

Discussion
Salat Solved

Establishing The Islamic State
http://64.227.163.32/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=30027
http://64.227.163.32/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=30051
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WideMinds/message/41807
Salat by G.A. Parwez
http://www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/QD/QD_1_01_04.htm

Does anybody know any articles for the following definitions
Oration
Assembly (even though these understandings are integrated into many of the understandings above)

6
Discuss Latest News/Events / Voices of Resistance
« on: July 13, 2005, 09:49:05 AM »
An Interview with Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi of Iraq's Peoples' Struggle Movement
By LAITH al-SAUD

The mainstream media's attenuation of information regarding Iraq has now rendered public discourse about US policy in Iraq incoherent and incomprehensible. In spite of rising death and tragedy in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claims "progress". Instead of debating the criminality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New York Times and Washington Post are discussing what Dick Cheney actually meant by "last throes." And, of course, instead of finding a way to end the destructive campaign that the Bush administration inflicts on the Iraqi people, Americans are being asked for open-ended commitment to war. Completely obliterated in all this is the suppression by the tmainstream media of an entire side of the issue: the opposition. Opposition is always a check on hegemony, and the domination of the Bush administration's point of view in the mainstream media has induced complacency on the part of American officials-to the point they do not have to make sense or speak the truth.

Clearly, opposition to the occupation of Iraq does not consist only of Iraqis, but many others . But with all due respect to the global moral support that the Iraqi people have in their resistance, we are concerned with here are what actual Iraqi intellectuals, professionals and community leaders who are connected to Iraq have to say of the situation.

What follows is an interview, (in what is hoped to be a series of interviews of individuals and groups,) with someone actually connected to Iraq and those opposed to the American occupation. I should add that while I make no secret of my moral and political support for the Iraqis' right to defend themselves convincing the reader to adopt the same position is not the intention of the following discussion. It is simply to provide more information regarding one of the most important issues of our time.

Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi is a member of the People's Struggle Movement, more information on this group can be found at www.kifah.org in which links are provided to their political communiqu?, available in English.

Laith al-Saud: Many in the Bush administration argue that the resistance is made up of former regime members who have been marginalized by the current situation and by so-called "foreign fighters." What is your assessment and how does the resistance view the former regime?

Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi: The Iraqi people in general and the Iraqi National Resistance, which is its real name and nature, know that this claim is part of the propaganda and psychological warfare being targeted at Iraqis. What is clear on the ground is that the resistance is made of a plurality of groups with a single aim ? namely to end the occupation of Iraq. The plurality of the resistance is a strength, not a weakness, as it shows that it is a nationalist resistance where being Iraqi trumps any sort of sectarianism ? religious, ethnic, ideological or otherwise. It is well known in Iraq that the resistance is comprised of all sects and segments of Iraqi society: Islamists, Ba'athists, patriotic nationalists, and above all Arab Sunnis and Shii's.

The Americans claimed before the last assault on Fallujah that the majority of the freedom fighters are so-called "foreign" Arabs and Muslims. (Though, after the inhumane destruction of Fallujah American officials openly said that [non-Iraqi] Arab fighters represent no more that 2% of the total number of freedom fighters in Iraq.) Most important, however, is the practical and logical conclusion that the Iraqis come to. When the US invaded Iraq she brought with her troops from all around the world. From thousands of miles away , from every quarter, the US employed several nations to occupy our country, so why can't our brother Arabs come to our country to help us defend our land and kick the occupiers out? This is a very logical question that I would like to ask the American people.

As for the resistance's view of Saddam's regime, I think that all resistance factions condemn the regime for what happened in Iraq, but in the meantime we must keep in mind that the regime is gone now and forever and the Americans cannot hold Iraq hostage with the memory of the past.

LS: How should the world distinguish between those groups who belong to the Iraqi National Resistance and those who do not?

MO: By actions. It is known to all Iraqis that any operation carried out by the resistance targets the occupation and the security forces. It must be kept in mind that at this point in time, with the absence of any true sovereignty in Iraq, the security forces are merely an extension of the occupation itself. Those operations that do otherwise and target civilians can be said for certain to not belong to the National Resistance. For example, hundreds upon hundreds of university professors, military pilots, scientists and doctors have been killed in Iraq. What possible benefit would the resistance have in attacking our country's most talented and educated people? It is clear to all Iraqis that there are foreign fingers pulling the triggers to commit these crimes and murder the human resources of Iraq, all the while attempting to steal the country's natural resources.

