Friday, May 25, 2012

World War 3? Unlikely

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 19th of April 2012, Wednesday

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

Within the last several years, there have been people from different aspects of life spreading what are only rumors these days. Rumors of a third World War happening or going to happen in the near future. Personally I don't believe in such rumors or such a thing happening. I would like to look into different scenarios that some rumors might use to support their claim of a third World War happening. First though I would like to summarize the first two World Wars.

World War 1 was at first called the Great War. It happened in Europe and in parts of the Middle East. What I call the Great Arab Disgrace happened during that time. It happened during the period between 1914 and 1918. It was between the "Allies" and "Central Forces". The Central Forces were Germany, the Ottoman Khilafa and Austria. The allies were already known. The Zionists of that time might have initiated it in order to destroy the Ottoman Khilafa. As such the Global Oligarchy manipulated the Arabs in Hijaz to "help" vanquish or fight the Ottoman Khilafa in the Middle East. The results were the Great Arab Disgrace. The results of the war were the territory of the Ottoman Khilafa decreased greatly to only that of what is currently Turkey, among other stuff.

World War 2 followed World War 1 after a short period of turmoil in Europe. It was indeed a "World War" as it occurred not only in Europe, but also in Africa and Asia. Once again the Zionists were pulling the strings and the Nazis of Germany led by Hitler were fighting against the Zionists and the Global Oligarchy. The German entrance into Russia and entrance into other parts of Europe (excluding the Iberian Peninsula) was a start. It was only with the help of the U.S. and the blunder of the German air force against the weakened British forces, which changed the tide however slow it was.

The end result was Germany being divided into West Germany controlled by the U.S. and its allies, and East Germany controlled by Russia. World War 2 might have extended longer if Russia didn't control half of Berlin, with the Global Oligarchy wanting to go after Russia, or the Soviet Union at the time.

Part of the end result of World War 2 was the Zionists arriving in Palestine to create their fictitious "homeland". Under the Zionists' lies of the Holohoax, the Global Oligarchy was open to Palestine having a foreign presence in it.

With the tensions across the world as they are now, one might make the invalid mistake that there would be a World War 3. The U.S. and its allies are already stretched in forces on foreign bases in lands that aren't theirs. That's one, but they are also stretched with their invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention their assaults on Somalia and Yemen.

Russia is still weak and recoiling from the collapse of its former power of the Soviet Union. Not to mention they are busy in battling the Mujahideen in the Caucasus Emirate. China and India have their own problems with Kashmir and East Turkestan as well.

One scenario or rumor might have to deal with Iran, with Iran being the trigger that would lead to World War 3. One way that might happen would be the reckless assault the Zionists would do on nuclear facilities in Iran, possibly using Azerbaijan as the launch pad for such an assault. The question is not whether or not the assault would be successful or not. It isn't even if it would be enough to stop the nuclear drive Iran has.

The questions deal with how Iran would respond and how allies of two sides would come together to battle. One could easily see countries like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China and Pakistan rallying together, with the U.S., some European countries and some Arab countries rallying on the second side. The question of who or if any Arab country would take sides is still there.

The Global Oligarchy wants to protect its precious Zionists in Palestine against any possible enemy that is a danger to them. It was mostly because the Zionists pulled the strings that the Global Oligarchy went into Afghanistan and Iraq. The Zionists pulled off 9/11 in the U.S. and as such the U.S. went to war with Afghanistan and occupied it.

For me there is no question of whom or how 9/11 was done. I clearly see the Zionists behind it and the Global Oligarchy supporting it. The ripples of Iran being attacked and Iran responding might be only limited to the Middle East, but if Russia and China get involved, it might spread.

One needs to look at what's happening in the U.S. and Europe these days and this year (2012) before continuing to spread such rumors. With the Occupy Movement in the U.S. and Europe, not to mention the elections in the U.S., the possibility of a World War 3 scenario triggered through Iran -but not by Iran- is highly unlikely.

There are pacifist movements in the U.S. and in Europe. There are also anti-war movements and groups in both the U.S. and in Europe. They are being stronger and louder against the invasion of Afghanistan and are strongly being against any assault or attack on Iran.

The people were cleverly manipulated both with Afghanistan and Iraq by the Global Oligarchy, but it is obvious that the people aren't falling for the tricks or manipulation of the Global Oligarchy toward Iran. With the Arab Spring still active in the Middle East; the Russian Spring still alive in Russia; the Occupy Movement still active in the U.S., the people are clearly making up their minds.

The Zionists were pulling the strings for the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, but their influence with the world has decreased greatly since then. As such the Zionists can't pull the strings strong enough for there to be war against Iran, and the Zionists aren't stupid enough to launch an assault on Iran alone by themselves.

That's one scenario with it being normal warfare of ground, air and sea. Another war could be a cyber war, and there have been battles or skirmishes on the internet between Iran and the Zionists in a way. With Anonymous and other "hacktivists" active on the internet, the possibility of a cyber war with Iran is unlikely for that and other reasons.

A third scenario would be a nightmare scenario. That's the threat of a Nuclear War, with World War 3 being a Nuclear War. However such war might not last to be a World War for one thing. Such scenario is unlikely because the Global Oligarchy wants to control the land and resources of any land it invades or occupies. Iran is rich with resources. A nuclear war would affect any foreign occupation of the land one way or another. As such the Global Oligarchy isn't stupid to resort to a nuclear war against Iran.

