Al Qaeda Works for the CIA: Why Shouldn't I Believe This?

[Seventh_Pilot]

Bizarre Ted? I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate you have a tendency toward intellectual snobbery. Problem is just because you obviously outwit us with your intellectual might doesn’t mean your right, or rather the sources and other peoples opinions you use are right.

 

[Hanslune]

Bin Laden is from a large wealthy family but under pressure from Saudi officials and others they cut him off.

He is either dead, incapitated or so deep into hiding that he's not advising or running anything anymore.

Despite Hollywood and other fantasies, its actually difficult to kill off people or arrange conspiracies to allow events to occur.

One wonders why the Israelis have never 'arranged' a desvastating attack on Israeli that would allow them to remove the Palestinans from the West bank - why not instead a multiple 911 style attack on European cities and America that blames the Palestinians? Strange that doesn't happen....

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Bizarre Ted? I think it would be relatively easy to demonstrate you have a tendency toward intellectual snobbery. Problem is just because you obviously outwit us with your intellectual might doesn’t mean your right, or rather the sources and other peoples opinions you use are right.

I hardly think asking for a logically composed argument based on evidence is intellectual snobbery. Using some sort of sources to back up your argument does make it easier to be right, though, and it's not simply a smug intellectual exercise - it's the way things are done in the real world.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

One wonders why the Israelis have never 'arranged' a desvastating attack on Israeli that would allow them to remove the Palestinans from the West bank - why not instead a multiple 911 style attack on European cities and America that blames the Palestinians? Strange that doesn't happen....

Interestingly enough, though, the first group to claim responsibility for 9/11 was actually a Palestinian group and, iirc, certain elements of the attack did match their modus operandi.

 

[crunchy5]

Re: Al Quaeda works for the CIA..why shouldn't I believe thi

Considering everything Al Quaeda does seems to benifit certain elements of the US government & certain US corporations... from 911, providing an excuse for invading Afganistan & thus providing a route for pipelines for Caspian Basin oil/gas to profitably reach the west..to the dalily attacks in Iraq which provide an excuse to keep Iraqi oil off the market & thus keep oil prices high, resulting in record profits for both US oil companies & US defence contractors.
Considering the history of Al Quaeda.... created by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afganistan..& the close relationship between the Bin Ladins & the Bushes....Osama's brother funding 'W's' 1st failed texas oil business,Bush senior being with Osama's brother on 911 & lying about it, The bushes flying the Bin Ladin family out of the USA post 911 when one one else was allowed to fly..to allowing Osama to 'escape ' at Tora Bora.....tell me,why shouldn't i believe that Al Quaeda still works for elements in Washington?

Agreed

 

[Jerry_B]

I find it blackly comical that some people think that the CIA has some sort all-encompassing power to contriol various situations and groups across the world but at the same time are not willing to believe that OBL and Al Q can do the same thing.

Not that I'm saying that either side has any such power - I'd just thought I'd point out that both sides of the argument need alot of assumptions in order for them to work. So, Al Q is not some sort of Bondesque baddy organisation, fronted by OBL and his white cat from a cave complex based somewhere or other. Similarly, the CIA, etc. is also not some sort of Bondesque super agency that sees all, knows all, and controls all (white cat optional)...

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I find it blackly comical that some people think that the CIA has some sort all-encompassing power to contriol various situations and groups across the world but at the same time are not willing to believe that OBL and Al Q can do the same thing.

Not that I'm saying that either side has any such power - I'd just thought I'd point out that both sides of the argument need alot of assumptions in order for them to work. So, Al Q is not some sort of Bondesque baddy organisation, fronted by OBL and his white cat from a cave complex based somewhere or other. Similarly, the CIA, etc. is also not some sort of Bondesque super agency that sees all, knows all, and controls all (white cat optional)...

Why not? They have the budget for it. If not, then where are all those tax dollars and slush funds going?

The US tax payer should be told! :hah:

 

[Jerry_B]

Defence spending suffers from a certain amount of hyper-inflation, which may account for the costs involved. Aside from that, money does not grant an organisation super-human capabilities. As has been pointed out, the CIA don't have a 100% success rate (far from it, in fact), despite the amount of money thrown at it over the years. The failure to dispose of Castro is a prime example.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... The failure to dispose of Castro is a prime example.

Apparently, your only example.

The World of straight bat intelligence services, where everything happens, just like it says on the tin.

It seems like it's only the intelligence services, from the former East bloc, that have any success in the assassination stakes and they fly economy class.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

... The failure to dispose of Castro is a prime example.

Apparently, your only example.

The World of straight bat intelligence services, where everything happens, just like it says on the tin.

