World Terrorism : Weapons of Disruption Onging...

There are other messages here, they all call for jihad.

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/Misc/

The threat to the White House is at the end.

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/Jihaad/IslamDominate.htm

How Islam will dominate the world

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'aan:

åõæó ÇáóøÐöí ÃóÑúÓóáó ÑóÓõæáóåõ ÈöÇáúåõÏóì æóÏöíäö
ÇáúÍóÞöø áöíõÙúåöÑóåõ Úóáóì ÇáÏöøíäö ßõáöøåö æóáóæú
ßóÑöåó ÇáúãõÔúÑößõæäó
"It is he (Allah) who has sent His Messenger (SAW) with guidance and the religion of
truth, in order for it to be dominant over all other religions, even though the Mushrikoon
(disbelievers) hate it." (EMQ at-Tawbah, 9:33)

And the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) said:

"Åä Çááå Òæì áí ÇáÃÑÖ. ÝÑÃíÊ ãÔÇÑÞåÇ æãÛÇÑÈåÇ. æÅä
ÃãÊí ÓíÈáÛ ãáßåÇ ãÇ Òæì áí ãäåÇ
"Verily Allah has shown me the eastern and western part of the earth, and I saw the
authority of my Ummah (nation) dominate all that I saw." (Saheeh Muslim, hadeeth
no.2889)

As Allah (SWT) has said, this religion (i.e. Islam) is the only religion of truth; and the reason why He has sent us
this Deen is, "…in order for it to be dominant over all other religions." Thus, Allah (SWT) never sent us this Deen
as a mere spiritual belief. This Deen has been sent to us by Almighty Allah (SWT) in order for it to be
implemented and for the whole of mankind to abide by it.

The only one who would hate for Islam to dominate the world is the Kaafir Mushrik (non-Muslim), as Allah (SWT)
says, "…even though the Mushrikoon (disbelievers) hate it." Consequently, any "Muslim" who has a dislike for the
Sharee'ah to be implemented (out of being afraid to be labelled "extremist" for example) has committed a
negation of Eemaan, and thus, has left the fold of Islam for hating what Allah (SWT) has revealed.

Why would the disbelievers and hypocrites hate for Islam to be implemented? Simply because they do not wish
for their corruption, evil, crime, cheating, oppression, dishonesty, fraud, tyranny, "freedom", and deception to
come to an end, and for justice (Islam) to prevail.

However, this worldwide domination of Islam which has been promised by Allah (SWT) does not necessarily
mean that every single person on earth will become Muslim. When we say that Islam will dominate the world we
mean as a political system, as the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) prophesised that the authority on earth will
belong to the Muslims, i.e. the believers will be in power and the Sharee'ah of Islam will be implemented in every
corner of the earth.

So how will Islam dominate the world when the majority of people will never accept it?

Indeed, the majority of people on earth will always detest Islam and choose not to live by the Sharee'ah. Allah
(SWT) says:

æóãóÇ ÃóßúËóÑõ ÇáäóøÇÓö æóáóæú ÍóÑóÕúÊó
ÈöãõÄúãöäöíäó
"And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly." (EMQ Yoosuf, 12:103)

Therefore, there are three main ways in which a state or country can become Daar ul-Islam (the domain of
Islam):

1. The majority of its citizens embrace Islam and implement the Sharee'ah on their own accord
2. A group of Muslims rise, overthrow the government and implement the Sharee'ah by force (or coup)
(e.g. in Muslim countries)
3. The Islamic state carries out jihaad as its foreign policy and removes a government

If the Muslims are unable to fulfil their duties and invite the people to embrace Islam and implement the
Sharee'ah, it then becomes an obligation upon them to make hijrah and unite (build their own community and
execute the Sharee'ah over themselves) and then rise against the government by force at a later date,
regardless of whether they are the majority or the minority. Allah (SWT) says:

æóÃóäö ÇÍúßõãú Èóíúäóåõãú ÈöãóÇ ÃóäúÒóáó Çááóøåõ
æóáÇ ÊóÊóøÈöÚú ÃóåúæóÇÁóåõãú æóÇÍúÐóÑúåõãú Ãóäú
íóÝúÊöäõæßó Úóäú ÈóÚúÖö ãóÇ ÃóäúÒóáó Çááóøåõ
Åöáóíúßó
"Rule by what Allah has revealed (the Qur'aan and Sunnah) and do not follow their vain
desires, but be aware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allah
has sent down to you…" (EMQ al-Maa'idah, 5:49)

This verse clearly underlines the obligation of implementing the Sharee'ah, but as well as this, Allah (SWT) says:
"…and do not follow their vain desires", which means: rule by the Sharee'ah even if they (the people) desire
something else. The verse is so clear-cut and proves that the Sharee'ah must be implemented by force even if
the people do not want it. Furthermore, Allah (SWT) also says:

æóÞóÇÊöáõæåõãú ÍóÊóøì áÇ Êóßõæäó ÝöÊúäóÉñ æóíóßõæäó
ÇáÏöøíäõ áöáóøåö
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (kufr and shirk) and worship (obedience,
submission etc.) is for none but Allah…" (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:193)

One of the greatest forms of kufr and shirk today is the implementation of man-made law; therefore, since
man-made law is a form of shirk, one of the only ways of eradicating it from the face of this earth is by jihaad
(fighting). In fact, it is an obligation upon us to fight against the fitnah (i.e. kufr and shirk, such as man-made
law) until it ceases to exist. Islam has always been spread by the sword, and it will continue to do so.

