I was baptised when I was 12 years old and I dont feel like at that age I was mature enough to take such a drastic step. I dont think its right to be df'd for something that i never really did since the baptism is really only a symbol of the dedication and i never did that. I just was going along with the flow. To former elders: Has anyone ever used this argument and what have you done in those cases? I would think it would happen a lot since many children get baptised and most of them probably dont realize the significance and all the potential consequences of that seemingly simple action.
Posts by Azalo
-
19Can Baptisms be anulled?
by Azalo ini was baptised when i was 12 years old and i dont feel like at that age i was mature enough to take such a drastic step.
i dont think its right to be df'd for something that i never really did since the baptism is really only a symbol of the dedication and i never did that.
i just was going along with the flow.
-
-
-
27
? for current or former Elders
by Azalo indo people at jcs pretty much have to cry to show that they are repentant?
i've always wondered that.
-
-
Azalo
man sounds like the Stanford prison experiment, but you all dont have to worry about me no JC in my future, I faded away over 6 years ago and I dont even live in the same state anymore. I was just curious. My dad was an elder and he would never give us any gossip, I guess he was a good elder.
-
27
? for current or former Elders
by Azalo indo people at jcs pretty much have to cry to show that they are repentant?
i've always wondered that.
-
-
Azalo
do people at JCs pretty much have to cry to show that they are repentant? I've always wondered that.
-
55
music groups that pi$$ed JWs off
by Pleasuredome ini always found it funny that jws hated pop groups with a passion.
here's some groups, that i was always being had a go at for listening to, or told that they shouldnt be listened to...
guns n roses - for sexist and viloent lyrics.
-
-
Azalo
pretty much any Rap group, Michael Jackson, that song by Cyndi Lauper about masturbation
-
12
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE...
by Azalo incheck this out:.
http://www.reptilianagenda.com/exp/e122299a.htmlthe truth about the jehovahs witnesses.
and my encounter with the lizard beings.
-
-
Azalo
Check this out:
http://www.reptilianagenda.com/exp/e122299a.html
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
AND MY ENCOUNTER WITH THE LIZARD BEINGSBy Diana Huston
I was a member of a mind control cult religion for 20 years. The religion is known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I started with them in 1969, being attracted to their message of paradise on earth after having gone through the Vietnam war with my husband.
I had two children whom I raised as Witnesses. But thankfully they are out now. I was happy for a few years, until the religion became more demanding and controlling.
In 1987 there began to appear in the artwork subliminal drawings in their books and magazines depicting bizarre faces and strange messages. Eventually I experienced a psychic awakening by which I was enabled to actually 'see' through walls and able to follow the activities of the leaders.
In September of 1988, at a small convention, I had a chance to walk up to one of the governing body 'elect' to speak to him privately. At that time I thought that they were the 'good' guys and someone was run amuck at headquarters. He was about 5'10". He had dark hair, heavy and powerfully built. His name was Daniel Sedlik and his was of Polish origin. As I reached out to shake his hand, he turned to return the shake. I looked into his eyes and was startled and somewhat terrified to see a thin membrane drop over his human eyes. I don't know if the membrane came from the bottom of his eyelid, or the top. But it was there, and I'd never heard of lizard beings, but I remember thinking how much his eyes looked like those of a lizard. The membrane dropped over his eyes when he looked at me and he seemed to recognize me, although at the time I couldn't imagine why. The sense of terrible danger that I had and the need to get away from him was overwhelming. Thankfully, others of the 'flock' spotted him and kept him from following me.
It was after that that a reign of terror began against myself and my family. My telephone was tapped and I was followed. Also a series of what I now know were psychic attacks began. This kept up unmercifully for several years. I finally learned to protect myself and I began a path of awakening. I am not a weak or cowardly person, and I was deeply offended that, as I understood it, these people were using the cover of religion to hide illegal activities.