Another scenario or rumor might have to deal with China, with China being the trigger that would lead to World War 3. Instead of the nuclear excuse the Global Oligarchy would give for invading Iran, it would be a different excuse for China. A nuclear war between China and the U.S. is unlikely because it won't benefit and would only severely harm the interests both have.

China might have the upper hand against the U.S. if there was to be a war. The U.S. might have India get involved in it. The Korean Peninsula, Japan, Russia and Central Asia would also be pulled into the war one way or another. Once again it might only be a regional war, but the possibility of it becoming a world war is there but low.

One also needs to keep in mind what's happening in China, with there being protests and such happening in different parts of China, and I'm not talking about lands China occupies like East Turkestan or Tibet.

Even though the Global Oligarchy and Russia are old rivals -older than the rivalry of the Global Oligarchy and China- the Global Oligarchy is clearly seeing Russia becoming weaker on its own. As such the possibility of World War 3 starting between Russia and the U.S. is unlikely.

I would have went into more details about World War 2, but the purpose of this opinion or analysis (if it could be considered that) was to focus on how World War 3 happening - whether in the near future or far future- won't happen. The future is part of the Unseen for us humans, but nonetheless World War 3 happening during that time isn't possible.

The rise of the Islamic Umma would hamper and prevent that, like it is slowly rising through the Arab Spring. Only focusing on nations like the U.S. or nations of Europe or Russia, Iran or China as being a trigger for World War 3 and ignoring the Islamic Umma entirely is stupid and silly. If people want to spread rumors or continue spreading rumors of World War 3, they should put the Islamic Umma in the equation, especially with the Arab Spring more than a year old now.

I say to people who spread rumors of World War 3 happening, look closely at what you use to try to make such claims or rumors. To simply say it, such people spreading such rumors need numerous doses of reality. The world is in no position of World War 3 happening, and that's final.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

The Breeze Uprisings

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 7th of August 2011, Sunday
The 7th of Ramadan 1432

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

Is the world only in white and black? Do people intentionally follow a world of black and white and intentionally ignore any and every other possible option or choice? This news opinion of mine is my take on the uprisings this year so far.

It has views that might not have been mentioned before and it might also include some new thoughts and takes on the uprisings. Although there has been or there were attempts at massive peaceful protests elsewhere in Africa and Asia, I would be concentrating on my brethren in the Middle East.

When I mention the Middle East, I'm also mentioning North Africa as well. Breeze Uprisings is my own term for the uprisings that have taken place, and that are continuing to take place. Breeze Uprisings started with Tunisia.

It spread to Egypt. With Tunisia, the uprising led to its dictator fleeing in terror. With Egypt, the uprising led to its dictator stepping down and remaining in Egypt. So far those are the two dictators that have been ousted from Breeze Uprisings.

Even though the main purposes of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have been accomplished, with their dictators being ousted, the uprising is far from over. The main reasons for the uprisings have been corruption, unemployment, poverty and suppression from the oppressive dictators.

The uprising is spread to most of the Middle East region. The uprising in Libya has led to a bloody Revolutionary War between the Transitional National Council, or National Transitional Council and the Dictator Gaddafi.

The uprising in Syria is mostly peaceful, but the oppression is upheld and continues there under the tyrant Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite minority. With the military under the grip of al-Assad, and with help from its ally Iran, the Syrian Armed Forces has led its oppression under invalid and false information.

The Tyrannical Syrian Regime knows well what it is facing, and it also knows it lies about what it is facing. With the lies that its state media spreads, that makes that media no different or even credible like mainstream media.

The uprising in Yemen continues with protests. There is also some major fighting between "loyalists" of Ali Saleh and a coalition of tribes I think. Similar to Libya and Syria, the uprising in Yemen has been bloody.

There have been reports about Mujahideen creating an Islamic Emirate in the south of Yemen and fighting for it, but I don't know how valid such information and news is. There were attempts of organizing protests in Arabia, but the Saudi tribe was able to handle it.

As for Bahrain, it is another nation that has an uprising that has turned bloody. Unlike other nations with uprisings in the region, Bahrain has more dimensions to it than one might realize.

With less than a million populace and a majority being Shiite, the protests in Bahrain became bloody when the ruling monarchy first attempted to quell it. When the tyrannical monarchy failed on its own, it called on its GCC neighbors to help it.

As such the "Arabian Shield" was formed, and troops from neighboring Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, as well as others from other Muslim countries, were brought into Bahrain. The brutal bloody suppression of the uprising spared no one, and spread through all forms of society, with doctors, hospitals and mosques being attacked.

What I would like to term "mercenaries" were brought in Bahrain. They were from Muslim countries like Jordan, Yemen and Pakistan, including possible other countries that I'm unaware of.

The Jordanian terrorists... oh... excuse me... "armed forces" are only there to harass and torture the protesting Bahrainis. Such terrorists wouldn't be in Bahrain without the approval of the Jordanian government and indeed the Jordanian monarchy.

Because of arrogance and ignorance, such so-called "Sunnis" are abusing and harassing Shiites with a free hand. I wonder how such so-called Muslims would face their Creator when He questions them about what they have done in such times.

Would they respond: "We went there to torture and suppress the Shiites" or would they attempt to lie with some lame excuse? The U.S. has a fleet based in Bahrain. Because of that it isn't surprising that it hasn't been too critical of its "ally". Bahrain is just one nation that interests from different nations conflict with each other.

