The US created al Qaeda under Jimmy Carter.
The US, as al Qaeda, attacked itself on 9-11.
The US airlifted al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and allowed an al Qaeda convoy to leave Afghanistan unmolested.
Then the US had the Mujahideen attack mostly empty caves in Tora Bora to make it look good for the folks at home (stupid American sheep, suckers, is how they view them).
Now, just when Bush has been saying how he doesn't want war and doesn't want to attack Iran, al Qaeda is directed to make an announcement that it wants the oil facilities of Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and others attacked, since they supply the US.1
North American integration
Look at it. Canada and Mexico will have to more closely cooperate (integrate) under the oligarchical plan.
Venezuela can be hit by anyone and then invaded in order to "protect" US vital interests abroad.
The Beast magnified
Is this the created Beast with a mind of its own? Of course it is on a certain level. Ideas come in to the Beast from all sorts of places within it.
The US has all along wanted al Qaeda to be taken seriously by the Muslims. They want them to join up in droves so that the neocons may have the excuse for exterminating Islam.
See the light: Do the golden rule
Islam is wrong, but there are many members of Islam who will convert not because of coercion, but rather because they will come to see the error that is fighting. They'll come to accept the golden rule, which Mohammed did not preach and did not live.
Real Arab Christians
There already are many Arab Christians, meaning pacifists who believe in Jesus. They are not greedy. They are not depraved. They want what Jesus called for, and they work at it. They are better than the neocons no matter ethnicity.
Real Israelite Christians: Real Zionists
Those Arabs are our brothers and sisters in Christ, in spirit, in real blood. So are the truly converted of the descendants of Jacob.
Ayman al Zawahiri
Then, one of Satan's demons, on cue, says all the right things to bolster the Republicans.
...US-allied governments in Iraq and Afghanistan should consider their future.
"These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America ... is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam."
Al-Zawahiri repeated his previous condemnation of the Fatah faction led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
He said: "I'm not asking them to join Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda, but rather I'm asking them to return to Islam, in order to fight for the establishment of an Islamic state over all of Palestine and not for the establishment of a secularist state which will please America."2
He's encouraging the US to stay the course so it won't appear to the world to leave people hanging. He also said that if the US stays in Iraq, the US will lose every soldier. This can be taken two ways, on purpose. It frightens dissenters, and it insults the aggressive. He's using the methods of the Empire to divide the people over false lines. Then he confirms the neocon canvass that Muslims are out for Middle East theocratic hegemony that will spread to engulf the world if they are not stopped now. Therefore, nuke Iran, etc. Michael Ledeen loves it. Zawahiri is the neocons best spokesperson.
This is propaganda, psy-ops, by double and triple, etc., agents.
The US airlifted al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and allowed an al Qaeda convoy to leave Afghanistan unmolested.
This has been chalked up to moving Pakistanis out with some al Qaeda slipping in with them to escape.3 Really?
Pakistan's head of security ordered the one-hundred thousand dollar wire transfer to Atta, the supposed ring leader (cell leader) of the 9-11 terrorists. Also, which Pakistani wouldn't know who was or wasn't al Qaeda during the airlifts? Also, why wouldn't the US have captured everyone and simply sort out the Pakistanis letting them go back to Musharraf so he wouldn't lose face?
Lose face? How would he have lost face in Pakistan if Pakistani security were caught helping the Taliban? The Pakistanis hate the US and the Northern Alliance.
No, the point was to protect US assets in Pakistan (the ISI; Inter-Services Intelligence agency) and al Qaeda.
