Make it known to the people and do not conceal it

[Catya Sher]

Re First Manzareh:
VERY well said
Yeah Mi-6's use of the coat of arms reveals all.
A wishful thinker
Wannabe agent.
I am laughing hard about the Wicked Witch of the West -
that's his real title. After all, he only advocates for Western way of thought/lifestyle etc.

Baygham,

No need for nastiness.
I lived many many years in a city notorious for them.
They became so aggressive in taking the place over, and so hostile toward normal women [they have all sorts of tricks they employ to make life miserable for a normal woman] that I, Thank God!, moved from that Sodom and Gomorrah locale...

They also have more subtle tricks such as trying to shake a woman's hand to give some of their darkness to her.
This is from recent reports of victimized women...

[Baygham]

Re First Manzareh:
VERY well said
Yeah Mi-6's use of the coat of arms reveals all.
A wishful thinker
Wannabe agent.
I am laughing hard about the Wicked Witch of the West -
that's his real title. After all, he only advocates for Western way of thought/lifestyle etc.

Baygham,

No need for nastiness.
I lived many many years in a city notorious for them.
They became so aggressive in taking the place over, and so hostile toward normal women [they have all sorts of tricks they employ to make life miserable for a normal woman] that I, Thank God!, moved from that Sodom and Gomorrah locale...

They also have more subtle tricks such as trying to shake a woman's hand to give some of their darkness to her.
This is from recent reports of victimized women...

How does this transfer of Dark energy from hand shake takes place.

BTW do you hear voices with that transfer of energy.

[Baygham]

Baygham whats your view on homosexuality?

I am OK with you being homosexual. But like your religion please keep it to yourself. No preaching to my folk of either.

[Catya Sher]

I had missed the earlier posts on page 1. Thanks!

The videos have superb insights overall about the current dynamics of too many Muslims vis a vis the West.
Maybe a good application could be right here for some members of this Forum who sound the same way he describes the rulers of the Arab world today !

One note: he clearly specifies in Part I that he doesn't want to cause upsets or wars.

Of course all the alarmist think tanks excise THAT part.
They highlight only that ONE sentence at the end of Part II which is ambiguous enough to sound the alarm bells worldwide.

Now I see why the voice is so emphatic. Notice how he stands up for the Australian woman who was mistreated by Yemeni authorities apparently.
I had not heard of her.

Yet he devotes quite some time out of the political overview to her case.

It's a forceful speech. After seeing the English subtitles, one can see WHY it may have upset the powers that be, as he clearly sees what they are doing. Few others are able to stand up like that.
So this is why they have made such a case out of him.
He's too shrewd and he's got their number as few do.

[Catya Sher]

Baygham,

I specified the reports of women. Hence it was not I.

I would never shake the hand of any person, so I wouldn't be tricked like this.

The point is that these male homosexuals have a tactic of grabbing women's hands before they even know it and can resist, and shaking them.

It's - that overused word - invasive.
It's a way, I suspect, to get women to give them recognition. Probably women are afraid to show their true feelings of repulsion. They maybe find themselves giving a weak smile and allowing their hand to be grabbed to avoid looking "prejudiced against homosexuals" !

Still, behind all those more surface reasons, is the fact that there are demons in these people. These demons never cease trying to pollute any person they can get a hold of -
Literally !

It's better to brave the torrent of ridicule from those like Baygham so that conscientious people may find advance knowledge of this bizarre behavior useful in averting such mean tricks.

[Maiwand]

A reply to Karima Bennoune on al-Awlaki's rights

If 'war on terror' detention has driven the US-Yemeni cleric to extremism, that's all the more reason to uphold his legal rights

Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric now in hiding in Yemen, who has been linked to terrorist plots; human rights groups are backing a legal challenge to the Obama administration, which has targeted Awlaki for assassination by drone strike. Photograph: AP

Karima Bennoune has strongly attacked the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights – of which she is a board member – for taking on the case of the American cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, on behalf of his father. Al-Awlaki is the first US citizen to have been publicly targeted by the Obama administration for assassination by drone attack, in Yemen.

Bennoune is a professor of international law in the US. She says she opposes extrajudicial killings in violation of international law, but she makes the case that al-Awlaki's own views in favour of political killings make him an unworthy client for CCR. He should, she says, "be brought to justice in accordance with international law for his own crimes against humanity… and he should be denounced by human rights advocates, rather than represented by them."
Bennoune's position is an odd one. How can she both be against extrajudicial killings and also believe that CCR should not represent someone who is a potential victim?