It seems like it's only the intelligence services, from the former East bloc, that have any success in the assassination stakes and they fly economy class.

It's not neccessarily the only failed assassination attempt, though. Given the claims made regarding Bin Laden one might expect similar claims of CIA skullduggery to be given the same credence. This might include the claims made by Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah or Mobutu. Perhaps there's more - who knows?

Now, admittedly there's no official records of this in the CIA files but is this really neccessary?

 

[Jerry_B]

... The failure to dispose of Castro is a prime example.

Apparently, your only example.

No, just one example. It's a good one because, as has been pointed out, Cuba is pretty much on America's doorstep.

It seems like it's only the intelligence services, from the former East bloc, that have any success in the assassination stakes and they fly economy class.

The CIA has preferred proxy means to dispose of what it considers opponents. It has a better record of disposing of these opponents in such a way - Allende, for example. That said, it failed to bring about any sort of coup that would dipose Castro. It failed to depose the Sandinistas, despite having 2 armies on hand to do so (and also failed to kill the leader of one of those armies with a bomb). Wider 'assassination' programmes, such as Operation Phoenix, also failed. IIRC, such tactics also failed against the Pathet Lao.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

The CIA has preferred proxy means to dispose of what it considers opponents. ...

No! Really? :shock:

Do you mean like those proto-Al Quaida, from back in the Eighties, the Mujahadeen?

 

[Jerry_B]

The mujahadeen were not a precursor to Al Q. For a start, Al Q seems to be, at it's heart, more of a socio-political ideology involving action against what it considers to be enemies of Islam, as advocated by OBL. Since then, various other groups have decided to wear the same badge (justifiabley or not is a moot point). The mujahadeen weren't really the same sort of thing, especially in terms of ideology.

Also, you seem to have failed to understand my point about the use of proxies. I was actually referring to methodology, in response to what you said about the approach of Eastern Bloc agencies. Both the East and the West were involved in war by proxy and assassination during the Cold War. The point is that the CIA weren't particularly any better at it than anyone else, so the idea that nowadays they're somehow some sort of super-duper agency that can successfully do all sorts of things is somewhat daft. As I said, it's funny that some people can believe that the CIA can do all sorts of nefarious things, but refute the idea that OBL and Al Q can also do something similar. IMHO, both ideas are probably better suited to Tom Clancy novels than anything in real life It's doubtful that the CIA have the sort of powers envisaged by some, just as it's equally doubtful that Al Q and OBL have various powers as envisaged by some others.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

You said it, buddy!

 

[Anonymous]

Defence spending suffers from a certain amount of hyper-inflation, which may account for the costs involved. Aside from that, money does not grant an organisation super-human capabilities. As has been pointed out, the CIA don't have a 100% success rate (far from it, in fact), despite the amount of money thrown at it over the years. The failure to dispose of Castro is a prime example.

Well yes, writing continuous blank cheques for pointless wars will do that for you.

I mean, you can only sell so much of your own weapons etc to others before you fight them, and you have development costs on top of that...and then the development and production costs of new hi tech gear to defeat your previous best because you sold your previous best to your new enemy before the war right?

As to the failure to dispose of Castro - I say again, why did they not just do another JFK?

They could have done it, and they did not.

I do not agree with the idea that they could not.

 

[Spookdaddy]

As to the failure to dispose of Castro - I say again, why did they not just do another JFK?

They could have done it, and they did not.

I do not agree with the idea that they could not.

Well setting aside the other contentious implications of that statement, Castro doesn't tend to ride around the middle of large American cities in an open topped car.

I'm sure the US intelligence services would be flattered by the almost religious faith certain people show in their ability to carry out the will of their political masters with seamless efficiency and without any tiresome real-life elements added to the mix - like the fact that their actions have to be hidden not only from their enemy but also from significant elements of the system they represent, fuck-ups, the fact that their targets might not feel all that comfortable with the idea of being offed and therefore might even employ the fiendish and decidedly not cricket tactic of protecting themselves, or that they may be hidden under a few billion tons of sun scorched rock in a desert that invading armies haven't been able to police since the days of Alexander the Great.

What seems to be being argued is that the CIA are a god-like entity, omniscient and infallible (and the Bay of Pigs never happened) and that if they, or their political masters wish something to be, then it will be. Is that the case or am I misinderstanding something?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

What seems to be being argued is that the CIA are a god-like entity, omniscient and infallible (and the Bay of Pigs never happened) and that if they, or their political masters wish something to be, then it will be. Is that the case or am I misinderstanding something?

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...

 

[Spookdaddy]

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...

Okay, don't disagree with that at all, but there are people in this discussion whose attitude appears a little less tempered than your own.

