Charlie Hebdo to attack Muslims again

[Heyo]

Osama Bin Laden himself claimed it in 2004 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654

And no-one believed him (or that the message was authentic), not even the CIA.

 

[danieldemol]

And no-one believed him (or that the message was authentic), not even the CIA.

I'm not sure what you mean here, the FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks.[326]

Perhaps you could provide the source for your claim so that a clearer picture may be revealed

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure what you mean here, the FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks.[326]

Perhaps you could provide the source for your claim so that a clearer picture may be revealed

"June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” "
from FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” - Global Research

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have just started to learn more then the basics of Islam, but I can still defend Islam because I see how happy my girlfriend is as a muslim, so bugger of with your negative words. I am tired of the atheists know more then you bullcrap.

You can defend a theological position if you like. But you will need to understand the theological position.
Or you can choose a different defence.

But you raised the OP and seem completely unable or unwilling to even discuss whether the common view that Muhammed shouldn't be drawn is based on Quranic teachings, hadith, or just 'common wisdom'.

Don't blame respondents...atheist or otherwise...if the ground you're standing on seems more than a little shaky.

 

[McBell]

And no-one believed him (or that the message was authentic), not even the CIA.

This is simply not true.
There are loads of people who believe it to this day...

 

[danieldemol]

"June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” "
from FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” - Global Research

Did the people of the muckraker report think to archive any of the pages or quotations they are alleging occurred?

Because without them it just looks like a page of claims.

It would be interesting to forward the Muckraker page to the FBI for comment if the claims could be substantiated, but i wouldn't bother doing that for unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Heyo]

Did the people of the muckraker report think to archive any of the pages or quotations they are alleging occurred?

They didn't. That's what the way-back-machine is for:
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

 

[FearGod]

We're all behind the scene, you can never find where the truth is, and even if
you find the truth nothing can be done, we watched for example how a black
person is killed for no reason, black and white Americans protested against it,
but that won't stop it.

Bush and Bin Laden family both has connections with Carlyle Group which is
dealing with billions of dollars, Taliban and Alqa'eda was employed by USA
in Afghanistan, these are facts but nothing can be done against those who are in the top.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read this article about science progress in Iran.

You shouldn't be surprised if you heard in the near future that Iran became a superpower.

In the "near" future ha?
You do understand that the article is about increased science activity internally in iran, right?
It isn't saying that it has become a world player. It still has a long way to go for that. Furthermore, their growth is primarily due to nuclear research. Perhaps instead of "superpower", you actually meant "nuclear power".

Off course, if you come from low activity and invest a bit into research, your increase in activity will be immense quickly.

In any case, you didn't actually answer my question. My question wasn't about the status of scientific activity in iran. It was about its implementation / compliance to "islamic rules" in your opinion. If the way it adheres to what they call islamic rules matches what you believe to be the "right rules".

You seem to say that the saudi's aren't true scotsma... err... muslims. So Iran is doing it "correctly"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's time you let others believe what they want, it's free to be a Muslim, it's free to be Christian or any other religious view. Just top it, I heard your view enough.

At no point in this entire exchange has @Joe W said / claimed / implied that people shouldn't be free to believe what they want.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And most of the differences are over small things.

yet big enough to form a seperate church and accuse the others of not being "true christians (tm)".

yet big enough to kill eachother over it as well.

 

[FearGod]

In the "near" future ha?
You do understand that the article is about increased science activity internally in iran, right?
It isn't saying that it has become a world player. It still has a long way to go for that. Furthermore, their growth is primarily due to nuclear research. Perhaps instead of "superpower", you actually meant "nuclear power".

Off course, if you come from low activity and invest a bit into research, your increase in activity will be immense quickly.

In any case, you didn't actually answer my question. My question wasn't about the status of scientific activity in iran. It was about its implementation / compliance to "islamic rules" in your opinion. If the way it adheres to what they call islamic rules matches what you believe to be the "right rules".

You seem to say that the saudi's aren't true scotsma... err... muslims. So Iran is doing it "correctly"?

I don't live in Iran and I don't know how exactly their rules are implemented, the media
isn't enough source due to their bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They're not getting their violent terrorist practices from Islamic scripture. They're revolutionary insurgent groups that popped up to kick the Westerners who are occupying their countries out and they tend to view their occupation as a sign that God isn't happy with the Muslim world. They took the suicide bombing tactics from non-Muslim groups like the Tamil Tigers, who use it in their own insurgency. There's nothing in Islam that supports any sort of suicide. It is a major sin, so obviously they're getting that from somewhere else. Traditional Islamic doctrine concerning warfare opposes killing women and children, IIRC. No mainstream religion supports such things as that's just psychopathic.

And again, why does the US and Israeli governments support terrorism exporters like KSA and arm jihadists? This is known fact, not some "conspiracy" you can lazily try to wave away.

Still in denial. Have you ever spoken with these people, or otherwise radicalised ones that aren't associates but just sympathisers?

You should.
They don't call it suicide. They call it martyrdom.
They defend all their stuff with quran and hadith.

You can downplay it all you like. You can claim all you want that they "misunderstand it" or that the texts "aren't intended like that". Clearly they disagree. And while a minority, they are far too numberous to write them off as if they are an exceptional cult or something.

