Bin Laden Innocent?

by dubla 44 Replies latest jw friends

  • Kent

    Bin Laden IS innocent. He's just expressing his "Freedom Of Religion" this way. His GOD told him to do it - as GOD always tells his servants to slaughter innocent people. The crazy maiac even slaughtered millions himself, according to the Bible - since his servants wasn't fast enough!

    Don't blame Bin Laden. Blame God. He's the one giving the orders here!

    Just ask the right wing fundie Christians in the US. GOD has told them to bomb Afghanistand to a parking space!

    Yakki Da


    I need more BOE letters, KMs and other material. Those who can send it to me - please do! The new section will be interesting!!

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:

  • Patriot


    And since you will never ever know the real truth about everything thats going on...don't worry about it.

    Of course if your packing an M-16,a4,249b,240b or 60 and happened do be dressed in your desert BDU's and about to be dropped at about 3500ft into a baron country...then I take that back.

    Then again they still won't ell you anything. In Desert Storm I had no real proof of any allegations. Everything I know was subsequent to the operation.

    Some Government, huh?


  • Seeker

    I just happened to read an article about this very subject. It is in the October 8 New Yorker magazine, beginning on p. 34. Note these excerpts (bolding mine):

    "After more than two weeks of around-the-clock investigation into the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the American intelligence community remains confused, divided, and unsure about how the terrorists operated, how many there were, and what they might do next. It was that lack of solid information, government officials told me, that was the key factor behind the Bush Administration's decision last week not to issue a promised white paper listing the evidence linking Osama bin Laden's organization to the attacks...

    The F.B.I. is still trying to sort out the identities and backgrounds of the hijackers. The facts is, the official acknowledged, "we don't know much about them."...

    In interviews over the past two weeks, a number of intelligence offficials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone."...

    "These people are not necessarily from bin Laden," a Justice department official told me. "We're still running a lot of stuff out," he said, adding that the F.B.I. had been inundated with leads. On September 23rd, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a televisioni interviewer that "we will put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case" showing that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. But the widely anticipated white paper could not be published, the Justice Department official said, for lack of hard facts. "There was not enough to make a sale."

    There you have it. After Bush told the nation that the culprit was bin Laden, and after Tony Blair said he had been shown incontrovertable proof that the culprit was bin Laden, government officials, an FBI official, a CIA official, and a Justice department official all say they don't know that much yet, and the reason the American public hasn't been shown the proof against bin Laden yet is because there is a lack of hard facts.

    Now, don't get me wrong, bin Laden is most likely involved, and recent videotapes make the case quite well (assuming they aren't lying when they translate the tapes), but these tapes came out this week. What Bush told the nation was before those tapes came out.

    Either Bush lied to us about the certainty they felt about it being bin Laden, or several government officials lied to the author of this article. One way or another, somebody in government lied to us about this matter. Don't ever forget that. No matter how it turns out in the end, we were lied to already.

  • dubl_a


    of course we are lied to. we are lied to on a daily basis, no one disputes this. you are going to be lied to when you read the ingredients on the back of that can you open tonight for supper. this is nothing new.

    as far as bin laden goes, the u.s. govt. has said all along that he is linked to the attacks, that he is the prime suspect, but also that this group was a tight knit group that worked alone on the actual carrying out of this attack. NO ONE has said bin laden orchestrated this thing single-handedly. that would be preposterous! the fact is that he runs the organization that is linked to at least 3 of the hijackers (and id imagine we will find they are all linked to al qaeda before its all over).

    the point i was making on my first post though, and still stands, is that if there was any doubt before, there is NO doubt now as to al qaedas guilt in the matter. they are not disputing it.


  • Seeker


    I hear ya. I agree with what you are saying. I just viewed this somewhat tangential thought appropriate as a reminder for all the people (me included) who thought Bush gave a nice speech. It's also good to remember that he lied in the process, apparently. By keeping our eyes open, we can form better conclusions, rather than just the ones we are led to.

  • Rex B13
    Rex B13

    Hope you don't mind me changing the subject but I wanted to make sure you could not ignore my response to your hero's, 'rock solid arguments'.

    OK, Jdubla, let's view these alleged, 'rock solid' arguments:
    Re: Islamic Violence not new..... Sep 30, 2001 10:55:33 AM

    From Alan:
    >Poor Rexie. Obviously I've hit a sore spot, since you're rising to new emotional heights. You can no longer manage even a semblance of cogent argument.

    Rex: Simply put, you are a liar. You are either too stupid to understand the difference in teachings between the religious writings (of Christianity as opposed to Islam, duhhhh)

    >This is gobble-de-goop. What the hell is "the difference in teachings between the religious writngs"? Perhaps you really mean to say, "the difference between what Christians say and what Christians practice"? Or perhaps, "the difference between what the Bible says and what most Christians practice"?

