Surprise offensive by ISIL. Reuters and
other news services are reporting mujaheddin coming out of
Fallujah attacked Abu Ghraib and parts of western Baghdad on
February 27 and by February 28 had captured a number of
positions. US bombing is continuing, 28 strikes on 2.27,
and on February 28 ISIL carried out a huge retaliatory
attack on Shiites in Baghdad who were celebrating the US
air strikes. The human bombers killed 70 and injured more
than 100, the biggest losses this year.
In Syria it is the second day of the cease fire but Russian
bombers have continued to drop bombs on Muslim areas. Assad'
helicopters continued to drop barrel bombs. The US air force
continued bombing IS forces in the north, opening the way
for Communist Kurds, YPG, to advance beyond Tal Abyad.
However, Reuters and SOHR report, ISIS launched ferocious
attacks and captured Tal Abyad on February 27. However
ongoing bombing by the US Air Force killed 70 ISIS
mujaheddin and allowed YPG to take back Tal Abyad on
February 28. Fighting continues nearby.
Another offensive by IS captured most of Salamia in Hama
province. Also IS has cut the Khanessar highway to Aleppo
once again, thwarting Assad's efforts to supply the Alawite
enclave in the city. Russian bombers are trying to help
Assad advance in Latakia. By and large Russia has failed to
help Assad defeat the mujaheddin, Only the 45 FSA groups are
supporting the cease fire accepted for two weeks.
India
The Killing Fields of Muzaffarnagar.
[Detailed: Keep children away.]
Last year's tragedy which was kept hidden from the world.
[With thanks to Br. IbnSuleman in India.]
This was done by Hindu mobs to helpless Muslims, unarmed and
poor. [Thank Allah we have Pakistan otherwise that would
have been our fate too in India.--- Editor]
YouTube.com/watch?v=0EDurT3NI-w
Hadith of the Week
Huzaifa, r.a., narrates that the messenger of Allah, pbuh,
said: By Him in whose Hand is my life, you must continue to
speak out for good deeds and to stop evil deeds, otherwise
it wont be long before Allah Almighty will send punishment
on you; then even if you pray to Him, your prayer will not
be accepted. [Hadith in Jami' Tirmidhi.]
Comment by Kaukab Siddique: Speaking for good and against
evil is part of the Islamic way of life. This is our
lifetime task, so we should prepare for it with
self-purification and study of the texts of Islam. This
;positive attitude is what differentiates us from other
religions. There is no point in praying and worshipping all
the time when we see good and do not support it and we see
evil and do not oppose it. Of course it is risky and should
be done with care and understanding.
Spotlights from Imam Badi Ali.
[North Carolina]
What is Success?
Success is not obtained overnight.
You have to work hard to achieve it.
Your achievement for tomorrow starts today.
We cannot achieve unity if our belief system calls for disunity.
Success is on the top, do not go down.
Your constant struggle will change your status quo.
You cannot score a goal when you are sitting on the bench.
Develop a can-do-attitude.
When you believe, let your faith lead the way to achievement.
Good leaders surround themselves with strong
believers who give them the necessary support to accomplish
their objectives and those who benefit of what they achieve.
To be a Muslim in a world that is constantly trying to
change you, is a great accomplishment.
There is no limit to the amount of good that you can do.
When you don't mind the little extra work, you have the
mindset to succeed.
[Imam Badi Ali leads a large Islamic congregation in North
Carolina.]
Pakistan
Questioning the Malala Story.
Malala's school was on the ground floor of her residence. No
question of uniform or not being able to get to school.
Note the end of this.
Chinese-Americans Miffed About Asian Officer's Conviction.
Great Move by Minister Farrakhan to provide Security for
Beyoncé.
by Sis. Aisha [Jamaat al-Muslimeen.]
New York City - According to the MNN.org's Community Cop
Show panel, the Fraternal Order of Police held a nationwide
demonstration in support of Officer Peter Liang, who was
convicted of manslaughter, last week. These officers took
issue with Officer Liang being charged with anything at all.