CCR has a distinguished history of principled legal work in the "war on terror". Michael Ratner, president of CCR, was at the centre of the group of lawyers under CCR auspices who challenged President Bush's incommunicado, extra-legal detentions in Guantánamo Bay and took the landmark case, Rasul v Bush, failing in district and circuit courts before getting to the supreme court in 2004, and winning.

The decision to represent the Guantánamo detainees back then was not an easy one, Ratner explained in his 2004 book, Guantánamo, and it brought CCR plenty of hate mail, especially in the early days. Inside Guantánamo, it was a CCR attorney, Gitanjali Gutierrez, who was the first lawyer to meet a detainee – Moazzam Begg from Britain. Professor David Cole of Georgetown University, also a CCR trustee, has written some of the seminal books around these issues, such as Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, which received the American Book Award in 2004.

Many of those alleged to have been involved in international terrorism and now in US custody, including the big names of 9/11, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will receive some form of legal process – although battles continue over where, and whether under civilian or military auspices.

Al-Awlaki's situation as a target for extra-judicial assassination is not unique for those accused of waging a war on the US, such as Osama bin Laden, who are not in custody. However, Awlaki is American, and has a family in the US that has asked for the legal challenge.

CCR and its partner in litigation, the American Civil Liberties Union, make the point that the principles at stake here override everything. "The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens, anywhere in the world based on its own say-so," said Vince Warren, executive director of CCR:

"The law prohibits the government from killing without trial or conviction other than in the face of an imminent threat that leaves no time for deliberation or due process. That the government adds people to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and leaves them on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the Constitution and international law."

Ben Weizner at the ACLU says that the positions on al-Awlaki relate not to his personality, but rather speak to the issues that the organisations are concerned with. First, that presidential power must always remain checked and balanced, and second, that in an armed conflict which does not have boundaries, there needs to be much greater clarification as to the acts that become legitimate and under what circumstances. As Weizner puts it:

"We have a strange situation in which the president needs permission in order to intercept the communication of al-Awlaki, but does not need any such permission in order to fire a missile at him."

What is being questioned in the process of litigation, is why there is no evidence being produced in the case against al-Awlaki. The organisations are not claiming that the US government is not entitled to defend itself; rather, that if an immediate threat is proven, then action should be taken – but that immediate threat needs to be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

In Karima Bennoune's public statement, she has judged al-Awlaki guilty of crimes against humanity, without any due process to back her up. Second, she is apparently making no judgment that the presidential decisions to kill pal-Awlaki – and the thousands of others who have been killed by drones in Pakistan – also represent crimes against humanity to many people in the world. But al-Awlaki himself has said specifically that the killing of thousands of Iraqis by the US does not justify the killing of a single civilian in New York or Washington.

Part of the problem in considering al-Awlaki's legal situation is the highly-contested and selective quotations from him over the last decade or so. In the years immediately before 11 September 2001, he was an influential Muslim cleric with a large following in the English-speaking Muslim world, including Canada, Britain and in the US, where he lived. He was known as a popular and accessible expert on the history of Islam and, in particular, for a series on the lives of the prophets, such as Noah, Abraham and Moses. So far, so uncontroversial. And he was, in fact, cleared by the US intelligence agencies to preach at the Capitol Hill mosque, and was invited to lunch at the Pentagon after 11 September 2001.

Why, then, was he in 2006 refused re-entry to the US after a teaching spell in Yemen? And why was he then targeted for detention in Yemen at the request of the US? In the year that he was detained in Yemen, he was repeatedly questioned about his activities and associates in the US, and it was FBI agents who interrogated him. It is odd that they did not transfer him then to the US or Guantánamo, as they did so many others.

After 9/11, the great fishing net of western intelligence agencies (in particular, for Muslims from those same western countries), scooped up thousands of men from arenas as diverse as Bosnia, Zambia, Gambia, Pakistan and Italy, to name but a few. As the research by Seaton Hall Law School in the United States and others has subsequently shown, the vast majority of these men and others held in Guantánamo and other sites were wholly innocent.

Around the Awlaki detention period, the so-called high-value detainees were being moved from secret sites, where they had been tortured, to Guantánamo Bay, because of rising awareness and opposition in Europe to the illegal practices of the "war on terror", which were taking place in Europe itself. The Bush administration, by then, was acutely aware of how poor the information was which they had about those responsible for 9/11, and about al-Qaida past, present and future. The US was on the hunt for any possible significant individuals. Al-Awlaki, with his American background, his education and his sophisticated fluency, must have seemed a tempting target. And as two of the 9/11 hijackers allegedly attended his mosque, it was not surprising that this was so.

