PDA

View Full Version : Osama bin Laden offers European truce



mog
April 15th, 2004, 03:45 AM
Praise be to Almighty God; Peace and prayers be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and companions.

This is a message to our neighbours north of the Mediterranean, containing a reconciliation initiative as a response to their positive reactions.

Praise be to God; praise be to God; praise be to God who created heaven and earth with justice and who allowed the oppressed to punish the oppressor in the same way.

Peace upon those who followed the right path:

In my hands there is a message to remind you that justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them.

The greatest rule of safety is justice, and stopping injustice and aggression. It was said: Oppression kills the oppressors and the hotbed of injustice is evil. The situation in occupied Palestine is an example. What happened on 11 September [2001] and 11 March [the Madrid train bombings] is your commodity that was returned to you.

It is known that security is a pressing necessity for all mankind. We do not agree that you should monopolise it only for yourselves. Also, vigilant people do not allow their politicians to tamper with their security.

Having said this, we would like to inform you that labelling us and our acts as terrorism is also a description of you and of your acts. Reaction comes at the same level as the original action. Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The act that horrified the world; that is, the killing of the old, handicapped [Hamas spiritual leader] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may God have mercy on him, is sufficient evidence.

We pledge to God that we will punish America for him, God willing.

Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears greater blame.

As for your politicians and those who have followed their path, who insist on ignoring the real problem of occupying the entirety of Palestine and exaggerate lies and falsification regarding our right in defence and resistance, they do not respect themselves.

They also disdain the blood and minds of peoples. This is because their falsification increases the shedding of your blood instead of sparing it.

Moreover, the examining of the developments that have been taking place, in terms of killings in our countries and your countries, will make clear an important fact; namely, that injustice is inflicted on us and on you by your politicians, who send your sons - although you are opposed to this - to our countries to kill and be killed.

Therefore, it is in both sides' interest to curb the plans of those who shed the blood of peoples for their narrow personal interest and subservience to the White House gang.

The Zionist lobby is one of the most dangerous and most difficult figures of this group. God willing, we are determined to fight them.

We must take into consideration that this war brings billions of dollars in profit to the major companies, whether it be those that produce weapons or those that contribute to reconstruction, such as the Halliburton Company, its sisters and daughters.

Based on this, it is very clear who is the one benefiting from igniting this war and from the shedding of blood. It is the warlords, the bloodsuckers, who are steering the world policy from behind a curtain.

As for President Bush, the leaders who are revolving in his orbit, the leading media companies and the United Nations, which makes laws for relations between the masters of veto and the slaves of the General Assembly, these are only some of the tools used to deceive and exploit peoples.

All these pose a fatal threat to the whole world.

The Zionist lobby is one of the most dangerous and most difficult figures of this group. God willing, we are determined to fight them.

Based on the above, and in order to deny war merchants a chance and in response to the positive interaction shown by recent events and opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace, I ask honest people, especially ulema, preachers and merchants, to form a permanent committee to enlighten European peoples of the justice of our causes, above all Palestine. They can make use of the huge potential of the media.

The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.

I also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.

This reconciliation can be renewed once the period signed by the first government expires and a second government is formed with the consent of both parties.

The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country.

The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.

For those who reject reconciliation and want war, we are ready.

As for those who want reconciliation, we have given them a chance. Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood. It is in your hands to apply this easy, yet difficult, formula. You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things.

If this happens, do not blame us - blame yourselves.

A rational person does not relinquish his security, money and children to please the liar of the White House.

Had he been truthful about his claim for peace, he would not describe the person who ripped open pregnant women in Sabra and Shatila [reference to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] and the destroyer of the capitulation process [reference to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process] as a man of peace.

Reality proves our truthfulness and his [George Bush's] lie.

He also would not have lied to people and said that we hate freedom and kill for the sake of killing. Reality proves our truthfulness and his lie.

The killing of the Russians was after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of Europeans was after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; and the killing of Americans on the day of New York [reference to 11 September] was after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula.

Also, killing them in Somalia was after their invasion of it in Operation Restore Hope. We made them leave without hope, praise be to God.

It is said that prevention is better than cure. A happy person is he who learns a lesson from the experience of others.

Heeding right is better than persisting in falsehood.

Peace be upon those who follow guidance.



You have to admit, a lot of wise words there.

Meng Bomin
April 15th, 2004, 04:47 AM
You have to admit, a lot of wise words there. That is because Bin Laden isn't just a simpleton religious fanatic with a lot of money. He is quite an intelligent religious fanatic with a lot of money. I think that he is right in some respects, but wrong in others, such as those involving retaliation. He should have tried a different approach, since this one will not solve anything for him.

ZealousDemon
April 15th, 2004, 06:43 AM
Yes, I see some of Bin Ladin's points, such as those regarding Haliburton, HOWEVER, there are those that I disagree with alot. Proclaiming that Zionism is dangerous and the Eye-for-an-Eye attitude that Bin Ladin is going about is why he's dangerous. He should still be captured and punished, because of his willingness to kill civilians in the name of "vengeance".

Apokalupsis
April 15th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Give me a break. How could anyone even contemplate being "suckered" by this murderer?

. Reaction comes at the same level as the original action. Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

Really? Just a "reaction"? The US killed people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine BEFORE the embassy attacks, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, countless kidnappings and murders, etc...? Really?


The act that horrified the world; that is, the killing of the old, handicapped [Hamas spiritual leader] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may God have mercy on him, is sufficient evidence.