Also, thousands of Chinese activists demonstrated in the USA
and Canada against the conviction of Officer Peter Liang.
Apparently, most of them were miffed at the fact that he was
convicted of shooting and killing an unarmed person, as
well. However, their real issue was the fact that HE was
chosen to be charged while many more White officers shoot
and kill unarmed Black citizens and are neither charged nor
convicted. I mean, we all saw unarmed, nonthreatening Eric
Garner murdered on videotape by 7 or 8 mostly White officers
officers and yet, no charges!
There was another Asian civil rights group, Committee
Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV), protesting with
African-America civil rights groups against police
criminality. This group has received death threats from
other Asian, who believe that they are unsupportive of
Officer Liang's plight. There are other Asian organizations
who share their sentiment.
In a statement to Mic.com, the Boston-based Chinese
Progressive Association wrote: "As a 39-year-old civil
rights organization, we are the first to agree that Chinese,
Latino and black officers face racial discrimination in
police forces across the country." Shiu Ming Cheer, of the
Chinatown Community for Equitable Development, says, "I
think the model minority myth implies that Asians are
special or better than other ethnic groups. From our
perspective, any officer who's involved in killing another
person, especially a black person, should be held
accountable. There's larger systemic racial issues at play
in the sense of why white cops aren't prosecuted for similar
killings, but that doesn't meant that we shouldn't hold this
officer accountable for his actions."
As per Community Cop panel member, Michael Greys, if it
weren't for Black cops fighting against discriminatory
practices within the NYPD, there would be no Asian police
officers. He said that one measure that was fought against
was the height measure. You had to be a certain height to
qualify. Asians are usually shorter than the average
American. Now, that the height requirement is no longer in
use, Asians have been applying in droves. Once again, it
took African-Americans to fight against something that
benefited other non-White groups, too.
In the case of the two Louisiana Black marshals, Derrick
Stafford and Norris Greenhouse Jr, charged in the killing of
a six year old White child, last November, there weren't any
calls for the murder charges to be dismissed by the
African-American community. The African-American community
understood that these marshals should be investigated and
charged. However, many African-Americans were ONLY upset
over the fact that it is easier and justice is swifter in
prosecuting Black officers who do wrong, while White
officers are allowed to walk free.
Insha'allah, other communities may start working together
with African-American activists, who have always been at the
forefront against police criminal behavior. When people work
in the best interest of justice they tend to have a
one-track mind. Police officers are the gatekeepers to White
supremacy in America but, it is not only Blacks and Latinos
who are victimized by them. Imagine if all communities
ignored the racism smokescreen and worked together to
empower people against police and judicial misconduct.
(Courtesy of Mic.com)
Bey Bey Draws the Ire of Policemen Nationwide
The Fraternal Order of Police were very busy, these past few
weeks. Beyonce drew the ire of many in law enforcement for
saluting Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party during her
Super Bowl 50 performance. White supremacy is the rule with
these agencies so, it is no surprise that they become angry
over a Black person honoring their own Black freedom
fighting heroes. Public School has taught us to only honor
Europeans and believe in White supremacy.
The Fraternal Order of Police are encouraging officers not
to work any overtime to protect or ensure the safety of
areas where Beyonce holds her concerts. The Fraternal Order
of Police is so arrogant that its members believe that they
can choose who they want to protect on the taxpayer's dime!
Even Rudolph (Adolf) Giuliani got involved to criticize
Beyonce's choice of heroes. However, he was mum on those
anti-government protesters at the East Oregon Wildlife
Reserve.
Now, Minister Louis Farrakhan and the NOI have stepped in to
protect Beyonce and her fans. They have offered to send in
the Fruit of Islam to act as security. They would probably
do a much more effective job. It is not unheard of,
unfortunately, for concert-goers to be gang raped during a
performance. It is important for the oppressed to create
their own alternatives to whatever the government is
supposed to provide for us, especially since the services in
Black taxpaying communities are far more inferior to what
White taxpayers receive.
