• 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.
waitew said:
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)...
Click to expand...

Part of the problem might be that you seem incapable of accepting that the word 'benefit', around which your entire argument seems to be based, is not synonymous with financial gain. Possibly a dictionary might help.

And possibly the arrogance of your tone might not help:

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?
Click to expand...

No, there's a big difference between conceding defeat and the weary resignation that comes with the realisation that absolutely nothing you say will halt the flow of false logic and self-serving misinterpretation of basic facts that stem from a mind made up and closed to all other arguments.

And if you think that's wrong - take a look at some of the other threads and witness the fact that people with differing, sometimes polar opposite, opinions are managing to engage in (admittedly sometimes over-heated) discussion and then ask yourself why that's not happening here?
 
In fact, Al Qaida did not benefit from the attacks only from a financial perspective. It didn't benefit from the attack militarily, strategically or tactically. They never did anything to lead Muslims to revolt against their ennemies. They acted only to encourage them to rise up... against Al Qaida. In Iraq, they fought the insurgents, acting as de facto US allies.

In Afghanistan, where the insurgents are on the rise, they have not much to do anymore with Al Qaida.
 
waitew said:
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?
Click to expand...

Good Muslims go to heaven. Infidels go to Hell. That sounds pretty successful for the cause to me.

In any case, as Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan) show, you can defeat an enemy even if you take disproportionate casualties in the process.


Do you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory, or just the idea that it 'must' be true on the basis of cui bono?
 
waitew said:
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?
Click to expand...

I failed to see how their benefitting or otherwise had any bearing on your claim that they're a US asset, so there didn't seem much point in answering an irrelevant question.


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?
Click to expand...

Who are the "insurgents" if not the people of Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
wembley9 said:
In any case, as Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan) show, you can defeat an enemy even if you take disproportionate casualties in the process.
Click to expand...

Pyrrhus of Epirus being the eponymous example.
 
I think on the balance of probability, the almost-entirely US dominated 'intelligence' agencies have a hand, indirect or direct in the continuing existence of AL-Quaeda. The reason i say that, is they have such demonstrable previous "form" for such actions. Christ, they've even got their old poster boy Ollie North writing execrable ideo-trash - now about the war against "radical islamism" - right up until the present. That's the level of regard they have for the people they supposedly are in place to serve.

Moving on to "who's getting rich out of all this?", these guys aren't (or weren't in at least 1 confirmed case), living in spider holes out in the boonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Adel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordin_Mohammad_Top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab

and they're just the tip of the iceberg. of course they may have had a cave for publicity purposes, but they are very well funded individuals. As for whose funding them, it's a melange. Governments, charities, front-companies, individuals. One of the reasons that US/UK governments are pushing for the Swiss to be even more transparent wrt the numbered account system. Obviously, its tougher to open one today, but some of these accounts were opened in the 60's, alongside Onassis and Taylor. They're highly-prized customers, with regular deposits and withdrawals, after all :D
 
Twin_Star said:
the almost-entirely US dominated 'intelligence' agencies
Click to expand...

Which agencies are you referring to?

The reason i say that, is they have such demonstrable previous "form" for such actions.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd agree that the CIA has form for funding "dodgy" groups and that this has often come back to bite them. Can you cite examples where they have funded a group whose express aim is the wholesale murder of Western, and specifically US, citizens? Can you site examples where they have used the funding of such groups as an excuse to launch one, let alone two, major wars? I'd need specific examples, not just hearsay, rumour and anti-American rhetoric.

Moving on to "who's getting rich out of all this?", these guys aren't (or weren't in at least 1 confirmed case), living in spider holes out in the boonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Adel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordin_Mohammad_Top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab

and they're just the tip of the iceberg. of course they may have had a cave for publicity purposes, but they are very well funded individuals. As for whose funding them, it's a melange. Governments, charities, front-companies, individuals. One of the reasons that US/UK governments are pushing for the Swiss to be even more transparent wrt the numbered account system. Obviously, its tougher to open one today, but some of these accounts were opened in the 60's, alongside Onassis and Taylor. They're highly-prized customers, with regular deposits and withdrawals, after all :D
Click to expand...

