WORDS CANNOT BE EVACUATED

CHAPTER 8

WORDS CANNOT BE EVACUATED

NEWS 179

bin Laden and Israel

Feature Article, The Australian, October 6-7, 2001 (Inquirer p. 25)
and quotation from the man himself, The Advertiser Sept 26, 2001
and 1998

THE WORDS of the man concerned

In moments of stress and fire, sometimes words are emitted, like automatic anti-aircraft fire, which reveal the set of the program. In the case of a person, it may reveal the set of the heart.

On September 26, the report came of bin Laden, lashing out with verbal whips. Filled with the pride and fury of his mass murder, vast demolition and economical ruin, wrought with another nation's aircraft on another nation's buildings, with people who giving their lives, remove the need of complex and expensive rocket guiding equipment, he made a declaration, according to a double page spread in The Advertiser.

This is reported as follows.

'He ended days of silence by appealing for "martyrs" to sacrifice their lives in a battle against Jews and Christians.'
It continues that bin Laden 'promised America a "vain and bloody war", adding terrorism would never end until the US cut its ties with Israel and left the Persian Gulf.'
He is quoted further as saying this: 'We hope these brothers will be the first martyrs in the battle of Islam against the new Jewish and Christian crusader campaign that is led by chief crusader Bush.'

Does this suggest that the Jewish, the Israeli 'question' (you recall it was the 'final solution' to this 'question' which alerted Adolf in his day, and which so many including the pope conveniently left free of comment in the dark days of World War II), is not important to bin Laden ? We notice that the war is not designated a but the 'battle ... against the new Jewish and Christian crusader campaign'. It is further clarified in this, that it is said to be led by President Bush. More: it is not a battle in isolation, but in the setting of a campaign. Nor is it for some Muslims in the view of this prince of destruction (if as the evidence so clearly signifies, he was implicated, knowing of it and not preventing it, to say no more), but it is 'the battle of Islam'.

Hence we find that his stated view is this:

there is a battle;
Islam is its sponsor on one side;
it is against two parties, Jews and others led by Bush.

The former figure starkly in terms of one fact:
they act as a stimulant and source of the campaign
UNTIL President Bush cuts his ties with them.
CUT ties with Israel or fight: that is the declaration. It is more: ALSO leave the Persian Gulf area.

In a quotation from the material presented in Lord of Life Ch. 8, below, we see that the matter is not merely one sudden, ecstatic parade of power and pretension. It was preceded in 1998 by these reported words:

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for very Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it [EMPHASIS ADDED], in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

Here we find that it is deemed a DUTY to kill Americans and their allies.

There is a purpose noted in this: it is "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque... from their grip".

That is part of the complex including the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, called Al-Haram al-Sharif, said to enclose 35 acres of gardens and buildings, and to occupy nearly one sixth of the walled city of Jerusalem!

Thus to the above red-listed aims, there is this new one:

it is to liberate some of the Dome of the Rock complex,
to evacuate all US forces from Israel and all Moslem lands (of which this is clearly designated one, its intrusive element of religion in Jerusalem being deemed a necessary part of its dominion)
and to make Islamic forces insuperable, inevacuable, glorious in their Allah conception.

THE SUMMARY FOUND IN THE AUSTRALIAN
October 6-7, 2001 (Inquirer p. 25)

This being the nature of the words of the man, bin Laden, and without ignoring the fact that these are not his only words, yet we must seek to find how they fit with a statement found in the above article.

Bin Laden, he argues, has not cited the Arab-Israeli conflict as a primary reason for his actions... "I am persuaded that somehow if America started behaving differently the global terrorist threat would go away", says Lindsay.

The writer is here citing a "former National Security Council official under Clinton". Thus the NECESSITY for the US to cut help to Israel, to gain the mosque area concerned in Jerusalem, the crusade situation concerning Jews and the US, these are not a primary motive ? Yet IF the US leaves the Persian Gulf, and IF it leaves Israel naked of help, and IF the Islam domination is unchecked entirely in the Middle East, and IF the Bush led 'crusade' collapses, then all may be well.

How can what is ESSENTIAL and a condition UNWAIVABLE, a requirement with no dismissal, absolute and unconditional be NOT a chief motive ? It is not being stated that it is not THE chief motive, but NOT EVEN A CHIEF MOTIVE.

What is essential to peace is not a chief consideration ? What is explicitly stated as unnegotiable and absolute as a condition of peace, is not a chief motive in the war ?