Syria is another. Just like the Global Oligarchy, Iran is two-faced as well. It supports the protests in Bahrain and condemns the suppression on the island, yet on the other hand it overtly and/or covertly supports the suppression of the protests in Syria.

If Iran was different, the Global Oligarchy would be proud of it and might want its help for global governance. I ask how different is Iran from the U.S. or Europe if it has such contradicting attitudes toward two different nations?

There is much arrogance and ignorance amongst both the mainstream media and independent media that is anti-New World Order. For the independent media that is anti-New World Order, it only sees black and white. There are protests in Syria...

Oh the Global Oligarchy must be behind it helping them. Let's support the "heroic" al-Assad leadership against such attempts! Such attitude shows how narrow-minded such people and media are. It just shows their true colors.

They aren't for freedom or justice. They are just against the Global Oligarchy, even if they would go against freedom and justice. There has been protests in other Middle Eastern countries like Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Iraq and Oman.

Algeria has witnessed attempts at random protests. The problem that the Algerian dictatorship took advantage of though is the lack of unity amongst the protesters. Not to mention the division within the opposition who partly organized such protests.

As for Morocco such protests led to a referendum that "decreases" the monarchy's grip on the nation. It remains to be seen if the monarchy is sincere and would uphold the referendum, or if it is just a smokescreen for something else.

The Western Sahara needs to be put in that equation as well. What makes Morocco different from China, Russia, India, the U.S. or previous European countries that colonized weaker nations?

There has been people that have assumed and even mentioned like it was the truth and a fact that the war in Libya is a "civil war". This is completely invalid.

There is a difference between a civil war and revolutionary war. Like I mentioned earlier, the war in Libya is a revolutionary war. It remains to be seen how it would turn out. At first I supported the rebels of Libya. However when they called on the enemies of Islam, the U.S. and NATO, to help them, I started to not support them any more.

The rebels have requested help from abroad against Gaddafi, and indeed some Muslim countries have responded along with NATO. Not just relying on Allah only shows how immature the rebels of Libya are.

What decreased my "likeness" toward them was learning about some rebels going after -and executing- innocents in Libya. They were both either Libyan or immigrants from other African countries.

There are rumors in Libya that anyone who is black is a mercenary for Gaddafi. If such a person wasn't a mercenary yet, he might eventually become one. Such rumors are baseless and invalid. Such executions make the rebels no different from the dictator who they are fighting against.

I wouldn't say that NATO is an ally of the Libyan rebels, as it might seem to be to many people. I would say NATO is its own party seeking its own interests in Libya. Those who are anti-New World Order are aware of NATO's interests in Libya.

In such stuff such people are correct. NATO only seeks Libya as a base for more crude oil and also for it to be a base in Africa in general. The Transitional National Council is against foreign troops on its soil, but there might already be some foreign troops on its soil.

Either the Transitional National Council is aware of it and is ignoring it, or it is ignorant of it. The possibility of the council being aware of it and coordinating offensives and operations is also there as well.

Syria is an important nation that has much history. Any interference in Syria from outside would affect the entire world at once for sure. However Iran has been and is continuing to interfere in Syria, siding with al-Assad.

It isn't surprising as both are Shiite, and "allies" have to "stick together". There were some reports that the methods the Syrian Armed Forces use to go after protesters were similar to those used by Iran against its own protesters.

Some news sources have been speaking about Syria and post al-Assad era in Syria like it would be friendly toward the Zionists in Palestine. I'll make this clear. Whatever government appears in Syria in a post al-Assad time might be friendly with the west, but it would be worse toward the Zionists in Palestine.

Even though it is still occupied by foreign nations, Iraq has witnessed its own protests all over it, including Northern Iraq. It has also seen suppression from its own "security" forces as well.

That shows just how much credibility Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has with his people. Like the rest of Middle East protests and uprisings, the protests in Iraq are valid and for valid reasons, even perhaps more so than most other protests and uprisings.

The laughable "Kurdish" government of "Kurdistan Iraq" is no different from any other government. It has used its own "security" or militias against its own people. That shows how such a corrupt and greedy selfish government would turn out.

During special days, the Palestinians have had their own special "uprisings". On the 15th of May, which is Nakba for Palestine, Palestine's borders witnessed activity that it hasn't seen in decades.

One way or another Palestinians and pro-Palestinians rallied to try and attempt to return to Palestine. They were mostly successful on the north from Syria. There were rallies on the borders between Gaza and the rest of Palestine, and between Palestine and Jordan as well.

Unlike the north from Syria, Jordanian "security" forces pushed the rallies back, preventing any one from returning to Palestine. Propaganda surfaced from well known sources that Iran and al-Assad were behind what happened between the borders of Palestine and Syria.

However such propaganda is just an excuse and an attempt to distract the world about what the Zionists themselves are doing in Palestine. As for Jordan, there has been protests on a weekly basis. It has mostly been peaceful, but there has been some violence.

The violence was from the "security" forces of Jordan. I wrote an article about the protests in Jordan earlier, so I won't get too much into detail about the protests in Jordan. For now the protests are only calling for reforms, and not for the ousting of the Hashemite Monarchy.

Just like there are anti-government protests, there has been pro-monarchy rallies. They are smaller in number than the protests. King Abdullah II of Jordan should give such "loyalists" honorary membership in the Hashemite family for their "loyalty".