The killing of the founder of a terrorist organization that targets women, children, the elderly, civilians...that was the act that horrified the world?? Really?


and the killing of Americans on the day of New York [reference to 11 September] was after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula.

...we invaded the Arabian Peninsula by coming to the aid of Kuwait who requested the assistance against an aggressor (Saddam) that Bin Laden was (according to the left) never friends with or associated with any way, shape or form?

Also, the US is singled out for its support, when the entire world supports and acknowledges Israel as a sovereign state, accept those in the ME?


Also, killing them in Somalia was after their invasion of it in Operation Restore Hope. We made them leave without hope, praise be to God.

Praise be to Allah! It is good that people be beaten, murdered, raped, oppressed, and not fed or helped by the aid of the international community. Yes, surely it is righteous to kill those who would offer aid and help to others. Allah is good.


A happy person is he who learns a lesson from the experience of others.
A good and trustworthy terrorist...is a non-existent one...preferably from the business end of a Daisy-Cutter.

Hitler impressed many with his "wise" words too folks. Don't be so gullible.

btw...Osama does NOT represent Islam. He's a radical who does more harm to that faith than good. But that's another thread.

CC
April 15th, 2004, 07:46 AM
This reconciliation can be renewed once the period signed by the first government expires and a second government is formed with the consent of both parties.

Is he aiming this at the USA? Is he inferring that if we elect kerry, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the Israelies to themselves that the USA would not have to fear from muslim extremeists?

I think that this should open a window of opportunity to begin to have talks over what would be required. I know we would not meet all his demands, but it may at least give us a better understanding.

Or is Laden going after the US for past sins (perceived) that are unforgivable, in which case we have absolutely nothing to gain by even listening.........


Hitler impressed many with his "wise" words too folks. Don't be so gullible.

There are still "some" wise words there, and they should not be discounted nor discredited simply because they came from Laden. Surely, much of what he said is false, exagerated and unrealistic. However, some of what he said of course has some truth to it.

Many of our problems around the world are because we interfere to our benifit (Iraq is a prime example) instead of keeping out of things or at least looking at it from a wider perspective on just what is good for the US and the heck with the rest of the world..........................:O)

Apokalupsis
April 15th, 2004, 08:04 AM
When has the threat of a terrorist (and that is what this is..."Do X and we'll leave you alone") been complied with, that resulted in the terrorist keeping his word? Appeasement, does not work.

The only way to deal w/ mass murderers of women and children...is to destroy them. End of story. No negotiation, no appeasing, complying with their demands. They do not care about anything outside of the their box...their own agenda. They will not stop, they will not abide by an agreement. Radicals, do not understand what a cease fire is. Evidence of of this is seen today in the Sunni Triangle, as well as during the Oslo Accords.

Kill them, or they kill you. That's it.

sjjs
April 15th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Apart from all the polemic here, it should be noted that OBL does not control the great swathes of Al Queda and associated groups and therefore is unable to offer the kind of ceasefire he's suggesting. Al Queda is too fragmented and cellular to be under the control of OBL so the gesture is actually baseless.

Meng Bomin
April 15th, 2004, 12:32 PM
From this quote, Bin Laden apprears to be an idealist with a skewed ideology with no grasp on real world politics. Of course, his arguments may be nothing more than a disguise.I skimmed it initially and this seemed to be his main justification:

Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears greater blame.The major flaw with that argument is that those he attacked were innocent of any crimes against Muslims. He is using guilt by association, and raises a similar double standard to the one he describes. He seems to be describing his own position more than that of the west. Also, as Apok pointed out, he does use examples from after 9/11 to justify what happened during 9/11, which makes no sense. Perhaps he could have used the example of Iran and the Shah, although that is out of date, or similar Cold War incidents. His sort of thinking, however, simply creates reciprocal violence as each side thinks that it is in the right. The problem with these messages is they do appeal to those who already have an anti-US bias and are good for recruiting more people to Al-Quaeda. It seems that our whole conflict arises from bias and an inability to understand the other point of view.

KevinBrowning
April 15th, 2004, 12:32 PM
You have to admit, a lot of wise words there.
No, a lot of lies though. Usama is very clever at making the United States seem like the aggressor infidels. Anyone who sympathises with this cold-blooded murderer is unspeakably gullible.

Apokalupsis
April 15th, 2004, 01:01 PM
well, mog genuinely feels the Islamic people in the ME are oppressed by the West's influence and these radicals are acting out in the only way left possible. Of course, this is in error...but it explains his perspective I believe.

sjjs
April 15th, 2004, 03:40 PM
No, a lot of lies though. Usama is very clever at making the United States seem like the aggressor infidels. Anyone who sympathises with this cold-blooded murderer is unspeakably gullible.

Don't forget that gullibility isn't restricted to the Muslim world. In the West we've been deceived and lied to and yet some people still believe what they're told.

Makes you wonder...

FruitandNut
April 15th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Bin Laden is using the age old trick of divide and control. His organisation is only part of the problem anyway. He is seeking controversy as a tool for division. Perhaps he sees Europe as less of a threat to his ideas or more moderate and thoughtful in their diplomatic stance? Perhaps he feels overstretched, the outcome of fighting on more than one front. Most terrorist cells are semi-independant, if they were not they wouldn't survive long with our sophisticated tracking and surveillence techniques.

The West and the Islamic world have a problem in terms of history and a mutual lack of understanding. Osama is only a small bit player among a diversity of small bit players on a very large playing field.

mog
April 15th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Give me a break. How could anyone even contemplate being "suckered" by this murderer?
Well, now you know how I feel about George W. Bush.


