67 replies to this topic

[Q24]

and then, on 12 January 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

So there is some minimum time in the organisation before one becomes "vested"?  No pun intended.  Could they all not have been short timers - weeks even in al queda before their mission?  And I remember shortly after the attacks hearing that only the pilots knew it was a suicide mission - BinLaden even laughed about that.

It seems that anyone can be ‘Al Qaeda’.

Yes, bin Laden said that one group did not know the other group.  And the non-pilot group were kept in the dark until shortly before boarding the planes, he said.  Yes, only the Hamburg Cell plus Hanjour knew of the mission… that would make sense.

[Xpeople]

Q24, on 12 January 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

There appear to be two stages in the history of ‘Al Qaeda’: -

• As a recruitment tool of the West to combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
  
• As a terrorist organization defined by the West.

The myth of ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent terrorist group was set in place during the 2001 trial related to the U.S. embassy bombings.  To charge Osama bin Laden in his absence, the prosecution needed to show that he was the head of an organization which carried out the attacks (i.e. that he was responsible for their actions).  And so that is the picture the prosecution witness painted.  That witness, Jamal al-Fadl, was a former member of ‘Al Qaeda’, recruited in 1988 through the U.S. Brooklyn branch during the first phase above.

The ‘Al Qaeda’ theme has been driven by the West from the beginning.

It is as bin Laden said when asked, “How attached is Al-Qa'ida to the person of Usama Bin Ladin?”  His response:  “The question is not as portrayed in the West that there is an organization known by such and such a name.  This name is very old.  It emerged without our intention.”

As for me, I think the later incarnation was created to support the ‘War on Terror’; that ‘Al Qaeda’ were intended as the new enemy to replace the Soviet threat.  There were a group in Washington who stated their unease at how the U.S. were drifting since driving force of the Cold War had ceased.

That just add to the mystery.  Why setup a trial for a man who you could not put on trial in first place?  He is not a US Citizen nor was he in the US.  So to setup a trial would be a waste of time.  Why go thorough all this.  

You are already saying that you have little to connect him to the crime.  A corporation or a government would have documention to show their activity.

[and then]

The whole discussion seems a bit too legalistic.  Is the idea to cast America as somehow responsible for creating AQ and thus being responsible for our own injury?  The whole WORLD wants to gut us like a fish and we hardly created "IT".  In answer to all those who delight in seeing America abused I say : Bring the pain!  Even in the decline of our power we are superior to everything that came before.  And when we are gone you can fight over the crumbs.

[psyche101]

An organisation does not have to be efficient to exists, or make an impact. What we don know is that the band of groups that talk to each other, who have become known as Al Queda are responsible for instigating sectarian violence among Muslims and recruiting a radical Sunni Muslim movement calling for global Jihad.
Can we keep the bleeding hearts in the conspiracy section please? No Pilots for 911 truth are required to answer if Al Queda exist. That's a different ballgame altogether.

[Q24]

and then, on 12 January 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

The whole discussion seems a bit too legalistic.  Is the idea to cast America as somehow responsible for creating AQ and thus being responsible for our own injury?

The thread is to ask to what extent ‘Al Qaeda’ exists.  It is bound to come up that the U.S. propagandized an enemy to further their militaristic foreign policy.  It is the threat that a certain ideology in Washington were looking for to replace the Cold War policy, thus keeping America top of the pile in the planned future.

[and then]

[quote name='Q24' timestamp='1326452596' post='4170913']
The thread is to ask to what extent ‘Al Qaeda’ exists.  It is bound to come up that the U.S. propagandized an enemy to further their militaristic foreign policy.  It is the threat that a certain ideology in Washington were looking for to replace the Cold War policy, thus keeping America top of the pile in the planned future.
[/quote
A simple yes would have sufficed.  And most countries who are attacked tend towards "militaristic foreign policy"  And - news flash - all countries attempt to achieve that "top of the pile" status.  Those who bemoan that ambition are typically those who've never seen the world from that vantage point.

[Q24]

and then, on 13 January 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

A simple yes would have sufficed.  And most countries who are attacked tend towards "militaristic foreign policy"  And - news flash - all countries attempt to achieve that "top of the pile" status.  Those who bemoan that ambition are typically those who've never seen the world from that vantage point.