Viewpoint
Clinton Betrayed Bosnia's Muslims. His wife can't be trusted
Either.
BERNIE SANDERS' INTEGRITY VS. HILLARY CLINTON'S
DISHONESTY
By Tarik Borogovac, National Congress of The Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, USA
1.1
USA AS CLINTON'S BANANA REPUBLIC
In the 2016 election cycle, as in 2008, we keep hearing
about Secretary Clinton getting very low marks in opinion
polls on trustworthiness and honesty. The Democratic primary
voters who put these qualities as being most important
consistently favor Mrs. Clinton's opponents. This is not due
to any unfair criticisms nor conspiracies placed by her
opponents. In fact, neither President Obama, to whom she
lost in 2008, nor Senator Sanders, who is opposing her now,
ever brought up any of her multiple run-ins with truth and
with rules.
Mrs. Clinton's poor reputation with voters is her own doing,
built up over many years and acts of poor ethics and
criminality. There are two such issues in the news right
now. One is the Clinton Foundation, which has enriched the
Clintons by paying them huge salaries, and is financed by
donors (buyers of influence), such as heads of major banks
and despotic foreign governments. We googled it for you:
http://freebeacon.com/blog/the-clinton-foundation-scandals-eplained/.
That is overshadowed by Mrs. Clinton's use of a private
email server to conduct business as Secretary of State. Same
as President Nixon's Watergate scandal, Mrs. Clinton's email
saga is providing a constant stream of damning revelations
during the election year. The rundown: in violation of laws
on handling secret information, the Freedom of Information
Act, and the basic competence of her position as Secretary
of State, Mrs. Clinton used her private email server to
conduct official business. The server administrators had no
government clearance even though the server held numerous
emails with highly classified content sent by Mrs. Clinton
and to her. The substandard security on the server would not
effectively defend against even every-day internet attacks,
let alone sophisticated attacks by foreign intelligence
services and organized groups. If Edward Snowden ever sets
foot in this country, he will be arrested and tried for
treason for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional spying
on our citizens, but it is Mrs. Clinton who has likely
provided real, damaging, actionable intelligence to hostile
foreign governments and organizations. The successive
revelations have exposed Mrs. Clinton's earlier denials, and
she has retreated to essentially admitting guilt but oddly
using entitlement and incompetence as somehow mitigating
factors. Basically she now says she did it but only for
convenience, and she did not know all that information she
emailed was classified. Except, it has been revealed that
(1) Clinton instructed her staff to remove headers with
classification markings, and (2) Clinton aides manually
typed information from closed systems on high security
internal networks not connected to the internet, into emails
bound for her non-secure internet server, a two-step
conscious process to defeat the most stringent measures put
in place to protect US secrets.
1.2
CLINTONS' SACRIFICE OF BOSNIA FOR PERSONAL AMBITION
As Bosnian Americans, we are very familiar with another
Clinton's willingness to cross all moral bounds in the
interest of winning elections. Our original homeland, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, was sacrificed at the altar of President
Bill Clinton's second term. Mr. Clinton fulfilled his
promise of bringing peace to Bosnia -- by giving war
criminals like Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and
Ratko Mladic legalization of their project, an entity named
The Republic of the Serbs on territories of Bosnia and
Herzegovina that were ethnically cleansed through genocide.
Twenty years later, Bosnia is an apartheid state, and the
Republic of the Serbs still exists and is still ethnically
"clean." It is easy to make peace by giving military
dictators and war criminals what they want, but it is not a
moral way to win elections.
Some may say that those are Mr. Clinton's and not Mrs.
Clinton's sins, but we recall that Mrs. Clinton has used her
husband's experience with Bosnia to burnish her foreign
policy credentials many times. One instance in the 2008
election is particularly memorable -- when she told the
ridiculous story of the plane ride and trip into Tuzla
(Bosnia) where she supposedly ducked sniper fire. Just as
Brian Williams' helicopter ride offended the men and women
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by making light of their
sacrifices, Mrs. Clinton's easily spoken lie deeply offends
the memories of the countless Bosnian children, women and
men who were cut down by Serbian sniper fire and shelling in
Sarajevo and in all of Bosnia.
