Saturday, November 17, 2007

What could we have done with the Money of illegal war and occupation of Iraq?!

GOD bless you all. Another new email got my attention. It shows what we could have done - or still do - with the money the Bush administration has spent so far on the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. With the funding they are currently trying to get from congress, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group. And here is what we could have had:

Almost 18 months' worth of free gas for everyone

US drivers consume approximately 384.7 million gallons of gasoline a day. Retail prices averaged $3.00 a gallon in early November. Breaking it down, $611 billion could buy gasoline for everybody in the United States, for about 530 days.

More than a year of Medicare benefits for everyone

In fiscal 2008, Medicare benefits will total $454 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation summary. The $611 billion in war costs is 17 times the amount vetoed by the president for a $35 billion health benefit program for poor children.

A real war on poverty

According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of primary education for every child on earth. At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years.

Many, many environment-friendly cars on the road

With $611 billion, you could convert all cars in America to run on ethanol nine times over. TheBudgetGraph.com estimates that converting the 136,568,083 registered cars in the United States to ethanol (conversion kits at $500) would cost $68.2 billion.

If you would like to see this and more with nice pictures, please click here.

Friday, November 2, 2007

9-11: Why the US-Government was involved

Here is another subject. 9-11 is credited to Osama Bin Laden, who denied to be involved at all for the first week and then gave in to the pressure of his families friends and accepted the guilt for this attack. At first he welcomed the attack and regretted publicly that he was not involved. Then, all of a sudden, he said that he did it. Strange? High Military officers reported that they were ordered to let him escape several times. Why? Because all he is guilty of is to protect the real Terrorists. And our Government does not want a public statement with this truth.
Another interesting fact: Most of the foreign insurgents are from Saudi Arabia, not from IRAN. The Government calls them just "AL Qaeda" and insinuates via television that they come from IRAN, the next target that the Republicans and some spineless Democrats have for a war. Actually for World War III, as publicly announced by George W. Bush, because the rest of the world is standing against this Madman who is leading the US in this second unnecessary and absolutely insane war. Like Hitler did with Germany some 60 years ago.

But wait, there is more. The Book "THE NEW PEARL HARBOR" by Professor David Ray Griffin (who has been Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California for 30 years and is author and editor of more than 20 books) shows the backgrounds and reasons for 9-11. And why our government is most likely involved in the attack. Here an addendum he added for the second edition, called "40 smoking guns". This book should be read by everyone who has an IQ which enables them to vote for someone other than George W. Bush. They should also watch the movie: "Loose Change 911, 2nd edition" (click this link to watch it for free!)

David Ray Griffin – The New Pearl Harbor

40 Smoking Guns

I have often been asked whether there are any "smoking guns” Pointing to complicity by the Bush administration. This is a question I did not explicitly address in the body of the book. Rather than focusing on those reported events that most strongly suggest such complicity presented a cumulative argument, suggesting that what is most persuasive, assuming the truth of at least a significant portion of the reported evidence, is that so many lines of evidence all seem to point in the same direction….Because this question has come up so often, I will conclude with a list of the reported items that I would so classify. In going back through the book to assemble this list, I was surprised to see how many there are.

1. The failure of standard operating procedures (SOP) to intercept Flight 11.

2. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 175.

3. The failure of SOP to intercept Flight 77.

4. The fact that the official story as to these failures changed a few days after 9/11.

5. The fact that according to the second version of the official story, the order to scramble jet fighters to intercept Flights 11 and 175 went to Otis Air Force base instead of the nearer base, McGuire.

6. The fact that according to this second version, the order to scramble jet fighters to protect Washington went to Langley Air Force base instead of the nearer base, Andrews.

7. The fact that, even given NORAD'S timeline and the greater distances the pilots had to cover from Otis and Langley, their fighter jets, flying at full speed, should have reached New York and Washington in time to prevent the attacks on the South Tower and the Pentagon.

8. The fact that according to this second version, the fighter jets that were too late to intercept Flights 11 and 175 were not ordered to continue on to Washington, even though it was then known that Flight 77 had bee hijacked and, according to the official story, was headed back toward Washington.