Unfortunately, nowadays one of the greatest misunderstandings of the divine texts is in reference to the verse,
"Laa ikraaha fid-Deen - There is no compulsion in religion…" (EMQ 2:256). This verse has been falsely interpreted
to mean that we cannot force Islam upon the people. However, if we refer to the understanding of the
Sahaabah we can clearly see that this is not the case at all.

"There is no compulsion in religion" means that people should not be forced to embrace Islam i.e. become
Muslim. But this does not mean that we cannot force Islam as a law and order upon the people. The Messenger
Muhammad (SAW) said:

ÃãÑÊ Ãä ÃÞÇÊá ÇáäÇÓ ÍÊì íÞæáæÇ áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå ÝÅÐÇ
ÞÇáæåÇ ÚÕãæÇ ãäí ÏãÇÁåã æÃãæÇáåã ÅáÇ ÈÍÞåÇ æÍÓÇÈåã
Úáì Çááå
"I have been ordered to fight mankind until they say, "Laa ilaaha illallah wa anna
Muhammadar Rasool-Ullah - There is none worthy of worship except Allah and
Muhammad (SAW) is the Messenger of Allah." If they say that, their blood and wealth will
be saved from me, except from the right of Islam (the Sharee'ah); and their
accountability will be with Allah." (Musnad al-Imaam Ahmad)

Therefore, the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) and the believers were ordered to fight the people until they
embrace Islam or live by Islam (and remain a Kaafir). If they become Muslim their blood and wealth will have
sanctity, but they will still not be saved "from the right of Islam," meaning that they must still abide by the
Sharee'ah (as a law and order). But if they remain non-Muslim, they must at least live by the laws of Islam;
either way, the people have a choice of which religion they want to follow, but they have no choice of whether
to live by the Sharee'ah or not – this is the meaning of "except from the right of Islam."

It has also been authentically proven that our Messenger Muhammad (SAW) used to order his companions to
invite the disbelievers to Islam. If they refused to embrace it or accept it as a system of governance, then fight
against them until Allah's Deen is dominant and implemented:

ÇÛÒæÇ ÈÇÓã Çááå. æÝí ÓÈíá Çááå. ÞÇÊáæÇ ãä ßÝÑ ÈÇááå. ÇÛÒæÇ æáÇ
ÊÛáæÇ æáÇ ÊÛÏÑæÇ æáÇ ÊãËáæÇ æáÇ ÊÞÊáæÇ æáíÏÇ.
æÅÐÇ áÞíÊ ÚÏæß ãä ÇáãÔÑßíä ÝÇÏÚåã Åáì ËáÇË ÎÕÇá (Ãæ ÎáÇá). ÝÃíÊåä
ãÇ ÃÌÇÈæß ÝÇÞÈá ãäåã æßÝ Úäåã. Ëã ÇÏÚåã Åáì ÇáÅÓáÇã. ÝÅä ÃÌÇÈæß
ÝÇÞÈá ãäåã æßÝ Úäåã. Ëã ÇÏÚåã Åáì ÇáÊÍæá ãä ÏÇÑåã Åáì ÏÇÑ ÇáãåÇÌÑíä.
æÃÎÈÑåã Ãäåã¡ Åä ÝÚáæÇ Ðáß¡ Ýáåã ãÇ ááãåÇÌÑíä æÚáíåã ãÇ Úáì
ÇáãåÇÌÑíä. ÝÅä ÃÈæÇ Ãä íÊÍæáæÇ ãäåÇ¡ ÝÃÎÈÑåã Ãäåã íßæäæä ßÃÚÑÇÈ
ÇáãÓáãíä. íÌÑí Úáíåã Íßã Çááå ÇáÐí íÌÑí Úáì ÇáãÄãäíä. æáÇ íßæä áåã Ýí
ÇáÛäíãÉ æÇáÝíÁ ÔíÁ. ÅáÇ Ãä íÌÇåÏæÇ ãÚ ÇáãÓáãíä.
ÝÅä åã ÃÈæÇ ÝÓáåã ÇáÌÒíÉ. ÝÅä åã ÃÌÇÈæß ÝÇÞÈá ãäåã æßÝ Úäåã. ÝÅä åã
ÃÈæÇ ÝÇÓÊÚä ÈÇááå æÞÇÊáåã...
The Messenger Muhammad (SAW) said: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils;
do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children.
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.
If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing
them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from
them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands
to the land of Muhaajiroun (migrants) and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have
all the privileges and obligations of the Muhaajiroun. If they refuse to migrate, tell them
that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands
of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fay'
except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).
If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizyah (tax). If they agree to pay,
accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's
help and fight them…" (Saheeh Muslim no.1731)

"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizyah (tax). If they agree to pay, accept it from them
and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." The jizyah is a small
charge or tax which every non-Muslim must pay to the khaleefah (leader of the Muslims). In return, the
non-Muslim will be under a covenant, thus making it prohibited for any Muslim to violate his sanctity. This order
from the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) is very clear; if they refuse to embrace Islam, demand from them the
jizyah i.e. implement the Sharee'ah over them. If they refuse both of these options, to embrace Islam or live by
it as a system of governance, "seek Allah's help and fight them."

