Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
keithisco

"Al-Qaeda" Does Not Exist

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

keithisco

The crux of this topic is to discuss whether Al Qaeda as an organisation really exists, or whether it is an invention of the old Bush administration to exert "terror mis-information" on the world and in particular to soften up the USA public to accept swingeing attacks on personal liberties.

Al Qaeda is still referenced by the Obama administration, and other world leaders to instil fear amongst their respective citizens.

link

The origins of the name "Al-Qaeda," and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of "Al-Qaeda," as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.

An organization by the name of "Al-Qaeda" does not exist and has never existed outside a falsely coined collective term for offshoot loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, MI6 and the CIA, that were created in response to America's actions after 9/11 - as the recent NIE report shows.

According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares , the infamous footage of Bin Laden marching around with armed soldiers was a ruse on the part of Osama himself, graciously propagated by the lapdog press, in which actors were hired off the streets, given uniforms and guns and told to look aggressive.

So, just what new information is "out there" to support the notion that "Al Qaeda" as an organisation really exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DurgaMata

It looks like a military strategy in Afghanistan is unwinnable. I dont know about US news but every day in British mainstream news they are highlighting military shortfalls and negative feelings.

I have heard this before about Al-Quaeda being a database, it seems likely, and the press like a name to latch on to so you can see how its become widely used. I agree with the article I doubt that Osama Bin Laden or any of his followers would actually refer to themselves as that. The mainstream press are useless they dont ask enough questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby

The crux of this topic is to discuss whether Al Qaeda as an organisation really exists, or whether it is an invention of the old Bush administration to exert "terror mis-information" on the world and in particular to soften up the USA public to accept swingeing attacks on personal liberties.

Al Qaeda is still referenced by the Obama administration, and other world leaders to instil fear amongst their respective citizens.

link

So, just what new information is "out there" to support the notion that "Al Qaeda" as an organisation really exists?

Al Queda in whatever form and using whatever name has been around since well before the Bush administration. I would love to see evidence of this elaborate CS.

Sounds like more crap. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

More Conspiracies section stuff sneaking into the real news section...sigh.

Same old NWO rhetoric...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I have said before: -

What is Al Qaeda? It isn’t a political party or jurisdiction and has no fixed structure. What qualifies one as a member of Al Qaeda? There is no set prerequisite or initiation rite. Al Qaeda appears to be only a Western term to describe a loose collection of ideologies held by groups and individuals, none of which are answerable to one another.

The figurehead of this illusion of an organisation was once Osama bin Laden who, due to being the wealthiest of the Mujahideen, was sought out by other factions for favour. Although all groups and individuals are placed under the collective Western term of Al Qaeda, they are not contained within any chain of command and could act independently. It is not hard to envision an attack being carried out by individuals in the name of Al Qaeda without Osama bin Laden’s prior knowledge.

What I am asking is, who speaks for and acts on behalf of this non-entity… ‘Al Qaeda’?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

Al-Qaeda was the names given to the training grounds of the Mujahadeen. It as been used by the west since 9/11 as nothing more than a label that governments can use on any organisation it sees fit, regardless of their cause or what they are fighting for. Al-Qaeda are nothing more than the bogeyman to keep the masses scared and Osama is just a modern day real life Goldstein.

The US would have never been able to prosecute Osama without Jamal Al-Fadl and that is how OBL became the face of Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda Organisation Structure

Though the current structure of al-Qaeda is unknown, information mostly acquired from Jamal al-Fadl provided American authorities with a rough picture of how the group was organized. While the veracity of the information provided by al-Fadl and the motivation for his cooperation are both disputed, American authorities base much of their current knowledge of al-Qaeda on his testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

CNN Embassy Bombing Trial

Al-Fadl's testimony is part of a plea agreement with the government. He could face up to 15-years in prison for conspiring to attack U.S. military facilities and forces. He has been living in federal protective custody for the past five years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/13/Embassy.bombings.trial/

Jamal Al Fadl

Al Fadl testified in a trial United States v. Usama bin Laden, No. S(7) 98 Cr. 1023 (S.D. N.Y.), Feb. 6, 2001 (transcript pp. 218–219, 233); Feb. 13, 2001 (transcript pp. 514–516); Feb. 20, 2001 (transcript p. 890).

In January 2001, the trial began in New York of four men accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa . The U.S also wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). To be able to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organization, which would then allow them to prosecute the leader, even if he could not be linked directly to the crime.

