Fake Al-Qaeda provoking Islamaphobia

fontanalis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Utterley False????

So it has nothing to do wit the Database which the Americans created of Assets in the Area during the Soviet occupation.

Where do Wealthy Saudis get their money From to give to these guys??

if it is really run by Saudis then Why didnt the Americans invade their Country??

Are you serious, no really. Insert face palm here.

Brown Bomber

fontanalis wrote: »

Exactly, Burkes book should be required reading for anyone who wants to spout of about the network of networks that is Al Qaeda.
At worse US money ended idirectly funding people with a similar ideology with Al Qaeda.

What is chapter one of Burke's book called?

fontanalis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is chapter one of Burke's book called?

It's been a while since I read it, by looking at Al Qaeda the 1st Chapter is "What is Al Qaeda". You're point being.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

I think you should read any reputable work on the organisation (by reputable I mean someone who's lived and worked as a journalist in the region for years, and not some nutcase in Texas who's actual experience of the region consists of once eating a Tandorri).

Start with Jason Burke's book. Al Qaeda.

I think you should start with then British Foriegn Secretary Robin Cook's article in the Guardian.

For anyone who doesn't know the MI6 (British foriegn intelligence agency) boss was directly answerable to Robin Cook. Therefore at that the time there were only a handful of people in the world who would be better equipped to speak with authority.

Here (again) is what he had to say in his Guardian column:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

More on the "Database" from French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291

Getting back to Jason Burke, he was interviewed by the BBC for their Al-Qaeda documentary "The power of nightmares".

Roughly between 1.30 and and two minutes he explains the first Bin Laden "myth" and the first Al-Qaeda "myth".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA

Thoroughly recommend the the whole series to all btw.

fontanalis

Afghanistan was a proxy war, the US engaged with the Islamic factions in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend' way. Big difference between the US creating Al Qaeda.
As for the myth of Al Qaeda what Burke argued ages ago and what seems to have sunk in is that Al Qaesda is not some monolithic organisation with your typical top down leadership structure where if you cut off the head of the snake it will crumble, but more of a network of networks that acts as rally cry or a banner for various groups to identify under.

Di0genes

Here (again) is what he had to say in his Guardian column:

I assume we can both agree that Al-Qaeda was a CIA creation

Cook is explicitly saying that the CIA may have given weapons to mujahideen (there was no Al Qaeda during the 80s), but it certainly does support your original assertion that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Getting back to Jason Burke, he was interviewed by the BBC for their Al-Qaeda documentary "The power of nightmares".

Roughly between 1.30 and and two minutes he explains the first Bin Laden "myth" and the first Al-Qaeda "myth".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hYorNi0nA

Thoroughly recommend the the whole series to all btw.

I love how you mention The Power of Nightmares as if it helps your point. it does the exact opposite, it shows how Islamic extremist grew and developed completely independent of the CIA, and the last thing that they'd do is take orders from American intelligence.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Cook is explicitly saying that the CIA may have given weapons to mujahideen (there was no Al Qaeda during the 80s), but it certainly does support your original assertion that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA.




I love how you mention The Power of Nightmares as if it helps your point. it does the exact opposite, it shows how Islamic extremist grew and developed completely independent of the CIA, and the last thing that they'd do is take orders from American intelligence.

And the Robin Cook quote? sorry just noticed it. :D:D:D

HAHA best Freudian slip I've seen in quite some time. :pac::pac::pac:

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the Robin Cook quote? sorry just noticed it. :D:D:D

HAHA best Freudian slip I've seen in quite some time. :pac::pac::pac:

You can throw in all the smiles you like, it doesn't change the fact that three sources two of which you raised explicitly refute your original claim that

Brown Bomber wrote:

I assume we can both agree that Al-Qaeda was a CIA creation

You're in danger here, you seem to have run out of feet to shoot yourself in.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

You can throw in all the smiles you like, it doesn't change the fact that three sources two of which you raised explicitly refute your original claim that



You're in danger here, you seem to have run out of feet to shoot yourself in.

Brown Bomber

3rd times now

Quote:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Bin Ladin and his Islamic brigades were armed by the CIA. Which part are you not understanding?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3rd times now

Quote:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Bin Ladin and his Islamic brigades were armed by the CIA. Which part are you not understanding?