Now it is true that the whole area of the Middle East is in view; but it is also true that not merely is ISRAEL part of the area SPECIFICALLY mentioned in this vainglorious way, but its abandonment in particular by the US is a condition of peace. It is therefore apparent that the statement cited is inappropriate. What is true from these data is this: that the destruction of the State of Israel, or its complete servitude to Islamic powers is an unconditional requirement of bin Laden. That is scarcely surprising in view of the pan-Islamic conference in Teheran in 1991, dedicated to such an end. Words are not nothing. They tell.

It is in the midst of such levitation from some of them, that we come to equally inappropriate conclusions. Thus, in the article cited above in The Australian, further reference is made to another authority. This time it is the 'defence counsel' for a convicted Moslem assailant on the Word Trade Centre, 1993 version. He declares this: "The central thing to take the wind out of the sails of extreme radicals is to make some kind of change on the Palestinian issue."

This at least takes account of what bin Laden has explicitly said, if not as such, then in style. There can be no doubt that IF removal of the US and its power from Israel, and TOTAL dominion by Islam in the Middle East is REQUIRED for peace, then 'some kind of change on the Palestinian issue' would be productive.

It is rather like saying this, as someone is strangling a young maiden, and a policemen arrives on the scene and brandishing a weapon at the attacker, has pointed at him, a revolver in a spare hand of the thug:

If you make some kind of a change in your aggressive attitude towards me while I am engaging in strangling, it would bring more peace between us.

This would seem clearly true. It is also true that if those who sought to prevent the hijackers from flying the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania, into another building, had not struggled, there could have been more peace on the jet before it crashed into such a building.

They however forsook that sort of peace and struggled, possibly saving masses of lives. It was courageous. If Hitler had not been opposed when he took action in Poland, then the 1939 war might have been avoided. He might have taken more and more, while the world looked on and wondered at his prowess with metal on flesh. Yes, this is possibly true also.

However, when evil is premised, people sometimes do not capitulate. When force is prescribed for people as their god, the one whom they must obey, the force of people with a particular idea in mind, it may be peaceful for some, for a time, while they bash and hash and smash their way into people's craniums and terrain, and seek to impress the force of their ideas in the only way, admittedly, possible: by hacking.

Is it however, though possibly true, that while there might indeed be more peace for a time if people like Israel were ABANDONED to people like bin Laden, whose Taliban has been so kind to women in particular in Afghanistan, as to seek to banish them from professional life, it is also a good thing to change in the direction required! Doubtless, as Sharon rightly pointed out, as in Czechoslovakia's case in 1938, the sop of ignoring the horror could make things easy for a while. It did not make them easier for long; it DID make them harder very quickly, as Hitler gained more territory and industry as a basis for his world dominion, just as Islam is to be unthreatenable, exempt, no minatory force permitted, according to bin Laden, so that it can do PRECISELY what it wants.

Hence it is necessary to point out that JUST AS it is quite mistaken to imagine that ISRAEL is not a primary motive for bin Laden, for three reasons indeed, that the Mosque complex in Jerusalem must be unchallengeable, that Israel must be unprotected, that it is part of the Middle East which must be subjugated entirely or NO PEACE; so it is mistaken to imagine that "some kind of a change" in the US attitude to Palestinian efforts to dislodge Israel from its land, is some kind of a discovery.

It is merely a subsidiary of the fact that when you abandon help to the afflicted, it is easier. We knew that already.

It was known under Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, and it is known now. Force wants the world. It has various ideas back of it. There are other forces. Some want the world too, like Romanism, Communism. Some want part of it. Some just want to be free to do what they want without too much trouble, and so are forceful. This leads to conflict.

If you want to limit that, and not become an immoral midget, in due time reaping the indolence you sow, then it is best NOT to try to rule the world. It was not made by you. Leave that to God. It is best to be gracious to those in need: your turn could come. If you are Christian, you are to love your enemies.

Indeed, there is no point in trying to FORCE people to believe what logic cannot show. Even where it can show, as with Christ, force is not appropriate for the human personality, where conviction is not achieved by moving arms or legs or bank accounts, but in terms of truth. It is true that sin prevents the perception of much, but it cannot invalidate argumentation! Even so, it is for faith to come in its own milieu, not as a pseudo-submission to some almighty Allah who molests in the ways jihads customarily do. Judgment is one thing; aspiration to rule this world by force, it is another.

What then is the change which would be suggested ? Why of course, as one speaker in Lebanon not long ago put it, there should be a perception of the CAUSE of hatred of the USA. And that ? This nation, it is indicated, interferes in the Islamic desire to dominate, and should evacuate so that they can dominate. It is in the way and should remove so that it is not in the way. That is the intimation of this ... wisdom.