Mrs. Clinton's history with poor judgment and unethical
conduct is long, and each Democratic voter should see that
it makes her a very risky candidate for the Democratic
Party. She will turn away even a greater proportion of
Independents than she has Democrats, her history will be
exposed further in a general election when she faces a
Republican candidate who is not likely to take it easy on
Mrs. Clinton like Mr. Sanders. And Mrs. Clinton will either
get indicted in the email investigation, or Mr. Obama will
quash it -- which would be worse for her prospects and his
legacy.
But more than that, Mrs. Clinton is a terrible choice for
president. Parents in this country teach kids about "Honest
Abe" and the fable of Washington and the cherry tree: "I
cannot tell a lie." They repeat Kennedy's call to "ask not"
and put themselves in service to the country and the greater
good, even before themselves. And we see that USA is strong
because of generations of people who believe in those ideals
and are willing to fight for them with conviction and
confidence that they will win out. That is necessary for a
self-sustaining democracy. American voters, see that Mrs.
Clinton, like Bill Clinton, is a person who feels entitled
to break any rule, and sacrifice any principle, to gain some
petty personal advantage or convenience. When people of that
sort are allowed to occupy the Presidency or other
institutions such as the State Department they will put
those institutions into the service of personal interests
and ambitions, and that erodes the confidence of the people
in the strength of principles, and brings the country closer
to being just another fiefdom of some powerful family -- a
Banana Republic.
1.3
BARNIE SANDERS AS THE ALTERNATIVE
That brings us to Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist.
We do not believe in socialism, having lived under it. But
we do believe in democracy, and we also see that Mr. Sanders
believes in it. Over the past 20 years, our democracy has
been weakened, but Mr. Sanders has consistently defended it.
He has had many opportunities to pander or join some team
that would get him ahead. Yet he made correct and principled
decisions, even when it was unpopular, such as opposing the
war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, both of which Mrs. Clinton,
as part of the ambitious non-principled crowd supported.
Therefore, in the Clinton vs. Sanders struggle, we see Mrs.
Clinton as being the anti-democratic force, and Mr. Sanders,
the socialist, as the best hope for preserving our
democracy.
Revisionist Insider
Losing a Wise Friend.
Critics of the Holocaust story are not at all what Zionists
say they are.
Bradley Reed Smith, February 18, 1930 to February 18,
2016
By Germar Rudolf [The writer is himself an extraordinary
scholar and researcher. More about him in the future.]
Published: 2016-02-20
I met Bradley the first time in September 1999 during David
Irving's Real History Conference in Cincinnati, where we
both presented papers to Irving's audience. I did not
interact much with him during that conference. That changed,
however, after I had to leave England in a hurry just two
months later due to a veritable manhunt for me initiated by
the British media. I came to the U.S. in an attempt to find
a safe haven there, but those plans weren't panning out as
hoped. I've described my failed attempts at getting some
kind of permission to remain in the U.S. elsewhere. What
matters here is that I ended up having to leave the U.S.,
which is how Bradley got involved again. In February and
then again in May 2000 I stayed at Bradley's home in Baja
California for a number of days each time. I was
(understandably) depressed back then, and Bradley tried hard
to lift me up. When another three months of tourist visa
time was about to expire in August, I decided that this
in-and-out of Mexico won't work much longer, so I arranged
with Bradley to actually move to his neighborhood. I lived
next door to Bradley in a small rented house between late
July and mid-October of 2000. During the day I worked for my
little revisionist outlet, but when it was dinner time,
Bradley's wife Irene insisted that I come over and have
dinner with them. After dinner I stayed, and Bradley and I
talked. That's when Bradley became a close friend of
mine.
We realized that our outlooks on things were rather similar.