As I researched their documents and books, I began to uncover a trail of drug running, plots to destroy the world and take it for their own, and arms running. Even down to the local congregation being used as a route for drug smuggling. I took my mountains of evidence to the DEA and met with them. Their response? Either I was a genius or totally insane. I learned that they had hidden rooms under the streets of Brooklyn, NY where they have their headquarters where the old Brooklyn subway used to be, which is now abandoned. There they practice Satanic ritual, including the sacrifices of human infants and the breeding of human females in order to keep the demand up of infants for their sacrifices. They are totally self-sufficient, and they use blood in the ink of their magazines. They make their own ink. The purpose of this is that if they can get their magazines into the homes of people, the vibrations of the magazines begin to break down the will and mind of those who have their magazines and books in their home. I warn people on a personal level never to allow their materials into their homes.
A friend and myself tried warning people through the news media with no success. She finally had a complete nervous breakdown and has never fully recovered.
Eventually I came to understand that the leaders are not fully human, but are the offspring of something alien to this earth. They are too cunning, lethal, and intelligent to have originated from here, and there has to be an overrace of beings guiding them from some dimension. They are here for one reason only. They look at humans as a source of enslavement for their enjoyment to torment and abuse, to misuse power and to cruelly punish and kill.
I have overcome my fear of them, and I look to the love and goodness of the Source of All Life to deal with them appropriately, although we must do our part to stand opposed to them and anyone like them. My own personal experience very much validates David Ickes warnings.
Diana Huston
e-mail: [email protected] -
48
Can you eat blood now?
by Brummie ini have no trouble with transfusions to save peoples lives but recently we went to a wedding and one of my little lads had been up to the buffet and come back with a plate of food, on it was little circles of black pudding (blood sausage), he didnt know what it was (i have never brought it home so he hasnt seen it before) but just threw it on his plate anyway.
while he wasnt looking i took it off and threw it away!
couldnt bring myself to let him eat it and i still couldnt eat it because of the background in jws.
-
-
Azalo
it kinda grosses me out, but i would try blood sausage (the way Latin people make it looks pretty good). Actually though getting a blood transfusion is more disturbing to me, not because its against Bible principles or any of that nonsense but just the thought of having someone elses bodily fluids put in my body seems disgusting. I have donated blood though, I have no problem with that.
-
38
Arabs confused by Iraqis acceptance of coalition troops
by Elsewhere inan article from the al jazeera web site... .
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2299&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258.
(because the address has "&" signs in it, you will have to cut and paste the address into a new browser to view to actual web site.).
-
-
-
38
Arabs confused by Iraqis acceptance of coalition troops
by Elsewhere inan article from the al jazeera web site... .
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2299&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258.
(because the address has "&" signs in it, you will have to cut and paste the address into a new browser to view to actual web site.).
-
-
Azalo
They have tested twice and the stuff is showing as weapons grade plutonium. They will be testing again.
Underground Nuclear Facility Found in Iraq
Thursday, April 10, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials are investigating a massive underground nuclear facility that was discovered below the Al Tuwaitha complex of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in a suburban town south of Baghdad.
While they aren't prepared to say the discovery is the smoking gun proving Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, Fox News confirmed that officials are very interested in the labyrinth of labs and warehouses unearthed by U.S. forces.
The discovery was unexpected and forces in the area are testing a variety of things to best determine the significance of the find.
Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have far found 14 buildings that have high levels of radiation, an embedded reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Thursday, noting that some of the tests have found nuclear residue too deadly for human occupation.
The Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts" a few hundred meters outside the nuclear compound, where locals say "missile water" is stored in enormous caverns, the correspondent, Carl Prine, reported. Prine is embedded with the U.S. 1st Marine Division.
"It's amazing," Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist told the paper. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."
This underground discovery could still test to be perfectly legitimate and offer no proof of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The CIA encouraged international inspectors in the fall of 2002 to probe Al Tuwaitha for weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors came away empty handed.
"They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," physicist David Albright, a former IAEA Action Team inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997, told the Tribune-Review.
"The Marines should be particularly careful because of those high readings," he told the paper. "Three hours at levels like that and people begin to vomit. That leads me to wonder, if the readings are accurate, whether radioactive material was deliberately left there to expose people to dangerous levels.
