SSPX and 9/11

[JKirkLVNV]

They can’t help themselves. At least they dropped the old “the Pope said Mass with a Buddha on the tabernacle” story.

A VERY tired old saw. It was removed as soon as the Buddhists were made aware of their faux pas.

 

[fatima1917]

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden called on Europeans to stop helping the United States in the war in Afghanistan, according to excerpts of a new audiotape broadcast Thursday on Al-Jazeera television.

Bin Laden said it was unjust for the United States to have invaded Afghanistan for sheltering him after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, saying he was the “only one responsible” for the deadly assaults on New York and Washington.

“The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance’s aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that,” the al-Qaida leader said.

FBI analysts were reviewing the tape but were not immediately able to say how long it was or when it might have been recorded nor could they provide other details. Spokesman Richard Kolko said it was being examined “to determine if it is authentic and for any intelligence value.”

“As the FBI has said since 9/11, bin Laden was responsible for the attack,” Kolko said in a statement. "In this latest tape, he again acknowledged his responsibility. This should help to clarify for all the conspiracy theorists, again - the 9/11 attack was done by bin Laden and al-Qaida."

So there you go Gerard and Williamson. Out in the cold again. You have it from the very lips of Bin Laden himself. But I guess since you hate the US Government so much this will still not change the feverish swamp of your minds.

 

[ncjohn]

And just this morning the news has the latest message from bin Laden again claiming to be solely responsible for 9/11.

The speaker also repeats his claim of sole responsibility for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, which killed nearly 3,000 people. He says Afghanistan’s Taliban militia, which allowed al Qaeda to operate from the territory it controlled, had no advance knowledge of the plot.

cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/29/bin.laden.message/index.html

Of course since I’ve never personally seen bin Laden, I’m not sure that he isn’t just a character made up by the CIA and that these tapes aren’t government plots to cover up what really happened.

And not having personally seen the mass graves or the evidence from the death camps, I can’t really be sure that any Jews were actually killed in the holocaust.

But then, since I wasn’t at Trent either, I can’t really be sure there ever was any such council, or that people didn’t just revise history and fabricate those documents.

And I certainly don’t know what the context was for all those constantly-quoted encyclicals as I wasn’t there to hear the interviews when those Popes explained their reasoning. I guess we can probably just reject the entire bunch since absolute certitude and personal knowledge of the context and the veracity of the source is a requirement, not to mention that we have no way of verifying what the mental state was of the Popes issuing them. They may well have been “bad” Popes and we just don’t know it. Certainly if we just decide that we think they were bad Popes we get to reject what they wrote and said.

I’m sorry if I sound cynical, but the entire line of logic from some supposedly superior intellects just doesn’t connect for me. The claim is made that one essentially has to go interview the source to establish all the context, intent and veracity–that mere widespread unanimous reporting which has not been denied is inadequate.

Yet that test is not applied to those Popes that get bashed. Nor for that matter is it applied to previous Popes with whom agreement stands. Negative things about Popes that are not liked are just accepted, and all of what was said by Popes that are liked is accepted without any need for context, intent, or verification beyond the normal reporting that is inadequate to support one’s concerns about this particular “bishop”. And yes, I will put “bishop” in italics in this case.

Bear made the point that one loses credibility in trying to defend the indefensible. Gerard took that to mean–or at least tried to play that card–that one has to “play along to get along.” Of course that is not the truth at all. As Bear rightly pointed out, when one persistently tries to defend something that can’t be defended, people will stop listening to you and you will lose any credibility to proclaim the true things that need to be said, as statements will no longer be trustworthy. It’s not a matter of comprimising one’s beliefs; it’s a matter of being believable.

It is unfortunate in the end. The SSPX has much to offer as an example of holding to our Catholic heritage. They seem to have a great love for God and Church–at least as they see the Church. The continual indefensible claims that get defended and perpetuated however take away any credibility and push them to the fringe. Being on the fringe isn’t inherently bad of course. Jesus and the prophets were certainly on the fringe for they carried radical messages. But in determining whether someone on the fringe is a prophet or untrustworthy, one must look at the fruits. And in this case the fruits just don’t stack up to the gospel.

