Let us remember the torture and rape of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

[ClaytonB]

I didn't say it was unbiased. I said it was the other side of the story.

Your sources are biased as fuck by the way.

According to who?? The FBI? The CIA? Are you soft in the head??

The sources I gave above are the minority-report. Aafia's case is radioactive for a simple reason: If she does not deserve to be in jail for 86 years, then there are a whole bunch of very powerful Americans -- including Barack Obama and George W Bush -- who are responsible for one of the most horrendous crimes ever committed by the US Government, and that's saying a lot. This is the simple reason that the official "story" about Siddiqui is transparent and obvious bullshit. If you don't like the sources I provided, oh well, it's easier than falling down to see that Dr. Siddiqui's incarceration is one of the most horrendous crimes -- ongoing, by the way -- in the post-911 American insanity.

In a bag she was carrying, the police found a number of documents in English and Urdu describing how to make explosives, chemical weapons, Ebola, dirty bombs, and radiological agents, as well as the mortality rates of certain weapons and handwritten notes referring to a "mass casualty attack" that listed various US locations and landmarks (including the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the New York City subway system), according to her indictment.

Are you a Fed? Do you believe in comic book villains? Have you ever heard of the Christmas Tree bomber? Did the FBI completely fabricate and set up that "event"? Maybe try putting on your "Is the Officer OK?" hat for a second, and try actually asking some critical-thinking questions about this case. If you are not capable of any critical thinking whatsoever, OK, then it won't be obvious to you that Siddiqui -- or anyone, for that matter -- is being unjustly (criminally) incarcerated. But if you are capable of any critical thinking at all, this is as obvious as the sky is blue. There is no "smoke", no "controversy" no "confusion", no "other side" to the case. There is just an obvious crime being committed by the US government stretching 22 years now from Karachi 2003, to this very day.

But the memory-hole censorship is quite effective, I will give you that much!

 

[ClaytonB]

Explain to me Ridley's "motives" to make up this story:

 

[TheTexan]

Are you a Fed? Do you believe in comic book villains? Have you ever heard of the Christmas Tree bomber? Did the FBI completely fabricate and set up that "event"?

This was Afghanistan. Afghan cops don't have the sophistication to plant handwritten documents detailing how to make chemical weapons, a flash drive with 500 electronic documents, maps, photos, and 2 pounds of sodium cyanide. And a bunch of other stuff.

If this was the Feds, explain to me what they were doing in Ghazni Province and were able to track her down when she was travelling under a pseudonym?

What's more likely, this is all a set up by the US Federal Government, or maybe she actually was carrying this stuff on her?

 

[TheTexan]

Explain to me Ridley's "motives" to make up this story:

People have all kinds of personal and political motives, any number of which could apply here. Can't just take one person's testimony at face value.

 

[ClaytonB]

This was Afghanistan. Afghan cops don't have the sophistication to plant handwritten documents detailing how to make chemical weapons, a flash drive with 500 electronic documents, maps, photos, and 2 pounds of sodium cyanide. And a bunch of other stuff.

Do you always just parrot glowie logic like this? Once again, seems out of character for you. Maybe your account has been hacked. Let's start with the "worst-case" scenario that she actually had some naughty books and night-vision goggles, and was writing brainiac, comic-book villain shit in her journal. So what? It proves absolutely nothing except to paranoid glowies who imagine Dr. Evil hiding behind every corner. Legally, it's an absolute nothing-burger. This is the kind of "evidence" that the SOF cowboys use to hog-tie Afghan goat-herders but it's total legal bullshit which is why they had to build Gitmo in the first place... they knew that none of these bullshit charges would ever stick in an actual court of law, so they had to just make a prison they could throw people into forever, without charges. Hence Gitmo. But Siddiqui has been subjected to the most extreme of all measures... they took that steaming load of bullshit and actually presented it in court and star-chambered her into an 86 year sentence so they could murder her in slow-motion in FMC Carswell.

If this was the Feds, explain to me what they were doing in Ghazni Province and were able to track her down when she was travelling under a pseudonym?

There's nothing to explain -- after 25 years, since 9/11, of proven, on-camera, bald-face lying to the American public by the cargo-ship load, the Feds have absolutely ZERO credibility. If the Feds say the sky is blue, I'm looking out my window to double-check it's actually still blue...

What's more likely, this is all a set up by the US Federal Government, or maybe she actually was carrying this stuff on her?

It doesn't MATTER what she was carrying on her. That's the POINT. How you can miss that -- Mr. "Is the officer OK?" -- is beyond me. Cops lie. Federal cops EXTRA lie. And make up all kinds of fantastical "crimes" so they can throw people in jail for getting in their way, which isn't a crime.