"You couldn't do scientific work in levels like that. You would die."
Capt. John Seegar, a combat engineer commander from Houston, is currently running the operation in Al Tuwaitha. "I've never seen anything like it, ever," he told the Tribune-Review. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"
and we all know how reliable, unbiased and fair Fox News is. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/49889/709432/post.ashx#709432
-
96
LIBERAL PEOPLE HAVE THEIR PANTIES IN A WAD NOW!
by dolphman inso, the iraqis did want us to liberate them.
what are your pathetic responses to the images of cheering iraqis?.
thank god bush knows better than to listen to you..
-
-
Azalo
funny I haven't seen too many stories about the 1000's of Iraqi civilian casualties, oh sure they've been mentioned as an afterthought, but I've seen no bed side interviews, no in depth investigations into if they have adequate supplies to treat all the innocent victims. but the image of some stupid statue getting tipped over, i've seen that probably a 1000 times today.
Oh BTW to my british peops, Bill Oreilly (Fox News pundit and conscience of the American right wing) blasted the BBC today and is encouraging AMericans to boycott or something along those lines, I tend to tune out most of what he says. he was mad because they didnt show they very important statue tipping over.
-
16
US Govt and Mass Media weren't so worried about Iraq's WMD 15 years ago
by Azalo injust an interesting article:.
the washington post's gas attack .
today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal .
-
-
Azalo
Just an interesting article:
The Washington Post's Gas Attack
Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal
In the midst of the 1998 standoff over Iraqi weapons inspections, an almost frantic editorial ran in the Washington Post (8/28/98). Brimming with urgency, the editorialists declared that "22 days have now passed without United Nations inspections of Saddam Hussein's weapons-making capabilities. That is 22 days during which he could work unimpeded to develop chemical, biological and nuclear arms. This is a dictator who has used chemical weapons, on his own people and on his enemies, and who would use them again."
It wasn't the first reminder from the Post that Iraq has used gas. From time to time the editorialists drop references to "Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own people" (3/13/02). "He has used such weapons before," they note (1/7/99), "against his own people." "Saddam Hussein has indeed used poison gas to murder thousands of his own people" (2/3/02). "He is a man who had used chemical weapons on his own people" (6/8/91)--and he also heads "a regime that has used poison gas on its own people" (11/13/97).
Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas in the 1980's is, for the Post, Exhibit A--proof that 1) Iraq poses a terrifying threat to the world; 2) the global oil embargo on Iraq must be maintained; 3) the U.S. and other countries should periodically bomb Iraq when it is seen to be defying Washington; and 4) the U.S. should overthrow the Iraqi government by force when the right moment arises.
"Only Saddam Hussein's removal from power can ultimately erase the threat that Iraq currently poses to its region and the world," the Post wrote in a typical editorial (12/17/98)--proving the point a few paragraphs later by once again recalling Saddam's use, a decade earlier, of the aforementioned "weapons...against his own people."
It has been almost 15 years since Iraq last made use of chemical arms. If the memory of Baghdad's use of poison gas in the now largely forgotten Iran/Iraq War (1980-88) still conjures up such violent reactions from the Washington Post more than a decade later, one wonders: What must the paper's fury have been like at the very moment of the deed, in the aftermath of the carnage, when the horror of Saddam's cruelty stood fresh in the mind, without years of distance to mellow the shock? How did the Post react when Iraq actually used poison gas "on his own people and on his enemies"?
Endorsing a verbal reprimand
It was not until 1984 that Iranian allegations about chemical warfare were finally confirmed beyond doubt. At the time, the Reagan administration was pursuing a policy of "tilting" towards Saddam Hussein in his war against revolutionary Iran--a stance the Post had greeted with cautious endorsement: "Iran is the inspiration, if not the actual source, of both the terrorism plaguing the United States and friendly states in Lebanon and elsewhere and of the revolutionary Islamic currents lapping at the conservative oil-producing states of the gulf," the paper explained ("Tilting Toward Iraq," 1/9/84). So there were geopolitical interests to think about, including oil.