Great. It is the 'moral' tone which is injected which is interesting. To be sure, Hitler had his hysterical glamour and his Mein Kampf, and Marx his unremarkable odyssey into the irrational (cf. SMR pp. 614, 927ff.): but here there is a subtle suggestion, not that we should obey these diabolical orders, but that we should show a certain 'change' so that others who DO have them, should be able to execute them as they execute such people as seem to them best executed, so that they might the more readily execute the precise operation which they have in mind.

If you are going to practice cowardice and moral turpitude, it is your own choice. But let us not dress it up as sophisticated public relations, or social conscience. It is enough if the police officer abandons the maiden being assaulted: that is bad. Let us not however join with those who advise him that there would be more peace if he simply looked the other way, and that it would be socially irresponsible to protect her any further.

From bin Laden, then, we find, from his own reported words, that ISRAEL is ONE of the main objectives in his war; that in particular the Mosque complex in Jerusalem is to be wholly liberated; that the Persian Gulf in its entirety is to be left free from non-Islamic power, and that until this is done, no peace. It is as he says, a religious war, and the entire supremacy of Islam is crucial to it: not only to win, but to be super-cat in the presence of mice. One of the chief mice, not in size, but in competitive portent, is Israel. It is, as with Lloyds of London, one of the NAMES!

Those who like being mice might find this appealing. But to be mice when you are men is really a fictitious sort of 'faith', and just as we have demonstrated in the last two volumes, Islam is likewise. It is in the arena of NOT-GOD as we saw. To allow NOT-GOD to rule as much of the world as it likes - and it is provoked in this and that in this and in that area so that jihads regrettably become necessary for this and for that, so that most unfortunately millions can be put into ruin and conflict at the wave of a Surah: this is capitulation.

To rule the world is not a democratic norm. It is an anti-Christian aim in particular (cf. Lord of Life Ch. 8 cf. John 18:36, 14;30). Islam will not manage it, since the ultimate aspirant to this sort of vainglory is to be a MAN who declares himself to BE GOD! (cf. SMR Ch. 8). He is preceded by a force which promotes Statism, the worship of the status quo of religious-political-social synthesis under its dominion. The prayer meeting in the USA where Islamic, Christian and other representatives were approaching some sort of presumably synthetic god, convenient to all and assimilable to one sort of meaning, this is a fitting prelude.

It also makes mockery of Laden's claim of a Christian crusade, as does the change of Operation Infinite Justice to another name, lest Allah be offended, or those who serve this vacuity. The reference to Islam as a good religion which is now repetitively found in the diplomacies of Britain and the US, is further illustration of the ignorant or corrupt folly of Laden's claim. There is already a synthetic religious approach which is asfully in the face of Biblical requirements of purity towards God, as was the airliner in the face of the World Trade Centre. It is similarly almost unspeakable in nature and result.

God does not approve of spiritual paramours (as you see in Proverbs 7 and 8, Ezekiel 16 and 20, Hosea and continually in Isaiah). It is truth or error.

It is God or myth, idol and man as maker of his own ways. To God: NOT EXCEPT BY ME (John 14:6) says Christ.

Hence this approach is nearer to an anti-Christian crusade than a Christian one.

It defiles the Christian requirements^*1,
approves or at least accepts the propriety of the defacers of Christ whose words to that negatively transformative effect are clearly written in the Koran as we have seen, and
combines religions in a way neither rationally possible if you believe ANY of them, nor spiritually meaningful (cf. Lord of Life Chs. 4 and 8).

Truth has fallen in the street, just as in Isaiah 59.

Powers of religious fiction, biblically defined, are moving. These are part of the total conflagration to come (as in Revelation 13-19).

Tremors throughout the Islamic world are being felt, Pakistan being threatened with MILLIONS in the streets if the US attack in Afghanistan (not ON Afghanistan, but on its dictatorship) continues. Thus a Reuter fact box has Iraq declaring "every true believer denounces this action", on the ground it contravenes international law, though it is difficult to see how it is contrary to such law to attack those who invade your country with various agents and instrumentalities, while making a careful distinction between the dictatorial power which possesses and uses the country, and the country itself.

Malaysia declares "we will not take any action or support this action", though its leader certainly took action against his former fellow in government, "Anwar Ibrahim" some of whose adverse witnesses, by report, have now retracted their strange charges.

Indonesia says "it will stay neutral".