Conclusion

So how will Islam dominate the world? Most likely by force! In countries such as Britain and America the people
are clearly rejected to embrace Islam and will most likely choose not to live by the Sharee'ah. Therefore, the
most likely way these countries can become under the domain of Islam is by an Islamic state conquering them
after being established elsewhere (such as in the Middle East or Asia). (However, this doesn't mean that we
should stop inviting them to Islam).

The Messenger Muhammad (SAW) said:

áíÈáÛä åÐÇ ÇáÃãÑ ãÇ ÈáÛ Çááíá æÇáäåÇÑ æáÇ íÊÑß Çááå
ÈíÊ ãÏÑ æáÇ æÈÑ ÅáÇ ÃÏÎáå Çááå åÐÇ ÇáÏíä ÈÚÒ ÚÒíÒ Ãæ
ÈÐá Ðáíá ÚÒÇ íÚÒ Çááå Èå ÇáÅÓáÇã æÐáÇ íÐá Çááå Èå
ÇáßÝÑ
"This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will
not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing
might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects
Islam); might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people), and disgrace with which
Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people)." (Musnad al-Imaam Ahmad)

ÚÕÈÉ ÇáãÓáãíä íÝÊÊÍæä ÇáÈíÊ ÇáÃÈíÖ
"A small portion of Muslims will rise and conquer the White House." (Musnad al-Imaam
Ahmad)

Any person who mocks this concept of Islam dominating the world has one of the attributes of the munaafiqeen
(hypocrites) and could have committed one of the negations of Islam: disbelieving in the sayings of Allah and
His Messenger (SAW).

This is the url for the jihaad files.

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/Jihaad/

They want to kill us, not just piss us off. They'll keep going for the populated places.

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/CurrentAffairs/HowKeepHead.htm

How to keep your head
Advice to non-Muslims and moderate Muslims who are contemplating on visiting Iraq
By Abu Mujaahid

There is a present craze and trend amongst Salafi mujaahideen (orthodox Muslim fighters) in Iraq, that is:
kidnapping and beheading unbelievers (non-Muslims) and apostates.

This current fashion has been ongoing ever since the occupation of Iraq in March 2003. In fact, some Salafi
(orthodox) Muslims assert that it originated from the Messenger Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions
themselves.

Due to this reality, all unbelievers in Iraq are vulnerable to this brutal form of killing, whether journalists, aid
workers or members of the occupational forces. Even Muslims are not safe from this gruesome punishment and
execution – that is if they change their deen (religion) by allying with the "crusaders" and "enemies of Allah".

For the past few years many people have forwarded their suggestions regarding how we can put an end to the
bloodshed in Iraq. Politicians believe there should be no negotiations with terrorists "period". Others, such as
the moderate Muslims, believe that the solution is to merely condemn the fashion of kidnapping and beheading,
and declare it to be an action which is contrary to Islam. Clearly, none of these proposals have had any effect.

It is for this reason why we, Muslims who follow Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah (the Messenger Muhammad [PBUH]
and his companions), have drafted together this short piece of advice to non-Muslims and moderate Muslims
who are in Iraq, or are contemplating on visiting the country.

It is completely pointless searching for a solution to the current hostage crises from politicians and MPs when
they do not value human life in the first place. Similarly, it is totally useless speaking to moderate Muslims as
they do not have deep knowledge and understanding of the Qur'aan, Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet
Muhammad [PBUH]) and the mentality of Salafi mujaahideen (orthodox Muslim fighters). Therefore, the only
solution is to listen to fellow Salafi Muslims who have a clearer and profound understanding of Islam and the
classical texts.

Understanding the Salafis

The first thing which must be understood is that Salafi mujaahideen believe that all non-Muslims have no
sanctity for their lives; therefore, it is allowed to kill them indiscriminately, regardless of their race, colour and
size, or whether they are civilians or soldiers. The only two exceptions they recognise are age and gender. In
other words, it is not allowed to deliberately target and kill children, below the age of fifteen, and women,
unless they are fighters or motivate others to fight.

The proof they use for this is a famous hadeeth (saying) of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who said: "I have
been ordered to fight the people [mankind] until they testify Laa ilaaha illallah [i.e. the Testimony of
Faith, known as the Shahaadah]…if they say it, their blood and wealth will be saved from me [i.e. have
sanctity]…" (Reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and other books of hadeeth)

According to the Salafis, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify Laa ilaaha illallah…"
means the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was ordered to fight people who do not declare the Testimony of Faith
(or the Shahaadah), that is the non-Muslims. And when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, "...if they say it",
this is a condition; those who say the Shahaadah will have sanctity for their lives, and those who do not say it
have no sanctity for their lives.