 

[Seventh_Pilot]

I never said your constant demands for “logically composed argument”, as you put it, was my reason for claiming you have a tendency for intellectual snobbery Ted. Thank you for making the assumption though. I agree with your claim of not living in the real world though, it was a desire to get away from that that brought me to remote Australia. Are you claiming to have a grasp on what really goes on in the world Ted? If so you really should share it with us but more importantly why you seem to have the knowledge no one else has. With respect to the thread subject I’d like to go against the grain of the majority of posters when I say that Al Quaeda as a single international group does not exist and the only difference between the CIA/ Al Quaeda position post 9/11 is that those insignificant Islamic radicals have now become rather more significant but Al Quaeda is still just a blanket term. I’m sure if the majority of Iraqis fighting the illegal occupation of their country found out how the western media is portraying them as Al Quaeda they would be a little offended, if not amused, as would the Taliban / Mujahideen fighters in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan. Jerry perhaps you’d like to expand on your claims of proxy assassinations during the Cold War, have you ever heard of SOXMIS?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Certainly not. Just that they may not be as incompetent as their 'defenders' are apparently making them out to be and that semi-secret organisations, along with their various sub-departments, may occasionally have aims and objectives which are not necessarily as stated on the label...

Nobody's claiming that they're completely incompetent and therefore incapable of carrying out assassinations, including their 'defenders' (I'd say it was a misreading to conclude that those who claims incompetence on the part of an organisation are defending it).

The point here is claims are made that because Bin Laden has not been assassinated this implies the CIA haven't been trying and given their overwhelming record of success in this field we must assume that if they had tried he'd be dead right now. The problem is that the information regarding the CIA's track record of assassination is sketchy at best and that we don't actually know whether, like the Mounties, they always get their man. The details regarding any failed attempts will generally be kept away from the eyes of the public. Given that claims about the CIA's links with Bin Laden are equally unrecorded in official terms we can't really conclude much in terms of their record of failed assassinations.

 

[Spookdaddy]

Before we all get warm under the collar might we not actually be kind of agreeing that simply because an individual remains at large does not automatically imply that the US intelligence services wish them to. And that equally, it might. But that, even given the latter scenario this desire does not therefore imply an infallibility in the path between will, prosecution and result on the part of the CIA. Does that seem reasonable?

Seems silly to replace one orthodoxy with another.

 

[Analis]

Relating to the search for OBL in Afghanistan, I watched recently a french documentary on the resort Planète. Its author was very cautious. He had gathered confirmations from a number of Afghan officers that OBL was given an escape end 2001. He couldn't conclude if it was deliberate or accidental. But a number of Afghan and French sources told him that such occurences happened at least four times. One time could be a mistake; four, this is much less likely. It seems that military forces stationed in Afghanistan do not try to capture OBL (if he is alive at all, of course), whatever the reason. What happens in this country is a black hole.

I believe too that Al Qaida does not exist as such. OBL (if he was alive) and Zawahiri had little control of Zarqawi in Irak. And the existence of "Al Qaida in Maghreb" is uncertain. Algerian Salafists are supposed to have joined Al Qaida at least on two different occasions (many Algerian political analysts and journalists believe they are only a front cover of Algerian secret services)...

 

[Jerry_B]

Obviously the Coalition intelligence services get things right on occasion, and 'get their man' - various insurgent leaders in Iraq have been killed as a result, one quite recently (last week) IIRC.

The point is that there seems to be a idea in some camps that the CIA always knows what's going on and are steering everything behind the scenes. This seems to me to be simply another bit of mythology, used to prop up various theories. It also exists in UFO lore. So it seems that certain belief systems rely on the CIA being so powerful, at the expense of ignoring real-life examples where CIA operations have failed, to the detriment of US interests.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I never said your constant demands for “logically composed argument”, as you put it, was my reason for claiming you have a tendency for intellectual snobbery Ted. Thank you for making the assumption though. I agree with your claim of not living in the real world though, it was a desire to get away from that that brought me to remote Australia. Are you claiming to have a grasp on what really goes on in the world Ted? If so you really should share it with us but more importantly why you seem to have the knowledge no one else has.

Well unless you explain your (slightly offensive) observation I'll be unaware what to you constitutes snobbery. I can only assume it's based on what I've done so far which is to present my views in the ways that I have. I don't make a special claim to know what happens in the real world but I do understand what most people in that world would consider the best way to make a point ie to back it up with evidence rather than conjecture.

With respect to the thread subject I’d like to go against the grain of the majority of posters when I say that Al Quaeda as a single international group does not exist and the only difference between the CIA/ Al Quaeda position post 9/11 is that those insignificant Islamic radicals have now become rather more significant but Al Quaeda is still just a blanket term.