LS: Although many opposition groups in Iraq have repeatedly and explicitly condemned the targeting of innocent civilians in the country, the Bush administration has continually charged that this is part of the resistance's strategy. What is your response?

MO: Once again, this has always been part of the propaganda of the occupiers. As I have said no resistance groups has ever targeted civilians or condoned it. All groups have clearly said that their targets are not and never will be the Iraqi people. How could it? The National Resistance is made up of the Iraqi people. Yet the question remains why do the occupiers not say anything of the killings being carried out by the militias that have been allowed to operate in our country, such as the peshmerga and the Badr Brigade? We have repeated reports that such militias have targeted clerics, worshippers and other Iraqis who have opposed the occupation and the current puppet government in Iraq. Yet the occupying powers and the international community in general have remained completely silent.

LS: How have Iraqis who you have spoken to in the country described the nature of the occupation and the resistance?

MO: Allow me to answer your question with another question. How would anyone feel if they had lost a loved one to an aggressive invasion and occupation? There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who find themselves in such a position and have lost dear ones to the hands of the occupiers. This is not to mention the prisoners, both men and women, who have families in the thousands. The destructiveness of the occupation affects the vast majority of Iraqis in a negative way and thus they are fed up with the presence of occupiers on our land. The resistance is not short on recruits to join them, as it is not difficult to find people sympathetic with the goals of the resistance in the country. Quite simply there are hundred of thousands of people in Iraq who are ready to sacrifice their lives for their country.

Let me add one more thing. How do you think Iraqis would react when they do not have electricity and clean water for many days in the heat of our summer? It has been more than two years of occupation and yet the infrastructure of Iraq remains in shambles. Please do not claim that this is due to sabotage by the armed resistance, as we know where the resources are going and how they are being spent. It is a collective punishment to all Iraqis, particularly in Baghdad and other areas where the resistance is very active.

LS: You suggest that the US military and administration has used methods of collective punishment in Iraq. What evidence can be shared with the world that this is happening in Iraq?

MO: I am not suggesting, Laith. I am confirming that this is what is happening in Iraq. No one can deny what the US military has done in Falluja, Sammarra, Ramadi, Karbala, Heet, Qaim and other towns and cities. People have been denied water, electricity, medical treatment and other services. This has not only been confirmed by Iraqi eyewitnesses on the ground, which should be enough, but by international services such as the Red Crescent and others. Is that not collective punishment? Think of Baghdad for a moment. People in Baghdad never have electricity for three or four continuous days or clean running water for a week's time. Reuters has published photos of American soldiers swimming in the cool and clean water of a pool in one of Saddam's palaces; let the world compare this to the many photos of Iraqi children fighting for clean water.



In addition, we also have many reports of American soldiers sabotaging main water stations. Take for example, the main water station in al-Karkh outside of Baghdad, eyewitnesses testify that there was a huge explosion just minutes after US soldiers left the site. Why does the world not raise concern over these accounts? Is it because they are being offered by Iraqis? It is time that the international community started to listen to Iraqis and not the lies of an occupying power that has never been shown to tell the truth.




LS: Donald Rumsfeld recently claimed that the resistance lacks unity and has no vision for the future of the country? In this regard what are the long-term goals of the resistance?

MO: Rumsfeld's claim is absolutely not true. The resistance factions are first and foremost united in ending the occupation and all traces of it. All resistance groups, which maintain strong ties and communications at all levels, believe they have a responsibility to all Iraqi people and are committed to defending the rights of the Iraqi people. It is very important that Iraq is completely liberated of all traces of the occupation and its effects; including the political, legal and social consequences of the occupation. As for the long-term goals, we seek a unified (non-federal), pluralistic and democratic Iraq where all Iraqis are thought of in terms of citizenship rather than ethnicity or sect. We are not opposed to elections. We are opposed to elections under occupation as they are tainted by the powers and pressures of the occupying forces. If anyone has questions as to the goals of the Iraqi National Resistance all they have to do is listen to the public spokespersons of the opposition in Iraq. The goals of the resistance have always been made clear.

LS: What, then, is the resistance's position towards the current government in Iraq?

MO: First of all the resistance, which represents the will of the majority of Iraqis is certain that the election was a violation of international law. International charters that regulate the relationship between occupiers and occupied do not give occupying authorities the mandate to instigate a change in the country's social, economic, and political structure.

