• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Al Qaida is US asset

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Al Qaida (or most other terrrorist group) exists where US intelligence dominates. Al Qaida in US when Bush needs excuse to activate Mid-east war. That was 911 attack. Al Qaida is everywhere in Iraq to bomb innocent civilians when US occupies Iraq. Strange to say, under the Saddam regime, there was no Al Qaida. Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. But they appear to attack ordinary people when the government either is controlled by US intelligence or supported by US intelligence. That's why you see Al Qaida attacks in US, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq (after it is occupied by US). Because where they are protected by the intelligence, worked as a whip to beat people. When government want money and power, they beat the people with this whip (Al Qaida terror attack) People feel hurt then give up their civil rights and money to the government. DOJ got the Patriot Act. Pentagon got fat budget and Mid-east war.
 
Bloody Hell - I thought you were banned, Kathaksung. What happened, did feds relent?

(It's actually quite nice to have Kathak back, really - his mind really is a Fortean thing unto itself, and quite fascinating when observed in action.)
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Bloody Hell - I thought you were banned, Kathaksung. What happened, did feds relent?...

Obviously, kathaksung is a Dennis Publishing asset used to beat the people when they want money and power.

Ever noticed how kathaksung's posts on the FTMB only appear under the name...(looks left - looks right)...kathaksung on the FTMB when you read posts purportedly sent by...(checks under table)...kathaksung on the FTMB?
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Bloody Hell - I thought you were banned, Kathaksung. What happened, did feds relent?
Nope: warned, but never banned.

We don't relent ;).
 
This is obviously a False Flag Op funded from the Mods discretionary account.
 
kathaksung1 said:
Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. But they appear to attack ordinary people when the government either is controlled by US intelligence or supported by US intelligence.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it's traditional to attack where you believe it will hurt your enemy most. Silly, I know, but it appears to be how these things work.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
kathaksung1 said:
Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. But they appear to attack ordinary people when the government either is controlled by US intelligence or supported by US intelligence.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it's traditional to attack where you believe it will hurt your enemy most. Silly, I know, but it appears to be how these things work.

Syria is a long-time deadly ennemy of jihadists. Iran is supposed to be another deadly ennemy of Al Qaeda. So Al Qaeda should be very active in Syria and Iran. But they're not. Their absence seems not connected with the absence of their ennemies, but well correlated with the absence of US influence.
 
I don't find the idea of, say, the CIA inventing an 'insurgent enemy' out of the whole cloth to be impossible at all, haven't they funded 'revolutions' before?
 
I think Al Qaeda is more a case of spectacular backfire. The US trained many of its leading cadres for other tasks and now they are turning on them.

The CIA etc never learn. Now they are backing Islamists in Baluchiustan in Iran who make the current Iranian Regime look like liberals. These fundies specialise in beheading their captives. Won't be long efore they turn on their handlers.
 
Analis said:
Syria is a long-time deadly ennemy of jihadists. Iran is supposed to be another deadly ennemy of Al Qaeda. So Al Qaeda should be very active in Syria and Iran. But they're not. Their absence seems not connected with the absence of their ennemies, but well correlated with the absence of US influence.

You're kidding right? Islamic Jihad and Hamas are pretty much based in Syria. Iran funds and arms these two groups, along with Hezbollah. Their absence is only correlated with the absence of US influence if that's how you choose to see it. Far more likely is the scenario that they currently choose not to launch attacks in countries that fund Palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists and that would gladly see Israel obliterated. My enemy's enemy and all that.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
You're kidding right? Islamic Jihad and Hamas are pretty much based in Syria. Iran funds and arms these two groups, along with Hezbollah. Their absence is only correlated with the absence of US influence if that's how you choose to see it. Far more likely is the scenario that they currently choose not to launch attacks in countries that fund Palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists and that would gladly see Israel obliterated. My enemy's enemy and all that.

I agree, their absence is only linked with absence of US influence. Except in Israelian and western propaganda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have no ties to Al Qaida. Like the Hezbollah. Not only that, but all three see Al Qaida as an adversary. Some leaders and executives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have accused OBL of being an agent of the CIA and the Zionist propaganda. Those groups are not interested in a world jihad against the western world ; they rely on religion to ascertain their identity, but they are Palestinian and Lebanese nationalist groups.
The syrian government relies on my ennemy's ennemy is my friend, but as for what they really thought of islamic fundamentalism, remember Hama in February 1982 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama#Modern_era ).
 
There's also the minor point that neither regime are noted for their tenderness and compassion towards any form of dissent or opposition. You'd have to be extremely bravefoolish or both to even think of starting trouble in either country, they're both effectively police states with closely monitored and controlled populations.
 