I think most, if not all, posters have expressed that view themselves so it's certainly not a minority view.

I’m sure if the majority of Iraqis fighting the illegal occupation of their country found out how the western media is portraying them as Al Quaeda they would be a little offended, if not amused, as would the Taliban / Mujahideen fighters in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan.

I suspect they're probably already offended enough if they're prepared to fight the occupying troops, let alone killl their own people, though (the occupation of Iraq is not illegal and in Afghanistan both the war and the occupation are not illegal, btw).

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry perhaps you’d like to expand on your claims of proxy assassinations during the Cold War, have you ever heard of SOXMIS?

I've heard of SOXMIS, but am unsure of what relevance it has to this thread. Perhaps you could enlighten us...?

As for proxy assassination - there has been a mix of ways of disposing of those elements in the CIA's sights. For example, Allende was toppled from power in Chile by a military coup, sponsored by US interests (supposedly 'Operation Track II'). CIA elements trained Hmong tribesmen in weapons and assassination techniques in order to fight the Pathet Lao. This failed, and the Hmong were left out to dry (and as a result, are to this day facing a precarious future). 'Operation Phoenix', which was aimed at dealing with 'pro-Communist' elements in Vietnam in the late '60s to mid-'70s still did ultimately not work in favour of US policy.

 

[Seventh_Pilot]

Yeah Ted, you say tomato... For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries. This goes without mentioning the major breeches of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand them, during both these campaigns (I received weekly lessons on the Geneva Conventions during my service with an electronic warfare unit during the Cold War in Germany). Bullshit excuses and media spin do not override these laws set in place by many lives sacrificed during the Second World War, possibly members of your family Ted, definitely members of mine. Your denial offends me so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to feel any remorse for my own slightly offensive remark, especially as I stand by it.

Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.

 

[Anonymous]

Like mine?

Look, how hard is it to pay somebody or send somebody with a rifle to shoot him in Cuba?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Yeah Ted, you say tomato... For your information both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international law as is the continued occupation in both those countries. This goes without mentioning the major breeches of the Geneva Conventions, as I understand them, during both these campaigns (I received weekly lessons on the Geneva Conventions during my service with an electronic warfare unit during the Cold War in Germany). Bullshit excuses and media spin do not override these laws set in place by many lives sacrificed during the Second World War, possibly members of your family Ted, definitely members of mine. Your denial offends me so I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to feel any remorse for my own slightly offensive remark, especially as I stand by it.

Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.

For the word 'desire' replace ability.

You defend unfounded accusations of snobbery by pretending to be offended by remarks that appear later on. You misrepresent what posters say and make claims which are simply not true (the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are legal, next to nobody in the international community is disputing this and the arbirters of the United Nations recognise this fact). Rather than accusing others of regurgitating nonsense try getting your own information straight first.

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry, it seems our views as to what constitutes the "Cold War" differ, as I served in Germany during this time and you didn’t this maybe the reason. As you were setting yourself up to be an expert on the Cold War I was wondering as to what extent that expertise went. I asked about SOXMIS in the hope you would demonstrate some knowledge of what they were about, in the context of your statement they have relevance, if you knew much about them you would see that. I have no desire to enlighten you or anybody else, I come to this forum to read the ideas and theories of other people, and both you and Ted offer nothing but regurgitated nonsense, from my rather unworldly view of course. You can paint a turd gold chap and it may look pretty but its still a turd.

The idea that I'm setting up myself as some sort of 'expert' on the Cold War is something which is purely a phantom in your mind, IMHO. Where have I said that I'm an 'expert' on anything in this thread, hm? All I've done thus far is to note examples of CIA operations within the Cold War period. If that somehow makes me anything like an 'expert' in your eyes, I can only assume you're easily pleased

So, please, if in your eyes any of us are wrong about certain things, please actually enlighten us as to the reasons why. For example, please explain why the SOXMIS stuff is relevant - I would be very interested to know. After all, if you come here 'to read the ideas and theories of other people', why on earth don't you point out the fallacies you think are contained in what any of us say? If you instead refuse to point out our errors, what is the point of you actually taking part in this discussion?

Put simply, if you think we're wrong please point out why.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Before we all get warm under the collar might we not actually be kind of agreeing that simply because an individual remains at large does not automatically imply that the US intelligence services wish them to. And that equally, it might. But that, even given the latter scenario this desire does not therefore imply an infallibility in the path between will, prosecution and result on the part of the CIA. Does that seem reasonable?

Yes, very reasonable. The point I've been trying to make is that ultimately the non capture or assassination of Bin Laden neither proves or disproves anything about the CIA's actions. There are no absolutes to be drawn from this whole affair.