The Military Supreme Council in Egypt is governing Egypt for the current period until civilian elections are held. A few presidential candidates like Amr Moussa and El-Baradei are obviously puppets of the Global Oligarchy.

If either one of them win the presidency of Egypt, I think it would be considered a win for the Global Oligarchy as well. It would be through one of them, if one of them wins, that the Global Oligarchy would be able to manipulate Egypt one way or another.

It seems like the dictators of Libya, Syria and Yemen are competing against one another on who would be ousted next. None are eager to be the third to be ousted though. The fate of the dictators of Libya and Syria might end in blood and death.

Only the Creator knows for sure though. One way or another there are going to be countless martyrs in the countries that have spilled blood and continue to spill blood.

The role WikiLeaks has played in such uprisings for both Tunisia and Egypt is minor and small, but it still exists. To assume that WikiLeaks had a major role in both uprisings is both arrogance and ignorance.

It just shows how little WikiLeaks knows or understands the people of the Middle East.

There has been some uprisings outside the Middle East, with Spain being a major one. The protests in Spain are somewhat similar in some way, but different in others in comparison to the uprisings in the Middle East. The protests in Spain continue, and only Allah knows how it would turn out.

The Global Oligarchy has been seriously harmed and damaged by the wildfire that is burning in the Middle East. It has tried to control it, and even manipulate it to its own purposes. For the most part it has remained unsuccessful.

It tried to cool down the wildfire in the Middle East, but instead got burned, and so it is "siding" with the protests against what once were its allies. The Arabs are maturing and starting to stand and speak for themselves in massive waves.

Websites like twitter and Facebook have had their fair share in the uprisings. Organized hackers have also been more active during this time, but that is a different and separate issue from the uprisings.

In the end, whatever the outcome of the uprisings are, a question arises. Are you with justice and freedom or do you take sides in the uprisings? For me I think I've already made it clear what my answer is.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Calm Breeze Protests of Jordan

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 18th of May 2011, Wednesday
The 18th of Jumada al-Akhira 1432

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

The year of 2011 has so far witnessed historic events, mainly the Arab Spring, or what I like to term the Breeze Uprisings. I termed the year 2011 as "The Year of Breeze", hence the title of the post. I want to solely focus on the protests that have happened in Jordan in this post. Jordan is led by the arrogant Royal Hashemite Family. It was formed out of the Great Arab Disgrace and survived it. There are numerous tribes in Jordan. Such tribes are Native Jordanians. People might ask and wonder about the Arab Spring not affecting Jordan.

Living in Jordan and following events happening in it, I would like to say that the Arab Spring is obviously affecting Jordan.


The protests in Jordan started late and quietly. Unlike other uprisings in the Middle East, the people of Jordan do NOT want or even try to overthrow the Royal Hashemite Family. Doing such a thing would lead to a power struggle in Jordan. Doing such a thing would most likely put Jordan into a second bloodier civil war. Not only would trying to overthrow the Hashemite Royal Family lead to a second bloodier civil war, but that would make Jordan weak enough for enemies to exploit it.

In this case namely the Zionists of Occupied Palestine. No matter how quiet the Zionists are about it, or apologize about it, it is obvious that the Zionists of Occupied Palestine still have their eyes on Jordan for their Greater Israel. The first thing is falsely claiming that Jordan is "Palestine". This is nonsense from the Zionists. It was the colonialists who achieved victory in World War 1 who formed Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria out of the Levant.

If I would blame anyone I would blame the Global Oligarchy for their plans at that time to divide Islamic Land after the Arabs from Hijaz took the Levant from the Ottoman Khilafa. It is true and an actual fact that the majority of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, but that doesn't mean for Jordan to become "Palestine". The Palestinian Jordanians and Palestinians throughout the world would object to such a thing, and not only Native Jordanians.

The manipulation King Abdullah II gets (like his visit with Obama in the U.S., where Obama pledged "money and wheat" to Jordan) shows how much King Abdullah could be manipulated, in a cunning way. The money is probably to buy people in order for them not to protest in the future. Now those who accept such offers and those who reject would show who are strong in their faith in Islam.


It needs to be mentioned that the Prime Minister and Senate Members of the Parliament are appointed by the King of Jordan, namely King Abdullah II. It also needs to be mentioned that King Abdullah II is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Jordan.


The situation in Jordan, with unemployment and high prices, along with corruption in the Jordanian Government, is something no one would envy. Jordanians started protesting about such things, calling for Samir Rifai, the Prime Minister of that time, to resign. Samir Rifai is a Jordanian who was an ex-Economic Adviser for King Abdullah II. King Abdullah II made him prime minister so that the economic situation of Jordan could be improved. However with protests against Samir Rifai, it was obvious that the economic situation hasn't improved under his leadership.

With King Abdullah II pressured from the protests, he sacked Samir Rifai and hired a worse Jordanian for Prime Minister. Marouf al-Bakhit enters the picture at that point, and he has remained prime minister since. He is a Native Jordanian from one of the Jordanian tribes, which most likely helped cool the nerves of some Jordanian Tribes. It was a wise decision for King Abdullah II to sack Samir Rifai, but unwise to appoint Marouf al-Bakhit as Rifai's replacement.

With a career as the Jordanian Ambassador for the Zionists of Occupied Palestine and a career in the Jordanian Armed Forces, it was apparent that his appointment would do no good for Jordan. al-Bakhit's career showed when protests continued on, even after he was appointed. He led siege to Amman with the Armed Forces of Jordan at first temporarily, trying to not allow the protests to spread to other cities in Jordan. Regardless of that fruitless oppressive effort, protests did spread to other cities in Jordan. Not being successful, the siege didn't last long.