Jamal al-Fadl was taken on as a key prosecution witness, who along with a number of other sources claimed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a large international terrorist organization which was called "al-Qaeda".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl

Osama Bin Laden didn't have an organisation to call Al-Qaeda. He funded operations which supported Islamic states and ideals, he supported other networks, but Osama never had one of his own.

Al-Qaeda - The Hidden Enemy

In fact, it has been argued that al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it even exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is often cited as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all.

http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/533620

The Power Of Nightmares

The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it."

Its funny isn't it, Osama is the head of Al-Qaeda, yet he never mention pre 9/11. Maybe this explains why....

Osama Bin Laden

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.

What is strange is that people STILL think Osama was behind 9/11 when there isn't any conclusive evidence of it.

FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity - Rex Tomb

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

FBI Director - Robert Mueller

"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."

Vice President Dick Cheney

"We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

Al Queda in whatever form and using whatever name has been around since well before the Bush administration. I would love to see evidence of this elaborate CS.

Sounds like more crap. Period.

I'll second that motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac

Wow... These Governments and their Military units are really spillin' the beans now, aren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chadster

Al-Qaeda is the name of a computer file that the CIA kept of people that formed the Mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, names, training facilities, etc. Thats all it was, after 9/11 they decided to use Al-Qaeda instead of the Mujahideen since most people know about Charlie Wilson and how him and the CIA supplied the Mujahideen during the Russian invasion, which started the downfall of the former Soviet Union. They called them Al-Qaeda instead of Mujahideen, this way people don't relate the Mujahideen to Al-Qaeda and wonder how they got all those weapons over there, etc. Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a list of former Mujahideen fighters during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan which just so happened to include Osama Bin laden and alot of other people that were supposed terrorists, but most of those in the list were volunteer fighters fightning for the Mujahideen against the Russians....They weren't all planning to destroy America, remember, the Afghanistanis loved us, we saved them from a Russian occupied Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

Al Queda in whatever form and using whatever name has been around since well before the Bush administration. I would love to see evidence of this elaborate CS.

Sounds like more crap. Period.

That right! Before Osama was the grown-ups version of the boogeyman he was part of the US funded Mujahideen.

We paid him to fight the infadels invading Afganistan. Now that we are the infadels in Afganistan, can't we just threaten to take away his 401k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Al-Qaeda is the name of a computer file that the CIA kept of people that formed the Mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, names, training facilities, etc. Thats all it was, after 9/11 they decided to use Al-Qaeda instead of the Mujahideen since most people know about Charlie Wilson and how him and the CIA supplied the Mujahideen during the Russian invasion, which started the downfall of the former Soviet Union. They called them Al-Qaeda instead of Mujahideen, this way people don't relate the Mujahideen to Al-Qaeda and wonder how they got all those weapons over there, etc. Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a list of former Mujahideen fighters during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan which just so happened to include Osama Bin laden and alot of other people that were supposed terrorists, but most of those in the list were volunteer fighters fightning for the Mujahideen against the Russians....They weren't all planning to destroy America, remember, the Afghanistanis loved us, we saved them from a Russian occupied Afghanistan.

My understanding is that this is the best explanation of the facts.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merril

My understanding is that this is the best explanation of the facts.

Br Cornelius

Yes, but the source? Robin Cook?

And, his source? Verified?

Besides, Qaeda means base or foundation. Not database.

And, how would Robin Cook know the name of a classified file at the CIA? Could he be mistaken? Is he reliable on this one item?

I somehow doubt this story.

Also, Ahmed Ajaj, convicted in NYC of participating in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, had a book and some bomb making manuals in his possession when he entered the U.S. in 1992. They were confiscated by immigration officers. On one book was written "al-Qaeda".

The FBI interpreted it as "the basic rule". Only later did they understand it to reference the group al-Qaeda, the base.

In Ajaj's luggage INS inspector Mark Cozine and Robert Malafronte found a Saudi passport, altered Jordanian passport, with supporting documents for both; a plane ticket and British passport in the name of Mohammed Azan, bomb-making manuals, videos and other materials on assemble weapons and explosives assembly, letters referencing his attendance at terrorist training camps; anti-American and anti-Israeli materials, instructions on document forgery, and two rubber stamp devices to alter the seal on passports issued from Saudi Arabia.