The chain of events leading to Siddiqui's arrest is known. Siddiqui was a contact somehow known to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Perhaps a family friend or who knows what. Under torture, he gave her name along with others. The Feds went full-retard and swept her up as a "high-value target" because KSM said her name under torture. One of her surviving children has related seeing the youngest child (a baby) injured during the arrest, possibly killed there. In order to cover up the botched operation, everybody involved wanted to have her and her children disappeared. Siddiqui was disappeared into the black-site prison at Bagram Air Base. Her children were "adopted" to intelligence agency personnel. Siddiqui was later transferred back to ISI who tried to set her up to be assassinated by Afghani police. After that operation was botched, the FBI got involved and arrested her in 2008, which is when the lying US Government claims they first ever had contact with Siddiqui. Whatever happened during that arrest, what absolutely did not happen is that Siddiqui nearly killed five armed, weapons-trained FBI agents which they claim they had to defend themselves against, by shooting her in the stomach, twice. This is the only "crime" that Siddiqui is charged with. And if it were the case that Siddiqui had never crossed US authorities prior to 2008, what would it matter what she was "carrying" in 2003?? Makes no sense. Unless you uncritically lap up whatever bullshit CIA-kipedia feeds you. Your choice.

 

[ClaytonB]

People have all kinds of personal and political motives, any number of which could apply here. Can't just take one person's testimony at face value.

Right back at you, times a million because the Feds are proven liars.

 

[TheTexan]

Do you always just parrot glowie logic like this? Once again, seems out of character for you. Maybe your account has been hacked. Let's start with the "worst-case" scenario that she actually had some naughty books and night-vision goggles, and was writing brainiac, comic-book villain shit in her journal.
So what? It proves absolutely nothing except to paranoid glowies who imagine Dr. Evil hiding behind every corner. Legally, it's an absolute nothing-burger.

Legally it's a nothing burger but it does give reason to believe she might be a terrorist.

It adds context to the other things that she's accused of.

Normal people don't just walk around with terrorist manuals and sodium cyanide.

Does she have a right to carry it? Sure.

Is she probably a terrorist if she's carrying that stuff? Yep, probably.

they knew that none of these bullshit charges would ever stick in an actual court of law, so they had to just make a prison they could throw people into forever, without charges. Hence Gitmo. But Siddiqui has been subjected to the most extreme of all measures... they took that steaming load of bullshit and actually presented it in court and star-chambered her into an 86 year sentence so they could murder her in slow-motion in FMC Carswell.

I oppose Gitmo and all prisons in general but that doesn't really change the fact that yea she probably is a terrorist lol.

Whatever happened during that arrest, what absolutely did not happen is that Siddiqui nearly killed five armed, weapons-trained FBI agents which they claim they had to defend themselves against, by shooting her in the stomach, twice. This is the only "crime" that Siddiqui is charged with.

Considering that she's probably a terrorist, I'd say there's probably a good chance that things happened pretty much exactly how they described it to have happened.

 

[ClaytonB]

Legally it's a nothing burger but it does give reason to believe she might be a terrorist.

You mean, she might have been trying to drone-bomb tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreign nationals? Like all American Presidents in recent memory have done? Do you even listen to yourself? Are we really in the dead-Internet apocalypse? Are there actually zero living souls online??

It adds context to the other things that she's accused of.

In court, that's called hearsay. Cowboy tactics don't work in court. If you want to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, you don't get to cheat on the exam, you have to actually prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Normal people don't just walk around with terrorist manuals and sodium cyanide.

Who cares??? It's meaningless nonsense, typical FBI paranoia.

Does she have a right to carry it? Sure.

Is she probably a terrorist if she's carrying that stuff? Yep, probably.

"Terrorist" is a made-up boogeyman word, a fnord, verbal sorcery, a mass-mind-control trick. The real terrorists all live or work in Washington, DC.

I oppose Gitmo and all prisons in general but that doesn't really change the fact that yea she probably is a terrorist lol.

You obviously lost the plot somewhere along the way.

Considering that she's probably a terrorist, I'd say there's probably a good chance that things happened pretty much exactly how they described it to have happened.

That's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. Aafia Siddiqui was a Mom of 3 kids, kidnapped after just having visited her parents. The idea that she's a globe-trotting super-villain because KSM named her under torture and she had materials in Karachi that make Fed glowies feel paranoid is the most idiotic cover story ever concocted. Even if every claim that has been made by the lying Feds were true, she still should not have been sentenced to 86 years, being murdered in slow-motion in FMC Carswell. There isn't even a legal basis for her to have been charged by US authorities, they are literally operating on no legal authority whatsoever.