Analis said:
I agree, their absence is only linked with absence of US influence. Except in Israelian and western propaganda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have no ties to Al Qaida. Like the Hezbollah. Not only that, but all three see Al Qaida as an adversary. Some leaders and executives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad have accused OBL of being an agent of the CIA and the Zionist propaganda. Those groups are not interested in a world jihad against the western world ; they rely on religion to ascertain their identity, but they are Palestinian and Lebanese nationalist groups.
The syrian government relies on my ennemy's ennemy is my friend, but as for what they really thought of islamic fundamentalism, remember Hama in February 1982 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama#Modern_era ).

The Hama massacre was essentially a clash between Sunni and Shiah factions, rather than a crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism.

I agree that Hezbollah, Hamas and IJ have somewhat different aims to Al Qaeda, but I've seen no evidence that makes the case for AQ being controlled by the CIA, other than vague paranoid hearsay and anonymous accusations.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
The Hama massacre was essentially a clash between Sunni and Shiah factions, rather than a crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism.

Not really. This was a ideological war. The syrian government was held mostly by Alawits (a faction of Shiahs), but it was secular. Former president Hafez al-Hassad was widely seen as a non-believer. He made references to Islam, but it was probably for political reasons. He never advocated any war of religion.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
....I've seen no evidence that makes the case for AQ being controlled by the CIA, other than vague paranoid hearsay and anonymous accusations.

And the fact that history is riddled with examples of one group funding another group which ultimately goes on to attack them is often overlooked when the accusation rears its head.

I very much doubt the Romans had the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in mind when they trained Arminius, or that the British saw the Indian Mutiny as it's long term aim when it began to train the Sepoys. Short term strategy is often played out at the expense of long term strategy (it might not be far off the mark to claim that many conflicts actually arise at the point where the two connect).

I don't doubt for one minute the possibility that at some point in their disparate careers some members of the nebulous organisation we choose to call Al Qaeda might have received CIA (or similar) training. As it's already been stated the CIA has engaged in such activities before. However this viewpoint should not automatically lead to the conclusion that AQ is actually controlled by the CIA - unless you use some pretty rusty logic. Using this same logic would lead to the conclusion that because Republican terrorists received training and arms from Libya then Libya actually controlled the IRA. It doesn't wash - at least not when it rests solely on that single connection.
 
Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.
Islamic militants/mujahadeen/AQ were used to attack the pro Soviet Government of Afghanistan for the express purpose of suckering the Soviets into invading so we could give them their own 'Vietnam' type war.(Brezenski 1998).
We gave them their mission,funded them,trained them,armed them and our good friend Osama Bin Ladin lead them. They succeeded in bringing down our arch rival the Soviets. Who benefited?

The 'collapse' of the Soviet Union (complements of AQ) did two things:

1. It created an opportunity for the USA to militarily secure the energy resources we are dependent upon but Only if a way could be found to get the American people willing to fight the needed wars. 911 (complements of AQ) solved that problem & today we have an army sitting on top of some of the world's largest energy reserves. Who benefited?

2.It created a problem in that the American people had been told for 50 years that America's military needed to be as large as it was & expensive as it was to counter the Soviet/Communist threat. Fighting the 'commies' was a way of life that tens of millions of American jobs were dependent upon. A replacement for the Soviet/Communist threat would have to be found or the American people would eventually demand the military be downsized & it's budget drastically cut! 911 (complements of AQ) solved that problem too by stepping forward to fill the Soviet's shoes as our NEW permanent enemy & introducing the 'war on terror'. Who benefited?
They knew from day one that the collapse of the Soviet Union would cause a problem for America's military industrial complex. So, when it became obvious that a replacement would indeed have to be found AQ's 'mission' changed from one of bring down the Soviets to one of becoming their replacements.
They knew that a 'new' enemy couldn't simply appear overnight & that this new enemy would have to have a history of attacking America & her interests. So,what do we see? The first attacks attributed to AQ begin just as the Soviet Union is collapsing. Coincidence? I think not.
Consider this,before the dust even settled on 911 AQ/OBL had been named as THE suspects. Based upon,what? Their history! So,you see, even AQ's history pre 911 of attacking the US & her interests has benefited America's Military Industrial Complex.
 
waitew said:
Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.

Well, actually it is...sorry...IS true if one grossly manipulates any convenient facts, completely ignores the inconvenient ones and presents one's own opinion as an inarguable statement of obvious fact.
 
Spookdaddy said:
waitew said:
Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.

Well, actually it is...sorry...IS true if one grossly manipulates any convenient facts, completely ignores the inconvenient ones and presents one's own opinion as an inarguable statement of obvious fact.