Really? Just a "reaction"? The US killed people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine BEFORE the embassy attacks, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, countless kidnappings and murders, etc...? Really?
Yes, most of those events were motivated by Israel/Palestine issues. Since this is mainly addressed to Europeans, the Madrid bombing is the most prominent reference.


The killing of the founder of a terrorist organization that targets women, children, the elderly, civilians...that was the act that horrified the world?? Really?
The US is not the world, and one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.



Also, the US is singled out for its support, when the entire world supports and acknowledges Israel as a sovereign state, accept those in the ME?
The US is the only one who supports the actions of Israel to such an extreme degree that it provides billions in aid.


well, mog genuinely feels the Islamic people in the ME are oppressed by the West's influence and these radicals are acting out in the only way left possible. Of course, this is in error...but it explains his perspective I believe.
I don't condone the actions of Islamic extremists any more than I condone the actions of the US or Israel. I don't see whole lot of difference between a suicide bomber and an Israeli tank firing a hedgehog down a Palestinian street. Just because one side can afford to fight a conventional, yet nonetheless deadly to civilians, war, doesn't automatically put them in the right. This is the view of many in the US, and it is horribly, stupidly, flawed and bred of biased media monopolies.

WatsonGlenn
April 16th, 2004, 07:53 AM
I don't have to admit any such thing. What, in the letter made sense?

Meng Bomin
April 16th, 2004, 08:14 AM
There were some snippets that made sense, but they don't connect in any way to justify any of his actions.

FruitandNut
April 17th, 2004, 10:44 AM
Desperate people do precipitous and desperate things. The UN building should supply cold showers into which each of the protagonists are inserted until they promise to calm down and to start listening to eachother. Most politicians, and by politicians I include the Bin Ladens, Mullahs, Rabbi's and anyone who expresses an opinion - have big mouths and a hearing impairment. Perhaps they should all be offered corrective surgery on emerging from their douche?

KevinBrowning
April 17th, 2004, 01:59 PM
There were some snippets that made sense, but they don't connect in any way to justify any of his actions.
I agree. He uses many obviously true cliches about justice and fairness, but he never says how the U.S. is being so unfair, and why al-Qaida is so holy and good, despite their atrocities against civilians.

CC
April 18th, 2004, 09:35 AM
Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? And which principle considers your blood real blood and our blood water?

Had Bush not been so stupid as to publicly claim that "God is on our side", then even this statement (the only one in his speech that trumps bush) would not hold any weight. Had Bush not made the claim he could have used those exact words on Laden, as it is he can't. But by publicly claiming some god is on our side, it takes all rational thought about the war and brings it into the realm of suspicion..........in other words Bush plainly showed in that instance that he was putting emotions way ahead of thought, giving Laden the opening to call him on such foolishness........Had Bush not invoked god those words would be absolutely hollow, as it is, bush's claim to god made him appear absolutely hollow.....played right into a religious extremist's hands......:O)

Meng Bomin
April 18th, 2004, 01:08 PM
I think a nice rebuttal to Usama's question would be, "In what religion does the killing of innocents in one group rectify the killing of innocents in another." Although this point in his message was wrong in more than just that way, I think it effectively demolishes any justifications for the action on September 11.

CC
April 19th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Which is my point...this is not about any god, no matter which side claims it to be...........:O)

Apokalupsis
April 19th, 2004, 01:47 PM
Bush never claimed it was about God. Bush believes that God opposes rape, murder, torture, oppression, etc... He is not casting spells to invoke God or his power. He is not in a dark room wearing dark hooded robes casting hexes on Osama. He is making a statement, that the God of the Bible (which Bush and approximately 85% of the population of the nation that he leads believes in) opposes these things that Bush opposes. And he would be correct. The God of the Bible does oppose such things.

Bush isn't leading this war in the name of God. He believes that God merely supports his position. Osama on the other hand, believes he is carrying out Allah's will. America needs to be punished, because Allah wills it. This is quite different than Bush's position.

KevinBrowning
April 19th, 2004, 03:33 PM
Had Bush not been so stupid as to publicly claim that "God is on our side", then even this statement (the only one in his speech that trumps bush) would not hold any weight. Had Bush not made the claim he could have used those exact words on Laden, as it is he can't. But by publicly claiming some god is on our side, it takes all rational thought about the war and brings it into the realm of suspicion..........in other words Bush plainly showed in that instance that he was putting emotions way ahead of thought, giving Laden the opening to call him on such foolishness........Had Bush not invoked god those words would be absolutely hollow, as it is, bush's claim to god made him appear absolutely hollow.....played right into a religious extremist's hands......:O)
Personally, I believe God is on America's side, so to speak. We are the richest and most powerful country. We also give the most humanitarian aid and to charity of any country, and fight to preserve freedom for ourselves and others. Coincidence? I think we hold a special place in the world as protectors and liberators of oppressed people, and that is a cause God supports. Additionally, I'm certain that God doesn't support cowardly suicide bombings that slaughter thousands of civilians. I'm sure Allah doesn't either, considering Him and Yahweh are the same Being, and Muslims, Christians and Jews all recognize we believe in the same God. So what's the conclusion? Bin Ladin is a raving lunatic who has no idea of who God is or what He has taught us about right and wrong.