At first the Jordanian Tribes were quiet about the protests, but at one point the leaders of numerous major tribes showed their dislike toward how King Abdullah II was acting. Due to that King Abdullah II somewhat responded more, with him remaining in Jordan for a longer period of time, and not always traveling out of Jordan. The Islamic Action Front was the first to call for a National Salvation Government for Jordan. When the Jordanian Tribes expressed their dislike toward how King Abdullah II was acting, they also called for a National Salvation Government, thus indirectly supporting the Islamic Action Front's call for it.

The Jordanian Tribes also expressed their dislike toward the wife of King Abdullah II, Queen Rania. However true the reason for their dislike toward Queen Rania, it showed racism in an indirect way that the Native Jordanians had for the Palestinian Jordanians. It might not be apparent to foreigners or to tourists, but from time to time there are clashes between Native Jordanian Youth and Palestinian Jordanian Youth, however uncommon and rare that might be. I've witnessed it on several occasions myself.


The demands of the Jordanians were simple at first, similar to the ones across the region, however those demands increased. Eventually the protests were calling for a Constitutional Monarchy. This means for the people to elect the Prime Minister and the Senate Members, meaning to decrease the authority of King Abdullah II ONLY. That was how the constitution for Jordan originally was: a Constitutional Monarchy. However it was gradually altered to what it is now. For a good time in the beginning, the peaceful protests earned Jordan a good image, compared to other violent oppression of protests elsewhere in the region. That changed though.

Eventually a group calling itself "Youth of March 24" was formed in Jordan. They became known by having a sit-in at the interior circle in Amman. They requested a Constitutional Monarchy and for the Jordanian Intelligence to be dismantled. Marouf al-Bakhit showed his hand and his influence in breaking the sit-in, and perhaps most likely releasing the "official" reason of the death of the martyr. During the sit-in and before it was broken, some Jordanians that passed by from some distance threw rocks and stones at those participating in the sit-in.

Why was this? There is evidence of government (or intelligence) influence with some of the Jordanians, as some of them were told that those in the sit-in were "Palestinian". Racism kicked in during such an event. During the protests against the government there were ignorant rallies who expressed their "loyalty" toward King Abdullah II. That shows how much they didn't understand what was going on, and how ignorant they are. However on March 25 would live in infamy. It was when the sit-in of the group was broken up.

One of the results was a Jordanian becoming a martyr from the hands of the Jordanian Gendarme. It was part of the "security" forces of Jordan, and its purpose was to protect foreign missions, like embassies and consulates, as well as provide escort for important leading foreign governmental officials. The martyr marked the first death since the protests in Jordan started. His name is Khairi Mustafa. The Gendarme beat him to death at the circle, while the official reason for his death was something completely different.


It was during the protests that I became more aware of stuff, like of the Royal Hashemite Family favoring some Jordanian Tribes over others. This shows with government support of development and developing areas in the north of Jordan. From that the Royal Hashemite Family favored the tribes in the north, over the tribes in the south, where it isn't as well developed as the north. There were some incidents where government offices were attacked and burned in the south. It was no surprise. The reason why the Royal Hashemite Family favors some tribes over others in Jordan? Who does it benefit?

Certainly not the Jordanians. The Global Oligarchy, led by the U.S. and President Obama, have influence and are capable of manipulating the young western-educated King of Jordan. It is most likely that it was through their manipulation that the king favored tribes in the north over tribes of the south. That is kind of ironic though, since during the Great Arab Disgrace, the south of Jordan had some important role for the Hashemite family, yet now they're being neglected. It is important to note that the Jordanian Tribes in the north are close to Syria, showing how the Global Oligarchy wants to keep an eye on Syria.


At first the protests in Jordan weren't that well organized, but nonetheless there were still protests. Eventually it seemed that the Youth of March 24 took a leadership role, but since then the Muslim Brotherhood took over. The majority of Jordanians, whether natives or Palestinian, are Muslims. There would still be tension in Jordan, even if the protests decrease. The Parliamentary Elections late last year are a role in encouraging such protests that have happened in Jordan.

At first the Jordanians weren't encouraged or motivated enough, but with Breeze Uprisings sweeping the Middle East, it was enough encouragement.


There were incidents, like the Jordan Intelligence closing a top Jordanian website that they didn't like. The government at the time denied the Intelligence being involved in it, but no other department in Jordan had such cyber skill. Another incident to be noted is when the bodyguards of King Abdullah II shot at protesters in a university that King Abdullah II was visiting. Members of a tribe were protesting their living conditions and some other stuff.


It is interesting to know what and how official state media covered the protests in Jordan. Some times they had nonsense and other times they didn't give the events or incidents they deserved. I don't know if that was lack of knowledge or something else. It was during such protests and such times that I decided that JTV is a propaganda tool of the government mostly.