For instance, neither of us was ever interested in riches,
in social status or in gaining power and influence. We both
were looking for some way of dedicating our lives to some
worthwhile idealistic cause. He tried to find glory and
meaning in the army, serving in Korea and reporting from
Vietnam during that country's war. He tried being a deputy
sheriff, and he even tried bull-fighting, of all things. But
the real bull fight, so to speak, the one he fought for the
rest of his life, he entered only at the age of 49.
Realizing our similar outlook on life, we started doing
revisionist projects together, for instance by interlinking
our two websites and indexing all papers (I even announced
that in my German journal in an ad, see at the bottom of
this article). I left my Mexican abode again in mid-October
2000, returning to the States in order to apply for
political asylum.
This, too, was a doomed attempt, but it took five years
before the U.S. authorities finally arrested me in November
2005 and deport me back to Germany, where I was duly
incarcerated and prosecuted for my offensive scientific
(revisionist) views. Again, this is not the place to discuss
this in detail. The reader can find out about that
elsewhere.
However, I had married a U.S. citizen in the meantime, and
in the long run that was my magic bullet to finally get
permanent legal residence in the States (legalese for a
"green card"). But the U.S. government wasn't willingly
granting me that permission. Quite to the contrary. More
than a year after my release from the German prison system,
and I still had made no headway. Hoping that this might
change soon, I decided to wait right across the border - in
Rosarito, Mexico, in Bradley's home. So in September of
2010, Bradley and his wife once more received me with open
arms and allowed me to stay at their home until my
immigration case was finally resolved. But the weeks of
waiting turned into months. At the end it took 10 months,
until July 2011, to finally obtain that coveted immigrant
visa. Seven of these ten months I spent with Bradley and his
family. During that time I had little else to do but to
assist Bradley in what he was doing, in partaking in the
Smith family life, and in talking to Bradley.
Bradley's legacy is monumental. Among revisionists, there
are few who have achieved as much as he has. Ernst Zündel
comes to mind, whose ingeniously fought trials triggered a
landslide of worldwide attention and interest in Holocaust
revisionism. Next Robert Faurisson, who was the grand
strategist and prime expert advisor on Zündel's defense
team. He almost single-handedly made his own nation listen
to the revisionist message, in spite of all establishment
attempts to silence him. And of course Willis Carto, who
between the late 1970s and the early 1990s gave fledgling
Holocaust revisionism massive organizational and financial
support.
Ever since Bradley got involved in revisionism, his mission
was to spread the message to U.S. campuses and the mass
media. His initial success was staggering, as he caught the
enemies of free speech with their shields down and on their
wrong foot. They smartened up to him eventually, but Bradley
sought and always somehow found gaps in their system of
censorship to break through the wall of silence anyway. And
he did so until his very last breath.
How did he do it? A man of little formal education and
basically no financial means, how did he manage to stand up
against the million-, nah, billion-dollar Holocaust Industry
which could easily out-scream and out-censor him?
I think a big part in the picture is his personality. He was
a gentle and kind person, always respectful and willing to
help; he gave everyone the benefit of the doubt; he did not
judge, but he gently, and often with lots of humor, gave
friendly advice. If you met or spoke to him personally, you
couldn't possibly be mad at him or hold any grudges, no
matter how much his opinions might differ from yours. He
was, in his own way, disarmingly charming. Whenever he
appeared in public or was confronted face-to-face by his
opponents, this personality shone through and made it
difficult to call him names. He simply didn't fit the
prejudice which the mainstream media like to spread about us
revisionists.
Was he in it for the money? Actually, the opposite is
probably true. He sacrificed his comfortable life in
southern California and had to move to Mexico because he
couldn't afford living in the U.S. anymore, and during all
his years of revisionist engagement, he struggled to make
ends meet. As we revisionists know, there is no money in
revisionism, only hardship and ostracism.
Was he faking his fight for censorship just to force his
view upon others? Well, already in the 1960s he went to jail
for his struggle for free speech when selling Henry Miller's
then-banned Tropic of Cancer in his bookstore. So he has the
history to prove that he has always been in it for the mere
ideal.
Was he in it for hating the Jews (e.g., Henry Miller)?