CC
April 19th, 2004, 05:33 PM
As you pointed out, only osama invokes a god as his source of divine knowledge. As an atheist and fully appreciative of the seperation of church and state idea, I get a bit irritated when any elected official, (especially the president) unnecessarily includes any mention of god that in any way reinforces what he is saying or rallys those to his cause in the name of any god as opposed to the simple acts of defense against those who have actually attacked us. In that sense, and it comes closer on the world scene, he does come close to making it "about" god.

Your comments made me think perhaps I was even being too thin skinned about Bush and his references to god and prayer. In a five minute speech to congress addressing the upcoming war (bin laden, not iraq), he unnecessarily refers to god 7 times, not counting the numerous times he made references that others made about a god, nor counting the "May God Bless America" most presidents invoke at the end of such a speech.

It is my firm opinion that there is no god that has anything to do with any sort of aggressions humans commit on each other. (of course being atheist that is a given) It is also my firm BELIEF that as a citizen of the USA that I should be able to count on my elected representitives, especially the big guy, (the prez) to honor the notion that this country includes and supports ALL of its citizens. Even those with no belief in a god. Even those who don't happen to be in that convienient "85%" that feel that god is a part of what we are doing.

Clearly Bush invokes references to god, faith and prayer much more than even necessary to get across to even the most dim-witted that he is a religious man. We get it! So dispense with the god-talk when speaking of killing and dying unless (and it is obvious) the real reason he is vervent about god in public is because of that "85%" that is much more likely to give their support. If he wants mine, he needs to keep his god seperate from his public speaking when talking to the nation and the world about our actions and intentions.

Leave rallying christians together to the preachers and priests, etc; and focus on what any good citizen with common sense can agree with, align with and fully support.


Personally, I believe God is on America's side, so to speak.

Though obvioiusly I disagree with most of what you say it is your right to believe there is a god and he is on our side. However, should you become president you should have the fortitude to rally ALL citizens as opposed to settling for the easy 85% that believe, many of who support bush just because he does refer to god often. As I said, there are plenty of churches to rally the masses if their beliefs are so much a part of what we are doing.

Symantix
April 19th, 2004, 06:31 PM
It is also my firm BELIEF that as a citizen of the USA that I should be able to count on my elected representitives, especially the big guy, (the prez) to honor the notion that this country includes and supports ALL of its citizens. Even those with no belief in a god. Even those who don't happen to be in that convienient "85%" that feel that god is a part of what we are doing. As a Christian, I support you and all Atheists. I don't agree with your philosophy when it comes to God, but I believe that you are my fellow countryman, and I will gladly march hand-in-hand with you for any good cause. I also believe what my Bible teaches me about what God's will is concerning a person like you; that I should be kind to you and treat you like I would any fellow Christian, and yes, even love you (eeeewwwww!!! ;) )

I have no doubt that President Bush feels the same way. It is not the Christian's intention to exclude anyone by proclaiming what they know to be true about God. Rather, they feel that they have a responsibility to speak what they know to be true, even though they know that it will anger some. It is not their intention to anger any - even though they know that will happen - but only to proclaim what they feel is the best news in the world, and what they know they are responsible to say.

Bottom line is, you may not believe that there is a God, but in the case of the .01% chance that you are wrong, and there is an all powerful God who controls the every sway of the universe, and if what president Bush says is right, that this powerful God is on your side, that's a good thing right? And if what he says is not true, then you're no worse off, right? If he stood up there and said that destiny is on our side, there would be so many fewer offended parties, and yet the consequences of this being right or wrong are no different (actually they are - God is the master of destiny, but that's a different argument).

In the end, for many atheists (perhaps not you), it doesn't matter what I say. If the word of God is true, then it is clear in what it says...that anyone who does not know God will despise the very mention of His name.

CC
April 20th, 2004, 12:31 PM
Thanks for the luv......*g*


I have no doubt that President Bush feels the same way. It is not the Christian's intention to exclude anyone by proclaiming what they know to be true about God.

I have plenty of doubt that he is not using his faith to procure more support than he would if he did not. That I have a big problem with, not the fact that he himself, as a person and not a president has a faith in god.


Rather, they feel that they have a responsibility to speak what they know to be true, even though they know that it will anger some. It is not their intention to anger any - even though they know that will happen - but only to proclaim what they feel is the best news in the world, and what they know they are responsible to say.

As a christian I'm sure that is true. But as the president it is his duty to let his faith remain a more private aspect of his life and not use his platform (quite often) to "proclaim" anything about god. As president, he should honor ALL citizens, regardless of if they believe in a god. To say that he means not to exclude anyone and then going on to do just that is disingenious to those you purport he is not seeking to exclude. He uses them at their expense in order to gather a stronger following from the side of the believers. 85% is the bird in the hand compared to two in the (no pun intended)...bush...........................:O)

As president it is his duty to lead and represent the entire population, not just his fellow believers. In the spirit of individual beliefs he should change his rhetoric to embrace all of the country, not to preach to the world that there is a christian god. (He is not a preacher, he is a world diplomat)



Bottom line is, you may not believe that there is a God, but in the case of the .01% chance that you are wrong, and there is an all powerful God who controls the every sway of the universe, and if what president Bush says is right, that this powerful God is on your side, that's a good thing right? And if what he says is not true, then you're no worse off, right?

No, the bottom line is that if there is a god (and even if there is a 99% chance I am wrong about it doesn't make any difference) then that god has nothing to do with what we are doing to each other on earth, and if he did, no human could claim as to whether they are on the side of god or not. As Lincoln said, "I can only hope we are on the side of god" (paraphrasing)

If there is a .01% chance that you are wrong, and our president had not so often made godly references, yet everything turns out the same then you are no worse off. right?...........