I’m not ready to go so far as to imply demonic sources, but in my mind there has been a hardening of hearts and minds–partially due to perceived persecution from the Church–that is causing a pride and arrogance in belief of being the “remnant Church” that will hard to step back from. This in turn makes reconcilliation harder and in the end hurts both the Church and the SSPX.

I personally find that very sad.

 

[Seamus_L]

In Oct 2006 a New York Times poll found that only 16 pct of people surveyed believed the government’s explanation for 9-11, while a Zoghby poll that same year had about a 50-50 split, so it doesn’t really make you a kook if you have serious doubts about the findings of the 9-11 Commission. And while I’ve noticed many flaws with the 9-11 Truth Movement’s claims, the weakest comeback I’ve ever heard from it’s opponents is the rather naive rhetorical question "Do you honestly believe our government would murder 3000 of it’s own people " ? We’ll we’ve managed to sweep over 48 million murdered since 1973 under the rug while claiming to be a God fearing nation.

 

[fatima1917]

Very well spoken ncjohn. But over the last few nights I have thought deeply about the statement that Willaimson uttered:

"It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It was a missile that could only have been fired by the American military."

This statement by itself uttered in a public forum in Bedford, Mass. on Nov. 4, 2007 gives a reasoning for those Saudi Arabian young men to leave Saudi Arabia, go to Iraq, and kill American soldiers. You see it is all one big conspiracy by the US Gov. to blow up the Pentagon, kill American servicemen and woman using an American jet bomber with an American missile so that the US Government can go over to the Middle East and destroy Islam. “Let us go and fight and kill the infidel” they say and they go and kill Americans in Irag. So in a sense Williamson is complicit in the killing of American soldiers. He sits the table and the Saudis eat.

 

[fatima1917]

In Oct 2006 a New York Times poll found that only 16 pct of people surveyed believed the government’s explanation for 9-11, while a Zoghby poll that same year had about a 50-50 split, so it doesn’t really make you a kook if you have serious doubts about the findings of the 9-11 Commission. And while I’ve noticed many flaws with the 9-11 Truth Movement’s claims, the weakest comeback I’ve ever heard from it’s opponents is the rather naive rhetorical question "Do you honestly believe our government would murder 3000 of it’s own people " ? We’ll we’ve managed to sweep over 48 million murdered since 1973 under the rug while claiming to be a God fearing nation.

You are sick.

 

[fatima1917]

"It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It was a missile that could only have been fired by the American military."

Actually when you really look at this statement you realize that this comes from the father of all liars, Satan himself. It is just to diabolical not to call it diabolical.

 

[Seamus_L]

Our government is on good terms with the Christian hating Saudis, and the Christian hating Pakistanis, but our unjust invasion of Iraq (according to Catholic teaching) has led to death and persecution for Iraqi Catholics. But don’t take my word for it, take the word of Chaldean Rite Bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim who supports an immediate withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq.
We've never had too much of a problem with Christian hating countries in the past, be it Turkey, Indonesia etc, but I wonder why Syria, where the faith is alive and well and religious processions take place in public got branded as part of the "Axis Of Evil" ?

 

[pnewton]

In Oct 2006 a New York Times poll found that only 16 pct of people surveyed believed the government’s explanation for 9-11, while a Zoghby poll that same year had about a 50-50 split, so it doesn’t really make you a kook if you have serious doubts about the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

As is so common with conspiracy theorists, this 9-11 Truth Movement is lying through its virtual teeth. I looked up the poll and the polls in question had nothing at all to do with the governments complicity in the attacks, yet the are presented as evidence that America is behind them. The poll asked whether peolpe thought the president was *completely *forthcoming about what it knew about the attacks. There is a huge differenece between thinking the government isn’t telling us everything and the government was involved in the attacks.

If there was anything to these theories, why do their proponents need to lie to make a point?

 

[pnewton]

I wonder why Syria, where the faith is alive and well and religious processions take place in public got branded as part of the “Axis Of Evil” ?

The term, which I never liked anyway, had to do with terrorism and potential international threat, not internal issues.

 

[GerardP]

Originally Posted by GerardP
The bishop doesn’t take any money for his interviews. But since you’ve demonstrated nothing but prejudice on the matter, I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know that. Just as you falsely accuse the bishop of not being united to Rome instead of the truth being that he is unjustly persecuted by Rome.