I can only repeat myself: I call it "being in denial" when people say that it has nothing to do with the religion. Clearly that isn't true. The trends, the amount of militia's, the level of sympathy, the internal barbaric "laws" and punishments,... they can't simply be cast aside and ignored.

 

[ppp]

I don't live in Iran and I don't know how exactly their rules are implemented, the media
isn't enough source due to their bias.

We have access to multiple medias with conflicting biases and perspectives. Find the cross over points. Map the conflicts. Find where it is evident that the person reporting is aware of their bias and attempting to mitigate it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said Christianity, not the Bible. There's a difference between the two.

There isn't. There's no christianity without the bible. Or someone reciting the stories of the bible through oral tradition. Without these stories, there wouldn't be any christianity, because nobody would know anything about it.

Christian teaching does not support slavery.

The bible does.

The things Paul said have to be put into context. He didn't tell slaves to revolt against their masters, most likely because that wouldn't end well (the slaves likely would've been slaughtered).

Dude..... the bible explicitly explains how slavery should be done. It's part of the biblical law. It explains in detail who your can enslave, for how long you can enslave them, how you can trick hebrew slaves into permanent slavery that your children can inherit, who you can buy slaves from, etc.

But Paul did say that slaves and their masters were equals before God, which was a pretty revolutionary statement in those times.

Why didn't he just call it an abomination while forbidding the practice?
Isn't that the only proper thing to say when it concerns slavery?

The prevailing view of the world at that time is that slaves deserved to be enslaved, they were less than others and the gods created those social divisions in the first place, and this was pleasing to them

Why would a benevolent all powerfull god care about that?

Whereas the NT does not present that as being pleasing to God and plants the seeds for abolition by declaring masters and slaves equals.

It doesn't.
Nowhere is slavery condemned. Not even implicitly.
Au contraire, it basicly says "do it, it's fine".

The Jewish Bible isn't really pro-slavery, either, as the Jews were said to be enslaved by the Egyptians and God freed them. That God frees the captives is a leading tenet in Abrahamic religions.

Yet he didn't tell his subjects not to keep slaves. Instead, he regulates the practice.

 

[Muffled]

Islam say portrait of the prophet is not right to do, what is weak about following the teaching?

I believe that would be men saying that not God. I believe there is a tendency to deify Mohammed but he definitely was not an incarnation of God.

 

[Muffled]

The teaching says to wreak havoc if you feel insulted ?
That is pathetic.

I wonder if the replay is to see if they have learned not to wreak havoc.

 

[FearGod]

There isn't. There's no christianity without the bible. Or someone reciting the stories of the bible through oral tradition. Without these stories, there wouldn't be any christianity, because nobody would know anything about it.




The bible does.





Dude..... the bible explicitly explains how slavery should be done. It's part of the biblical law. It explains in detail who your can enslave, for how long you can enslave them, how you can trick hebrew slaves into permanent slavery that your children can inherit, who you can buy slaves from, etc.




Why didn't he just call it an abomination while forbidding the practice?
Isn't that the only proper thing to say when it concerns slavery?



Why would a benevolent all powerfull god care about that?



It doesn't.
Nowhere is slavery condemned. Not even implicitly.
Au contraire, it basicly says "do it, it's fine".



Yet he didn't tell his subjects not to keep slaves. Instead, he regulates the practice.

Slavery existed all times and even today, it won't be solved just by announcing it as illegal
but there should be solutions for those who are enslaved.

Imagine if we recognized that the domestic helpers as being slaved by their masters and
they obey their masters, do this, do that ....etc, if the domestic helpers have no other
jobs but to stay with their masters, what solutions in order to free them from their masters,
you should build houses for them and give them money to live freely, but who'll do that,
many people are starving to live and no body cares, if religion in previous times banned
slavery then many of them will die by starving.

 

[ppp]

The Jewish Bible isn't really pro-slavery, either, as the Jews were said to be enslaved by the Egyptians and God freed them. That God frees the captives is a leading tenet in Abrahamic religions.

Having what the Bible calls the Chosen People freed by the Chooser is not an indictment of slavery. At most, it is an indictment of the enslavement of that privileged group. And since the Bible claims that God specifically and explicitly endorsed chattel slavery and encoded its practices into Mosaic law, I see no justification for any sort of concept of egalitarianism.

Note that I am not referring to the form of (ostensibly) temporary slavery available to Hebrew known as debt bondage. I am talking about the chattel slavery that was imposed on non-Hebrew captives and purchased people.

"A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold." -- What is Slavery?: The Abolition of Slavery Project

 

[FearGod]

Still in denial. Have you ever spoken with these people, or otherwise radicalised ones that aren't associates but just sympathisers?

You should.
They don't call it suicide. They call it martyrdom.
They defend all their stuff with quran and hadith.

You can downplay it all you like. You can claim all you want that they "misunderstand it" or that the texts "aren't intended like that". Clearly they disagree. And while a minority, they are far too numberous to write them off as if they are an exceptional cult or something.

I can only repeat myself: I call it "being in denial" when people say that it has nothing to do with the religion. Clearly that isn't true. The trends, the amount of militia's, the level of sympathy, the internal barbaric "laws" and punishments,... they can't simply be cast aside and ignored.

This is the problem of wars on earth, the quran and hadith.
it was the reason behind the world war 1 & 2 , US and Japan, the laws of the quran are causing troubles between Russia and the west., religion is the problem.