It may not matter to you now what I say but mark my words -- there is heavenly fire descending upon this nation as we write here. You will not escape, nor will anyone else. I sincerely hope you find Jesus. You have no other hope, nor does any other American. God's justice is not deferred to "one day", it is arriving more swiftly than anyone can imagine -- it was here all along. Nihilistic apathy will do you no good while writhing in the flames of divine wrath. In the end, the argument of the wicked is not merely "I don't see the evidence (for God)", it is an active, witting rebellion and resistance against God. The real terrorism... Satan and his angels, and their human henchmen on earth. Comic-book villians according to the hard-bitten skeptics like you... who also believe in comic book villains like a 100-pound Pakistani Mom with 3 children taking down 5 armed Federal agents in an Aghan police-station. All I can say is that you better enjoy the ride while it lasts, because forever is a long time to burn. Hell is more real than the screen you are reading this on.

 

[TheTexan]

You mean, she might have been trying to drone-bomb tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent foreign nationals? Like all American Presidents in recent memory have done? Do you even listen to yourself? Are we really in the dead-Internet apocalypse? Are there actually zero living souls online??

The US bombs people and terrorists bomb people. They're both bad. One does not excuse the other.

In court, that's called hearsay. Cowboy tactics don't work in court. If you want to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, you don't get to cheat on the exam, you have to actually prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not trying to prove anything in court. I'm just saying, there is really good reason to believe that she's a terrorist. That's the only thing I'm saying here.

I'm not saying she should be held in Gitmo, or tortured, I'm just saying there's pretty good reason to suspect she's a terrorist. And you haven't really said anything to dispel me of that notion.

Who cares??? It's meaningless nonsense, typical FBI paranoia.

You do realize there are actual terrorists out there and it's not entirely bullshit right? I'm sure if she had suicided vested a bunch of people, those people's family are the people who would "care".

"Terrorist" is a made-up boogeyman word, a fnord, verbal sorcery, a mass-mind-control trick. The real terrorists all live or work in Washington, DC.

Yea, suicide bombing is totally imaginary, not a real thing at all. Sure thing buddy.

You obviously lost the plot somewhere along the way.

Woman carries a bag with like 40 different terrorist things in it and you say she's "obviously innocent". Who's lost the plot again?

That's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. Aafia Siddiqui was a Mom of 3 kids, kidnapped after just having visited her parents.

Yea, terrorists don't have kids or families, everyone knows that.

The idea that she's a globe-trotting super-villain because KSM named her under torture and she had materials in Karachi that make Fed glowies feel paranoid is the most idiotic cover story ever concocted.

It's not like she had a digital copy of the anarchist cookbook on her Kindle and that's what they arrested her for. She had serious terrorist shit in her bags, and you're discounting it like it's nothing at all. Just because it's legal to carry around terrorist shit doesn't mean it's not super suspicious as fuck.

If you see a person with a pickup truck filled with buckets of fertilizer wired with detonators, along with books on how to blow up a building for maximum casualties, are you just gonna wave at him and be like "howdy friend its a beautiful day"? Even if you don't intend to do anything about it, you would have still know he intends to kill people right? Even though it's "legal" to have fertilizer and books? I'm not even saying you should report him or even do anything, but you'd have to fucking at least know he plans to kill people, and he's not "obviously innocent"?

Even if every claim that has been made by the lying Feds were true, she still should not have been sentenced to 86 years, being murdered in slow-motion in FMC Carswell. There isn't even a legal basis for her to have been charged by US authorities, they are literally operating on no legal authority whatsoever.

As I said previously, I oppose all prisons, in practice and in principle. So yea, she shouldn't have been sentenced to prison at all. But she's still, most likely, a terrrorist lol.

It doesn't mean we need to lock her up. It doesn't necessarily mean we even need to do anything. But that woman, yea, probably a terrorist.

It may not matter to you now what I say but mark my words -- there is heavenly fire descending upon this nation as we write here. You will not escape, nor will anyone else. I sincerely hope you find Jesus. You have no other hope, nor does any other American. God's justice is not deferred to "one day", it is arriving more swiftly than anyone can imagine -- it was here all along. Nihilistic apathy will do you no good while writhing in the flames of divine wrath. In the end, the argument of the wicked is not merely "I don't see the evidence (for God)", it is an active, witting rebellion and resistance against God. The real terrorism... Satan and his angels, and their human henchmen on earth. Comic-book villians according to the hard-bitten skeptics like you... who also believe in comic book villains like a 100-pound Pakistani Mom with 3 children taking down 5 armed Federal agents in an Aghan police-station. All I can say is that you better enjoy the ride while it lasts, because forever is a long time to burn. Hell is more real than the screen you are reading this on.

The way I look at it, is if Hell does exist, and God created Hell, then there's no fucking way I am worshipping a God that throws people in an eternal torture prison.

I am against prisons in all of its forms.

 

[ClaytonB]

The US bombs people and terrorists bomb people. They're both bad. One does not excuse the other.

The US government is the global terrorist par excellence, nobody else is even remotely comparable. There is no moral equivalence between Mom of 3 Dr. Siddiqui, and the US government -- they are criminal thugs who bag&gagged this Mom for no good reason in 2003, apparently murdered her youngest child during the botched operation, and then proceeded to repeatedly botch one of the biggest and longest coverup operations they have ever run. That's what happened in this case, no matter how CIA-kipedia tries to spin it.