Several.

1. Arming does not equate with "creating". The CIA sending money to ISI to buy weapons for mujahideen, does in no way equate to creating Al Qaeda.

2.The sentence mentions Islamic brigades, and suggests Bin Laden ran them. It's grammatically incorrect, during the Soviet occupation Bin Laden wasn't a central figure in the Islamic brigades.

3. The entire sentence is a gross oversimplification of a really complex period of time. It doesn't even agree with your original premise, how you can use it as the central argument of your claim boggles the mind.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Several.

1. Arming does not equate with "creating". The CIA sending money to ISI to buy weapons for mujahideen, does in no way equate to creating Al Qaeda.

2.The sentence mentions Islamic brigades, and suggests Bin Laden ran them. It's grammatically incorrect, during the Soviet occupation Bin Laden wasn't a central figure in the Islamic brigades.

3. The entire sentence is a gross oversimplification of a really complex period of time. It doesn't even agree with your original premise, how you can use it as the central argument of your claim boggles the mind.

This is getting silly now. Your just trying to complicate it.

The US aided the Mujahadeen on July 3, 1979 according to then National Security Adviser to Carter Brzezinski.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
OK, now if I could draw your attention back to the Foriegn Secretary Robin Cook

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. "

Sooooooo..........Al Qaeda was fabricated from the Mujhadeen members who the CIA had actively supported.

fontanalis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting silly now. Your just trying to complicate it.

The US aided the Mujahadeen on July 3, 1979 according to then National Security Adviser to Carter Brzezinski.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
OK, now if I could draw your attention back to the Foriegn Secretary Robin Cook

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. "

Sooooooo..........Al Qaeda was fabricated from the Mujhadeen members who the CIA had actively supported.

To quote Ben Goldacre " I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that, the US sent money to defeat Russia not to set up some organisation. Arabic states sent money to help what they saw an Islamic struggle. The jihadists were a very diverse group from many different countries, US involvement (horribly short sighted) was to get at Russia.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting silly now. Your just trying to complicate it.

I'm not trying to complicate it, it is complicated.

The US aided the Mujahadeen on July 3, 1979 according to then National Security Adviser to Carter Brzezinski.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
OK, now if I could draw your attention back to the Foriegn Secretary Robin Cook

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. "

No. Al Qaeda can me the database. it can also mean "The Manual", or indeed "the base."

Mr Cook was grossly oversimplifying the situation to help his argument, that because of the structure of Al Qaeda, it cannot be defeated through military means alone. You've taken a single sentence from an article written about the london bombings the day afterwards, and extrapolated and twisted it, to suit your claim that the CIA created Al Qaeda.

Sooooooo..........Al Qaeda was fabricated from the Mujhadeen members who the CIA had actively supported.

Actively supported doesn't mean created. You're trying to claim the CIA created and therefore have some control over Al Qaeda and nothing you're brought up supports that claim.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it was eventually detected, on the way back. But what you must accept is that it passed through all security checks at Ben Gurion Airport and Heathrow Airport undetected also.

i do accept that the gun passed through various checks... in at least two airports, but the gun in question is designed to be detected by metal dectors

human error is what i put it down too, especially if the gun was in luggage..
and not being carried on the person

Di0genes

robtri wrote: »

i do accept that the gun passed through various checks... in at least two airports, but the gun in question is designed to be detected by metal dectors

human error is what i put it down too, especially if the gun was in luggage..
and not being carried on the person

As to the suspicious nature of "carrying a gun on vacation" rants at court. Ronnie Woods often talks about the fact that Keith Richards used to regularly carry firearms onto planes (mind you this was in the day when security was a lil more relaxed), also the Christian Slater was convicted in the 90s of trying to bring a gun onto a plane.

So apparently actors and rolling stones members are Mossad agents now.

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But what you must accept is that it passed through all security checks at Ben Gurion Airport and Heathrow Airport undetected also.

Actually, no. That's an assumption we make. It may be a reasonable assumption, but the reality is that there are other possibilities as to how the gun came into this guys possession before the point it was detected, other than the explanation that it passed undetected through several airports.