Ajaj

Yousef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

I don't think Al Qaeda exists as an organisation, any more than Communism existed as an organisation. I think it's more an umbrella term for, more or less, any groups or individuals that share a basic enmity towards the US, or which the US chooses to decide do. I think really, that's all, particularly as far as the US authorities are concerned, that it takes to qualify for "membership". Just like how membership of, or even just sympathy towards, any vaguely socialist party or organisation meant that that, in the minds of the US authorities, labelled you as a Communist. Today, anyone who the US authorities wish to label as anti-American, or un-American, can be called an "Al Qaeda sympathiser" if it suits the US authorities, just as they could be labelled a Communist back in the old days. And thanks to the former President's ingenious M.C. Escher-like bending of law and the rules of warfare, once you are, then you've forfeited any rights that you may have thought you possessed.

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I don't think Al Qaeda exists as an organisation, any more than Communism existed as an organisation. I think it's more an umbrella term for, more or less, any groups or individuals that share a basic enmity towards the US, or which the US chooses to decide do. I think really, that's all, particularly as far as the US authorities are concerned, that it takes to qualify for "membership". Just like how membership of, or even just sympathy towards, any vaguely socialist party or organisation meant that that, in the minds of the US authorities, labelled you as a Communist. Today, anyone who the US authorities wish to label as anti-American, or un-American, can be called an "Al Qaeda sympathiser" if it suits the US authorities, just as they could be labelled a Communist back in the old days. And thanks to the former President's ingenious M.C. Escher-like bending of law and the rules of warfare, once you are, then you've forfeited any rights that you may have thought you possessed.

The voice of reason, your stance seems to have shifted slightly, what changed.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinewave

I don't think Al Qaeda exists as an organisation, any more than Communism existed as an organisation. I think it's more an umbrella term for, more or less, any groups or individuals that share a basic enmity towards the US, or which the US chooses to decide do. I think really, that's all, particularly as far as the US authorities are concerned, that it takes to qualify for "membership". Just like how membership of, or even just sympathy towards, any vaguely socialist party or organisation meant that that, in the minds of the US authorities, labelled you as a Communist. Today, anyone who the US authorities wish to label as anti-American, or un-American, can be called an "Al Qaeda sympathiser" if it suits the US authorities, just as they could be labelled a Communist back in the old days. And thanks to the former President's ingenious M.C. Escher-like bending of law and the rules of warfare, once you are, then you've forfeited any rights that you may have thought you possessed.

That does seem to fit well with what happened under G.W. Bush. The broad powers exercised by the president and his staff were most disturbing especially the warrantless wiretaps and arrests. Many of the arrests included indeterminate detentions. The president contented that Iraq had Al Qaeda ties though a source for that information could never be confirmed. He tried to say it was CIA intelligence but the director denied any knowledge of such a connection. A similar smokescreen was used when the press started to ask questions about the yet to be found WMDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merril
I don't think Al Qaeda exists as an organisation...

Somebody needs to tell Ayman al-Zawahiri to retract all his references to al-Qaeda, made since September, 2001.

If it did not at least exist in full measure, up until it was honed down, then something approximating it accomplished numerous training camps, jihad recruiting, bombings, and skyjackings.

It was perhaps as much improvised at times, as it was organized. But, between Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed and his training skills (double agent loyal to al-Qaeda), bin Laden "the Godfather of jihad" with his money and connections, and various others, it had to have an order, and a discipline, and an organized method to its end.

These people organized for a purpose. They conspired. They used secretive methods and front operations.

And, bin Laden denied he worked for the Americans, who he declared his enemy.

I suppose this discussion would be lengthy, if one tried to name all those who were associated with it or its goals. Terrorists can arise anywhere. But, if they are carrying out the plans of some group that considers itself al-Qaeda, using their plans or expertise, then that is al-Qaeda.

If some influential persons organize, for the purpose of murder and mayhem, and align themselves with that name, no matter where they are, and they spread propaganda sanctioned by a well-known al-Qaeda leader, they are part of that movement.

What I find difficult to believe, is that any of the acts attributed to those operating as al-Qaeda, were really orchestrated or carried out by someone else.

The day Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the more cogent core leaders, comes out and declares himself a pretender and actor, that's when I'll believe there is something else going on.

In the meantime, actually, the name was changed mid-2001. Since al-Zawahiri was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and bin Laden the head of al-Qaeda, they merged them into Qaeda al-Jihad.

So, does it exist as advertised? To some extent?

Edited by merril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

Terrorists can arise anywhere. But, if they are carrying out the plans of some group that considers itself al-Qaeda, using their plans or expertise, then that is al-Qaeda.