The “you’re a meanie” argument is the only reply your posts warrant. You simply throw mud. Getting into the actual details of what the Bishop discusses is beyond you. And what does “2 other people” have to do with formulating a logical argument? That’s just an illogical appeal to popularity.

I’ll be answering your points in smaller posts for clarities sake.

 

[GerardP]

Regarding the interviews with bishop Williamson that you refuse to listen to:

Gerard wrote:
They are more comprehensive and flesh out ideas that are expressed in the letters. They clarify misunderstandings that people who overreact and give knee jerk responses imbibe in

.

I also think it funny that you expect me to waste time giving you examples we’ve already gone over in other threads but you get to make a blanket statement like this. Now at least maybe you can see why I’m not getting into it.

Other threads are irrelevant. If you want to post a link to back up your claim to have supplied “examples” feel free to. You could also cut and paste your previous arguments. That would take very little time. Unless of course your arguments have been rebutted before. My blanket statement about your posts is evident on this thread.

 

[St_Isidore]

Wow! I’m shocked it only took 112 posts to bring this up. You guys are getting a little better.

Yeah it takes us a while, since we are not on every day like you, Sure, and JKirk. Just out of curiosity how do the three of manage this many posts (20 000+)? I do not think I could do that in a lifetime. Quite an achievement!
BTW, why not bring 'em up, these events did occur, but of course y’all will always come up alternate views of what actually occurred (which of course are dimensionless).

GOD Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You’ve gone on about this before. Regardless of what you’re told, ie, the Koran kissing was a gesture of courtesy, that the thikta was given by a Christian Indian woman and is a gesture of welcome that has nothing to do with Hinduism, that the nake woman in New Guinea was the responsibility of the local bishops conference, not the Holy See, etc., etc., you’re still determined to think the worst. As was pointed out, this has nothing to do with the topic.

You are an expert in the fields concerning Islam and Hinduism?
With family members who are Hindu and Muslim, and who have associates who are pundits (Devanagari: पण्डित) and Muftis (مفتي) (who are Islamic scholars who is an interpreter Islamic law (Sharia)), you have an incorrect interpretation of those events. It would be wise to speak with individuals such as these, to better your understanding of the events that you and others like Bear06 are misinformed on. Since it is common knowledge that you are incorrect.

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
It’s so obvious that you WANT to remain willfully ignorant. It’s like how bishop Sheen described people’s overreactions are usually representing a conflict within the person and they transfer it to the Church or society or in your case, Bishop Williamson. Probably the fact that he states the truth about the situation in the Church a little to clearly makes you uncomfortable.

I think you mean bishop Sheen.

BTW, this was on SSPX’s very own site and has now been removed. You can believe it or not but I’m here’s my original post with link so I harldy could have faked it. It’s funny that he wrote this when they were only supressed. So, can I listen to him?

I’ve read the letter before. Many good people didn’t and still don’t understand all of the factors around archbishop LeFebvre’s situation. And some believe erroneous information. In 1978 Fr. Malachi Martin wrote about archbishop LeFebvre and thought he’d gone too far at a few moments. He later in life said, 'The older I get, the more I thank the Lord for giving us archbishop Marcel LeFebvre. "

Bishop Sheen like many good bishops were very well-intentioned and didn’t see the problems that would develop. Other good bishops did. Cardinal Siri, Ottaviani, Bacci, Odi, Stickler, archbishop LeFebvre, bishop De Castro Mayer. Later in life, Sheen would make strong statements that while not directly putting the blame on the Council as a catalyst, indicated that Sheen felt very differently about what was going on in the Church. He even regretted “throwing stones” at people. His letter emphasizes the issue of language. Vernacular vs. Latin was not and is not the issue of the SSPX or archbishop LeFebvre.

 

[GerardP]

Can we also listen to him when he says to use the truth found in the Koran to convert the Muslims?

If you’d listen to the Colleen Hammond interview with bishop W, you’ll find he points out that the Mohammedans have natural truths that have bubbled up in their culture. He and Ms. Hammond also point out that there are huge differences.

Gerard wrote:
I haven’t claimed that they didn’t happen. I’m simply demonstrating that the quotes are part of a hatchet job. One that is more convenient for you to believe to keep you in your comfort zone.

