Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Xpeople

Does Al-qaeda exist?

68 posts in this topic

Does anyone have evidence that Al-qaeda exist? Please show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, kinda odd question cause most people think al qaeda is an organization and it is not, nor was it intended to be...people just originally took it that way and it stuck.

In case you don't relalize, it's a collective term that means loose knit Terror cells...which does exist btw. *edit. Oh yeah it's also the name of a database file, but for now its use references terrorists as a collected form to keep it simple I guess

Edited by SikFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol its a rhetorical construct. Al qaeda is simply a boogey man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have evidence that Al-qaeda exist? Please show me.

Interesting question. :tu:

The following excerpt is from one of many similar articles found through Google:

28 November 2003

Does al-Qaeda exist?

Not in the way that we think, say some terrorism experts.

by Brendan O'Neill

... Some terrorism experts doubt it. Adam Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud reckon it's time we 'defused the widespread image of al-Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organised terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as al-Qaeda'. Dolnik and McCloud - who first started studying terrorism at the prestigious Monterey Institute of International Studies in California - claim it was Western officials who imposed the name 'al-Qaeda' on to disparate radical Islamic groups and who blew Osama bin Laden's power and reach 'out of proportion'. Both are concerned about the threat of terror, but argue that we should 'debunk the myth of al-Qaeda' ...

...Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'.

Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials. 'Bin Laden never used the term al-Qaeda prior to 9/11', Dolnik tells me. 'Nor am I aware of the name being used by operatives on trial. The closest they came were in statements such as, "Yes, I am a member of what you call al-Qaeda".

The only name used by al-Qaeda themselves was the World Islamic Front for the Struggle Against Jews and Crusaders - but I guess that's too long to really stick.'

So where did 'al-Qaeda' come from? Dolink says there are a number of theories - that the term was first used by bin Laden's spiritual mentor Abdullah Azzam, who wrote of al Qaeda al Sulbah, meaning the 'solid base', in 1988; or that it derives from a bin Laden-sponsored safehouse in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when he was part of the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion, again referring to a physical 'base' rather than to a distinct organisation. But in terms of 'al-Qaeda' then being used to define a group of operatives around bin Laden - that, says Dolnik, originated in the West..

Source

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, kinda odd question cause most people think al qaeda is an organization and it is not, nor was it intended to be...people just originally took it that way and it stuck.

In case you don't relalize, it's a collective term that means loose knit Terror cells...which does exist btw.

I guess an odd question must came with a odd answer. Your answer would say yes and no which does not make any sense on any level. Al qaede may as well be a ghost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

al-Qaeda (arabic translation - The Base) is a blanket term used to describe multiple groups with similar interest and goals. The major goal being the spread of Islamic rule.

a few known groups covered by "The Base":

Fatah al-Islam

Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat

Lashkar-e-Taiba

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Abu Sayyaf Group

Jemaah Islamiyah

Ansar al-Sunna

The list goes on....

Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:

"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question. :tu:

The following excerpt is from one of many similar articles found through Google:

28 November 2003

Does al-Qaeda exist?

Not in the way that we think, say some terrorism experts.

by Brendan O'Neill

... Some terrorism experts doubt it. Adam Dolnik and Kimberly McCloud reckon it's time we 'defused the widespread image of al-Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organised terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as al-Qaeda'. Dolnik and McCloud - who first started studying terrorism at the prestigious Monterey Institute of International Studies in California - claim it was Western officials who imposed the name 'al-Qaeda' on to disparate radical Islamic groups and who blew Osama bin Laden's power and reach 'out of proportion'. Both are concerned about the threat of terror, but argue that we should 'debunk the myth of al-Qaeda' ...

...Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'.

Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials. 'Bin Laden never used the term al-Qaeda prior to 9/11', Dolnik tells me. 'Nor am I aware of the name being used by operatives on trial. The closest they came were in statements such as, "Yes, I am a member of what you call al-Qaeda".

The only name used by al-Qaeda themselves was the World Islamic Front for the Struggle Against Jews and Crusaders - but I guess that's too long to really stick.'

So where did 'al-Qaeda' come from? Dolink says there are a number of theories - that the term was first used by bin Laden's spiritual mentor Abdullah Azzam, who wrote of al Qaeda al Sulbah, meaning the 'solid base', in 1988; or that it derives from a bin Laden-sponsored safehouse in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when he was part of the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion, again referring to a physical 'base' rather than to a distinct organisation. But in terms of 'al-Qaeda' then being used to define a group of operatives around bin Laden - that, says Dolnik, originated in the West..

Source

Can you show more articles? This is getting interesting. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show more articles? This is getting interesting. ;)

Do you know how to use Google? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you show more articles? This is getting interesting. ;)

Im not sure what else you are looking for... pretty much any information you would need on the base is there... do you have another specific question to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have evidence that Al-qaeda exist? Please show me.

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

  1. As a recruitment tool of the West to combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
  2. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Queda may be "only" a movement or ideology comprised of a loose knit series of cells but it accomplished a tremendous amount of damage physically, psychologically and financially with only 19 guys with knives. Personally, the name of the person who kills me with a bomb or knife really doesn't matter to me. i'd just like to have a chance to see him coming so I can try to defend myself :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Queda may be "only" a movement or ideology comprised of a loose knit series of cells but it accomplished a tremendous amount of damage physically, psychologically and financially with only 19 guys with knives. Personally, the name of the person who kills me with a bomb or knife really doesn't matter to me. i'd just like to have a chance to see him coming so I can try to defend myself :blink:

al-qaeda did none of those things. Those 19 guys you spoke of were not al-qaeda AFAIK anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

al-qaeda did none of those things. Those 19 guys you spoke of were not al-qaeda AFAIK anyways.

The lead group (those said to be the pilots) were all Westernised having spent half of their lives in Europe (another, Hani Hanjour, in the U.S.), and fifteen of the nineteen only first travelled to Afghanistan or met bin Laden a year or two prior 9/11. The men did not have the profile of lifelong ‘Al Qaeda’ fanatics that might be expected. It is a question that puzzled the 9/11 Commission also, with one staff member admitting he couldn’t understand why the nineteen did what they did - in particular, Ziad Jarrah, who had a girlfriend and wedding to attend on September 22nd. And why did some of the hijackers purchase return flight tickets?

Anyhow…

It is even known that some ‘Al Qaeda’ agents worked for the West, including bin Laden’s first trainer, Ali Mohammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

al-qaeda did none of those things. Those 19 guys you spoke of were not al-qaeda AFAIK anyways.

Pardon? "AFAIK"? Not sure what that is. And if they weren't al queda then what was their connection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lead group (those said to be the pilots) were all Westernised having spent half of their lives in Europe (another, Hani Hanjour, in the U.S.), and fifteen of the nineteen only first travelled to Afghanistan or met bin Laden a year or two prior 9/11. The men did not have the profile of lifelong ‘Al Qaeda’ fanatics that might be expected. It is a question that puzzled the 9/11 Commission also, with one staff member admitting he couldn’t understand why the nineteen did what they did - in particular, Ziad Jarrah, who had a girlfriend and wedding to attend on September 22nd. And why did some of the hijackers purchase return flight tickets?

Anyhow…

It is even known that some ‘Al Qaeda’ agents worked for the West, including bin Laden’s first trainer, Ali Mohammed.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  1. As a recruitment tool of the West to combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
  2. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is not a simply yes or no question.

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.