One of them's in prison and two are dead. I fail to see the benefit they've gained. As for who's funding them, if we're honest, we're all just guessing. However, there are individuals and groups out there with just as much, if not more, funds available to them as the CIA.
 
Some money probably comes from Saudi Arabia, from those who don't like the House of Saud as they see it as toadying to the US.
 
Which agencies are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Take your pick, no really. after the 1947 National Security Act it would probably be some wing of the CIA. And probably the Military Service Intelligence boys for the hands-on stuff.

Can you cite examples where they have funded a group whose express aim is the wholesale murder of Western, and specifically US, citizens? Can you site examples where they have used the funding of such groups as an excuse to launch one, let alone two, major wars?
Click to expand...

Well, thats the problem isnt it. Old Uncle Minh seemed a pretty good bet, fighting the Japs in 44-45. Look, i won't insult you with a history of the next 20 years in South-East Asian , but Diem's rigged elections et al have more than a whiff of Karzai about them. The current means are just depressingly familiar to anyone that cares to look.


One of them's in prison and two are dead. I fail to see the benefit they've gained.
Click to expand...
Ah, but thats the risk they were prepared to take. And while they lived they probably had a whale of a time. Not everyone is the pipe and slippers and live the usual three score and ten. Anyway, there's plenty more out there that arent banged up. And so the tawdry pantomime lurches and shudders again. A ways back in this thread i think it was mentioned that it seems that terrorist resistance is found most in those countries that are being policed by an occupying force. who would have ever believed it, eh? ;)
 
Twin_Star said:
...The current means are just depressingly familiar to anyone that cares to look...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure many of us would disagree that there's something depressingly familiar about what's going on. However whether we see that as an indication of some global conspiracy, or simply another example of humanity's endlessly short-sighted stupidity and it's recourse to an incredibly constricted imagination and limited vocabulary of action when faced with certain situations, is another matter.
 
waitew said:
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?
Click to expand...

Who suffered from Al Qaida attack? Ordinary people. They lost their lives in bombings done by Al Qaida. And Islamic, they are tarnished as cruel, irrational people. Who benefitted? Pentagon got fat budget and wars in Mid-east. D.O.J. got their power entended - by Patriot Act. And US controls oil rich country - Iraq.

Are you still not clear whom Al Qaida works for?
 
First off 'financial' isn't the ONLY benefit I recognize,but when you've got a ratio of 10,000 to 1 in terms of deaths & a situation where 100 more come for every ONE killed,I find it hard/difficult to call it a BENEFIT,at the very least!
Look,White English speaking people have,in just a few hundred years,gone from inhabiting JUST a couple little islands off of Europe to colonizing nearly half the bloody world. Where it seemed possible to exterminate the natives (North America & Australia) we attempted it. Where it was hopelessly impossible (due to sheer numbers) we had to content ourselves with merely ruling over them (India/parts of Africa). we stole their resources (including labour) & imposed our will upon them...ALWAYS at the point of a gun. It's all we know.
So, here we are today with an army sitting right on top of the world's largest reserves of a finite resource we are entirely dependent upon..guns drawn. What is an honest man to think? Take a GOOD honest look at what put us there (ie 911) & just what are we to think?
Can you answer the questions the 911 truth movement asks? No,you can not! and are forced to ask them to speculate hoping that you can find some fault in their speculation...BUT their questions you CAN NOT answer BECAUSE there is no benign answer to them and ,quite frankly,if you are this far INTO it,you know that!
 
I'd suggest that asking questions simply in order to answer them on behalf of everyone yourself makes this entire exercise one of pointless intellectual onanism.
 
waitew said:
when you've got a ratio of 10,000 to 1 in terms of deaths & a situation where 100 more come for every ONE killed,I find it hard/difficult to call it a BENEFIT,at the very least!
Click to expand...

All this shows is that you don't think like a terrorist.

Which is nice.
 
I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French expert on Islamist groups.