This is why the Salafi mujaahideen make no distinction between civilians, workers and occupational forces. In
their eyes a non-Muslim is a non-Muslim, whether he is wearing a uniform (military clothes) or not.

Furthermore, when they capture a person, they do not capture him as a POW; rather, they capture him as a
criminal. Therefore, the rules regarding POWs in Islam are not applicable to such an individual.

The solution

Firstly, under no circumstance should a non-Muslim go to Iraq.

Looking for work is a pathetic excuse as there are thousands of jobs in the UK, Europe and elsewhere. Why
leave the whole world and choose to work in Iraq, knowing very well that it is occupied land and there are Salafi
mujaahideen waiting to kidnap and brutally kill foreigners?

Moreover, visiting Iraq for the sake of liberating the Iraqi people and bringing them freedom is also a feeble
excuse as the Iraqi people do not want what the media and lying politicians claim. They want to live by the
Sharee'ah and this was the fundamental reason why Iraq was invaded in the first place.

Secondly, negotiations should always take place with the mujaahideen.

The Salafi mujaahideen are not two faced people; they do not believe in bluffing or lying. Hence, when they
make a demand, if it is met, they will fulfil their promise. As a result, it is in the benefit of the kidnapped, his
relatives and his nation to listen, and meet the demands of the mujaahideen or matters will only get worse.

Condemning them will never solve anything. They are not interested in whether people agree with them or not.
The more we ignore such people, the longer this cycle of blood will last.

Thirdly, take this advice. Nobody understands a Salafi Muslim better than another Salafi Muslim.

More Current Affairs:

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/CurrentAffairs/

Sorry, I am tired, almost none of these were checked.

http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/

This is the rest of the info on the above 10 posts, from Reynolds........found it later after all the posting.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/11644

Thanks to Grannys google

Lessons Learned?

"The almost $3 billion open gold loss on Barrick's books is greater
than their cumulative total profits for the entire existence of the
company. To my knowledge, it is the largest derivatives loss in
history."
"The problem with Barrick's gold short position is that it is too
large to be covered, or bought back, without major consequences,
either to the company or the gold market...And at 13 million ounces,
the short position is much larger than the combined gold held in all
the gold ETFs. A sudden gold buy of 13 million ounces would surely
send the gold market flying, greatly compounding Barrick's loss."
"With Barrick's rotten experience of shorting years of production so
obvious, you would think no company would ever do that again. You
would be wrong. Apex Silver (SIL) just did it. And they did it at
precisely the wrong time. Specifically, Apex sold two years'
production of both zinc and lead during the third quarter, as well as
6 months' production of silver. At the close on December 30th, zinc
prices had climbed almost 40% since September 30th, with outsized
gains in lead and silver as well, putting Apex's shorts immediately
under water. They've got to be many tens of millions of dollars in the
hole already."

Just a bit of business OSINT, not of too much importance to
afficianados of world events, but likely to be very painful to those
holding stocks in those companies. Of course, folks holding gold ETF
shares in the stock markets or holding gold futures contracts in the
commodities markets may be very happy campers pretty soon if Barrick
is forced to cover those short positions in a rising gold market. It
would not be pretty.
Apex may be in deep trouble if the Barclays silver ETF is approved as
that ETF would immediately have to buy millions of ounces of silver so
that it would be solvent and be able to sell silver-backed ETF shares.
That would cause a rapid escalation in silver prices. Thus, Apex would
be trying to buy silver to cover its six month short position (since
it can't provide silver from its production for almost two years) in a
massive price rise caused by the Barclay silver buy. Apex could
easily end up bankrupt. It wouldbe very ugly.
Fortunately for me, I have no shares of either company and certainly
don't intend to buy any. For sure.

David

http://www.investmentrarities.com/tb-archives.html

January 3, 2006

Lessons Learned?

By Theodore Butler

Just this morning, my wife informed me that she just had a telephone
conversation with an old friend who passed along regards for me, as
well as the comment that she noticed gold had moved up quite a bit and
how she hoped I wasn't feeling too bad because silver hadn't. When I
told my wife that silver had gone up even more than gold, she was
genuinely surprised, as I'm sure her friend would have been.

With 2005 now history, we can speak with precision about what occurred
over the past year. The most obvious is to record and note actual
price performance. For the year, silver appreciated 30% in price. This
gain was 50% greater than the almost 20% increase in the price of
gold. To the casual observer this might have been somewhat surprising,
given the amount of publicity given to gold. But silver investors have
learned to take it in stride, content with profits and value and not
headlines, as silver has outperformed gold in each of the past three
years

In fact, silver has cumulatively outperformed the other popular
precious metals (gold, platinum and palladium) over the past three
years by a wide margin, with the three-year return on silver close to
almost double the equivalent gain in gold, 50% greater than platinum
and almost 7 times the gain in palladium. Considering the value and
fundamentals of silver, I would think that the out performance of
silver compared to other precious metals (and all other natural
resources) should become a regular feature in the years to come. By
the time you do see silver in the headlines, the out performance
should be astounding.