9. Secretary of Transportation Mineta's report of a conversation that may have reflected a stand-down order by Vice President Cheney.

10. The fact that in New York on 9/11, three steel-framed hi buildings, for the first time in history, collapsed because of fires – quite localized fires at that, especially in the South Tower and Building 7.

11. The fact that the South Tower fell first even though, according to the hypothesis that the buildings collapsed because of fire, this tower, having been hit second and having the smaller fire, should not have collapsed first.

12. The multiple types of physical evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed by means of controlled demolition. (Because there are many types of such evidence- - such as the fact that the steel beams and columns were broken into pieces the right size to be loaded onto trucks - this point could have been divided into many smoking guns.)

13. Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department decided to "pull" WTC-7, combined with the evidence that the fire department had prior knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence indicating imminent collapse.

14. Mayor Giuliani's statement that he knew in advance that the Twin Towers were going to collapse.

15. The quick removal of the steel from all three buildings - especially Building 7, where there would have been no victims - before it could be examined.

16. The fact that photographic evidence shows that the hole created in the Pentagon was much smaller than a hole created by a Boeing 757 would be.

17. The fact that photographs show that there were no remains of a large airliner in front of the crash site, even though, given the small entrance hole, not all of a Boeing 757 could have gone inside.

18. The fact that witnesses also reported seeing no remains of a airliner inside the Pentagon.

19. The fact that the west wing, far from being the most likely part of the Pentagon for terrorists to target, was the least likely, as well as technically difficult to hit.

20. The fact that any non-military plane, not having a transponder sending out a "friendly" signal, would have been automatically shot down by the Pentagon's battery of missiles.

21. The extreme unlikelihood that a hijacked 757 could have flown undetected through American airspace, especially toward the Pentagon, for some 40 minutes.

22. The evidence that the Bush administration lied about not having shot down Flight 93.

23. The fact that President Bush gave the impression upon his arrival at the Sarasota school, even after a telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, that he was unaware that two more airliners, beyond the one that had crashed into the North Tower of the WTC, had been hijacked.

24. The fact that Bush, after being told about the attack on the South Tower, did not act like a commander in chief who was surprised to learn that the United States was suffering the greatest terrorist attack in its history.

25. The fact that Bush and his entourage, including his Secret Service detail, showed no sign of fear that they would be attacked while in Florida, even though at that time they-assuming the truth of the official account-would have known neither how many planes had been hijacked nor what the terrorists' targets were.

26. The multiple denial by Bush administration officials that they had had any idea that planes might be used as weapons in a Terrorist attack against the United States, even though such knowledge was widespread – partly because of warnings the Bush administration itself that terrorists were in fact planning such attacks.

27. The fact that the FBI must have had specific advance knowledge of the attacks, given (a) its confiscation of a film of the attack on the Pentagon within five minutes, (b) its confiscation of student files from Florida flight schools within 18 hours, and (c) the reported testimony of FBI agents (to David Schippers and the New American) That they knew the dates and targets of the New York attacks months in advance.

28. The repeated denial by Bush administration officials that they had received any specific advance knowledge about the attacks of 9/11, contradicting strong evidence to the contrary, including that provided by the purchases of enormous amounts of put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

29. The evidence that although Osama bin Laden was officially America's "most wanted" criminal, he was treated by an American surgeon and visited by a CIA agent in an American hospital in Dubai two months prior to 9/11.

30. The evidence that local FBI agents in Minnesota, New York, and Chicago were prevented by FBI headquarters from carrying out investigations that could have uncovered the plot.

31. The harassment and demotion of DIA agent Julie Sirrs after she brought back information about a plan in Afghanistan to assassinate Ahmad Massood.

32. The evidence that the Bush administration had already determined by July of 2001 that it would attack Afghanistan "by the middle of October at the latest," combined with the fact that the attacks of 9/11, by occurring on that date, gave the US military sufficient preparation time to begin its assault on October 7.

33. The evidence that during the "Hunt for Bin Laden" after 9/11, he and his Al Qaeda forces were repeatedly allowed to escape.