In the end, for many atheists (perhaps not you), it doesn't matter what I say. If the word of God is true, then it is clear in what it says...that anyone who does not know God will despise the very mention of His name.

You say "(perhaps not you)" then go on to say that if the word of god is true, (and as a christian you do) then you believe it is clear in what it says. If not why bring that up?

I assure you if you have been reading my post that I do not despise the very mention of the word god. What I disagree with is the notion that you believe that I must be wrong. As an atheist, I do not claim at all to be right, only that that is the way "I" believe. It would appear that believer's get a little spiteful themselves at the mere thought of being thought of as wrong by anyone else......................:O)

FruitandNut
June 30th, 2004, 06:12 AM
Symantix / Cyberclown: I think 'infinity' moves the possiblity/probability that there is a God into a bolder arena than a mere 0.01%.

Galendir
June 30th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Bush believes that God opposes rape, murder, torture, oppression, etc. He is making a statement, that the God of the Bible opposes these things that Bush opposes. And he would be correct. The God of the Bible does oppose such things.There are numerous instances in the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) that would suggest that in some circumstances God is not only indifferent to several of the above listed acts, but in fact condones or even commands them.

Galendir
June 30th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Symantix / Cyberclown: I think 'infinity' moves the possiblity/probability that there is a God into a bolder arena than a mere 0.01%.
The 0.01% is merely a concession made for the sake of argument; it is not meant to represent a genuine assessment of the probability of the actual existence of God.
I don't see how 'infinity' offers any real weight to arguments in support of the possibility/probability of God's existence. But that is not a subject for this thread.

Apokalupsis
June 30th, 2004, 10:35 AM
There are numerous instances in the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) that would suggest that in some circumstances God is not only indifferent to several of the above listed acts, but in fact condones or even commands them.
Support it. Claiming it and actually SUPPORTING it are 2 different things.

kwinters
June 30th, 2004, 12:53 PM
Bush isn't leading this war in the name of God. He believes that God merely supports his position. Osama on the other hand, believes he is carrying out Allah's will. America needs to be punished, because Allah wills it. This is quite different than Bush's position.

Is it?

According to Israel's Haaretz, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas quoted Bush saying that the next step is to solve the problem in the Middle East:

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


Hearsay, yes. But I found this on the 'Christian Web Site from Nazareth"

Booger
June 30th, 2004, 01:05 PM
According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


Hearsay, yes. But I found this on the 'Christian Web Site from Nazareth"

Hearsay, yes, but it's getting into evidence for its probative value. Corrorborating evidence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

Fyshhed
June 30th, 2004, 03:46 PM
This is one of the largest reasons I can think of to abandon any concept of religion. Look at what it does to people. Even if Bush did not intend to start a crusade, that's pretty much what it is. And whether or not we think it doesn't really matter, because the enemy seems to be convinced otherwise, and that's all it takes.

Religion gets people killed. That's how the world works. It's not the only factor, but if you want world peace, that's one of the things that has to change. And since we all know that isn't going to happen, stop whining and get your gun, cause we have some towel-head terrorists to lay waste to.
:(

Galendir
June 30th, 2004, 03:47 PM
Support it.After you (said the kettle to the pot).

mog
June 30th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Buddhism is worth keeping I reckon.

Fyshhed
June 30th, 2004, 06:34 PM
Buddhism is worth keeping I reckon.
I'll take that as ok. It's more of a philosophy anyway :D

kwinters
July 1st, 2004, 08:05 AM
I'll take that as ok. It's more of a philosophy anyway :D

I'm curious as to why people tend to think of Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion/spiritual practice/faith.

It deals clearly with life, death and rebirth. Sounds like a new debate for the Religion section.

Back to the current debate.

tinkerbell
July 1st, 2004, 09:02 AM
Additionally, I'm certain that God doesn't support cowardly suicide bombings that slaughter thousands of civilians.

Have you read the Bible? The cruelty of the plagues of Egypt,David and his murderous raids commanded by God, The killing of Men, Women and innocent Children and infants. The tens of thousands of children and babies butchered by Moses, Joshua and Saul.
We can argue "That is the Old Testement" but we also say "God is perfect and never changing."
Who are we to say what God supports? If we say things like "God is on Americas side!" We could say things such as "It was God's will for 9/11 to happen." It makes us look as rational as those thinking "God wants me to fly a plane into a building."
Sure, as American Christians we want to think God prefers us..But we are all God's children. America is just as sinful, if not more than any other country on this Earth. We are told to pray for our enemies, the leaders of the world and the suffering..I believe that covers Muslims as well.
I could easily say, I'm sure God doesn't approve of Us Leaders lying to Americans about the reasons we are really at war. Sending innocents to fight, kill and die for what "I" consider greed.That could just be my "Crazy" opinion.I certainly don't want to force my word's into God's mouth.That's what gets us all in trouble.

KevinBrowning
July 1st, 2004, 01:26 PM
Have you read the Bible?
Most of it.


The cruelty of the plagues of Egypt,David and his murderous raids commanded by God, The killing of Men, Women and innocent Children and infants. The tens of thousands of children and babies butchered by Moses, Joshua and Saul.
Tens of thousands? Please support this.