The tension between Islamic desire for world dominion (all subject to Allah so that no other name is to be named as in the prescriptions seen in the Koran, as various conflicts break out and inadequate submission is shown to this idol, this NOT-GOD as biblically specified), and a desire to prevent the more obviously obnoxious, ethically outrageous and categorically sorts of sudden murder: this appears to be strong.

There will presumably come a sort of vetting of religions, first to get rid of the some of the force element, since the world can scarcely contain too many world dominions, and live; then to gain a consensus element; and then to ensure that this in some way makes all the convenient (because large) religions SEEM dignified. Later, the weaving of convenience, survival and all those rat-like qualities into the tapestry should require more coercion (for continuance AT ALL! the cry might go), and gradually just as the pope 'arose' to make of himself 'God almighty on earth', incredible as the pretension appears, the Beast ex-Rome (as in Revelation 17 cf. SMR pp. 695ff., 956, Biblical Blessings Ch. 2) will have its man, its total-this-worldly man on hand, and he will do much the same.

In this case, however, it will be done not on the part of an aspirant, but an attainer, one whose power reaches and rules among men, for a very short season. Fiction is so romantic for the bored; but, alas, there is no room for boredom in this fiction. It will demand the very life!

There is no neutral ground. You are for Christ or will be in the wake of whatever synthetic force mechanism is to rage on this earth, their cry so reasonable at first, so treasonable at last, till God Himself destroys them.

As a Christian, if this you be, you are well advised

to worship GOD ONLY,
to serve the LORD'S CHRIST only,
to mix with other gods NOT AT ALL, as in the first of the ten commandments, to love mercy,
to love your enemies but NOT to follow them, and
to keep in heart the love of the Lord, which is not so confused that you do not even know whether or not He has a Son (as Islam denies), or redeems (as Islam does not provide), or really ... matters. This is the thrust of lust, for safety and quietness. It will lead to violence, folly and ruin.

What does one expect ? If truth is to be fallen in the street (Isaiah 59:14), it will be lies that rule
( Thess. 2:4-12). As in Isaiah 59:17-21 and II Thess. 2:8, action is taken. Fire burns the blight.

Liberty is not Lord, but the way to find out. If it is taken as Lord, you become plausibly but not actually autonomous; for God is Lord. It is to find Him, not lose your soul, that liberty is provided.

As to the lies that love to thrust into the world, like fungus in rotten wood: They will then shortly be ruled out. Keep straight.

NOTE

See The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 7. Note also II Corinthians 6:14, forbidding 'yoking together' with unbelievers, while prayer is a formidably intensive intimate yoking in aspiration, application and (properly) revelation based approach to the God who made us. He is not indifferent to admixture for convenience or lust. NO MAN, as Christ said, CAN serve two Masters; and indeed ONE is your Master, even Christ (Matthew 6:24, 23:8-10). Further unless you FORSAKE ALL you have, you CANNOT even be His disciple! (Luke 14). Idols would be included in that, since NO MAN can come to the Father except BY ME, He said! (John 14:6).

Listen moreover to the irony and excoriation involved in the rebuke to the irrationalist, basically agnostic trending work of Israel when it made a mix of things and became so mixed up that its confusion needed consideration even to discern! Mere fog lights would never unfog that! It took more!

“Also I raised My hand in an oath to those in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the Gentiles and disperse them throughout the countries, because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes, profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers’ idols.

"Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord.

“Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel, and say to them,

“Thus says the Lord God:

‘In this too your fathers have blasphemed Me, by being unfaithful to Me. When I brought them into the land concerning which I had raised My hand in an oath to give them, and they saw all the high hills and all the thick trees, there they offered their sacrifices and provoked Me with their offerings. There they also sent up their sweet aroma and poured out their drink offerings. Then I said to them, ‘What is this high place to which you go?’ So its name is called Bamah to this day.”

‘Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: "Are you defiling yourselves in the manner of your fathers, and committing harlotry according to their abominations? For when you offer your gifts and make your sons pass through the fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols, even to this day. So shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live,” says the Lord God, “I will not be inquired of by you.

‘What you have in your mind shall never be, when you say, ‘We will be like the Gentiles, like the families in other countries, serving wood and stone.’

‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, “’surely with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you. I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face. Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you, says the Lord God. I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant; I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

‘As for you, O house of Israel,” thus says the Lord God: “Go, serve every one of you his idols - and hereafter - if you will not obey me; but profane My holy name no more with your gifts and your idols.' "

(Ezekiel 20:23-39).