In his own words, Anwar al-Awlaki emphatically rejected the use of terrorism (clip at 3:43mins):

"The fact that the US has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq, the fact that the US is supporting the death and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of one US civilian in New York or Washington DC. And the deaths of 6,000 civilians in New York or Washington, DC does not justify the killing of one civilian in Afghanistan."

This position, stated directly after 9/11, is in stark contrast to some of the positions that he has taken today, where he has justified the permissibility of attacking civilian targets.

This significant change clearly relates to the impact that his persecution and detention have had on his opinions. It should not mean that he can be killed without process.

The order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki only serves to highlight the escalation in violence that is obvious, especially to the victims of terrorism and of state-sponsored terrorism. The reprisals that are taking place – from Pakistan, across the Middle East – entered the territory of the unlawful a long time ago. The ACLU and CCR are trying to redress the balance by reminding Americans that they have values to which they must hold dear; otherwise, the law that is there to protect so many will be eroded. Already, we have seen the Geneva conventions written off as expendable by the previous US administration, and so many aspects of the laws of armed conflict and international human rights watered down in the "war on terror" – so that double standards are widely seen to prevail.

The solution to this quagmire is not to be found in the killing of a single individual, for he will inevitably be replaced by a hundred who will wish to avenge his death. Rather, we must create an environment where individuals such as Anwar al-Awlaki do not become disenfranchised.

[Baygham]

Baygham,

I specified the reports of women. Hence it was not I.

I would never shake the hand of any person, so I wouldn't be tricked like this.

The point is that these male homosexuals have a tactic of grabbing women's hands before they even know it and can resist, and shaking them.

It's - that overused word - invasive.
It's a way, I suspect, to get women to give them recognition. Probably women are afraid to show their true feelings of repulsion. They maybe find themselves giving a weak smile and allowing their hand to be grabbed to avoid looking "prejudiced against homosexuals" !

Still, behind all those more surface reasons, is the fact that there are demons in these people. These demons never cease trying to pollute any person they can get a hold of -
Literally !

It's better to brave the torrent of ridicule from those like Baygham so that conscientious people may find advance knowledge of this bizarre behavior useful in averting such mean tricks.

So you have seen that a demon passes from a homosexual male through hand shake to a heterosexual female, causing her internal harm.

Why do they pass through handshake, I have heard of them passing if your gazes lock, i.e. if you look in the eye of a demon carrier the demons ride the emitting photons to your eyes, thats why some prefer to wear shades around these people.

Airborne transmission of demons is highly debated, and only few demons can transmit through that. I dont know about homosexual demons whether they can be transmitted that way.

When I visited SanFransisco, I was wearing shades because the sun was really bright, little did I know I was also protected from homosexual demons, I did not know anyone, so hand shaking did not take place, hopefully I did not catch anything airborne, Ya Allah Khair. Dha Khair maleeka Khair.

[Catya Sher]

Very funny !
When were you there?

Actually, it's not the actual demon but some part of its vibration jumps across through the physical handshake.

A person who is praying and faithful to Allah will be protected. If sensitive, may have to shake off that bad energy.

A person who does not pray is very vulnerable to picking up any old demon running around.

There are tons of types. Especially in big cities of the Western world and everywhere in the world today.

Sometimes demons just subtly influence someone's thought without his or her knowing it.
Other times, more aggressive ones will try to stick onto a likely prey.

Bars are places that are teaming with alcohol demons. These demons invisibly sit there like cobwebs. They goad any unwitting drinker to drink more. Then more, and more.

If he or she agrees with this suggestion, the demon will push them to make it a habit. That means, eventually an addiction to alcohol.
Why does the demon want this? Perhaps the demon is getting a charge of bad energy through the human when he or she indulges in this forbidden pursuit.
After that reduction in the natural armor surrounding a person, the demon or demons - for it can be a number bombarding all at once - will start trying to cause harm to other people through their new "agent".

Example: the man goes home, yells like crazy at wife. For nothing at all.
The wife screams at the children, for nothing at all.
The children pull the cat's tail and tease it meanly. For nothing at all.

So, see the effect? One demon getting into the 'aura' of one human can stir up immeasurable trouble for a whole host of people. This is their goal, being the malicious spirits they are.

If you are still reading calmly, homosexual demons are THE WORST.

Homosexuals KNOW they are finished after their life ends. They want to lead as many souls down the same path to Hell that they possibly can in the years they have.

There is NO need for one to grab a woman's hand or another variant, insist on a "High-5".
For what?
Just to give a dose of negative energy which may weaken her resistance to future encroachments by evil anywhere.

One HAS to be prepared for any sly tricks like this.

The more pure one is, the less one is apt to be taken off guard, because angels will find a way to thwart or lessen the attack.