By nature of it having been undetected, there is no evidence of it passing through those airports. In fact, it is the very people we are being told to distrust who we must believe in order to accept that it passed through these checks.

All I know about guns is that they kill people.

Then, with respect, it is diisingenuous to be responding to arguments concerning the nature of guns with dismissal and "lol" style comments, when the appropriate response should have been "I have no idea if what you say is correct or not".

With this is mind I have no doubt that the Mossad version of Q could modify a similar handgun to likewise pass undetected.

This lack of doubt being based on your self-admitted lack of knowledge.

Without trying to be insulting, I would point you at my signature.

EDIT: I looked up the Glock 9mm and they are "partly made of plastic materials"

No-one has suggested otherwise. THey ahve pointed out, that it is mostly made of metal, and meets all legal standards for being detectable by the relevant security scanners.

Wibbs

I have a Guns&Ammo magazine from many years back* and in it they tested various firearms to see how they would show up on security scanners and x ray machines. The rise of the so called "plastic gun" had raised this concern way before 911. They included pistols with a lot of ceramic parts. They all showed up. The glock still has metal parts, enough to trigger even the laziest most cock eyed machines. They're a hefty fecker in the hand too. Not something you could hide in your back pocket.

But human error is the biggy. In the lax old days some of the stuff people brought into Ireland from all over the place. I myself in the very early 80's bought a replica colt 1911 automatic in florida and didnt tell my folks. Divil that I was as a kid. Stuck it in my suitcase and came home with it. It really looked the part. Fully working(non functioning) replica.







*One of my many quirks is to every so often buy a enthusiasts magazine in an area I know little about. Its amazing what you learn

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah-hem. Double-standards?

Feel free to question the translation of the originial Mexican source, or to offer an alternative translation. Otherwise, the attack on Rense is just a straw man argument and has no place in this discussion.

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing. We're talking about Jeff Rense here, aren't we? The man who accused Alex Jones fellow nutcase of Murder? Two biggest egos in the "not so alternative media".

I know what I said but come on, every rule has it's exceptions. You'd want to be completely bonkers to take Rense at face value.

studiorat

Wibbs wrote: »

*One of my many quirks is to every so often buy a enthusiasts magazine in an area I know little about. Its amazing what you learn

That's what you say...

I had a passing intrest in Pool for a while, imagine my suprise when I recieved the first Edition in my years subscription of Hustler.

Mahatma coat

fontanalis wrote: »

Are you serious, no really. Insert face palm here.

You missed my point there entirely.

Wealthy Raudis get their money from selling Oil, right, Oil is sold in US Dollars, right, these dollars are stored in Banks, right, a lot of these Banks in Saudi were set up as offshoots of american Banks, right, the American government can Freeze bank accounts of people who Support 'Terror' Right, they can do it to entire countries if they 'suspect' them of harbouring/supporting 'terrorists' Right.



so given all that, How do the saudis get the money to the Terrorists without suffering the wrath of America??

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

You missed my point there entirely.

Wealthy Raudis get their money from selling Oil, right, Oil is sold in US Dollars, right, these dollars are stored in Banks, right, a lot of these Banks in Saudi were set up as offshoots of american Banks, right, the American government can Freeze bank accounts of people who Support 'Terror' Right, they can do it to entire countries if they 'suspect' them of harbouring/supporting 'terrorists' Right.



so given all that, How do the saudis get the money to the Terrorists without suffering the wrath of America??

WRONG - America cannot freeze bank accounts in other countries, they american owned banks operating in Saudi are operating under Saudi LAW not american Laws......

RGDATA!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the American government can Freeze bank accounts of people who Support 'Terror' Right, they can do it to entire countries if they 'suspect' them of harbouring/supporting 'terrorists'

how do they do this or have you any examples?

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

You missed my point there entirely.

Wealthy Raudis get their money from selling Oil, right, Oil is sold in US Dollars, right, these dollars are stored in Banks, right, a lot of these Banks in Saudi were set up as offshoots of american Banks, right, the American government can Freeze bank accounts of people who Support 'Terror' Right, they can do it to entire countries if they 'suspect' them of harbouring/supporting 'terrorists' Right.



so given all that, How do the saudis get the money to the Terrorists without suffering the wrath of America??