Groups and organizations that were once operating underground, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, came out in the open, organized and went along with successful protests and rallies of their own. There were other types of protests besides the protests against the government, like those for prisoners in Arabia. In the end the people of Jordan do NOT want to overthrow the Royal Hashemite Family; they just want better standard living conditions for themselves and their families.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Zionist Terrorist Attack on Aqaba

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 6th of August 2010, Friday
The 26th of Sha'ban 1431

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

On the 2nd of August 2010, Monday a Grad Missile from outside of Jordan landed in Aqaba, which is the only sea port in Jordan. The result was six injuries, with one of those injured becoming a martyr. The martyr had serious injuries and so he is at peace with Allah now insha' Allah. The Zionist police claimed that the missile was from Sinai, which is the peninsula that is part of Egypt. At first a senior Egyptian official denied it being from Sinai. The Jordanian Authorities are still investigating into the matter. In my opinion, I accuse three sides of the terrorist attack on Aqaba.

The three sides are: The Zionists of Occupied Palestine, the Egyptian Government and the U.S., whether it is government or intelligence or both. Some time after the Egyptian official denied it being from Sinai, the Egyptians changed their position and mentioned that it was from Sinai. They also falsely accused some Palestinian faction from Gaza of it. At first they denied it was from Sinai, and some time afterward they not only "confirmed" it from Sinai, but also unjustly accused a side that is innocent of it. There is obvious contradiction from the Egyptian side, and why is that?

Is there the possibility that the Egyptian Government was pressured to change their story? If so, who pressured them? In my opinion the Egyptian Government was most likely pressured to change their story. As for who pressured them, it was obviously the U.S. and the Zionists without doubt. When Egypt denied it was from Sinai at first, they also mentioned strong security presence along the border with Gaza and occupied Palestine. All of a sudden there was no mention of the strong security presence afterward, as if it has vanished into thin air. The missile attack on Aqaba was the second missile attack on it.

There were injuries from the attack on Aqaba, yet the deceiving attack on a port in occupied Palestine had no injuries. In my view, that is a little bit suspicious. The Palestinian Authority and the U.N. both condemned the attack on Aqaba, but the U.S. mentioned that it was a "regrettable act"! What kind of a response is that?! Shouldn't it have been more liked "terrorist act"? Is that evidence of guilt? Or of U.S. involvement in the attack against one of its allies in the Middle East? The timing of such an attack should be noticed and observed as well. Just a few months before the Zionists committed an act of piracy.

It was an act of piracy in International Waters where the Zionists martyred nine Turkish activists in cold blood. It was a time when the Palestinians of Gaza had sympathy from peoples of different nations. It also put the spotlight on Gaza and the illegal blockade on it. It rightfully put the Zionists in hot water. There was no condemnation of the attack on Aqaba from the Zionists, and just a day afterward the Zionists unjustly went after some trees on Lebanese land, which sparked a skirmish between the Zionist and Lebanese armies. It was the first time the Lebanese army had a fight with the Zionists.

It is important to mention that Hizbullah stayed out of the skirmish. The Zionist Prime Minister unjustly and falsely accused the Palestinian Government of the attack on Aqaba, with the Palestinian Government being Hamas in Gaza. That is illogical. It wouldn't be in Hamas' interest to do such a thing. That's one thing. Another thing is that moving missiles from Gaza into Sinai wouldn't be an easy job. The Egyptian security forces would soon discover such weapons and confiscate them.

If the Egyptian security forces had a strong presence on the border, there wouldn't have been any chance or possibility for any Palestinian faction to do such an act without being discovered. It is obvious that the Egyptian Government cooperated with the Zionists and the U.S. in attacking Aqaba. The Egyptian security forces let the Zionists in easily with their weapons. As such, the Egyptian Government is responsible as much as the Zionists are. Such attacks on Aqaba not only show the vulnerability of the sea port, but it also shows that the Zionists idea of a Greater Israel hasn't vanished.

A Greater Israel that would consume Jordan. I have learned that there are some Jordanian journalists who falsely suggested a group related to al-Qaeda was behind it. There is no such evidence of that for one thing. For another thing that is illogical. The Zionists have the most interest in doing such an attack on Jordan, however covertly it might be. The Zionists have time and time again tried to provoke Jordan into a war against it. Such attacks on Jordanian territory is strong provocation.

The Zionist Prime Minister falsely accusing Hamas is like saying that the assassination attempt on the Iranian President succeeded. The Zionists mention "provocations" against it, like flotillas and ships trying to break the naval blockade on Gaza, yet what about the numerous Zionist provocations against Jordan, whether it involves al-Quds (East Jerusalem) and al-Aqsa or other stuff? It is interesting that the Zionists are going after trees near the Lebanese border, especially a day after their terrorist attack on Aqaba. Afterward the Zionist Air Force increased its illusionary "raids" on South Lebanon.

First it was at medium altitudes and then at a wider larger scale at lower altitudes. There were more wide targets the Zionist Air Force raided illusionary in South Lebanon. It seems to me that the Zionists are getting impatient about there being no war, especially since their terrorist atrocities against Gaza almost two years ago. The main target of the terrorist attack was Aqaba. The attack on the sea port on occupied Palestine was just a diversion, just to unjustly accuse those innocent of it. It's kind of silly that the Zionists of Occupied Palestine attacked one of their sea ports to turn attention away from them.

Accusing the Egyptian Government is a strong accusation and some might say it would divide the Arabs because of it. What I say is that the Egyptian Government is already dividing the Arabs and it deserves to be accused of it without any hesitation. I would request that those from the Jordanian side investigating it to make bold announcements, and to have bright and open minds. I also request that they shrug off any pressure to change or manipulate the truth behind the attack. There is propaganda and falsehood that the Egyptians announce and mention to some media sources.