But, I am not using the occasion of the closing of the books on 2005
to showcase silver's price performance. I have another thought in
mind. The end of the calendar year is also the occasion for
marking-to-market on a wide variety of derivatives transactions. While
it will be several weeks until the publicly traded mining companies
report official year-end hedge book results, it is the closing prices
of December 30 that will determine those results, plus any positions
that were added or liquidated during the third quarter.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about two companies in
particular, even though there could have been trading changes during
the quarter that cause my figures to be wide of the mark. I don't
think there have been major changes and the situation is serious
enough that I don't want to wait until the companies report to get my
message out. If there have been major changes that render my numbers
way off, I will acknowledge my error, if and when that becomes
obvious. In the meantime, I just don't want to wait.

The first company I want to write about is Barrick Gold, which is
scheduled to become the largest gold mining company in the world by
virtue of its merger with Placer Dome. On December 30, that merger was
not consummated, so the figures I will discuss apply to Barrick
without Placer, although also being a hedger, the addition of Placer
to Barrick will only increase the numbers I quote.

Barrick Gold is the largest gold hedger in the world, holding a short
hedge position of almost 13 million ounces. In the last quarter alone,
because the price of gold increased by roughly $43, Barrick should
record a mark-to-market loss of $560 million on its gold short hedge.
The loss for the year and half-year comes to a cool billion dollars.
This should increase the total outstanding loss on Barrick hedge book
to just shy of $3 billion. With Placer added in, the loss has to be
greater than $4 billion.

The almost $3 billion open gold loss on Barrick's books is greater
than their cumulative total profits for the entire existence of the
company. To my knowledge, it is the largest derivatives loss in
history. I ask you to think about that for a moment. The world was
atwitter with the recent $200 million copper loss by China, as well as
the $500 million oil loss and bankruptcy by China Aviation Fuel
(Singapore) last year. Barrick is set to report a $560 million gold
hedge loss for the quarter, $1 billion for six months and almost $3
billion in total, and the financial world looks the other way.

According to Yahoo, of the 20 analysts covering Barrick, 18 rate it as
a hold, buy or strong buy and 2 as a sell (there were no strong sale
ratings). This, for a company that is holding the largest open trading
loss in history. Why is that?

I think it is because Barrick has succeeded in doing the only thing it
can do – trying to downplay the short gold position and to hide it
deeply in its financial statements. It has even taken to splitting the
gold short position into two pieces in its financial notes. I think
this is to make it look like the loss is smaller than it actually is,
although even cut in half, it still ranks as the largest single
trading loss in history.

The problem with Barrick's gold short position is that it is too large
to be covered, or bought back, without major consequences, either to
the company or the gold market. With a total dollar amount approaching
$7 billion needed to buy back the short position, it would seem too
costly for the company to buy back. A close out would also force the
company to acknowledge the trade was stupid and ill advised in the
first place, something the company's reputed arrogance would argue
against. And at 13 million ounces, the short position is much larger
than the combined gold held in all the gold ETFs. A sudden gold buy of
13 million ounces would surely send the gold market flying, greatly
compounding Barrick's loss.

What makes the Barrick record derivatives trading loss even more
shocking and remarkable is that the company was given ample time and
repeated warnings about its outsized gold short position. I know this
to be true because I personally warned them. Actually, I did a lot
more than warn the company personally; I also warned them publicly.
And I did it when gold was below $275 an ounce. In addition, I also
contacted and warned their auditors, the New York Stock Exchange
(where Barrick trades as ABX), the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

My main reason for attacking Barrick's short position then was because
I felt it was manipulative to gold (and silver) prices. I still do. I
know Barrick denies it has manipulated the gold market, but when they
put the position on and caused millions of ounces of gold to be dumped
on the market, the price of gold dropped by almost $200 an ounce, and
when they stopped, the price rose $200. It's as simple as that.

Here are some articles that I offer as documentation of my claim. You
decide if Barrick and the regulatory authorities were adequately
forewarned.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_99/butler050599.html

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_99/butler050699.html

http://www.butlerresearch.com/the_death_of_hedging.html

With the company, its auditors, the NYSE, and the SEC, I argued that
the giant gold short position could jeopardize shareholders and
employees. With the CFTC, I argued that Barrick was manipulating the
gold market and was circumventing commodity law by being short years
worth of production, way above the 12 month limit granted to hedgers.
I was not successful in convincing the company or the regulators to
rectify the situation.

The irony is that had any one of these organizations done anything to
end the stupid and manipulative short position, Barrick would be
better off by $3 billion. As an aside, I have often joked that had
Barrick taken my advice, I could have earned a sizable commission for
the billions I would have saved them.

The lesson here is that just because those in positions of great power
and responsibility say or do something, doesn't make that something
right. Barrick and the regulators were clearly wrong not to address
the issue then, when gold was way below $300. It was, and is, wrong
for a company to short years of production. Too many bad things can
happen. It's just common sense.