    Here's a start, JDub.
    Alan is using a misrepresntation to base his argument. He is lumping in with true Christians (those who try to follow Christ) and what I call, 'cultural Christians', or those who claim to be Christian yet do not display obvious efforts to be 'Christian'.

    Alan: Try to focus and be clear, Rexie. Otherwise you're just ranting. But you always do that, so why should this be different?

    R: What kind of argument is this, Jdub? Is it 'rock solid'?

    : or you are a liar. We all know you aren't stupid, don't we?

    Alan: Some have said that. Few have said it about you, though.

    R: Rock solid, yeah right! LOL

    : Any comparison betweeen claimed Christians who violated the teachings of God's word and Islamic fundamentalists who are simply FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS of their own sacred writings shows your lie.

    Alan: You have a serious problem understanding the Bible, Rexie. The Bible teaches not only by word, but by example. When the Crusaders went off and killed tens of thousands of "infidels", what were they following?

    R: Another example for you, Jdub. The crusaders were following a directive by political rulers, including the POPE of an apostate, human led institution, they were NOT FOLLOWING CHRIST.

    ALAN: Jesus' words about loving your neighbor, or the example set by God's people the Jews in killing tens of thousands to clear out the Promised Land?

    R: Old Testament dispensation; God ordering judgement, which is His business. The N.T. clearly sets a new dispensation for the church age and I really can't see the apostle Peter leading an army, can you, Jdub?

    Alan: Is there any difference between the Conquistadors' killing thousands of pagan Indians in God's name and the Jews' killing thousands of Caananites in God's name? Not a bit. Both were justified as being religiously necessary. Of course, the fact that massive plundering of wealth and land might have had something to do with it is just a minor point.

    R: Another 'rock solid' argument, Jdub? God did not order the Spanish action; God did order the deaths of the occupants of Canaan due to their own refusal to repent from their horrid practices. Where is the massive wealth and land in Palestine,Alan? BTW, those poor indians in Mexico practiced ritual sacrifice of babies and virgins, as well as the murder of any war prisoners as part of the rituals. Then we have canabalism as an added nicety! Rock solid, again, eh Jdubla?

    Alan: Or is it? Just remember that in both cases the conquerors wrote the history. Both thought they were doing God's will and both wrote their histories in those terms.

    R: Uh no, that's not correct at all. The Bible is the sole revelation of God and the Spanish were supposed to be following it. Nations of the OT either repented or got judged, by God and not man.

    Alan: In reality the motivations of the Conquistadors and the Jews were the same: to get land and plunder the wealth of the inhabitants and to kill them off. The justifications were the same: God wanted them to do it to further the religion of the conquerors. The histories were the same: "We killed to further the interests of God's kingdom and the fact that we succeeded proves that God backed us."

    R: What a load of misinformation. The jews never did occupy all of the land, it was mostly desert and the wealth gained was primarily from Egypt. There was a heck of a lot more gold in the Americas. The Jews are also embarrasingly honest in their own histories, which Alan the whiz fails to note. Another 'rock solid' argument, Jdub?

    Alan: Most of the laws the Jews had that said "be nice to others" were restricted to being nice to other Jews. Gentiles were fair game for killing unless they happened to live among the Jews and obey most of their laws.

    R; There were always proselytes from the nations, God spared Nineveh from judgement when they repented, the Jews were to be a 'light to the world' as Paul pointed out in Romans 3 and they failed miserably, as their own judgement shows!

    Alan: By the time Christianity came along none of the participants had any political power, so we have no idea how they might have acted had they got such power. But we get a pretty good idea by looking into Christian writings, where death and destruction on an apocalyptic scale are the norm.

    R: The 'triumphant entry' and the fact that the pharisees did not want to kill Christ during the sabbath showed that they feared losing their own power! Yet, God led them into doing just that.
    The N.T. has no 'Jihad'. Only God can do this concerning the 'end times' prophecy, as Alan fails to note! What about the day to day lifestyle, Alan baby, what are the TEACHINGS of Christianity?

    Alan: Do you even understand where the word "apocalyptic" comes from, Rexie? From "Apocalypse" or "Revelation", which book contains scenes that make what the Jews did look innocent.

    R: The book of Revelation is primarily a WORSHIP SERVICE occuring at the end of time. What is literal and what is not is up to much debate, Alan baby. Dominionists teach that the advent of God's Kingdom will be gradual and voluntary with little bloodshed, contending that much previously taken as literal is entirely figurative. More 'rock solid' arguments, JDubla?