I would request the Jordanian media and news to ignore such propaganda and falsehood. Last, but not least, I would request the Jordanian Leadership and Government to forge closer ties with Hamas to have better relations and better intelligence.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Afghanistan: Land of Jihad

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 19th of March 2010, Friday
The 3rd of Rabi' Al-Thani 1431

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

Prophet Muhammad foresaw that an Islamic Army would rise in Khorasan, and that the Mahdi would lead such an army to bring Jerusalem under Islamic Authority. I'll mention them here, with them being translated in English.

"There will be many armies after me. You must join that army which will come from Khorasan... At the time, when the Muslim Umma will have abundance of wealth, gold and silver, the Muslims will be extremely belittled, weak and helpless...

"The enemy nations will invite each other to pounce upon them as hungry people invite one another for food... The Christians will demand their wanted people to which the Muslims will answer: 'By Allah! They are our brothers. We will never hand them over!'... This will start the war..."

"One third of the Muslims will run away. Their tawba will never be accepted. One third will be killed, they will be the best shaheed near Allah. The remaining third will gain victory, until under the leadership of Imam Mahdi, they will fight against Kufr...

"At that time, you will be present in a plain of great mountains with plenty of trees. Armies carrying black flags will come from Khorasan. No power will be able to stop them and they will finally reach Jerusalem where they will erect their flags...

"If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, go to them immediately, even if you must crawl over ice, because indeed amongst them is the Khaleef, Al-Mahdi".

Prophet Muhammad tells us numerous things. One is that although the Umma would be rich in resources, we'd be weak and humiliated. Look at the current situation of the Umma. It is rich in resources, but we're weak and being humiliated.

Nations fighting against Islam would invite each other to crush and weaken the Muslims. Such a thing is happening now in some parts of the world with the U.S. and Europe leading the way. However it is important to mention that Russia, China and India are also nations fighting against Islam.

Russia against the Muslims in the Caucasus Emirate, China against the Muslim Uighurs in East Turkestan and India against the Muslims in Kashmir. To a lesser known degree is Burma, with its Junta going after its minorities, especially the Rohingya Muslims.

Soon after 9.11, under the Bush Administration, the U.S. demanded that the Taliban Administration in Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden, thus referring back to "... The Christians will demand their wanted people..."

The Taliban refused. It's important to mention that the Bush Administration demanded more than that from the Taliban Administration. The U.S. soon went to war afterward against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There are three thirds mentioned, with one running away, a second becoming shaheed and the third will gain victory. The third running away is those who don't support the Taliban and their Jihad and who support the invasion and war against the Taliban.

Some Muslim Nations are already known, but only Allah knows if there is more. The second third becoming shaheed means the Muslims in Afghanistan, whether they're innocent civilians or Mujahideen. The last third is Taliban defeating NATO and the U.S. in Afghanistan. Not only that, but the last third would also be a victory for the Muslims supporting the Taliban and for the Islamic Umma in general.

Prophet Muhammad's description of the place "... At that time, you will be present in a plain of great mountains with plenty of trees..." is a good description of Afghanistan. The Taliban already carry black banners. They aren't the only Mujahid group carrying it though.

Khorasan was the name of the territory that is now Afghanistan. It is not part of Iran, as that territory was known as Bilad Faris. Afghanistan is known throughout its history that no foreign power ever conquered it.

Not only that, but it was partially because previous foreign powers that tried to conquer it and failed, either collapsed or were severely weakened. The first of such is Alexander the Great. It's important to mention that Alexander the Great came before Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

As such Khorasan wasn't under Islam, nor was its people Muslim. Yet the people still defeated Alexander. Another example was the British Empire. The Afghan people not only had the culture of fierce fighting, but Islam had blessed them by that time as well.

The British Empire declined after their long occupation, and eventually collapsed. The Soviet Union is a third example. It soon collapsed after the Mujahideen defeated it after several years of long fighting. At the time the Mujahideen were assisted by foreign intelligence like the CIA and ISI.

However it was such assistance that led the Mujahideen to battle one another after the Soviet occupation ended. With the Afghan people liberating themselves from the British and from the Soviets, they gained experience and became battle-hardened.

The U.S. and NATO entered a dangerous and humiliating end by invading Afghanistan. After the British defeat and Soviet defeat, one could only guess how the U.S. and NATO would end up after the Mujahideen in Afghanistan defeat them.

It's important to mention that not only the U.S. and NATO would be defeated, but the Muslim Nations supporting them would be defeated as well. Battling the Afghan people and culture is not fighting a new and inexperienced people and culture; rather it is like fighting veterans of previous successive wars.

Allah has blessed the Afghan people with not only bringing the British Empire and the Soviet Union to its knees -both were superpowers during their times-, but also eventually destroying NATO insha' Allah and bringing the U.S. to its knees. Domestic events in the U.S. are helping the U.S. be brought to its knees.

Being blessed by Jihad from Allah, only Allah would know how the Jihad would continue in Afghanistan after the U.S. and NATO are defeated. The Islamic Administration to come would be too busy putting Afghanistan back onto its legs for several years perhaps.

As such the Jihad would be unofficially and temporarily suspended in Afghanistan. I could be wrong in that though, and only Allah knows.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Finding the Native Americas by Muslims

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 26th of November 2009, Thursday
The 9th of Dhulhijja 1430 (Day of Arafa)

I had asked a question about Muslims finding both American Continents on Yahoo! Answers some time ago, and the question and best answer I chose are below.