He argues Iraq has been a graveyard for Al Qaeda - they were broadly defeated there, in large part because Shia Muslims rose up against them (probably funded to do so by the Gulf petro-monarchies).

The problem is in Afghanistan AQ remains protected by the Taleban, who are resurgent, and have the numbers AQ do not.

Kepel's conclusion was pessimistic - that the US/UK are now stuck in the same position that the Soviets were 25 years ago.

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_t ... jihad.html
 
I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French argument on Islamist groups.

He argues Iraq has been a graveyard for Al Qaeda - they were broadly defeated there, in large part because Shia Muslims rose up against them (probably funded to do so by the Gulf petro-monarchies).

The problem is in Afghanistan AQ remains protected by the Taleban, who are resurgent, and have the numbers AQ do not.

Kepel's conclusion was pessimistic - that the US/UK are now stuck in the same position that the Soviets were 25 years ago.

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_t ... jihad.html
 
PaulStott said:
I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French argument on Islamist groups.

He argues Iraq has been a graveyard for Al Qaeda - they were broadly defeated there, in large part because Shia Muslims rose up against them (probably funded to do so by the Gulf petro-monarchies).
Click to expand...

That's not so much the Shia who rose up against the jihadists, but the latter who, supposedly, attacked them and divided Muslims. It seems that they were used to split the national resistance, which was really dangerous to the occupants. I repost a comment I had previously posted here : http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... &start=870 , on the alternatively incredibly cunning or stupidly fanatical alqaidists, according to the needs. Now that breaking the insurgency in Iraq is not needed anymore, and that the country is embedded in a state of perpetual civil war, the "war on Shia heretics" has vanished from the Al Qaeda agenda. Because it was there only for the neo-conservative propaganda. This propaganda now reverts to the denunciation of Iran-Al Qaida alliance :

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
They make useful boogeymen. They are evil, ruthless and irrationnal. Their behaviour is easy to explain this way, they're evil, period. Very convenient for all kinds of manipulations. If all the jihadists wanted was to bring war to the Middle-East so that the Muslim nations would unite, they had a perfect opportunity with Iraq. They ruined it for the benefit of the occupant. The neo-conservative "thinkers" were in the need of a new concept to divide the Iraqi resistance and Muslim nations. They invented the "Shia Crescent". It was pure propaganda, but it worked. Thanks to "Al Qaeda", whose shifts strangely seem to mimick perfectly the needs of US foreign policy.

In April 2004, the US occupation forces in Iraq faced a Sunni Arab revolt. Shia Arabs friended the insurgents and came to their rescue, Sunni families posted Moqtada Al Sadr pictures in their home. This was the birth of a national resistance movement. A formidable threat to the occupants. Coincidentally, at the same time Al Zarqawi started to attack savagely Shia Arabs. How convenient. Earlier, most jihadists were pan-islamist, anti-Shia hostility was a negligible part of their doctrine (if they existed at all). Now they acted as if they tried to promote the new US agenda. We can see now what the results were: first, Sunni Arabs vs Shia Arabs, then Sunni Arabs vs Sunni Arabs. The resistance was broken and civil war followed, to the only benefit of US troops. Arab states were in a dismay, Saudis planned an intervention in Iraq, the region was in chaos, while the US policy rised hostility towards Iran. At the same time, a new jihadist group emerged in Lebanon, set in turmoil by a series of unsolved political assassinations. Both were without proof blamed on Syria, and a new civil war was narrowly avoided. Al Qaeda seems to follow the old plans of dividing Near and Middle Eastern into their ethnic and religious components. In fact it seems to follow systematically the neo-imperialist agenda.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/lates ... -bin-laden

Latest News25 Comments Print
Share
December 1st, 2009 12:58 AM
Maurice Hinchey: George W. Bush 'intentionally' lost Osama bin Laden

By Andy Barr / Politico

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) on Monday accused former President George W. Bush of “intentionally” letting Osama bin Laden escape during the American invasion of Afghanistan.

“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC.

“That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.”

When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”

“I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it’ll strike a lot of people as being very accurate,” Hinchey said. “All you have to do is look at the exact circumstances and see that’s exactly what happened.”