Bradley's first wife was Jewish, and in those years living
among and socializing with Jews was his daily bread. Later
on, that made the more anti-Semitically inclined among his
potential supporters suspicious, but the enemies of free
speech could not justifiably call him an anti-Semite -
although they still tried.
Was he in it for white supremacism? Bradley married an
indigenous Mexican, which the more racially inclined among
his potential supporters disliked, but his detractors had a
hard time calling him a racist.
And so the list goes on. Bradley didn't fit the mainstream's
clichés, and that's another reason why he was so successful.
People outside the revisionist community, the ones Bradley
was most interested in talking to, were willing to listen
because of him. They were willing to help because of him.
They were willing to change their minds because of him.
Another aspect of his success was his creative chaos. I have
always tried to properly organize my work and also my
workplace, and having been in Brad's office for seven
months, I eventually couldn't take it anymore and tried
getting things a little bit organized there as well. It
didn't work. Bradley was willing to try, but he would always
resort to the way he was used to doing things. To his
credit, I must say that it seems like this creative chaos
never really impeded the effectiveness of his work. I have
never heard people on the outside complaining about
resources getting squandered because of a lack of
organization. Maybe the truth is that he needed this chaos.
His creativity to try new things at an instance's notice
made his operation function and succeed to the degree it
could. He didn't waste time organizing things through. He
just did them. Had his operation grown considerably beyond
the one or two office helpers he had on occasion, his way of
doing things might have faltered, but truth is, things never
got out of control. He spent his time not with organizing
things through, but always with trying to find new ways of
circumventing the walls of silence surrounding revisionism
and the struggle for free speech.
Another contributing factor to Bradley's success, I might
even say to his getting involved in revisionism in the first
place, was his profound skepticism that there is something
like "the truth" or "reality" which we can ever be certain
of. I remember sitting in Brad's office one of those long,
agonizing days of waiting for news from the U.S. immigration
services. For the first time I started reading and watching
the material which the 9/11 Truth Movement had been putting
out over the previous years during which I had been
incarcerated. I ran into a scientific paper by a chemist on
the massive amounts of nano-thermite found in the dust of
the collapsed WTC Twin Towers. Up to that point I never
fully bought into the theory that 9/11 was an inside job,
but being myself a chemist, that analytical result swayed
me.
It was a déjà-vu experience, because in 1989 I had had the
very same experience when reading about Leuchter's
analytical findings on cyanide residues in the alleged gas
chambers of Auschwitz. I got really excited about all this
9/11 stuff and was willing to once more throw myself into
the battle. When I told this to Bradley, it took him only a
few sentences to prick my balloon of illusions and let out
all the hot air. How could I be sure of their findings? How
could I be sure that there aren't other explanations? How
could I be sure I could contribute anything to the 9/11
Truth Movement's struggle which they would value, or vice
versa, which revisionists would cherish? Well, having a
prominent Holocaust Denier in their midst would probably
backfire for the 9/11 Truth Movement big time, I figured, so
I changed my mind. We had many discussions where he made me
see that I hadn't considered this or that perspective. He
never tried hard to change my mind, because that's not how
Bradley worked. He merely threw in his caveats, his humble
opinion, inviting it to be considered. And this was so
effective. I can at times be quite opinionated, but Bradley
had the means to soften me and open up my mind. He worked
like a mind relaxative on people.
Even when it comes to revisionist findings, Bradley had a
very skeptical attitude. He was fairly sure that we
revisionists were right in general, but when it came to the
details, he wasn't sure. He wasn't even interested in
finding out. The territory was too shifty, too unsteady. New
findings would constantly move the goal posts in that game
of trying to "hit the truth," and he wasn't interested in
playing that game. He was interested, ironically, in
opposing the institutionalization and enforcement of
"Truths" such as the Holocaust in its authorized
edition.
Where did his skepticism that "the truth" is knowable come
from? He had not studied philosophy in general or
epistemology in particular to have familiarized himself with
the theories of humanity's best thinkers as to why we can
never be absolutely certain about "the ultimate truth" of
anything. I think his approach was rather different, and
very personal.