Oh christ. Have you never heard of the 70s oil crisis? OPEC crippled the world economy by imposing an oil embargo? Because of the US support of Israeli in the Yom Kippur war?

If the US shut down trade with Saudi (which is what would happen if they isolated and froze their assets, even if they could do that it would cripple their economy.

Could you please read a history or economic text book before coming out with this sort of stuff

Jesus.

joesoap007

Mahatma coat wrote: »

You missed my point there entirely.

Wealthy Raudis get their money from selling Oil, right, Oil is sold in US Dollars, right, these dollars are stored in Banks, right, a lot of these Banks in Saudi were set up as offshoots of american Banks, right, the American government can Freeze bank accounts of people who Support 'Terror' Right, they can do it to entire countries if they 'suspect' them of harbouring/supporting 'terrorists' Right.



so given all that, How do the saudis get the money to the Terrorists without suffering the wrath of America??

you can only buy oil in petrodollars..hello obama print me some money need buy oil...sad but ture

Di0genes

joesoap007 wrote: »

you can only buy oil in petrodollars..hello obama print me some money need buy oil...sad but ture

But thats not set in stone, OPEC have on several occasions threatened to switch to the Euro, to the consternation of the US. Considering the Spiralling US debt it's really only a matter of time, to the Euro or even the RMB.

IrelandSpirit

Fake Al-Qaeda provoking Islamaphobia?

yes

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Fake Al-Qaeda provoking Islamaphobia?

yes

Thank you for adding such a detailed and well argued position.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

No. Al Qaeda can me the database. it can also mean "The Manual", or indeed "the base."

I'm not asking for you to translate Al-Qaeda, I'm asking you to understand what the then boss of the boss of M16 said.

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. "

We can ignore the "database" part if it makes it easier for you.

"Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Al-Qaeda according to Mr Cook was "originally" (meaning: with reference to origin or beginning) the computer file (or database) of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited (i.e. they weren't soliders of Islam before CIA intervention), and trained with the help from the CIA.

I'd go further and say the CIA intentionally radicalised these Moslems in the Madrasa's that the CIA created.

The intelligence agencies of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan used the madrasas for radicalising the Muslim youth and motivating them to join the Afghan Mujahideen in their jihad against the Soviet troops. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) got a number of text books prepared with the help of Wahabi clerics of Saudi Arabia projecting Communism as anti-Islam and calling for jihad against the Communist evil in Afghanistan, had them printed in printing presses in the US and distributed to the madrasas.

According to Mr.Ishtiaq Ahmed, Associate Professor of political science at the Stockholm University: "The joint CIA-Saudi initiative resulted in a proliferation of madrasas, regardless of the genuine need for maulvis.

Thanks to the CIA’s 51 million US dollar grant to the University of Nebraska to produce pictorial textbooks glorifying jihad, killing, maiming and bombing other human beings was made sufficiently entertaining. Sadism could now be cultivated as a virtue. That was when madrasa doors were opened to the mass of the poor. The new “education” they received was to hate the Russians, later generalised to include any non-Muslim. Jews, Hindus and Christians figured prominently and out of it came the expression of a Yahud-Hunud-Nasara conspiracy against Islam.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers15%5Cpaper1487.html

Di0genes wrote: »

Mr Cook was grossly oversimplifying the situation to help his argument, that because of the structure of Al Qaeda, it cannot be defeated through military means alone. You've taken a single sentence from an article written about the london bombings the day afterwards, and extrapolated and twisted it, to suit your claim that the CIA created Al Qaeda.

I'm not going to respond to this any further. It is quite clear what Robin Cook intended to say. And I'll say it one further time. Al-Qaeda was "originally" a computer file of names of Mujahideen soliders who had been recruited, armed, and trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

studiorat

Although "al-Qaeda" is a name that popular culture gives to this loose association in order to depict it as an organization, the movement rarely uses the name to refer to itself. In formal communications, Bin Laden has referred to the trend as International Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.

Indeed the use of the name "al-Qaeda" dates from early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation. Bin Laden himself said in 2001, "We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda ["the base"]. And the name stayed."

The name of the organisation is irrelevant really. The NAME was made up for the mafia laws in the US. The group exists as an umberella for groups with a similar mandate.