October 7, 2001: US Hesitates, Fails to Kill Mullah Omar
On the first night of the Afghan war, an unmanned Predator drone identifies a convoy of vehicles fleeing Kabul. Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, is determined to be inside this convoy. The CIA is in control of the Predator attack drone and wants to use it to kill Omar, but they have to ask for permission from military commanders who are based in Florida. General Tommy Franks decides not to fire any missiles or launch an air strike against the building in which Omar takes shelter. Eventually fighters attack and destroy the building, but by then Omar and his associates have moved on. One anonymous senior official later says of this failure to kill Omar, "It's not a f_ckup, it's an outrage." According to one senior military officer, "political correctness" and/or slow bureaucratic procedures are to blame. [New Yorker, 10/16/2001] It is later revealed that this is part of a pattern of delays that will hinder many attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders
Early November 2001: Al-Qaeda Convoy Flees Kabul
Many locals in Afghanistan reportedly witness a remarkable escape of al-Qaeda forces from Kabul around this time. One local businessman says, "We don't understand how they weren't all killed the night before because they came in a convoy of at least 1,000 cars and trucks. It was a very dark night, but it must have been easy for the American pilots to see the headlights. The main road was jammed from eight in the evening until three in the morning." This convoy was thought to have contained al-Qaeda's top officials [London Times, 7/22/2002]
November 13, 2001: Al-Qaeda Convoy Flees to Tora Bora; US Fails to Attack
Bin Laden gave a speech in front of about 1,000 supporters on November 10, 2001 in the town of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. [Christian Science Monitor, 3/4/2002] On the night of November 13, a convoy of 1,000 or more al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters escapes from Jalalabad and reaches the fortress of Tora Bora after hours of driving and then walking. Bin Laden is believed to be with them, riding in one of "several hundred cars" in the convoy. The US bombs the nearby Jalalabad airport, but apparently does not attack the convoy. [Christian Science Monitor, 3/4/2002; Knight Ridder, 10/20/2002] The Northern Alliance captures Jalalabad the next day. [Sydney Morning Herald, 11/14/2001]
November 16, 2001: Tora Bora Battle Begins
A US airstrike in the Tora Bora region. [Source: Gary Bernsten]
Heavy US bombing of Tora Bora, the Taliban and al-Qaeda mountainous stronghold near the Pakistani border, begins. A large convoy containing bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders arrived in Tora Bora about three day earlier. The son of a tribal elder later recalls, "At first, we thought that the US military was trying to frighten the Arabs out, since they were only bombing from one side."
November 14-25, 2001: US Secretly Authorizes Airlift of Pakistani and Taliban Fighters
At the request of the Pakistani government, the US secretly allows rescue flights into the besieged Taliban stronghold of Kunduz, in Northern Afghanistan, to save Pakistanis fighting for the Taliban (and against US forces) and bring them back to Pakistan. Pakistan's President "Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds-and perhaps thousands-of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival." [New Yorker, 1/21/2002] Dozens of senior Pakistani military officers, including two generals, are flown out. [NOW with Bill Moyers, 2/21/2003] In addition, it is reported that the Pakistani government assists 50 trucks filled with foreign fighters to escape the town. [New York Times, 11/24/2001] Many news articles at the time suggest an airlift is occurring. [Independent, 11/16/2001; New York Times, 11/24/2001; BBC, 11/26/2001; Independent, 11/26/2001; Guardian, 11/27/2001; MSNBC, 11/29/2001] Significant media coverage fails to develop, however. The US and Pakistani governments deny the existence of the airlift. [US Department of State, 11/16/2001; New Yorker, 1/21/2002] On December 2, when asked to assure that the US did not allow such an airlift, Rumsfeld says, "Oh, you can be certain of that. We have not seen a single-to my knowledge, we have not seen a single airplane or helicopter go into Afghanistan in recent days or weeks and extract people and take them out of Afghanistan to any country, let alone Pakistan." [MSNBC, 4/13/2003] Reporter Seymour Hersh believes that Rumsfeld must have given approval for the airlift. [NOW with Bill Moyers, 2/21/2003] However, The New Yorker magazine reports, "What was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus." A CIA analyst says, "Many of the people they spirited away were in the Taliban leadership" who Pakistan wanted for future political negotiations. US intelligence was "supposed to have access to them, but it didn't happen," he says. According to Indian intelligence, airlifts grow particularly intense in the last three days before the city falls on November 25. Of the 8,000 remaining al-Qaeda, Pakistani, and Taliban, about 5,000 are airlifted out and 3,000 surrender. [New Yorker, 1/21/2002] Hersh later claims that "maybe even some of bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on those evacuations." [NOW with Bill Moyers, 2/21/2003]4
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)