The election has changed the political composition of Iraq to suit the interests of the occupation of the authorities. The changes led, as we can now see, to ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions that the Iraqi people have succeeded in avoiding. Historically, Iraqis have always co-existed without any consideration of sectarianism or ethnic division; only after the country was stricken by the US-led occupation did the specter of civil war loom. These division serve the purposes of the occupying power as it is clearly and beyond any doubt an exercise in divide and conquer.

The resistance, both political and martial, see that all steps have been taken to secure full US domination of decision makers in Iraq. A look at the electoral process and the composition of the current national council reveals that the election's main mission and accomplishment was the installation of some of the country's most notorious politicians who have often spoken proudly of their links to international intelligence agencies. Take for example Iyad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi. The election has given power to every politician who has assisted the invaders and collaborated with them to consolidate the occupation; therefore the resistance confidently asserts that the political decision-making process in Iraq is taking place in the US embassy inside Baghdad and that the elected government is not more than a vehicle to carry out Washington's decisions.

It is difficult for any sensible person to believe that the US would give up its domination of Iraq after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of its soldiers. Iraqis never believed that the US would simply allow free and democratic elections that could, and would, result in a government that would make its first priority ending the occupation. In fact, the main purpose of the election process was to secure a government that will facilitate long-lasting agreements with the US to keep its forces on Iraqi soil and transform the country into an American colony.

The US administration has worked hard to portray the Iraq election as a political achievement to cover over the scar that the war has left on its credibility. Washington has used the election card to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community and prevent it from seeing the tragic consequences that the war has left on the Iraqi people. For all these reasons, the resistance will also fight the current puppet government the same way they are fighting the occupiers.

Laith al-Saud is an academic researcher and lecturer in the United States. He can be reached at: laithalsaud@aol.com

7
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/alqmaryland.html

Submitted by two readers.

Last night on CNN I heard them making a connection between the London
bombings and an ?Islamic terrorist? website called alneda.com. I tried to
view the website but it?s been taken offline. I did find the following three
year old reference to alneda.com on CNN:

From: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/24/binladen.video/

"These statements and others from al Qaeda have been appearing from time to
time on a Web site called www.alneda.com.

"In recent months, the site, which experts suspect is closely linked to al
Qaeda, also has posted manifestos signed "al Qaeda jihad" in which it says
bin Laden is alive and well and preparing future attacks against the United
States.

----------

Interesting "link" to al-Qaeda, as revealed by whois data for alneda.com:

----------

[WHOIS ALNEDA.COM]

Registration Service Provided By: DIRECTI
Contact: +91.2256797500
Website: http://www.directi.com
Domain Name: ALNEDA.COM

Registrant:
SFP, Inc
Jon David (jondavid@4jon.com)
Po 312
Berlin
Maryland,21811
US
Tel. +011.4107237089

Creation Date: 16-Jul-2002
Expiration Date: 16-Jul-2013

----------

Jon David, a fine Islamic sounding name, no doubt named after a martyr or
prophet or some such. Located in that hotbed of terrorism, Berlin, Maryland
USA.

I ran a traceroute to the web address. I've left off the first ten hops to
obscure the source of my trace, to protect my privacy. But as you can see
the trace ends up at broadwing.net:

----------

traceroute to alneda.com (65.89.91.148), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 11 sl-browing-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.246.82) 3.630 ms 3.539 ms 3.682 m
s
12 216.140.8.6 (216.140.8.6) 4.874 ms 4.364 ms 4.431 ms
13 p4-0.c0.wash.broadwing.net (216.140.8.89) 4.361 ms 4.321 ms 4.235 ms 14 p2-0.a0.nwrk.broadwing.net (216.140.9.2) 11.472 ms 11.432 ms 11.875 ms 15 P1-0.a1.dc.nwrk.broadwing.net (216.142.236.61) 11.453 ms !H * 11.596 ms
!H

----------

Broadwing Communications of Austin, TX. Hey, aren't we killing and
incarcerating Iraqis so we don't have to host terrorist websites in der
homeland?

Admin contact info for Broadwing is provided below. Might be fun to ask them
what they're doing hosting terror websites connected with the recent
bombings.