I'm not trying to prove anything in court. I'm just saying, there is really good reason to believe that she's a terrorist. That's the only thing I'm saying here.

And you're blatantly, obviously wrong. Siddiqui was named by a man under torture. Most of the negative content in the CIA-kipedia article comes from her EX, which is total bullshit. So no, there is NO reason, let alone a good reason, let alone a "really good" reason, to believe she was ever involved in any kind of terrorism. And once again, even if it were true that she or an associate of hers had bought night-vision goggles and anarchist books and had scribbled comic-book villain shit in her diary, those are not crimes, let alone terrorism, which is a boogey-man word for "super-crime". Aafia Siddiqui is not any kind of criminal, let alone a super-criminal terrorist. Rather, she is a 20+ year-long lesson written out in the life of a cosmically injured, innocent woman about the dangers of every bill that the US government passed in the wake of 9/11 to confer upon itself unconstitutional authorities that it does not actually have and never had. Everything that has been done to Siddiqui has been strictly extra-judicial, that is, a crime, that is, the real terrorism. What has been done to Aafia Siddiqui is what real terrorism actually looks like.

And you haven't really said anything to dispel me of that notion.

Yeah, it's not my job to think for you. If you're so morally apathetic that you don't care about the legal distinction between hearsay and actual testimony, there's nothing I can do for you. You're already just another NPC-zombie.

You do realize there are actual terrorists out there and it's not entirely bullshit right?

No, I don't realize that at all. The War of Terror [sic] was launched by the actual terrorist, against an entirely fabricated fiction called "global terrorism" in precisely the same architecture in which the earlier, failing War on Drugs had been launched domestically. The War on Drugs was drying up, there weren't any more Escobar-style boogey-men to keep raiding and justifying multi-billion dollar budgets with. The American Permanent War Establishment in DC -- the real global terorrists -- needed fresh prey, they needed new names to feed into the headlines. They needed a war against "terrorism". So, they themselves concocted and executed a plan to destroy the World Trade Center and other fictional events that supposedly happened on 9/11 in order to serve as the "New Pearl Harbor" event (their term, see the 2000 Project For the New American Century report which used this term just one year prior to 9/11) and launch their "global War of Terror" [sic].

It isn't just entirely bullshit, the very people who appointed themselves the Global Sheriff policing terrorism are the terrorists and, measured in absolute terms, the only terrorists of any consequence.

I thought you knew this.

I'm sure if she had suicided vested a bunch of people, those people's family are the people who would "care".

Yea, suicide bombing is totally imaginary, not a real thing at all. Sure thing buddy.

In Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's case, it's literally imaginary. Pakistani ISI (probably on instruction from our totally non-terrorist CIA) instructed Siddiqui to go wait at an Afghan mosque to meet her lost child. They sent her with her son, wearing a coat that looked like it could be a suicide vest. Some anonymous informant then called in a tip to Afghanistan police (who, recall, are practically an extension of the US military) that htere was a female suicide bomber at the mosque. By a literal miracle, this completely unarmed woman and her child were not gunned down by the half-trained Afghan hotheads. So yeah, that was a 100% imaginary and made-up suicide bombing that existed only in the scheming minds of the ISI, presumably the CIA, the Afghan police (not directly involved) and likely some element of the US military or a PMC on the Afghan side. All because of this 100-pound woman PhD who once scribbled some comic-book villain shit in a diary. Allegedly. Alleged by the very same people who tried to set her up to be murdered here, and botched it.

Woman carries a bag with like 40 different terrorist things in it and you say she's "obviously innocent". Who's lost the plot again?

What the hell is a "terrorist thing"? That's glowie talk. Night-vision goggles are now "terrorist things"? No wonder the US is becoming WEFistan, with allies like you, we don't even need COVID-jabbing globalists.

Yea, terrorists don't have kids or families, everyone knows that.

Aafia Siddiqui is a mother of 3 children. The idea that she was running around plotting suicide terrorism is ludicrous. There isn't even "smoke" here, there's just a bunch of Fed glowies farting in a cluster and calling it a methane explosion.

It's not like she had a digital copy of the anarchist cookbook on her Kindle and that's what they arrested her for. She had serious terrorist shit in her bags, and you're discounting it like it's nothing at all. Just because it's legal to carry around terrorist shit doesn't mean it's not super suspicious as fuck.

Oh, not just "terrorist shit", now it's serious terrorist shit! Yeah, she allegedly had a copy of the anarchist cookbook and that's literally the worst "evidence" they had against her until they concocted a new story in 2008 that this 100-pound Pakistani female PhD tried to overpower and gun down a half-dozen trained FBI agents in an Afghan police station, so that's why they had to shoot her in the stomach, twice.