    Alan: In reality the God of Islam and the God of the Bible are both war Gods, Gods who demand killing in his name when he commands it. Both the Bible and the Koran contain plenty of "be nice to your neighbor" stuff, in addition to the "kill apostates" stuff. The only difference among followers is how they interpret and apply the various aspects, and whether individuals decide that their particular God is speaking personally to them.

    R: Individuals do not decide that God is speaking to them unless it is wholly within the context of the New Testament! Where is the comparison, Alan, and why do you confuse corrupted Arabian Kingdom law (the Koran) with the Law Covenant?

    : Where is the 'jihad', led by man on earth, Al baby?

    Alan: You're asking the wrong question, Rexie sweetie. The 'Bible God jihad' was in Caanan. A new one will be the killing of most of the human race in the near (according to Fundies and JWs) future (the Apocalypse doesn't specify when).

    R: When are you going to practice solid exgesis and quit contending that the Law Covenant is still in force? Now, on the Apocalypse:
    If that's the way it happens, don't you mean? Oh and if all of the evil of the world and those who perpetrate it were to be destroyed by God, would you COMPLAIN about it, Alan baby? WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? Again, where is the 'Jihad' proclamation in the N.T. and why is it that Muslims have to force people to stay in their religion?

    : When are you going to quit lying about the life of Christ and the individual's resposibility to God for his actions while living on earth?

    Alan: Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean that they should avoid killing and should be nice to their neighbors. Others do not and historically have not. Many kinds of conduct can be justified by reference to the Bible.

    R: The biggest lie of all is right here. Alan knows full well that OUT OF CONTEXT, single scripture exgesis is not valid for a belief system! Alan also again fails to draw a distinction between Christ's example and that of Moahmmed, who robbed and plundered caravans to gain his followers. Islam is inherently based on an evil corruption of O.T. scripture. Just like Hitler practiced, the best lie is a lie with a little truth in it.

    : You intentionally blame all Christians for the acts attributed to our basic depraved nature!

    Alan: Not at all. People of any faith or non-faith can be depraved. History proves that the "be nice" passages in the Bible are cast aside whenever the need arises.

    R: Horsepucky! You still confuse human weakness and inherent depravity with actual teachings and practice that have biblical support.

    Alan: The founder of one of the foundations stones of modern fundamentalism, John Calvin, murdered people who did not accept his teachings. So did those paragons of Biblical morality, the Puritans. So have other "pure" Christians down through history. Do you reject Calvin for murdering people? No, you embrace him.

    R: Another solid argument, Jduba? Calvin's theology rises or falls on it's relation to scripture taught in context. If an author or scholar was also a 'murderer', or became a murderer (and I will let God judge that), does that mean his work is incorrect based on his failures as a human being? No, that is a stupid argument, is it not JDubla? BTW, all are depraved, not just some.

    Alan: You prove that modern day fundamentalists would just as easily kill people who disagree as did Calvin, the Puritans and plenty of other Christians who treat others according to the Golden Rule only so long as the others subscribe to their beliefs.

    R: LOL, this is ROCK SOLID reasoning? How does a belief system based on literal fundamentals of the life of Jesus Christ equal to people who would 'kill those who disagree'?

    : The fact that dweebs like you live in a free country and critisize the main religion in that country without fear speaks volumes to your lying slander.

    Alan: I've got news for you: the United States was not founded by Christians but by Deists.

    Crap, T.J. and a couple of others? This country was 99% Christian who tolerated Deists and their odd ideas! Had this country been the ACLU atheist dream it would reflect it in the laws. The laws of our country have much scriptural influence and you know it. T.J. owned slaves also, did he not, Alan? I guess he was not a paragon of virtue either, was he?

    Alan: Deists reject the God of the Bible. It was the Deists and their supporters who put in place the freedoms we enjoy. Nor is the United States in any sense a Christian nation. Various Christian slogans that appear on money or wherever, various Christian practices of the past and present such as opening Congressional sessions with prayer, are mere window dressing designed to placate the Christians in government.

    R; Rewriting history again Alan. Yes, I will agree we are founded on freedom and our experience of the hegemony by the Anglican backed British helped form this idea. Make no mistake, Christians very much formed the government, along with thsoe who were not.

    Alan: Here's an illustration of how, in your blind haste to prove something, you contradict your yourself: you refer to Christianity as "the main religion" in the United States, yet your words above prove that you don't consider the majority of U.S. Christians to be Christian.

    R: I'll admit this. I should have qualified my statement to reflect this. A person can generally reflect a value system that is not of their character. They BELIEVE they are 'Christians', yet, in practice they are not really 'living the life'. Still, there is a morality taught and the influence of the Holy Spirit is noted here.