The Neocon faction (which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc who came to power in 2001) supported an aggressive foreign policy long before ‘Al Qaeda’ became the favored  boogeyman.  Yes, regime overhaul in Afghanistan and Iraq was desired for reason unrelated to 9/11 and before that event ever came about.  It happens that ‘Al Qaeda’ provided the perfect solution/driving force, not a problem, to the pre-stated agenda.

Those who “bemoan” the U.S. strategy for achieving top status, are those who do not think constant war and propaganda, proxy or direct, are the best way to go about business.  This includes citizens from said country who would prefer to see peace.

[Xpeople]

Q24, on 13 January 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

The thread is to ask to what extent ‘Al Qaeda’ exists.  It is bound to come up that the U.S. propagandized an enemy to further their militaristic foreign policy.  It is the threat that a certain ideology in Washington were looking for to replace the Cold War policy, thus keeping America top of the pile in the planned future.
[/quote
A simple yes would have sufficed.  And most countries who are attacked tend towards "militaristic foreign policy"  And - news flash - all countries attempt to achieve that "top of the pile" status.  Those who bemoan that ambition are typically those who've never seen the world from that vantage point.

This question is not a simply yes or no question.  To say yes or no would give you the wrong solution.  This is a simply question but the answer is not simply.  If this question can not be answer, then anything the Untied States has done in the name of 9/11 come into question.

[shaddow134]

Mmmmmm 'Al Quaeda' an invention of the CIA first used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and then later used as a justification for the the Americans activities in the Gulf.Only to exist as long as required.

Oh and lets not forget the convenient burial at sea of Bin Laden's body....

[Q24]

Xpeople, on 13 January 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

This question is not a simply yes or no question.

I agree, there are many shades of grey when it comes to ‘Al Qaeda’.

shaddow134, on 13 January 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Mmmmmm 'Al Quaeda' an invention of the CIA first used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and then later used as a justification for the the Americans activities in the Gulf.Only to exist as long as required.

And further: -

“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about.  I know, for example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relations with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”
~FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds

There is no doubt the relationship was maintained in some form following Operation Cyclone.

[jugoso]

shaddow134, on 13 January 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Mmmmmm 'Al Quaeda' an invention of the CIA first used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and then later used as a justification for the the Americans activities in the Gulf.Only to exist as long as required.

chart (1).png

Using Books Ngram viewer, we can see the frequency in appearance of the term 'Al Qaeda'.

Attached Files

•  chart (1).png   24.22K   9 downloads

[Xpeople]

Q24, on 13 January 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

I agree, there are many shades of grey when it comes to ‘Al Qaeda’.



And further: -

“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about.  I know, for example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relations with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”
~FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds

There is no doubt the relationship was maintained in some form following Operation Cyclone.

There are too many shades of grey when it come to Al Qaeda.  You cannot say that the government lied to anyone.  There is no direct answer.

[and then]

Q24, on 13 January 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

The Neocon faction (which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc who came to power in 2001) supported an aggressive foreign policy long before ‘Al Qaeda’ became the favored  boogeyman.  Yes, regime overhaul in Afghanistan and Iraq was desired for reason unrelated to 9/11 and before that event ever came about.  It happens that ‘Al Qaeda’ provided the perfect solution/driving force, not a problem, to the pre-stated agenda.

Those who “bemoan” the U.S. strategy for achieving top status, are those who do not think constant war and propaganda, proxy or direct, are the best way to go about business.  This includes citizens from said country who would prefer to see peace.

So our government, in league with the "military industrial complex", created Al Qaeda  to use as a foil so that America would spend a trillion bucks fighting an imaginary enemy?

[Xpeople]

and then, on 14 January 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

So our government, in league with the "military industrial complex", created Al Qaeda  to use as a foil so that America would spend a trillion bucks fighting an imaginary enemy?

Is there anything that disagree with that?  Most of the trillions of dollars did not go into actual fighting since there was little to fight but to nation building.

[and then]

Sorry, that's a couple of shades too crazy for me and I'm a pretty jaded individual.  I have NO doubt that a criminal amount of resources have been squandered due to fraud,corruption and waste but I believe our enemies are real...I hear them screaming for our heads (literally) quite regularly in print and other media.  And we live in a country where a disaffected private in the Army can share our dirty laundry and a few crimes with the world.  So how could such a monstrous coverup be viable over time?