We can argue "That is the Old Testement" but we also say "God is perfect and never changing."
Who are we to say what God supports? If we say things like "God is on Americas side!" We could say things such as "It was God's will for 9/11 to happen." It makes us look as rational as those thinking "God wants me to fly a plane into a building."
God is not necessarily "on America's side" to the exclusion of other countries. However, America does support Israel, while the rest of the world vilifies it. God supports, as shown in the Bible, the same concepts of liberty, justice and freedom that America supports. God does not support hateful, cowardly suicide attacks. The only way we an know what God "supports" is through Scripture.



Sure, as American Christians we want to think God prefers us..But we are all God's children. America is just as sinful, if not more than any other country on this Earth. We are told to pray for our enemies, the leaders of the world and the suffering..I believe that covers Muslims as well.
Yes, we are commanded to love our enemies. Yet, Islam is a cancer, and governments operating under Islamic law must be dealt with. If you do not understand what I mean about Islam being a disease of violence and hatred that must be resisted, please tell me one current major armed conflict today that does not involve Islamic groups.


I could easily say, I'm sure God doesn't approve of Us Leaders lying to Americans about the reasons we are really at war. Sending innocents to fight, kill and die for what "I" consider greed.That could just be my "Crazy" opinion.I certainly don't want to force my word's into God's mouth.That's what gets us all in trouble.
I am fairly sure God approves of the United States removing a brutal, evil dictator and replacing him with a democracy respecting political and religious freedom. In this case, the end justifies the means.

Fyshhed
July 1st, 2004, 05:12 PM
I am fairly sure God approves of the United States removing a brutal, evil dictator and replacing him with a democracy respecting political and religious freedom. In this case, the end justifies the means.

That's not why we went over. That is a better reason than WMDs or Al Qaida ties. But it's not the one we were told. Iraq was not a threat. The ends are not linked to the purpose, since we found no real WMDs and Osama is free to write threats to Europe.

FruitandNut
July 1st, 2004, 05:49 PM
Look at the 'Ten Commandments', reflect, and then come to a rational conclusion that it is the hijacking, abuse, misuse and politicisation of religion that is the biggest villian of any peace.

tinkerbell
July 1st, 2004, 06:48 PM
Tens of thousands? Please support this.



How many men did God kill because someone decided to peek into the ark of the Lord?

Answer: (50,070) “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter” (1 Samuel 6:19).
*

* How many men did Moses kill in one day because they failed to say they supported God?

Answer: (3,000) “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men” (Exodus 32:26-28).
*

How many people did God kill in a plague before someone pleased God by ending a mixed marriage with the murder of the couple?

Answer: (24,000) “And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand” (Numbers 25:6-9).
*

How many animals did Solomon kill in a sacrifice to please the Lord?

Answer: (120,000 sheep and 22,000 oxen) “And Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offering, which he offered unto the Lord, two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:63).
*

How many Israelites did God deliver to the people of Judah to slaughter?

Answer: (Half a million) “Then the men of Judah gave a shout: and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered them into their hand. And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men. Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers” (2 Chronicles 13:15-18).
*

Notwithstanding the above, how many people of Judah were once killed or enslaved because they didn’t give God his due?

Answer: (120,000 valiant men were killed and 200,000 women and children were taken as slaves (not to mention the theft of property.)) “For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the Lord God of their fathers. . . . And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them” (2 Chronicles 28:6-8).
*

How many Ethiopians did God kill for His chosen people?
Answer: (One million) “And Asa had an army of men . . . And there came out against them Zera the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand . . . Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power, help us, O Lord our God . . . So the Lord smote the Ethiopians” (2 Chronicles 14:8-12).
*
Speaking of God’s chosen people, how many kings were maimed in God’s name?

Answer. (70 had their thumbs and big toes cut off.) “And they found Abonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and Perizzites. But Abonibezek fled; and they pursued after him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Abonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me” (Judges 1:5-7).
*

How many soldiers did God burn to death with fire from Heaven because they confronted Elijah?

Answer: (150 (three sets of 50)) “And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. Again also he sent unto him another captain . . . And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty . . . And he sent again a captain of the third fifty . . . Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties” (2 Chronicles 1:10-14).

FruitandNut
July 2nd, 2004, 05:34 AM
Tinkerbell: How much of what you quote can be taken literally, how much as parable or lesson, how much is simple imagination or 'Chinese whispers' and how much is downright political spin and control?

Beware that you may be engaging in intellectual arguement on the basis of incomplete knowledge. If you are, then always qualify your stance.

ps. Hello, is there anyone else out there with a 'truly' open mind' (-well as truly open as we can make it).

I am aware that some Fundies would wish me burn in Hell, but my problem is that the Almighty gave me transparent 'blinkers'(horses' vision restrictors - in case you on the other side of the Pond use some other term).

tinkerbell
July 2nd, 2004, 07:25 AM
Tinkerbell: How much of what you quote can be taken literally, how much as parable or lesson, how much is simple imagination or 'Chinese whispers' and how much is downright political spin and control?
.

Who really knows how accurate #'s are in the Bible.Kev wanted a source provided for brutality God (or biblical people claimed) called for. Some people take every word of the bible as absolute truth.
My point is that people murder in the name of God all too often.Who really knows for sure if God demanded wrath, or he was a scapegoat. I'm not even sure how the bible measured time, or what time meant.People were living 650 years without antibiotics.

This war has crossed the line already,it is turning into a crusade even by Americans.People are saying " God is on our side, This is what God wishes."
If I really believed that, I would lose my Faith.

kwinters
July 2nd, 2004, 07:36 AM
Yes, we are commanded to love our enemies. Yet, Islam is a cancer, and governments operating under Islamic law must be dealt with. If you do not understand what I mean about Islam being a disease of violence and hatred that must be resisted, please tell me one current major armed conflict today that does not involve Islamic groups.