On March 5, 1984, the shattering news arrived: "The United States has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons" against Iranian troops, the State Department said in a prepared statement.
Despite its tilt towards Iraq--the previous year it had authorized the sale of 60 U.S.-made Hughes helicopters to Baghdad--the Reagan administration was resolute. In the face of Saddam's brazen use of outlawed weapons of mass destruction, it issued a stern verbal reprimand. In the same prepared statement, read out by State Department spokesperson John Hughes, it said: "The United States strongly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons wherever it occurs." That was the totality of the U.S. response.*
"Privately, some officials were less harsh on the Iraqis," the Post reported in a news article the following day (3/6/84). They said it was "not surprising" that Iraq would use gas, given the fierce Iranian attacks in which "any major crack in the Iraqis' defenses could bring down the army and the government."
Meanwhile, the administration's pro-Saddam tilt continued.
The Washington Post's editorial reaction to these momentous events was measured. On the one hand, "there is an irreducible element of arbitrariness in any international decision to sanction one form of warfare and not another" ("Iraq's Chemical Warfare," 3/11/84). But at the same time, the editorialists recognized that there is also "an irreducible element of civilization in the effort to limit some of the means employed to wage war."
So the Post endorsed the State Department's verbal condemnation of Saddam Hussein: "No other American response would be consistent with the long-range interest of the United States in outlawing this repellent form of warfare."
In a follow-up editorial the next month ("Against Chemical Warfare," 4/2/84), the paper again praised the administration's oral reprimand--"to its credit, it did so even though it has been tilting toward Iraq in the Gulf war"--and even added a further suggestion: Companies might be banned from selling Iraq ingredients for chemical weapons. The editorialists mused that "condemnations of one sort or another, publicity and export bans may seem like slight obstacles to put in the way of Iraq's conduct of this outlawed form of warfare." But in the long run, they concluded, the only realistic solution to the dilemma of outlawed weapons was a durable peace: "The most urgent need is to redouble efforts to stop the war."
"A bit odd...to worry"
By year's end, the United States had established full diplomatic relations with Iraq for the first time since 1967. The editorial page sent the administration a hearty congratulations ("The Baghdad Connection," 12/2/84). With its newfound links to Baghdad, Washington was "coming into a better position to play a useful regional role"--it could "identify more closely with an Arab cause" and maybe help Saddam "balance off Syria's bid for dominance in the Arab world." As a bonus, the move was a "useful reproof to the careless talk one often hears" that U.S. support for Israel was undermining its relations with the Arabs.
It's useful here to pause a moment and fast-forward to the late 1990s, a moment when the Post was pushing for yet another round of bombing in the midst of a crisis over U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq (2/1/98). After belittling France and Russia because they "remain skeptical of a military solution," the paper explained why attacking Iraq was such a no-brainer: "The gravity of letting a proven and unreconstructed aggressor defy international strictures and wield frightening weapons that threaten opposing armies and civilian populations alike can scarcely be exaggerated. This specter is what makes it necessary for law-respecting nations to unite to the extent possible and proceed against Saddam Hussein."
Now flash back to 1985. Although the Post had claimed (12/2/84) that Iraq "has been willing to tone down some of the cruder aspects of its policy," like poison gas, in return for U.S. relations, by the spring Iraq was at it again--employing chemical weapons five times in March--and the Post wrote another editorial ("Iraq Is Waging Chemical War," 4/1/85). "It may be a bit odd when you consider all the ways that people have devised to do violence to each other, to worry overly about any particular method," the paper philosophized. Still, the Post was sticking to its line: The Reagan administration had been right to issue its strongly worded chiding. "Do protests matter?" the editorial asked. The evidence was mixed. "One cannot be laboratory-sure of cause and effect in these situations." Still: "It cannot hurt for the Iraqis to be held up to obloquy and censure for the use of gas."