"Super suspicious as fuck" is completely legally meaningless. And that's the BEST they have against her. So her 86-year prison sentence is just another obvious coverup. You can play stupid all you want, but it's as obvious as the sky is blue to anybody who isn't a glowie.

If you see a person with a pickup truck filled with buckets of fertilizer wired with detonators, along with books on how to blow up a building for maximum casualties, are you just gonna wave at him and be like "howdy friend its a beautiful day"?

No, I'm going to ask, "Which one of you is the FBI agent?"

Even if you don't intend to do anything about it, you would have still know he intends to kill people right?

Guilt by association. Legally invalid.

Even though it's "legal" to have fertilizer and books? I'm not even saying you should report him or even do anything, but you'd have to fucking at least know he plans to kill people, and he's not "obviously innocent"?

"He" and "she/Mom" is an important distinction here, even on the absurd basis of the terrorism paranoia which fueled the post-911 campaign of terror waged by the US government all over the world. Almost zero women have been swept up in the US global "counter-terrorism" dragnet and most of them have been processed, discharged and sent on their way. What is the difference between these women and Siddiqui? Hmm, well, one difference is that she is a mother of 3 children, and that -- as best we can work out from the little information we have -- it appears that one of those children was murdered during the botched gag&bag operation run on her in 2003. So yes, the Federales who you now love ankle-humping for whatever reason, had/have every reason to lie about her and cover up what they actually did to her. OBVIOUSLY.

So yea, she shouldn't have been sentenced to prison at all.

OK, you concede the point, so why keep embarrassing yourself by parading your ignorance of this case??

But she's still, most likely, a terrrorist lol.

Aafia Siddiqui is a terrorist in exactly the same sense that Britney Spears is a drug lord.

The way I look at it, is if Hell does exist, and God created Hell, then there's no fucking way I am worshipping a God that throws people in an eternal torture prison.

I am against prisons in all of its forms.

Then you had better get on the side of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hell exists for a good reason, whether you understand it or not.

 

[TheTexan]

The US government is the global terrorist par excellence, nobody else is even remotely comparable. There is no moral equivalence between Mom of 3 Dr. Siddiqui, and the US government -- they are criminal thugs who bag&gagged this Mom for no good reason in 2003, apparently murdered her youngest child during the botched operation, and then proceeded to repeatedly botch one of the biggest and longest coverup operations they have ever run. That's what happened in this case, no matter how CIA-kipedia tries to spin it.



And you're blatantly, obviously wrong. Siddiqui was named by a man under torture. Most of the negative content in the CIA-kipedia article comes from her EX, which is total bullshit. So no, there is NO reason, let alone a good reason, let alone a "really good" reason, to believe she was ever involved in any kind of terrorism. And once again, even if it were true that she or an associate of hers had bought night-vision goggles and anarchist books and had scribbled comic-book villain shit in her diary, those are not crimes, let alone terrorism, which is a boogey-man word for "super-crime". Aafia Siddiqui is not any kind of criminal, let alone a super-criminal terrorist. Rather, she is a 20+ year-long lesson written out in the life of a cosmically injured, innocent woman about the dangers of every bill that the US government passed in the wake of 9/11 to confer upon itself unconstitutional authorities that it does not actually have and never had. Everything that has been done to Siddiqui has been strictly extra-judicial, that is, a crime, that is, the real terrorism. What has been done to Aafia Siddiqui is what real terrorism actually looks like.



Yeah, it's not my job to think for you. If you're so morally apathetic that you don't care about the legal distinction between hearsay and actual testimony, there's nothing I can do for you. You're already just another NPC-zombie.



No, I don't realize that at all. The War of Terror [sic] was launched by the actual terrorist, against an entirely fabricated fiction called "global terrorism" in precisely the same architecture in which the earlier, failing War on Drugs had been launched domestically. The War on Drugs was drying up, there weren't any more Escobar-style boogey-men to keep raiding and justifying multi-billion dollar budgets with. The American Permanent War Establishment in DC -- the real global terorrists -- needed fresh prey, they needed new names to feed into the headlines. They needed a war against "terrorism". So, they themselves concocted and executed a plan to destroy the World Trade Center and other fictional events that supposedly happened on 9/11 in order to serve as the "New Pearl Harbor" event (their term, see the 2000 Project For the New American Century report which used this term just one year prior to 9/11) and launch their "global War of Terror" [sic].

It isn't just entirely bullshit, the very people who appointed themselves the Global Sheriff policing terrorism are the terrorists and, measured in absolute terms, the only terrorists of any consequence.

I thought you knew this.





In Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's case, it's literally imaginary. Pakistani ISI (probably on instruction from our totally non-terrorist CIA) instructed Siddiqui to go wait at an Afghan mosque to meet her lost child. They sent her with her son, wearing a coat that looked like it could be a suicide vest. Some anonymous informant then called in a tip to Afghanistan police (who, recall, are practically an extension of the US military) that htere was a female suicide bomber at the mosque. By a literal miracle, this completely unarmed woman and her child were not gunned down by the half-trained Afghan hotheads. So yeah, that was a 100% imaginary and made-up suicide bombing that existed only in the scheming minds of the ISI, presumably the CIA, the Afghan police (not directly involved) and likely some element of the US military or a PMC on the Afghan side. All because of this 100-pound woman PhD who once scribbled some comic-book villain shit in a diary. Allegedly. Alleged by the very same people who tried to set her up to be murdered here, and botched it.



What the hell is a "terrorist thing"? That's glowie talk. Night-vision goggles are now "terrorist things"? No wonder the US is becoming WEFistan, with allies like you, we don't even need COVID-jabbing globalists.



Aafia Siddiqui is a mother of 3 children. The idea that she was running around plotting suicide terrorism is ludicrous. There isn't even "smoke" here, there's just a bunch of Fed glowies farting in a cluster and calling it a methane explosion.



Oh, not just "terrorist shit", now it's serious terrorist shit! Yeah, she allegedly had a copy of the anarchist cookbook and that's literally the worst "evidence" they had against her until they concocted a new story in 2008 that this 100-pound Pakistani female PhD tried to overpower and gun down a half-dozen trained FBI agents in an Afghan police station, so that's why they had to shoot her in the stomach, twice.

"Super suspicious as fuck" is completely legally meaningless. And that's the BEST they have against her. So her 86-year prison sentence is just another obvious coverup. You can play stupid all you want, but it's as obvious as the sky is blue to anybody who isn't a glowie.



No, I'm going to ask, "Which one of you is the FBI agent?"



Guilt by association. Legally invalid.



"He" and "she/Mom" is an important distinction here, even on the absurd basis of the terrorism paranoia which fueled the post-911 campaign of terror waged by the US government all over the world. Almost zero women have been swept up in the US global "counter-terrorism" dragnet and most of them have been processed, discharged and sent on their way. What is the difference between these women and Siddiqui? Hmm, well, one difference is that she is a mother of 3 children, and that -- as best we can work out from the little information we have -- it appears that one of those children was murdered during the botched gag&bag operation run on her in 2003. So yes, the Federales who you now love ankle-humping for whatever reason, had/have every reason to lie about her and cover up what they actually did to her. OBVIOUSLY.



OK, you concede the point, so why keep embarrassing yourself by parading your ignorance of this case??



Aafia Siddiqui is a terrorist in exactly the same sense that Britney Spears is a drug lord.

Lol if you don't even want to acknowledge that terrorists exist besides the US government, then I don't know what to tell you.

Then you had better get on the side of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hell exists for a good reason, whether you understand it or not.

Hard pass. There is no "good reason" to invent an eternal torture prison. That is sadistic evil, pure and simple.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[ClaytonB]

Lol if you don't even want to acknowledge that terrorists exist besides the US government, then I don't know what to tell you.

"Lol if you don't even want to acknowledge that counterfeiters exist besides the Federal Reserve, then I don't know what to tell you."

Yeah, they exist. They are a mosquito by comparison to a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Hard pass. There is no "good reason" to invent an eternal torture prison. That is sadistic evil, pure and simple.

Well, this thread is pointing in the direction of why an eternal torture prison exists. Because men are so wicked, that we will even rationalize the ongoing torture of an innocent woman at the hands of a multi-trillion dollar institution trying to cover its ass for its past crimes. That's one of many reasons that hell must exist. If hell does not exist, God is not just. God is just. Therefore, hell exists.

 

[TheTexan]

"Lol if you don't even want to acknowledge that counterfeiters exist besides the Federal Reserve, then I don't know what to tell you."

Yeah, they exist. They are a mosquito by comparison to a Tyrannosaurus Rex.



Well, this thread is pointing in the direction of why an eternal torture prison exists. Because men are so wicked, that we will even rationalize the ongoing torture of an innocent woman at the hands of a multi-trillion dollar institution trying to cover its ass for its past crimes. That's one of many reasons that hell must exist. If hell does not exist, God is not just. God is just. Therefore, hell exists.

I'm an innocent person and I'm gonna be locked up in an eternal torture prison.

But I guess it's fine when God does it?

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm an innocent person

None of us are truly innocent. Every one of us has done wrong, and you know it.

 

[TheTexan]

None of us are truly innocent. Every one of us has done wrong, and you know it.

Okay and that justifies throwing us into an eternal torture prison how exactly?

 

[ClaytonB]

Okay and that justifies throwing us into an eternal torture prison how exactly?

Nobody said that God throws people in hell for just any offense. The point is that the claim that any of us is completely innocent is false, so it's not a valid defense.