If some influential persons organize, for the purpose of murder and mayhem, and align themselves with that name, no matter where they are, and they spread propaganda sanctioned by a well-known al-Qaeda leader, they are part of that movement.

So, does it exist as advertised? To some extent?

yeah, I guess if like you say any nut-job can just say "I am al qaeda blah blah blah" and try to blow up an airplane with their shoe, then al qaeda must exist. Right??

But I think you should re-check exactly how al qaeda was "advertised". It wasn't this loose declare-jihad-and-be-al-qaeda organization you suggest. It was a global network with it's own dr evil-ish underground lairs in the moutains of Tora Bora and a tight knit chain of command.

I don't think it exists at all how it was advertised. It seems to mainly exist now because people like you keep re-inventing it to be real. Its so "real" now that any nut with a bomb or even just some circumstantial evidence against them can be accused of being al qaeda.

A few years ago their was some debate about how you can fight such an ideology (like you are suggesting) by invading countries. There is always going to be bad people who do bad things but that doesn't mean we have to believe in some invisible organization that exists anywhere you choose to say it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Invisible? Uh, I'd say the thousands of members of al-Qaeda, as well as its thousands of terrorist attacks and numerous victims of said terrorist attacks are evidence of the terrorist organization's existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

Invisible? Uh, I'd say the thousands of members of al-Qaeda, as well as its thousands of terrorist attacks and numerous victims of said terrorist attacks are evidence of the terrorist organization's existence.

Yeah, that sort of what I was saying. "Al Qaeda" mainly exits because people like you dream it into existance with your wild imaginations.

"Thousands of attacks"?

Heres wiki's timeline of Al Qaeda attacks -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

Theres something like a dozen actual attacks "attributed or claimed by al-Qaeda" there but don't let that stop you from inflating the numbers 100 times to support your beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar

Invisible? Uh, I'd say the thousands of members of al-Qaeda, as well as its thousands of terrorist attacks and numerous victims of said terrorist attacks are evidence of the terrorist organization's existence.

I'll second that, I'm not sure what world some people are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'll second that, I'm not sure what world some people are in.

I'm in the real world deary, what world would you be living in-OZ.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

Invisible? Uh, I'd say the thousands of members of al-Qaeda, as well as its thousands of terrorist attacks and numerous victims of said terrorist attacks are evidence of the terrorist organization's existence.

Yeah, that sort of what I was saying. "Al Qaeda" mainly exits because people like you dream it into existance with your wild imaginations.

"Thousands of attacks"?

Heres wiki's timeline of Al Qaeda attacks -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

Theres something like a dozen actual attacks "attributed or claimed by al-Qaeda" there but don't let that stop you from inflating the numbers 100 times to support your beliefs.

Like I was saying above, if you define Al Quaeda widely enough, you can call anyone who "Hates America" an Al Quaeda sympathiser. And we know how easy it is to be defined as someone who "Hates America"; all you have to do is voice disquiet at the Iraq or Afghanistan wars (though primarily the former), or the president who was responsible for them. And of course, anyone who took up arms against the US presence in Iraq or Afghanistan, is, according to those who defined the rules, an Al Qaeda member, and therefore exempt from all those annoying rules governing treatment of prisoners and the like. So the ultra-hardline right really wouldn't want to defeat or destroy Al Q., as it's such a handy all-purpose term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Yeah, that sort of what I was saying. "Al Qaeda" mainly exits because people like you dream it into existance with your wild imaginations.

"Thousands of attacks"?

Heres wiki's timeline of Al Qaeda attacks -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

Theres something like a dozen actual attacks "attributed or claimed by al-Qaeda" there but don't let that stop you from inflating the numbers 100 times to support your beliefs.

So on that basis, the answer to the OP question is yes, Al Qaeda does exist, but has nowhere near the capability that the US and UK governments claim. The great majority of Islamic terrorist attacks could thus be described at best as inspired by Al Qaeda rather than organised by them. My own view is that the US and UK reaction to the genuine Al Qaeda attacks has been counter-productive, the invasion of Iraq in particular serving as a recruitment aid for Islamic terror organisations.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar

I'm in the real world deary, what world would you be living in-OZ.

Br Cornelius

I'm not the one getting all my information from the conspiracies board and using it as a solid ground to make my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm not the one getting all my information from the conspiracies board and using it as a solid ground to make my case.

Me neither. I do tend to look outside Fox News and CNN though.

Br Cornelius

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.