I tell you what. I'll ask two things of you:

1. Give an example of a group that 'turned' on their financiers and whose actions afterward benefited their former financiers 100% of the time. please be specific.

2. Give me an example of an inconvenient 'fact' I've ignored.
 
As a matter of fact, Al Qaida was known only after 911 attack. Many didn't hear it before then. Even for Syria president Assadt.

Quote, "A norwegian professor believes al-Qaida is a Pentagon-fiction:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks ... eID=396241

Al Qaida exists where US intelligence dominate. Al Qaida in US when Bush need excuse to activate Mid-east war. That is 911 attack. Al Qaida is everywhere in Iraq now to bomb innocent civilians when US occupies Iraq. Strange to say, under the Saddam regime, there is no Al Qaida. Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. No wonder Assad doubt it:

Syrias president questions the existence of al-Qaida:

May 26, 2003
«Syria Denies Existence of Al Qaeda»

«KUWAIT CITY (Talon News) -- Syrian President Bashar Assad revealed in a newspaper interview on Sunday that he does not believe there is a terrorist group called al Qaeda, the organization widely believed to be the perpetrators of the hijackings on September 11, 2001 as well as the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.»

«"Is there really an entity called al Qaeda? It was in Afghanistan, but is it there anymore?" Assad asked.»

«Assad speculated about the existence of al Qaeda and its notorious leader Usama bin Laden in a Kuwaiti newspaper called Al-Anba. »

«Nevertheless, questioning the existence of the al Qaeda terrorist network is very popular in Arab countries. Many people in these countries believe that the United States has hyperbolized the danger of al Qaeda as a means for portraying Muslims as violent and dangerous.»

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/may/052 ... nial.shtml
 
So, a belligerant only fights in areas where it's professed enemy has influence. Who'd have thought it?

Possibly some people misunderstand the term 'conflict'.
 
Any attempt to make use of local assets only works while you can fully control them or your goals tie in with theirs, a democracy supporting local assets has the problem that a change of government can result in a changing of goals, look at the Mujahideen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, all where supported at times by the US.
As for the US only fighting in areas where Al Qaida is, this is a chicken and egg situation, also Al Qaida isn't an organisation with membership cards membership secretaries, so proof of who the enemy really are is difficult.
 
ENTIANONMULTI said:
As for the US only fighting in areas where Al Qaida is, this is a chicken and egg situation, also Al Qaida isn't an organisation with membership cards membership secretaries, so proof of who the enemy really are is difficult.

So, Al Qaida is a 'shadowy' terrorist organization whose existence must be accepted as a matter of faith,right? No member ship cards etc. How do you know they exist at all? Because the CIA told you so? Hell,Al Qaida has replaced the USSR as our 'new' permanent enemy. It's what keeps the CIA funding flowing in this post cold war world. That's a hell of an ulterior motive.
You say Al Qaida is only active in areas where the USA military is active because they are there to fight us. I say 'they' only appear to be active in JUST those areas because 'Al Qaida/terrorist' are convenient labels that are applied to anyone and everyone who resistances American domination.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the people of Afghanistan & Iraq didn't take exception to having their countries invaded? That none of them fought/are fighting against us just for that reason? and that everyone who is fighting us over there is a member of Al Qaida/terrorists? Come on.
The big question is,what is Al Qaida? Well,I don't think it's any one thing it's several. So,here's my list:

1. AQ is a list (the data base) of Islamic militants who answer to the CIA & other Western intelligence services (MI5/6,Mossad) These are the guys who brought down The Soviet Union.
2. A mythical,non existent, world wide,highly sophisticated terrorist network completely independent of the CIA. America's Military Industrial complexes'
new boogie man. The one that justifies maintaining a huge military & it's cost & the needed threat to keep the people paying for it without protest. AQ is a much much better enemy than the USSR because it isn't tied to any one country and can be claimed to be active anywhere they want a war for what ever reason (or even at home to justify the loss of civil liberties). An all purpose enemy that can never be defeated because it doesn't exist.
3. A convenient label applied to anyone who resists American domination.Thus anyone who fights us is either AQ or a terrorist. This is why they only 'appear' where the US military is.
4. A convenient label applied to 'patsys' ('terror' cells in the West). The CIA (and others) send operatives into Mosques etc. until they gain the trust of the denomination. By this time, they have identified the young,disgruntled young men they seek. They approach them,"want to joint AQ"? if they accept, they are given a mission,money,explosives,arms etc. (whatever is needed for the mission). During this time they are protected from legitimate law enforcement (if the police,FBI etc are tipped off they are called off from above..see 911 for examples). If the PTB decide the attack should take place, they see to it that it does. If they decide against it,they can bust them & call it a 'sting' operation. Since they control any investigation there's no chance of being caught. It's creating their reality. Considering the payoff,why wouldn't they?