* * * * *

"What would have happened if the Muslims found both American Continents?
How would have history changed if it was the Muslims who sailed and found both North and South America? How would they have treated the natives of both continents? Would they wipe them out, or something else?

Be aware, I mentioned 'found' not 'discovered'...

... Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
When Muslims conquered Persia & 2/3 of Byzantium, & Iberia (Spain & Portugal) the did number of things including the following:

- They give people the choice to embrace Islam or to keep their religion. Remember the Golden age of Jewish culture was the time when the Jews lived in Muslim Spain.

Therefore, Muslim would never wipe out the Native Americans as the white man did. Remember when Granada had fallen to the Spaniards, they launched the inquisition & burned many Muslims & Jews to the stake. Later the Spanish & Portugese had brought the inquisition to the new world

- Muslims would use the knowledge of the native Americans & try to advance it, Just as they preserved the knowledge of the Greek & incorporate with the knowledge of the Persians, Greek, Indians, & others

- Muslims would develop the economy of both Americas & link them to the rest of the world. They would build new cities & make them centers of learning & bring them prosperity, just as they built Cairo & Baghdad during the golden age of Islamic civilization.

But of course Muslims are no angels. If the corruption that had spread in the Muslim world today (especially among rulers, scholars, & intellects) reached the new world the Americas would be as bad as the rest of the Muslim world today.

... Thank you. You are the only one who took the question seriously and put up possible stuff that might have happened. Congrats on your best answer..."

* * * * *

There were some other answers to the question. For more information about the other answers:;_ylt=Aj7p6_a8pJJA6l.UZYdk6Zfty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080618090630AAy3Mrg.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Strong Fan of Al-Andalus

by Ammaar ibn Walid
The Star Trail Lines Writer

The 7th of November 2009, Saturday
The 19th of Dhulqo'dah 1430

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful...

(Originally written on "Jaacto Times" on the 7th of August 2009.)

This might not be the only post of mine in this journal of mine about Al-Andalus. There is a lot of history about Al-Andalus, and I know of different pieces of the puzzle of the history of Al-Andalus, as I don't know everything about it.

Since I don't know everything about it, I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. It was through a clip that I came to understand something that was wrongfully spreading the internet. It was spreading amongst Muslims to be more precise.

I had, one way or another, received messages through groups I'm in about not using the words such as "mosque", and use the original, which is "masjid". Some brethren were amazing in responding to such posts.

It is said not to use the word "mosque" because it is similar to "mosquito". Only Allah knows, but I think I understand the source of the whole "mosquito"/"mosque" issue, and it probably could be traced back to Andalusia.

Andalusia is the southern province of Spain, which was the last part of Al-Andalus that Muslims were kicked out of brutally through the Spanish inquisition. Al-Andalus wasn't always only Andalusia. Al-Andalus covered most of the Iberian Peninsula.

Anyhow, back to the "mosquito"/"mosque" issue. There is a famous landmark built by the Muslims in Cordoba during Al-Andalus era. The landmark is a large mosque, and in the 500s a Cathedral was built in the middle of it.

It's known in Spain as the Cathedral, where as locally it was known as the Mosquito. Linking mosquito and mosque together, and that's where the misunderstanding about mosquito and masjid comes from most likely.

I've indirectly learned of this through a clip about Al-Andalus history on YouTube.

That's in my opinion only though. Al-Andalus has numerous names, including Land of the Vandals; Islamic Spain, and Moor Spain. I prefer the title of Al-Andalus. Led first by Tarek ibn Ziyad, who was the first Muslim leader to open the Iberian Peninsula, and then followed later by Musa ibn Nusair.

The opening was from the land which is currently known as Morocco. A worthy note of attention is that there was some territory in Morocco that the Muslims couldn't get to, and that was Ceuta, or known as Sapta (سبتة) in Arabic.

With help from the Christian leader of that place, the Muslim army, led by Tarek ibn Ziyad, was able to open the Iberian Peninsula. That was the first opening the Muslims had in Europe.

The second came centuries later through the Ottoman Khilafa, and the opening of the Balkans. That's a whole other issue together. Al-Andalus wasn't always in unity during its era of existence. The unity came at different separate times.

One of those that united Al-Andalus was a survivor of the Umayyad Khilafa, who fled to Al-Andalus. He was Abdurahman. It was through him that the Umayyad family continued, even though the Khilafa under its rule was destroyed.

It was destroyed by the Abbasids, who became the new Khilafa for the Islamic Nation. I know of certain famous Muslims that came from Al-Andalus, or somehow were relevant to that Islamic land. I know of Ibn Sina. There is also Yusuf ibn Tashfeen.

Others include Abdurahman Al-Ghafiqi, who was a military commander, who died in the battle of بلاط الشهداء. After he was martyred, the Muslims were divided and without one strong commander, and so they lost in Poitiers in 732.

An interesting thought is that even with all the divisions amongst the Muslims, being fans of Al-Andalus could be a key to help unite the Islamic Umma. There are Sufi fans of Al-Andalus and Salafi fans of Al-Andalus.

Some day I would like to go visit southern Spain, or Andalusia. I would love to see what the Muslims during Al-Andalus period made and constructed with my own eyes. Al-Andalus isn't commonly known as "Al-Andalus".

Even if the Muslims get back Al-Andalus somehow in the future, I don't think it could ever be like the Al-Andalus of the past.