34. The evidence that the Bush administration sought in multiple ways to conceal the connections between 9/11 and Pakistan's ISI.

35. The fact that the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Air Force all refused to answer questions about the report that many of the (alleged) hijackers had received training at US flight schools.

36. The multiple reasons to doubt the official conspiracy theory's tale of Arab-Muslim hijackers.

37. The firing and subsequent gagging of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds after she reported that a 9/11-related investigation was being sabotaged by a spy.

38. The fact that while people such as Julie Sirrs and Sibel Edmonds have been punished, there have been no reports of punishment for anyone who acted incompetently or obstructively in relation to 9/11 whether in the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, the White House, NORAD, the Pentagon, or the US military more generally.

39. The fact that the Bush administration has not revealed the identities of those who purchased the put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

40. The fact that the White House repeatedly obstructed the attempts of the 9/ 11 Commission-as feeble as they appear to have been-to learn how the attacks of 9/11 could have succeeded.
These smoking guns could provide some starting points for a real investigation-if and when one is ever authorized.

These “40 Smoking Guns” were taken from the book “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin, that everybody who believes in a terrorist attack on the US should read.

Amen

PS. And if you want to know even more verifiable facts, click here

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Quran is a Religion of peace

GOD bless you all. After all of you have hopefully come to the realization that the Islam is actually a religion of peace, I would like to draw your attention to another subject that has not been resolved as of yet. For now I will just answer the most burning Question of Rick Mathes, the prison minister who still believes an Imam thought that Islam is a religion of hate, and I will write more about that subject later. So, here is his question/statement:

Almost every critic attacks the messenger "me" and does^t touch the message. The message is:

"Would you rather have an Allah who says to kill me to go to heaven or a Jesus who says for me to love you because I am going to heaven and He would like you to be with me? "

This is the biggest I LOVE YOU I am capable of extending to my Muslims cousins. This is not a hate article. It is one extended in love with the sword of the Word rather that the sword of cresent.


The problem here is that the message is not attackable, because it is plain wrong and born out of ignorance. "Would you rather have a car that runs on water or a car that runs on white blood cells". Rick Mathes asserts that GOD told the Muslims to kill him and he asks his question based on this false pretense. To answer this question either way means to agree with the false statement first or at the same time. And that is why no one deals with this so called message, because it is already faulty within. The assertion in the question is just wrong. Allah (GOD) is Jesus' father for us Christians. For the Muslims, he is GOD and Jesus is his prophet, as well as Mohammed (who by the way also preached love and peace). For us Christians, Jesus came to this world to bring the message of love, to replace the message of hate in the old testament and die for our sins on the cross. For the Jews he was also just a prophet, not the savior or GOD's son. And if we would follow GOD's word (which automatically includes Jesus' word) as preached to and for us Gentiles by Paul and the Muslims would all follow GOD's word as received by Muhammad, and in the true spirit of the Qur'an, as we Christians would follow the true spirit of the Bible, we would not even argue with each other. The problem is the interpretation of GOD's word on both sides, according to the hidden agenda ON BOTH SIDES!

Allah does not tell the Muslims to kill Christians to go to heaven. By the way: Jihad means "struggle", not "holy war". Currently it is the Christians who are being told by most televangelists who are seemingly in tune with the Government who tell their herd of blindly following sheep that their salvation lies in the killing of Muslims. And that is the problem. The commandments are clear. Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill... and that is what they do or support. And they do it in the name of Jesus who made the commandments even clearer: "Love your neighbor". Why do they spread hate. And they attack us, who spread the Truth as liars who do not preach the word of GOD. Those religious NAZIs should read the Bible, try to understand it and stop collecting Millions for their own personal benefit. I think Rick is on a very different page. He does not spread his so called message out of hate, just out of ignorance. Basically he is trying to spread the message of love, just in a way that makes people hate the Muslim faith. The emails that are being sent out intentionally spread hate. Rick himself, I believe, that he is sincerely trying to preach love. I will try to answer him soon and until then, may GOD bless him.
Amen