Just like it is wrong for silver to have a COMEX short position larger
than all known world inventories and to be larger than world mine
production. It's also common sense that something bad will eventually
happen to the shorts there, no matter what the regulators say.

With Barrick's rotten experience of shorting years of production so
obvious, you would think no company would ever do that again. You
would be wrong. Apex Silver (SIL) just did it. And they did it at
precisely the wrong time. Specifically, Apex sold two years'
production of both zinc and lead during the third quarter, as well as
6 months' production of silver. At the close on December 30th, zinc
prices had climbed almost 40% since September 30th, with outsized
gains in lead and silver as well, putting Apex's shorts immediately
under water. They've got to be many tens of millions of dollars in the
hole already. We'll see when they report 4th quarter results.

And get this; Apex is not scheduled to actually produce any metal for
a couple of years. So there is no way the company could deliver
material against their short sales now, even if they wanted to. What
is it that makes mining executives take such big trading risks? I have
seen no evidence that shareholders want mining management to take such
big risks. Shareholders want management to increase production and
reserves and show a profit, not to try to outsmart the market.

The purpose of this essay is not to pick on Barrick or Apex, but
rather to offer something constructive. First, if you are going to
invest in mining companies, you must be aware of your company's
hedging position. You don't have to invest in a company that insists
on hedging; there are plenty of companies that don't hedge. Mining
companies that hedge have not had better performance than non-hedgers,
to my knowledge. Besides, most invest in resource companies precisely
because they think the resource will go up in price. Shorting the
resource takes away the very reason for resource investing.

Second, if you are part of management of a mining company, think long
and hard before shorting the resources you produce. Your shareholders
generally don't want you to, and much can go wrong. I can't think of
any management-hedging heroes. And please remember, selling more than
one year's actual production is not hedging; it's gambling.

(This essay was written by silver analyst Theodore Butler, an
independent consultant. Investment Rarities does not necessarily
endorse these views, which may or may not prove to be correct.)

Keep reading and you will figure it out.

mail call

Maybe the Dutch are starting to get it.

Asylum seekers from central Iraq who don't have a permit to stay can be sent back to their land of origin. A majority of the Tweede Kamer (House of commons) have voted to scrap the special protection policy.

Minister Verdonk (Immigration) says she will get to work straight away to force them out of the country. "But we are not going to send every Iraqi back, the individual testing for asylum status stays in place".
The ruling parties CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) and the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy), and the opposition LPF (List Pim Fortuyn) have no problem with the sharpened asylum policy. Central Iraq with Baghdad is considered the most dangerous area, Northern Iraq has been considered safe for a while.

http://dutchnewz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12

I think we are all going to need to get it and quickly.

John Rothman tried to do a show on the dangers to all of us from the muslims last night on KGO.

2 different muslims called, both sharp and knowledgable,
but they lost it, when talking about the cartoons.

The young one, a university student, was not a jihadi and tried to explain his view point, why it was so wrong to do the cartoons, and wound up saying that if it was free speech, then we didn't need free speech. he will be a nuclear physcist.

The older man, Eads, is a scientist , as he calls Dr. Bill to answer Electric questions.

He said he didn't get involved in religion and still lost it.

Even the liberals in San Francisco, are beginning to catch on.

John did a good program, an honest effort, as he used to do, before he got on the hate Bush kick.

His first hour was an interview with the Wilkie grandson, who is pushing the Green Party.

You should still be able to get the program on replay on the computer for the day. at KGO.com.

I t is worth hearing John's show.

Dr. Bill Wattenberg should be on tonight at 10 pm, Calif. time, I hope he will also talk about the cartoons and the nuclear situation.

If the muslims keep rioting, then there are a lot of people going to "get the message that we are in the middle of a
big religious war"

Did OBL and Zawahiri tapes set this in motion? Was it planned as soon as the cartoons came out?

If you go to: blogger.groups.com and use the search there for the blogs, try jehad and also jihadi, plus other jihad words, it crashes my computer, but looks interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1571756/posts

Denmark Calls its Citizens to Leave Syria
http://dutchnewz.com ^ | 02/04/06 | Johan van Dale

Posted on 02/04/2006 10:16:58 AM MST by shezz

The Danish government has called for all its citizens to leave Syria
immediately. Earlier on saturday furious muslims stormed the Danish
embassy in Damascus and set it on fire. They are livid over the
cartoons published of the prophet Mohammed in the Danish
newspaper Jyllands Posten.

I have been playing with an idea all night.

It is not the cartoons that has the muslims rioting in the streets, that is a cover up for the real problems.

Before the muslims took to the street, the headlines was Iran and nuclear and Hamas and killing the Jews.

Hamas and where they were going to get money and who was cutting them off..

Now all we get is muslims gone crazy.

The muslims have published more cartoons than we ever did.

The nuclear program in Iran is full steam ahead.

The money flows to the Hamas, from Iran and other countries in the muslim world.

What else are we missing?