Somalia
Sporadic armed clashes continued to plague Somalia in 2002; many of the more serious factional clashes occurred in the capital city, Mogadishu, which has been carved up among rival warlords and forces loyal to the Transitional National Government (TNG) which was formed in September 2000.

Congo-Brazzaville
Hostilities erupted in Congo at the end of March 2002, when several government military positions in the Pool region were attacked by Ninja militias. The renewed fighting followed March 2002 presidential elections; both Ninja and Cocoye militias had backed leaders opposing President Sassou-Nguesso’s 1997 seizure of power. Ninja spokespersons claimed the clashes were provoked when they discovered government plans to arrest their leader, the Rev. Frederic Bitsangou (alias Ntoumi).

Burundi
Peace remains elusive as efforts to reach a general ceasefire failed to gain approval by the country’s two main rebel groups, Forces for the Defense of Democracy (FDD) and National Liberation Forces (FNL).

Colombia
Peace talks initiated by President Pastrana collapsed in February 2002 after more than four years of on-and-off negotiations. The army recaptured the demilitarized zone that had been granted to the rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in the southern part of the country. Violence had been fairly constant throughout the negotiations, which appeared unable to bring a definitive resolution to the more than 30 years of civil war.

Nepal
The six-year low-level insurgency, or "People’s War," led by the United People’s Front (UPF) and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) intensified in November 2001 and continued at this higher level through 2002.


Source:
http://members.aol.com/CSPmgm/current.htm

Slipnish
July 2nd, 2004, 07:45 AM
Having nothing to back this up, and knowing that on here it is a form of "suicide by invention" :) I would like to proffer the following argument.

It is not Islam itself that is the cause of the problems, but rather the blend of politics and religion that makes for such a horror show in the world.

The very reason our founding fathers demanded and built a secular government.

The two together are very dangerous indeed.

Are there any "Islamic" nations that are NOT theocracies? If so, are they subject to terrorism? Does anyone know, off the top of your head? :?:

Apokalupsis
July 2nd, 2004, 08:26 AM
Hearsay, yes, but it's getting into evidence for its probative value. Corrorborating evidence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer
It's a stretch. From that very article...


Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

Be sure to tell me when Bush announces publicly to his nation that he is taking direct orders from God. Until then, this argument is absurd. It's also interesting to see anti-Bushies reach at possibly anything they can to attack Bush. ;)

Apokalupsis
July 2nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
After you (said the kettle to the pot).
I'm not the one making the claim. I do not have to prove your claim wrong, you have to prove your claim right through some form of evidence. You should know better than this (or at least, I would have thought you would).

So, I'll keep this very simple. Is there ANY evidence for your claim? Or is this merely an unresearched claim by Gal that exposes a gross misunderstanding?

Apokalupsis
July 2nd, 2004, 08:46 AM
Are there any "Islamic" nations that are NOT theocracies? If so, are they subject to terrorism? Does anyone know, off the top of your head? :?:
There are no Islamic states that are not theocracies. Turkey is the closest to it, but it is not secular in the sense that we as westerners know "secularism". They also have a lot of struggles staying "secular" due to the majority of its population being Muslim. Also, they do experience terrorism firsthand. There are many terrorist organizations in Turkey.

mask
July 2nd, 2004, 10:41 AM
Tens of thousands? Please support this.


i don't really wanna get in the middle of that debate. But i just wanna comment on ur response. First, i'm christian. However, in spite the fact that ur defending "our" faith and believes, i still find ur response amusing.
Is ur question about the number of people killed on the hands of david and others???
does that really make any difference??
i mean if it wasn't tens of thousands , if it was just a couple of hundreds??
if it was just one person ordered to be killed in the name of god??
would we christians then be able to lift that off our conscience??
doesn't that contradict the basic characteristics of any god??
i honestly need someone to justify or just explain events like genocide in the bible to me

Galendir
July 2nd, 2004, 05:57 PM
I'm not the one making the claim.Realllly?


The God of the Bible does oppose [rape, murder, torture, oppression, etc.] (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showpost.php?p=18015&postcount=21)
Look familiar?

I'll make this very simple for you. (and anyone else who missed the glaringly obvious.)

A: Claim: The God of the Bible opposes X.

G: Claim: The God of the Bible condones X.

A: Support that.

G: After you.

A: I'm not the one making the claim.

Tell me, how does your foot taste Mr. Pot?

Fyshhed
July 2nd, 2004, 06:30 PM
It's a stretch. From that very article...


Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

Be sure to tell me when Bush announces publicly to his nation that he is taking direct orders from God. Until then, this argument is absurd. It's also interesting to see anti-Bushies reach at possibly anything they can to attack Bush. ;)
Apok, even though we all understand the concept of "lost in translation," the parts that would not change would be subjects, verbs, and objects. "I was told by God" is the same as "God told me" and "God said to me." Translation does not slaughter the basic components of language, unless the translator is completely unqualified, which this one MUST have been because Bush would NEVER tell someone that he thought God had some purpose in his quest. Do you attribute the so-called mistranslation to the interpreter or the interpretation? People in other countries are much more capable of dealing with multilinguism than we are. And I would imagine the interpreter in charge of communicating between two leaders of countries would have to be at least "fluent" in both languages.