    Alan: You certainly don't consider the Catholic Church Christian, yet Catholics are the largest single Christian denomination.

    R: Actually, it is an institution just like any other church. There are saved and unsaved within any denomination. We, as Christians, have a freedom to move to any church that seems reflect our own conscience and outlook. No, I do not condemn Catholicism and it does have the main teachings correct. It just has a lot of 'add ons'.

    Alan: And if we embark upon a case by case examination of all other denominations, you'd reject the majority of them because they don't go along with all of the beliefs of the Southern Baptists. For example, various Protestant denominations such as the Methodists and Presbyterians have formally accepted a form of the dreaded "evolution", which you condemn belief in. Most Protestant denominations outright reject the young-earth creationism that is fundamental to Southern Baptist belief.

    R: Speculation; where is the proof, Alan?

    Alan: As Henry Morris, himself a member of that denomination likes to say, Christians who don't accept YECism are counterfeit Christians

    R: One man's opinion, Alan. I can fully accept the salvation of those who are saved by grace through faith, regardless of their views in the grey areas. YEC and OEC, intelligent design are 'grey areas' that exist within the literal vs figurative arguments.

    Alan. So, Rexie, how many "true Christians" does that leave in the U.S.? And let's see you tell us again, just what is the main religion in the U.S.?

    R: 'Christianity' by the poll results, 'non-denom' by the actual lifestyles observed, 'who knows?' by the view of Jesus Christ, who will judge all!

    : Ah, but you were raised to be unappreciative of the deaths of Catholics and Protestants who died to keep your butt free, right Al baby?

    Alan:As a JW, of course. But of course, plenty of others besides Catholics and Protestants died to keep our butts free. Naturally, for you they don't count.

    R: They (cultural Christians) were the overwhelming majority and they generally believed they were Christian. "No man hath greater love than to die for his friends'. All who died count and I know some atheist who 'got God' real quick in a foxhole!

    : I suppose you would even march in protest of your country taking military action agains those responsible for the deaths in terrorist attacks, right?

    Alan: As a matter of fact, just Friday night I participated in a Red Cross benefit and for the first time in my life sang songs like the National Anthem. So even someone raised as a JW can become reasonable. There's even hope for you, Rexie. You just have to get rid of that fundamentalist, us-or-them, JW-style, exclusivist mindset and learn about things beyond the extremely narrow scope of Southern Baptism

    R: It was my turn for a cheap shot, I apologized for it.
    Southern Baptist teachings lean toward a moderate view of things, totally liberal regarding church and state separation (religious freedom, not ACLU discrimination). We at least try to back up our views in the context of scripture and are so far removed from JW cultism as to be very little comparison.
    Edited by - AlanF on 30 September 2001 10:56:49


  • Kent

    Well, Rex - we know you're twisted - but what did this have to do with anything? You don't like Alan because he has good arguments, and reason. But so what?

    Yakki Da


    I need more BOE letters, KMs and other material. Those who can send it to me - please do! The new section will be interesting!!

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:

  • AlanF

    It's Rexie's usual thing, Kent: spew out a lot of cut and paste stuff he doesn't understand (here, even some of his own), and hope no one notices.

    I'm particularly entertained by his referring to me as some sort of "JDub". That's like You Know calling me a false prophet.


  • Pathofthorns

    This debate is getting tired. It all comes down to whether we want to live by the laws of justice, that ALL deserve their day in court for a fair and impartial trial where the evidence is weighed and then, judgement is passed.

    If we arbitrarily decide for which persons we allow a fair trial, then our whole legal system crumbles and so does freedom.

    The only persons we know for sure who were guilty, were the terrorists aboard the planes, and since they are dead, it leaves many feeling 'ripped off', much like someone who commits a murder-suicide.

    One has to ask themselves if this was all about terrorism, then why didn't the US government seek Bin Laden sooner? If they had evidence of him being a terrorist, then failure to indite him sooner for past crimes makes them somewhat guilty for what happened September 11.

    As far as Bin Laden's comments go, they are hardly evidence, since we all have freedom of speech, which unfortunately includes freedom to say things that are hateful.

    America's actions have been inflamatory to the middle-eastern community and likely come at the price of justified (in the minds of much of the middle east population) retalitory terrorist attacks and America living in fear.

    At the end of the day, is the world any further ahead when old fashion vengeance is executed instead of the rule of law? Are we going forward or backward?


  • teejay

    I don't know why, but everytime I see a picture of Osama bin Laden or one of his people, the term "Sand Monkeys" comes to mind.

    drahcir, "monkeys" is not the term i heard, or saw written as graffiti on a wall here in my city. the term i heard was more of the All-American variety.

Share this