Yesterday it was 6 churches in Alabama and a sinking ferry, that cost 1,000 or more lives.......while the crew took off and saved themselves, according to the news today.

A fire in the middle of the ferry and no SOS signal, no help given to the passengers, I heard one say last night that the passengers had to 'break into' the storage area to get the life jackets, the crew would not give them out.

Three tapes are issued and all hell breaks loose.

I learned years ago, to ignore the top story and look for the hidden one.

I had been watching the stock market, in the 1970's and all said the dollar would be devalued......it was hidden in the
middle of a TV broadcast of news, one line said it all,
"and today the dollar was devalued".....end of story.

Something is going on, and it is not the headline news.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571730/posts

AP: Syrian protestors set fire to Norwegian embassy
in Damascus
Sky News ^ | 4 February, 2006 | Sky News

Posted on 02/04/2006 9:25:42 AM MST by Eurotwit

Just breaking on Sky.

Norwegian TV is about to break their regular programming to follow
events.

"We Want Blood on the Streets of England"
Despite intense press coverage of the latest Denmark cartoon controversy, many observers have deftly ignored the larger implications of the outcry from conservative Muslim circles at the perceived blasphemy of the Prophet Mohammed. Those implications are quite clear to me and should have been to anyone else who attended today's raucous protest rally outside the Danish embassy in London organized by the Islamic militant group formerly known as Al-Muhajiroun. A representative of the organizers proclaimed through a loudspeaker that the cartoons were a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the "defeat" of the "infidels" in Iraq at the hands of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Loud cries reverberated through the crowd of hundreds calling upon Usama Bin Laden to "bomb Denmark", alongside similar emphatic screams to "nuke Germany, nuke France, nuke the USA." Other angry demonstrators demanded--as a result of the Danish cartoons--that Al-Qaida launch 9/11-style terrorist attacks not just in Denmark, but also in France, the U.K., and elsewhere. One protest organizer explained simply, "the language of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Usama Bin Laden is the only language that they understand." When Al-Muhajiroun militants triumphantly burned a flag, it was not the Danish or Norwegian flag--but rather that of the European Union. Indeed, the uproar over the Danish cartoons is merely the latest eruption of growing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims across the European continent. Eventually, it seems all but certain that these ongoing tensions will manifest themselves into further acts of terrorist violence. Anyone who remains skeptical of this serious threat to the political stability of Europe should come and listen to extremist British Muslims gleefully express their desire to "spread blood in the streets of England" in "another 7/7"--precisely as they did today in front of hundreds of police and other onlookers. There can be no clearer warning to the Western world.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/we_want_blood_o.html

I welcome the riots "brought on" by the cartoons. I believe even the lunatic fringe is slowly awakening to the muzzie threat.

Why is DHS turning border security over to the private sector?

Here is an article that should surprise me, but I am absolutely beyond being surprised where immigration law enforcement is concerned. We have read a number of stories about how our government has squandered many millions of dollars on cameras that were supposed to have been installed along the border to detect the illegal entry of aliens into our country. As it turned out, many of the cameras were never installed and quite a few of those that were installed didn't work. We have heard much criticism of the way that US-VISIT, the program that is supposed to fingerprint and photograph aliens entering our country is being implemented. Apparently Accenture is the company that has been given this costly contract that, from what I have read, may be paid more than 10 billion dollars and will require many years to be fully operational. Our government has about ten thousand Border Patrol agents and thousands of other employees who have experience in enforcing and adjudicating the immigration laws. However, I guess that the temptation of awarding yet another lucrative contract to the private sector is just too tempting for this administration.

I have never heard of a municipality hiring a private firm to deal with law enforcement, but that won't stop this administration. In fact, according to another article I just read, a subsidiary of Halliburton, KBR announced that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component has awarded KBR an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contingency contract to support ICE facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term.

It also seems that the purpose of bringing the various private corporations together is to come up with a strategy to deal with immigration and border issues is in order to prepare for the Guest Worker Program that the President has been hawking virtually since he took office 5 years ago. A program that would literally create legalized chaos in my humble opinion.

I have testified at a number of hearings before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security as well as before the Committee on Homeland Security. I was accompanied at many of these hearings by other witnesses who possess many years of experience in the critical issues of immigration law enforcement, border security and other related issues. These witnesses and I have made a number of recommendations that would be helpful in making border security work. It seems that the ideas that are put forward are rarely followed. I can sense the frustration of the leaders in Congress who seem determined to provide our nation with real immigration enforcement. To cite just one example that I can talk about personally, I recommended that ICE special agents and other law enforcement officers who are likely to encounter illegal aliens be given Spanish language training. This is not a revolutionary concept. In fact, before the current administration took office, all special agents of the former INS along with all other enforcement personnel such as the immigration inspectors throughout the United States were required to successfully complete a Spanish language training program. This was a requirement because it is estimated that more than 70% of the illegal alien population in the states is Spanish-speaking. It is recognized that you cannot investigate people you cannot communicate with. Yet, not only is Spanish language training not a requirement for special agents of ICE, it is not even offered to them! This means that for most of the newly hired agents, if they encounter an alien who does not speak English, they will probably just get back in their government car and head back to the office.