In a recent article he described briefly his humorous
exchange he had with a psychiatrist about some of the odd
experiences he had throughout his life, some of which he had
described in his book A Personal History of Moral Decay.
While I stayed with him, he told me several more of these
episodes. A favorite story was when one of these days he saw
a mouse floating in midair through his office. He knew it
couldn't be true, but he was quite fascinated by the sight.
"There's phenomena, but no symptom," as his psychiatrist put
it. Now, I could put a label on it, but I won't because I'm
not an expert, and I think any label primarily triggers
prejudices rather than understanding.
Our brains are miraculous organs. During sleep they create
an illusionary world full of at times quite realistic
sights, smells, sounds and feelings, called dreams, while
during wakefulness they confine themselves to receiving
information through our senses and interpreting them as best
as they can (which is frequently quite bad, by the way). At
least that's the way it should be. For some of us, that
strict separation between sleep's active illusions and
wakefulness's passive perception of reality doesn't hold.
The brain can create illusions at any time, not merely
during sleep. For most of us this rarely ever happens, and
if it does, it is so minor that we might not even notice it,
or dismiss it as a quirk.
Bradley was different. Throughout his adult life, Bradley's
brain was on rare occasion playing peculiar tricks on him.
They never were intrusive or frequent in such a way as to
impede his life, but they made him always skeptical about
whether his perceptions were real or not. He never trusted
his own brain. This showed even in the way he often talked
about his own brain doing peculiar things, making him think
and do this and that. Bradley didn't need to study
philosophy to know that our brains are incapable of reliable
perceiving reality. He knew it because he lived it. And so,
when he hit the proverbial brick wall of Holocaustian dogmas
claiming to be the incontrovertible and undeniable truth,
the inevitable happened.
"How can we be sure?"
We cannot. He could not. And so he set out to tell everyone
that it's wrong to insist that we most certainly know the
truth about "the Holocaust," and that it is wrong to force
people to believe in the one and only "truth" about this
event. The Holocaust orthodoxy's dogmatic attitude, backed
by powerful lobby groups, by the Industry's big money, and
by almost all governments of the world, the U.N. included,
was the extreme opposite of everything his brain told him.
So he just couldn't help it. He had to say it, he had to try
to make the world understand that it's just not right to
pretend certainty when there can be no such thing.
Knowing one's limits, also and especially one's limit to be
able to "know," is one of the hallmarks of wisdom. Bradley
was a wise man. And he was my best friend.
Outreach # 1:
Jamaat al-Muslimeen Activity in North Eastern Maryland.
Their Mosque was Damaged by the snow storms and they were
praying in a big barn.
On February 26. Jamaat al-Muslimeen literature was given to
100 Muslims after Juma'. Most of them were Arab Americans,
Africans, African Americans and a few Pakistanis.
This is masjid Nur but the continuing bad weather had done
so much harm to their main building that it had been
declared unsafe. So the prayers were held in a big barn
behind the mosque.
Are the angels telling us something? Why do we spend so much
on fancy building when we could pray in any big space.
Didn't the prophet, pbuh, teach that he has made the whole
world a masjid for us.
Also people in our communities are not taking care of their
health. There was a long line of people sitting on chairs
behind the congregation, mostly in their fifties and sixties
approximately.
Our literature had these items:
Support for the Dr. Aafia rally coming in Washington DC
on March 19. [Nadrat Siddique for Jamaat.]
Web sites for political prisoners Ahmed Abdel Sattar,
Ziyad Yaghi and Masoud Khan [from Br. Rich]
Syria: Massacres of Muslims by Russian, Alawite and
American Jet bombers. Slaughter of Alawite supporters of
Assad by Islamic State {ISIS] truck bombers.
Br. Kaukab Siddique's khutba on the inclusivity of Islam
for strong and weak Muslims and the exemptions given to
women. Why are mujaheddin, especially IS, presented as
brutal by US media: Specific answers.