If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.
 
waitew said:
.. If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.
The obvious counter-point being have you any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Thought not.

Now, that doesn't mean I disbelieve you - I think there's possibly some truth in some elements of what you say, but that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to give a precise overall picture - however, you need to beware of basing supposition upon unproven supposition (I won't say the "O" word as it gives Rynner attacks of the vapours ;).)

A cracking discussion / outright argument based on no unequivocal evidence in either direction? Welcome to Conspiracy!
 
stuneville said:
waitew said:
.. If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.
The obvious counter-point being have you any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Thought not.

Now, that doesn't mean I disbelieve you - I think there's possibly some truth in some elements of what you say, but that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to give a precise overall picture - however, you need to beware of basing supposition upon unproven supposition (I won't say the "O" word as it gives Rynner attacks of the vapours ;).)

A cracking discussion / outright argument based on no unequivocal evidence in either direction? Welcome to Conspiracy!

So,can you disprove it? Thought not. Well,you know what they say,"follow the money". I believe I can demonstrate how the USA/UK etc benefits under my theory. Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?
 
waitew said:
So,can you disprove it? Thought not. Well,you know what they say,"follow the money". I believe I can demonstrate how the USA/UK etc benefits under my theory. Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?
I think you missed my point, waitew. This is the whole problem with Conspiracy theories of any hue - for every point there's a counter-point, and the fact that evidence is at best ambivalent and at worst non-existent makes any line of argument or hypothesis just that - a hypothesis.

And that's what makes them conspiracy theories.

Feel free to advance your theory as much as you wish, but please don't go on the defensive if others then advance other theories entirely contrary to your own that nonetheless equally fit the known information. Could be neither of you are right.
 
waitew said:
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the people of Afghanistan & Iraq didn't take exception to having their countries invaded? That none of them fought/are fighting against us just for that reason? and that everyone who is fighting us over there is a member of Al Qaida/terrorists? Come on.

I would imagine anyone who actually thinks that is not in possession of enough wit to read, let alone access the internet and participate in this thread. Even the Bush administration wasn't outrageous enough to make that claim.

waitew said:
So,can you disprove it? Thought not.

In other words, "I made a bunch of stuff up and you can't disprove it, therefore I'm right and you're wrong". Nice debating style. How about this; Al Qaida are robotic assassins from Titan here to enslave humanity and the CIA are secretly a group of Atlanteans known as The Defenders of the Earth who we will one day come to worship as heroes, nay, gods.

So you can't disprove it? Hmm...
 
waitew said:
Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?

Er...they've spread jihad and killed (or caused the death of) thousands of infidels? They're on a mission from God, what kind of benefits are you expecting?
 
Dr_Baltar said:
waitew said:
Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?

Er...they've spread jihad and killed (or caused the death of) thousands of infidels? They're on a mission from God, what kind of benefits are you expecting?


LOL! So,they're on a mission from God? Says who? The CIA/MI6 'asset'/patsy with the big showy turban (so yous can't miss it) who screams," death to America,death to Isreal,death to Britian"? Yep,right,that's who says it & the BBC shows it front & centre just like they're suppose to.
So,they've killed,"thousands of infidels",but what's the ratio? 1 to 1000? They kill one Yank & the Yanks a kill a 1000 (or 10,000.... or more) good Muslims? That's 'bout right ,aint it? How's that benefit them? It doesn't & that's the point. For every one of 'us' they kill 10 more show up and that equals an even greater Western influence all the better to corrupt 'pure' muslim culture which is exactly what they don't want! LOL.
Show me some benefit. Tell me what muslims have gotten RICH $$ because of 911? Then we can compare notes. Deal? You want to know who's made money from 911 in the West? I thought not.
 
Well,more than a week has gone by & no one has been able to answer my question about how Muslims/AQ/Islamic terrorists have benefited from 911 (none have gotten rich) so,I assume you have de facto conceded defeat? and now admit that they have ,in fact, not benefited but ,in fact,suffered? Is that right?
One more thing. If it's true that no one has claimed that the people of Iraq & Afghanistan didn't take exception to being invaded & have attacked us/are fighting us for just that reason then show me ONE..just ONE Western media report about an attack attributed to Iraqis or Afghans against the US?UK troops that is NOT attributed to either: 1. Al Quaida
2.Terrorists or
3.Insurgents
You can't! You admit they have fought back against us just because we invaded their country & claimed that NO one every said they didn't,but when it hits Western papers ALL the attacks are attributed to terrorists or AQ or insurgents. How do you explain that if it's NOT just a label?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top