I recommended that in addition to requiring Spanish language training, that ICE special agents be given additional language training including such strategic languages as Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. The President, at a recent public appearance noted that those three languages should be taught, but incredibly he stated that those languages should be taught to members of the State Department, the military and to intelligence officers. He made no mention of providing such language training to ICE special agents who may well encounter aliens who speak those languages.

I have raised the issue that inasmuch as identity documents are the linchpins that hold the immigration system together, that our immigration enforcement personnel need to be given training in the identification of fraudulent identity documents. To my knowledge, this is not being done. Additionally, the administration has consistently refused to hire an adequate number of law enforcement officers to enforce the immigration laws. Last March, for example, I testified about the fact that the Congress had authorized that 800 new special agents for ICE be hired to enforce the immigration laws but the administration only wanted to hire 143. I was extremely disappointed that Congress was only willing to fund the hiring of 800 new special agents for ICE, but I cannot begin to tell you my thoughts about the administration's response that they only wanted to hire 143 new special agents. Recently ICE touted the fact that they were going to triple the number of teams that would search for aliens who had been ordered deported but absconded. According to the information provided by ICE rather than having some 17 teams of special agents searching for the roughly 500,000 illegal alien absconders, ICE would now field 52 teams. Each team is to consist of from 5 to 8 special agents. In round numbers, this means that there are now approximately 400 special agents on the hunt. ICE also conceded that each year approximately 35,000 illegal aliens' names are added to the list. If you feel trembling, I suspect it is an earthquake and not the alien absconders shaking in their boots! For an illegal alien to be apprehended by these 52 teams, the odds are probably about the same as getting struck by lightning- do you know anyone who has been struck by lightning?

The Border Patrol has been similarly shortchanged by the administration that purports will stop at nothing including warrantless domestic surveillance, to secure our nation against terrorism. Congress authorized the hiring of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and the administration initially only wanted to hire 210 new Border Patrol agents. Financial considerations were the stated reasons for the lower number of special agents and Border Patrol agents that the administration wanted to hire. And now, there appears to be enough money to privatize the critical issue of border security.

The point is simple. Instead of paying millions of dollars, or perhaps even more, especially at a time when our deficit is as high as the moon, perhaps the administration should simply hire a realistic number of special agents, provide them with training and leadership that truly understands immigration law enforcement and encourage them to do their jobs. Right now the great majority of ICE field officers are lead by managers who came from legacy Customs. Most of the managers at ICE headquarters also came from legacy Customs. But the administration presses on, doing whatever it apparently can do to eliminate those law enforcement professionals who have real world experience in enforcing the immigration laws. Now, if the administration follows through on this new idea, there will be folks from the private sector potentially telling the Border Patrol and the special agents how to do their jobs!

I have a couple of questions for the administration. Would the President be willing to be protected by security guards who last worked for a department store, or does he want to be protected by seasoned Secret Service special agents? How do you now have the money to give out presumably costly contracts to private companies when last year it was a major issue to hire a few hundred professional law enforcement officers to secure our borders and add to the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States? Will our nation be able to restore integrity to the immigration system by hiring private contractors when virtually all communities and countries depend on sworn law enforcement officers to do these critical jobs?

As a former senior special agent of the INS, as a New Yorker who witnessed the attacks of 9/11 up close and in person, as an advisor to the 911 Families for a Secure America who regularly meets with and confers with fellow Americans who lost their loved ones on that awful day in September, 2001, as the father of four children and a citizen of this great nation, I believe I have every right to demand answers to these questions, indeed, I believe every citizen of this country is entitled to those answers before a single penny of taxpayer money is spent on yet another privatization scheme.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/why_is_dhs_turn.html#more

They are sure throwing OBL's last "blood in the streets" around.

Last night, regular liberal callers, were asking John Rothman real questions and where/how to find further info.

Rothman is Jewish, so he really does understand what is happening, he fears that we will not be able to walk away from a religious war, it will be a WORLD war.

As Ead tried to explain it, the quran forbids even a photo of Mohammad, as the muslims might start worshiping it and stray from the real one.

I would say it is a play on God's "no idols".

This has been posted by Frederick J. (Fred) Cowie, Ph.D.

Did you get that, Frederick J. (Fred) Cowie, Ph.D.

I'll repeat it if you missed it the first time, Frederick J. (Fred) Cowie, Ph.D.

That's Frederick J. (Fred) Cowie, Ph.D.

I do not see a name for the writer of the border article,
it sounds like Mike Cutler, he is on the Mark Edwards show, the first hour, on every monday night.

I understand the shows are archieved at or its sister site:

http://www.thewakeupamericafoundation.com

http;//www.unitetofight.org

You will surprised at the guests Mark has and next week Mark will be in Washington, DC, therefore Jim Dallas is sitting in as the host, tuesday to friday.

It is live on the computer at 10:00 pm, Calif time, mon to friday.

He has listeners and callers from all over the world.

I think that Halliburton, may be able to do a better job, than most of the beaurocrats, if left alone.