There's an article on the Telegraph.co.uk website entitled, "Al-Qaeda founder launches fierce attack on Osama bin Laden: One of al-Qaeda's founding leaders, Dr Fadl, has begun an ideological revolt against Osama bin Laden, blaming him for "every drop" of blood spilt in Afghanistan and Iraq." by David Blair. February 20, 2009.
Well, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif allegedly has written from prison in Egypt that 9-11 was immoral and counterproductive for al Qaeda. It certainly was immoral and counterproductive. The question though is, has al Qaeda declared that it planned and executed 9-11? Also, even if al Qaeda has (and I've never seen that anywhere — although I haven't made any recent exhaustive attempts to find out), that does not relieve the U.S. of culpability, as in 9-11 being an inside job.
A real criminal investigation that seeks truth only has never been conducted. The George W. Bush administration conducted nothing but a huge cover-up. We still have heard nothing from Barack Obama on this. It is unforgivable that the truth concerning 9-11 is being covered up.
There are people who believe that al Qaeda never stopped being a CIA-front organization designed for disinformation and to serve as a pretext for U.S./globalist imperial ambitions.
The right question isn't whether or not al Qaeda is a tool of the CIA and/or other clandestine U.S. organizations. The right question is just how much of a tool it is.
This Sharif person (aka, Dr. Fadl), blames al Qaeda for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He says there is nothing gained by fighting the U.S., because the U.S. is overwhelmingly killing more and destroying more and taking over more. Well, that's the same type of propaganda used by the Nazis against the resistance. "Resistance is futile" is the heart and soul of Satanic psyops. It's also the method being employed by the Zionist Project against Hamas and Hezbollah (and Syria and Iran if they can have their way there too).
Understand here that I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone should be attacking anyone or destroying anything. I'm simply saying that the propaganda is transparent.
This Fadl has been held by people whose job it is to get Fadl to think and do what he's told. He could have had a conversion of sorts on his own; but since his arrest, he could hardly have been privy to all the "underground" news of the 9-11 Truth Movement for instance unless he has been a witting tool.
There are those who believe that the message of Jesus was psyops designed to get people not to fight back. Well, Jesus hardly preached compliance in anyway that the powers that be would want the masses emulating. Emulating Jesus would be the fastest way, and is the only method really, radically to alter the planet toward what is best regardless of any other philosophy/theology.
What would Mohammed do? Mohammed would violently fight with everything he has. What does Jesus do? Jesus turns the other cheek rather than violently resist them, returns good for evil, and blesses them. Which one frightens the powers that be? Jesus does, of course.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)