Five months later, the administration authorized the sale to Iraq of 45 dual-use U.S.-made Bell helicopters. The editorial page had nothing to say about it. In fact, over the next 18 months, the Post started worrying about Iraq's slipping position in the war. Following revelations in 1987 about Reagan's covert U.S. arms sales to Iran, the paper invoked Iraq's perilous military situation as reason to lament the administration's secret "support to the wrong side" (1/21/87).
"Too tough on Iraq?"
In March 1988, as the war wound down, Iraq was once again accused of using chemical weapons. This time, Saddam's target was not fundamentalist Iran, but "his own people"--rebellious Iraqi Kurdish villagers who were thought to have been aiding the Iranian enemy.** The geopolitical equation had now changed somewhat; although top Reagan administration officials were still committed to the pro-Iraq tilt, Iran was no longer seen to be as much of a threat, and Iraq's use of gas this time was not directly contributing to the struggle against the ayatollahs. Human rights groups and some in Congress, led by Sen. Claiborne Pell (R.--R.I.), were decrying Iraq's targeting of civilians.In September, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to impose sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions were nothing like today's global embargo. They called for a halt to U.S. military aid, commodity credits and loan guarantees and a ban on U.S. imports of Iraqi oil--which, in a global oil market, would have a token effect compared to the post-Gulf War global blockade imposed by the U.N.The Reagan and Bush administrations "adamantly" opposed the bill, calling it "premature" (New York Times, 1/8/89, 9/15/88), and eventually the bill died quietly in a conference committee after being further watered down. Sanctions "would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly told a congressional panel in June 1990, six weeks before the invasion of Kuwait. (Kelly is now the Bush administration's top State Department official for East Asia.)In its editorial on the bill, the Washington Post defended the Senate against accusations that it was ruining America's relationship with Saddam Hussein ("Too Tough on Iraq?" 9/20/88): "It is being suggested that the unanimous Senate vote on sanctions against Iraq is one of those well-intentioned but misguided gestures to which representative government, given to instant enthusiasms, it regrettably prone." But these criticisms were unfair, the paper maintained. The Senate actednot to spoil a relationship--one that was of tremendous value to Iraq in turning the tide of war--but to establish a more solid basis on which a relationship can continue now. Iraq is not being asked to do anything that it should find onerous: only to stop the practice of a horrible, outlawed manner of war in a campaign against the Kurds in which it will still be able to press its overwhelming advantage.
It's hard to say how strongly the Post believed this. Over the next two years, as the bill was progressively diluted, killed, revived and killed again due to overwhelming opposition from the White House, the paper never ran a follow-up editorial. Presumably, Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons were at least as deadly in the 1980s--when the Washington Post was serenely explaining that Reagan's toothless admonitions were the only realistic option--as they have been afterward, when even a comprehensive U.N. embargo and the occasional airstrike are not enough for the Post.Today, as the Washington Post demands bombings, sieges and the violent overthrow of the Iraqi government for merely possessing chemical weapons, it's enlightening to read what the paper had to say back in the mid-'80s (4/1/85) about the U.S. response to Iraq's actual use of them:The United States sees a strategic interest in supporting Arab Iraq and containing fundamentalist Iran. But this political tilt has not kept the Reagan administration from going public, as well as private, with a [verbal] protest against Iraq's CW policy. It is only by this demonstration of a single standard that a government gains the authority to have its protests heard when its target is an unfriendly government.
* To avoid alienating Saddam Hussein, the State Department was careful to balance its criticism of Iraq by also condemning Iran: "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations." In later years, the State Department came to adopt Iran's "regime change" policy as its own, presumably revising its definition of "acceptable norms of behavior" in the process. [back] ** A casual reader might assume that Saddam Hussein is himself a Kurd; actually, the Kurds are only Hussein's "own people" in the same sense that the Cherokees were Andrew Jackson's "own people." [back]
See also FAIR's resources on Iraq and the Washington Post. Was this article helpful to you? It was made possible by the subscribers to Extra!.Please subscribe and support our work.