You have yet to prove otherwise.

If it were not a hatchet job, you would have provided the context of the quotes about WWII. The absolute unwillingness to explore and the snide commentary is a good indication that it’s a hatchet job.

What I find interesting about the media is that they can wildly quote out of context but they don’t misquote a whole lot because, well, they can actually be sued for that one.

That’s incredibly naive. Sueing someone is costly, time-consuming and only a small percentage of suits accusing slander and liable actually prove worthwhile. Many musicians and celebrities settle even when they believe they are right because it’s cost-effective. And Williamson doesn’t seek his justice in the courts. He knows they are corrupt. He fully expects that he may be martyred if necessary. He believes God is the source for final justice.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard wrote:
You assume that what the bishop states is equivalent to your green sky with polka dots. That’s your attempt at poisoning the well.

No. If he were poisoning the well he would say, “Anyone who thinks Jews were killed in gas chambers is liar doing the bidding of Satan or a loon or an idiot.” He doesn’t. Those attacking him say that about him and anyone who doesn’t condemn him.

Quote:
I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Do you know? If so, how? Or do you just take it on faith?

You weren’t there to see them starved, shot with carbolic acid, etc., etc., etc. Do you doubt it?

Do you take it on faith or not? You won’t answer any simple question posed to you. I suspend judgement when I hear conflicting statements. I don’t believe in the soap and lampshades, I have questions about the gas chambers from what I’ve read. I have questions about the numbers. I have questions about the things I’ve read in Ellie Wiesel’s “the Night” that don’t sound plausible. I don’t believe that Pius XII was an instrument of evil as many accounts declare.

This is no different that what I was originally taught about the Inquisition that has recently begun to be revised.

I guess Edith Stein must be alive and well somewhere.

You guess too much. You guess you know what Williamson knows (since you are soooo much more intelligent than he is.)

And then you set up another straw man with the Edith Stein comment. Did Williamson say no one died in WWII?

Again, do you believe that jews were turned into soap and lampshades by the Nazis? Yes or No?

 

[Arnobius]

You are an expert in the fields concerning Islam and Hinduism?
With family members who are Hindu and Muslim, and who have associates who are pundits (Devanagari: पण्डित) and Muftis (مفتي) (who are Islamic scholars who is an interpreter Islamic law (Sharia)), you have an incorrect interpretation of those events. It would be wise to speak with individuals such as these, to better your understanding of the events that you and others like Bear06 are misinformed on. Since it is common knowledge that you are incorrect.

So… a friend of a friend of a friend again. “Common knowledge” is not so common when it cannot be verified. How about providing us with some sources that have credibility to back your claims?

 

[GerardP]

So… a friend of a friend of a friend again. “Common knowledge” is not so common when it cannot be verified. How about providing us with some sources that have credibility to back your claims?

How come when I ask for sources concerning bishop Williamson, and “the gas chambers” comment, the burden of proof is on Williamson to deny the charges?

Are you going to demand that JKirkLVNV also provide sources to prove the assertion that kissing the Koran was a gesture of courtesy only and not a huge scandal? It’s amazing how the Pope is never responsible for liturgical abuse, his own actions or anything that would have caused outrage if done by a known liberal priest or bishop.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are an expert in the fields concerning Islam and Hinduism?
With family members who are Hindu and Muslim, and who have associates who are pundits (Devanagari: पण्डित) and Muftis (مفتي) (who are Islamic scholars who is an interpreter Islamic law (Sharia)), you have an incorrect interpretation of those events. It would be wise to speak with individuals such as these, to better your understanding of the events that you and others like Bear06 are misinformed on. Since it is common knowledge that you are incorrect.

We’ve discussed intent repeatedly and you keep failing to address that. If I’m incorrect, you’re simply misleading, misleading about the actions of the pope. We are called as Catholics to assume the best about someone’s motives, unless irrefutable evidence is offered to the contrary. You have never offered evidence that the pope’s intentions were other than good AND you constantly accuse him of things for which others were responsible (the Buddha statue, the topless woman, etc.). Let’s assume that the greeting gesture WAS Hindu. Do you know that the pope knew that?