And for the record, I think Bush only hasn't said that here because if he got caught, he would get in trouble ;)

Apokalupsis
July 3rd, 2004, 09:02 AM
Realllly?

Look familiar?

I'll make this very simple for you. (and anyone else who missed the glaringly obvious.)

A: Claim: The God of the Bible opposes X.

G: Claim: The God of the Bible condones X.

A: Support that.

G: After you.

A: I'm not the one making the claim.

Tell me, how does your foot taste Mr. Pot?
Super! Let's play that game Gal, that will be swell! /rolls eyes

Ex 20:13 - "You shall not murder".

Deut 22:25 - ""But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die."

Mark 12:31 "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Batter up, kiddo.

KevinBrowning
July 3rd, 2004, 03:41 PM
This thread has gotten completely off-topic. This is a thread about Osama's truce offer to Europe. Yet, now people are arguing about whether the God of the Bible is a crazed butcher. Does one's personal opinion of the validity of God's actions and commandments in the Old Testament have any bearing on the relationship between Osama and European governments?

Slipnish
July 3rd, 2004, 04:18 PM
It's a stretch. From that very article...


Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

Be sure to tell me when Bush announces publicly to his nation that he is taking direct orders from God. Until then, this argument is absurd. It's also interesting to see anti-Bushies reach at possibly anything they can to attack Bush. ;)

Yo Apok:

<blockquote>
“I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.”

George W. Bush said this to George magazine in September 2000. </blockquote>

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/mcnamee/bush_and_god.htm

He started that way.

Not to mention:

<blockquote>President Bush Receiving Orders from God?
In an article about the Middle East peace efforts, Haaretz.com quotes Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas saying that President Bush told him: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did..." Granted, there might have been some miscommunication and/or mistranslation as it made its way from Bush to the news, but the possibility of it being true is deeply troubling. </blockquote>

http://atheism.about.com/blog/a/002295.htm

Now, this has never been, to my knowledge, retracted or even addressed by the White House. Abbas, made the comment in an interview, somewhere...

Any way, I think there is a distinct possiblity that George does indeed think God speaks to him. Don't know about ya'll, but in my business, we give people Thorazine for that... :lol:

Fyshhed
July 5th, 2004, 08:28 AM
This thread has gotten completely off-topic. This is a thread about Osama's truce offer to Europe. Yet, now people are arguing about whether the God of the Bible is a crazed butcher. Does one's personal opinion of the validity of God's actions and commandments in the Old Testament have any bearing on the relationship between Osama and European governments?

It has everything to do with it. The argument is that because each side in the war on terror believes God supports them, this has become a religious crusade. You can't speak international politics without having a knowledge of how the religion affects it. The Middle East atheist population must be incredibly small, and those people are certainly not in their governments.

KevinBrowning
July 8th, 2004, 10:23 AM
It has everything to do with it. The argument is that because each side in the war on terror believes God supports them, this has become a religious crusade. You can't speak international politics without having a knowledge of how the religion affects it. The Middle East atheist population must be incredibly small, and those people are certainly not in their governments.
This a religious jihad according to the Mohammedans, but not to Europe or the U.S. Western governments are not using nearly the amount of religious rhetoric that Mohammedans regularly employ. Bush makes references to God, and unwisely termed the war on terror a crusade once, but he did not mean a Christian Crusade, and he does not have intentions of religious warfare in mind. He envisions it as a fight of good versus evil, with America representing good, and the terrorists, who happen to be Mohammedans, representing evil. I agree with this view.

Demosthenes
July 12th, 2004, 11:23 AM
It has everything to do with it. The argument is that because each side in the war on terror believes God supports them, this has become a religious crusade. You can't speak international politics without having a knowledge of how the religion affects it. The Middle East atheist population must be incredibly small, and those people are certainly not in their governments.

You forget that the initial conflicts between both sides were not religious, so I don't think it's right for people to turn this into a religious crusade. Sure both sides can claim that they have God on their side, but that was only because they want more people beleiving in their cause. Personally I think that it is a very stupid thing to launch a war in the name of religion, because a God is not something that can be understood and judged well enough by a mere person, in order for that person to proclaim that God is on their side. All we know is what is written in the Bible, and I don't think it says anywhere to kill anyone who doesn't beleive in your religion. As for Bush, this is all a popularity contest. If he comes to the conclusion that he will gain more suporters and get re-elected if he withdrew from the war immediately, he would do it without a second thought.

FruitandNut
July 14th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Personally I think that it is a very stupid thing to launch a war in the name of religion, because a God is not something that can be understood and judged well enough by a mere person, in order for that person to proclaim that God is on their side. All we know is what is written in the Bible, and I don't think it says anywhere to kill anyone who doesn't beleive in your religion.

You miss the point Demos. - you think with a clarity and question bald statements from your leaders, regrettibly too many people don't. Islam is riddled with riddles and contradictions. There are for instance many highly implausible and contradictory tales about the 'death' of Jesus, that make the rounds of Islamic thought. During the seige of Medina the profit Mohammed (peace and blessings etc.), was approached about the issue of killing the youngsters and babies in the city. Mohammed's answer was that they were 'their's'. Thus appearing to put an imprimatur on the killing of those who are not of the 'Islamic' fold. This was developed into the concepts of jihad and fatois, all in the name of a just and loving Allah of course. I have been researching many of the contradictions and contrasts between Islam and Christianity, and out of the Old Testiment, the New Testiment and the Qu'ran, the New Testiment is by a long way the most convincing and consistant.