----------

[WHOIS BROADWING.NET]

Registrant:
Broadwing Communications, LLC
1122 Capital of Texas Highway South
Austin, TX 78746
US

Domain Name: BROADWING.NET

Administrative Contact:
Smith, Kyle DNS@BROADWING.COM
Broadwing Communications, LLC
1122 South Capitol of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746
US
302.283.2854 302.283.2802 fax: 302.283.2802


----------

Following another line of inquiry, the authoritative name records for
alneda.com are hosted by thewetlandsinc.com, and email for alneda.com is
directed to thewetlandsinc.com's mail server:

----------

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET alneda.com ns
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.thewetlandsinc.com.
alneda.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.thewetlandsinc.com.

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com ns
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.thewetlandsinc.com.
alneda.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.thewetlandsinc.com.

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com a
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN A 65.89.91.148

; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> @ns1.thewetlandsinc.com alneda.com mx
;; ANSWER SECTION:
alneda.com. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.thewetlandsinc.com.

----------

Thewetlandsinc.com is registered to a web hosting company in Sarasota, FL:

----------

[WHOIS THEWETLANDSINC.COM]

Registrant:TheWetlands.com, Inc.
PO Box 312
Berlin, MD 21811
US

Domain Name: THEWETLANDSINC.COM

Administrative Contact:
David, Jon jd@THEWETLANDSINC.COM
12507 SUNSET AVE STE 21
OCEAN CITY, MD 21842-9296
US
410-723-7089 fax: 410-723-7085

Record expires on 13-Oct-2011.
Record created on 13-Oct-1999.
Database last updated on 9-Jul-2005 12:01:33 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS2.THEWETLANDSINC.COM 216.226.150.171
NS1.THEWETLANDSINC.COM 216.226.150.170

----------

?Abu Musab? Jon David of Maryland again! Note the registrant for
thewetlandsinc.com is TheWetlands.com, Inc.:

----------

[WHOIS THEWETLANDS.COM]

Registrant: TheWetlands.com, Inc.

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US

Domain Name: THEWETLANDS.COM

Administrative Contact-
Unlisted-Whois.com, LLC Ref# 103974: nzsc2ntuv9was5e@brprivatewhois.com
Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US
Phone- 4107353410
Fax- 014107353433

Record create date: 1998-01-27
Record expires on: 2007-01-26

----------

Thewetlands.com is a Porn site. Kind of a strange place for an Islamic
fundamentalist to choose to host a jihadi website.


Returning to the registry for alneda.com, Jon David?s admin contact info
references an email address at 4jon.com; the admin contact for 4jon.com is
listed as a PO box in NY:

----------

Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US

Domain Name: 4JON.COM

Administrative Contact
Unlisted-Whois.com, LLC Ref# 103966: cb8hpkhy63m3h5@brprivatewhois.com Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service P.O. Box 229 Margaretville, NY 12455 US Phone 4107353410 Fax 014107353433

----------

According the CNN June 25, 2002 web ariticle (URL listed above):

?The site reappeared in early June and this time CNN traced it to a
Web-hosting company in Texas. As CNN went to air with another story on it
last Monday, alneda.com once again disappeared from the Web.

----------

However, as the above traceroute shows, the DNS for alneda.com still points
web queries to broadwing.net, in Austin, TX.

Interesting how the U.S. corporate medium absolutely fails to point out that
this ?terrorist? webiste is hosted in Texas.

Also interesting is CNN?s suggestion is 2002 that alneda.com had ?once again
disappeared from the Web?. It appears it?s where it has always been. These
people never hear of investigative journalism? What I want to know is: who
the hell is Jon David, and why is he maintaining a ?terrorist? website in
Texas?

Maybe we should notify the Berlin, MD police of the ?terrorist? in their
midst. Or der Homeland Security? It also might be fun to contact Broadwing
and the domain name registrars and ask them what they?re doing associating
with terrorists? Weird how Muslim charities have been targeted since 911,
but somehow this ?terrorist? alneda.com has managed to reside in Texas for
three years.

8
peace be upon you all,

I can almost swear this online encylopedia has almost every topic in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith#Value_of_hadith_compared_to_the_value_of_the_Qur.27an

go down to hadith skepticism in the links and there is a link to the hadith page on free-minds main site

just felt like pointing that out

9
General Issues / Questions / Perfect God=Perfect Creation
« on: June 20, 2005, 06:26:26 PM »
peace be upon you all,

if The God is perfect why are there genetic "errors" in our make up? wouldn't God's creation be perfectly designed? I understand that we are indeed created by an intelligent power, I have examined nature and all of it and its laws point to The God without much reasoning to do, its obvious, but not everybody is created perfectly, does this mean they are not the result of a perfect Creator?

Pages: [1] 2 ... 13