The Gospel gives the correct explanation of our legal status before God, and how God has provided us salvation so that we can escape hell. The correct explanation is that when Adam and Eve disobeyed, this was a rebellion against God with material consequences because God really and truly delegated authority to them when he created them (see Gen. 1:26-28).

If I put you in charge of my hydrogen plant with strict instructions to never leave the hydrogen valve open because you will die, but you go ahead and open the hydrogen valve because you felt like having a little fun, you cannot complain that I was "too strict" because I 'allowed" the hydrogen plant to explode and kill you because, obviously, that's what's going to happen when you leave the hydrogen valve open, which is why I told you to never do it. When God delegated rule of the earthly creatures to Adam and Eve, it was not a farce, he truly left them in charge, and so their disobedience had material consequences. The world we live in today -- the very world of evil and murder that atheists appeal to as "proof" that a good and omnipotent God cannot exist -- IS the very material consequence of their disobedience. This place of murder, sickness, aging and death is the very thing that God was trying to prevent Adam and Eve from being dragged into. When they disobeyed God, Satan got his wish and he was able to drag Adam and Eve into his torture-dungeon of agony and death ---- look around you, this is the place where we presently are, Satan's playground. This is the death which God had sought to prevent Adam and Eve (and their descendants, us) from being dragged into when he commanded them "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Our parents disobeyed anyway, and here we are.

Death is the pathology of sin. Hell is the pathology of death. This is cause and effect, like "If you leave the hydrogen valve open, the hydrogen plant will explode." God didn't cause our parents to disobey, they did that by their own choice. He clearly told them the consequences of disobedience (death, where we now reside). They disobeyed anyway, and we are all now born into death, children of sin.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over FROM death TO life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. (John 5:24,25)

You are dead, even while you believe you are alive.

We know that we have passed FROM death TO life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love REMAINS in death. (1 John 3:14)

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 15:20)

That the Christ would suffer and, as the FIRST to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:23)

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the FIRSTBORN from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (Colossians 1:18)

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, (Colossians 2:13)

As for you, YOU WERE DEAD in your transgressions and sins, (Ephesians 2:1)
... made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. (Eph. 2:5)

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." (Eph. 5:14)

For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. (John 5:21)

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate... But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'" (Luke 15:24,32)

... before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Rev. 1:5)

"To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. (Rev. 3:1)

Adam and Eve died the very day they ate of the fruit, just as God said they would. The Gospel is about how we get out of here...

 

[TheTexan]

Nobody said that God throws people in hell for just any offense. The point is that the claim that any of us is completely innocent is false, so it's not a valid defense.

Well he seems to be fine with throwing me into hell for the ultimate sin of not worshipping him. Kind of a dick move don't ya think?

Even the mere existence of an eternal torture prison is a fucked up thing regardless of the "reasons" he might throw someone in there.

The Gospel gives the correct explanation of our legal status before God, and how God has provided us salvation so that we can escape hell. The correct explanation is that when Adam and Eve disobeyed, this was a rebellion against God with material consequences because God really and truly delegated authority to them when he created them (see Gen. 1:26-28).

If I put you in charge of my hydrogen plant with strict instructions to never leave the hydrogen valve open because you will die, but you go ahead and open the hydrogen valve because you felt like having a little fun, you cannot complain that I was "too strict" because I 'allowed" the hydrogen plant to explode and kill you because, obviously, that's what's going to happen when you leave the hydrogen valve open, which is why I told you to never do it. When God delegated rule of the earthly creatures to Adam and Eve, it was not a farce, he truly left them in charge, and so their disobedience had material consequences. The world we live in today -- the very world of evil and murder that atheists appeal to as "proof" that a good and omnipotent God cannot exist -- IS the very material consequence of their disobedience. This place of murder, sickness, aging and death is the very thing that God was trying to prevent Adam and Eve from being dragged into. When they disobeyed God, Satan got his wish and he was able to drag Adam and Eve into his torture-dungeon of agony and death ---- look around you, this is the place where we presently are, Satan's playground. This is the death which God had sought to prevent Adam and Eve (and their descendants, us) from being dragged into when he commanded them "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Our parents disobeyed anyway, and here we are.

Either God is all powerful and he's responsible for creating an eternal torture prison, or he's not all powerful and it wasn't up to him. Which is it?

Death is the pathology of sin. Hell is the pathology of death. This is cause and effect, like "If you leave the hydrogen valve open, the hydrogen plant will explode." God didn't cause our parents to disobey, they did that by their own choice. He clearly told them the consequences of disobedience (death, where we now reside). They disobeyed anyway, and we are all now born into death, children of sin.

You are dead, even while you believe you are alive.

Adam and Eve died the very day they ate of the fruit, just as God said they would. The Gospel is about how we get out of here...

If hell is simply just the absence of life, that's basically just atheism without the extra steps.

 

[ClaytonB]

Well he seems to be fine with throwing me into hell for the ultimate sin of not worshipping him. Kind of a dick move don't ya think?

The problem with your (all too common) line of reasoning is that you are conflating human power and divine power. When a cult-leader says to his followers, "You must all bow down and worship me", this is carnality, that is, it is power motivated by purely selfish ends. Rebellion against God cannot be compared to sensible refusal to worship an egotistical cult-leader because God is unlike any human -- God is Life itself, Truth itself (John 14:5), Love itself (1 John 4:8), Light itself (1 John 1:5). Thus, whatever Good is, God is that -- he is that by definition. Anything other than the truest Good, is not God. For this reason, God deserves to be worshiped, which is another way of saying that nothing but the Good deserves to be worshiped. If you hate psychopathic egotistical cult leaders who make their followers grovel and worship, then you ought to love God and desire to worship him instead, because He is far more opposed to that carnality than you could ever be. God is more just than we are, not less. He is more good than we can possibly be, not less. And because he saves us from sin, God is more merciful and understanding than any human. This is why it's foolish and proud to put oneself up in judgment of God. "Why is there hell? What sort of God would allow hell to exist??" Asked respectfully, those are valid questions with substantial answers (if you're ready to get down into the details of theology). But asked in pride, they are just mind-traps by which the devil drags men off to hell with himself.

Even the mere existence of an eternal torture prison is a fucked up thing regardless of the "reasons" he might throw someone in there.

On that we agree. But is God himself responsible for that state of affairs? In one of his videos, Bishop Barron shared a quote from a Catholic theologian: "Hell is locked from the inside". And that's the truth of it. We speak of God casting people into hell, but the reality is that God does not actively throw them into hell, he simply stops, at some point, trying to pull them out of the flames (Rom. 1:18ff, etc.)

Either God is all powerful and he's responsible for creating an eternal torture prison, or he's not all powerful and it wasn't up to him. Which is it?

It's a false-dichotomy. There is a sin which deserves eternal punishment, and it is none other than the sin of attempting to destroy the immortal soul, that is, to create and impose hell. That is precisely the devil's whole project, and everyone he ropes into it, has precisely his goal as well. Together, they all deserve the eternal torments they will inflict on one another for all eternity. Have you never looked at a Hieronymous Bosch painting? One might argue that those paintings are too weird to be a mere work of the human imagination. Too "oddly specific", as the kids say these days.

If hell is simply just the absence of life, that's basically just atheism without the extra steps.

The biblical definition of life and death is opposed to the common definition (worldly definition). The worldly definition of life is having breath and a pulse. The prisoner being beaten in some dirt-hole is "alive"... after all, he has breath and a pulse. But that is not life, that is death. Life is to have the Spirit, and the fruits of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22,23). That is life. To be without these is to be dead. That is why this world is dead, it is almost completely devoid of the fruits of the Spirit, but for the provision that God makes by his common grace, as well as through the Gospel (salvation). Everything else is dead, and soon to fall into the flames of hell because hell is just the long-run consequence of the deeds of the flesh, left unchecked (Gal. 5:19-21, compare to Gen. 6:1ff and Matt. 24:37ff.)

If atheism were merely a neutral assertion that there is no God, it would not be of much consequence. But the only real reason that someone needs to assert atheism is in order to justify rebellion against God. If you merely do not believe because you didn't see "evidence", that is the most trivial problem in the world for God to solve, he's got "evidence" on tap. But that's never really the issue, the issue is behavioral... are you wiling to submit to the good will of God and be truly righteous? It is the refusal to live righteously, and the insistence on cherishing favored sin, that is the real cause of unbelief. This is why Scripture says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)

 

[TheTexan]

But is God himself responsible for that state of affairs? In one of his videos, Bishop Barron shared a quote from a Catholic theologian: "Hell is locked from the inside". And that's the truth of it. We speak of God casting people into hell, but the reality is that God does not actively throw them into hell, he simply stops, at some point, trying to pull them out of the flames (Rom. 1:18ff, etc.)

Regardless of where it's locked, inside or outside, presumably it was still God that created it, because God created everything and he's all powerful. Right?

If God created an eternal torture prison, then I'd rather burn in hell than worship him.

It's a false-dichotomy. There is a sin which deserves eternal punishment, and it is none other than the sin of attempting to destroy the immortal soul, that is, to create and impose hell. That is precisely the devil's whole project, and everyone he ropes into it, has precisely his goal as well. Together, they all deserve the eternal torments they will inflict on one another for all eternity. Have you never looked at a Hieronymous Bosch painting? One might argue that those paintings are too weird to be a mere work of the human imagination. Too "oddly specific", as the kids say these days.

Eternal punishment is just sick and sadistic. Sure, Satan created it okay. But God created Satan, did he not?

If God is all powerful he can't just abdicate responsibility by saying "satan did it".