“When our military went in there, we could have captured [the Taliban],” he insisted. “But we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration, and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.newschannel34.com/conten...rageous-Bin-Laden/82BkHCmhh06pz3_fSwIXJg.cspx

Phillips Blasts Hinchey's Outrageous Bin Laden Comments on MSNBC

Groundless Allegations Should Be Retracted and Apology Issued

Binghamton, NY --- George Phillips, Candidate for US Congress in NY's 22nd Congressional District sharply criticized his opponent Maurice Hinchey for outrageous comments he made on MSNBC yesterday.

Hinchey stated President Bush 'intentionally let Osama Bin Linden get away' as part of an Iraq War plan.

Phillips stated, "These wild accusations by a Member of the United States Congress on national television are simply outrageous."

Phillips added, "I saw Gary Berntsen, the CIA commander at Toro Boro where Bin Laden was thought to be located, speak last year. Americans put their lives on the line to capture this terrorist leader. Hinchey's comments are simply insulting to our men and women in the armed services. He should retract these groundless allegations and issue an apology."

Phillips also commented on President Obama's decision to add troops to Afghanistan. He felt it was the right decision, maintaining that it remains a key spot for combating terrorism, and that the plan of action moving forward must combine strategic use of the military and diplomacy.

But Phillips added he was "extremely disappointing that the President waited so long to make a decision that was recommended by his military advisors months ago" and that "this delay could put the mission at risk."
Click to expand...
 
A politician criticizes his opponent. Political games.
 
Al Qaida and Mujahedeen

Bin Laden was an asset of CIA and was used to fight against Soviet Union in 80s. At that time Bin Laden's group was called as Majahideen. Qaida was used as a data base in communiction.

In early 90, when Soviet Union collapsed, US intelligence turned its resource on to Mid-east countries which are rich in oil resource, they revive the retired asset - Bin Laden. Bin Laden returned to Islamic world trying to provoke a conflict so that US could justify an interference and invasion.

On 2001, when US inside group had their puppet Bush to be the president, the war was ready. 911 was done to justify the war. To prevent people to link the "terror attack" with Islamic fannatic (Mujahedeen) and CIA, US intelligence then starts to use "Al Qaida" as "terrorist" group to justify the "war on terror". Since then, they blame every terror attack on "Al qaida". Al Qaida could be viewed as a group of special opratives commanded by US intelligence. Their mission is to activate false flag terror attack on civilians to justify US military action.

What Al Qaida did - bombing WTC, killing US civilians on 911, and bombing innocent civilians in Iraq, all targetted at ordinary people. It tarnished Islam as savage, inhuman, cruel. Who benefited? Who expanded the police power by Patriot Act? Who got fat budget? If you can answer these questions, then you know what is Al Qaida - a tool of US intelligence.
 
Who supplied "Al Qaida"?

Any resistence needs resource, from money to ammunition to human resource. Vietcon had the support from two big powers - Soviet and China.

Where did the support of Al Qaida come from? Not from Saddam's Iraq, Syria, Iran. If there was, US already beat the drum to invade. Al Qaida only prosperous in Iraq after it is occupied by US army. Because they are supported by pentagon and intelligence. Bin Laden's resistence is known as Mujahiddem before 911. Everybody knows it was trained and supported by CIA. Al Qaida was only a data base in communication for Mujahiddem before 911. After 911, to prevent people to link CIA from Mujahiddem, they created Al Qaida and since blame everything on it.

But where did Al Qaida get the money from? No nation dare to offend US - a super power. So the support must be from either from Alladin's magic Lantern or US secret budget.

Quote, The head of Pakistan’s ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, had ordered to wire $100,000 to the leader of 911 attack, Mohammed Atta through the hand of Omar Sheikh. This has been confirmed by the director of the FBI’s financial crimes unit, Dennis Lormel.

Quote, " Musharraf names 9/11 suspect as possible British asset
Fails to mention links to 9/11, ISI, CIA
By Devlin Buckley
© Copyright 2006,

http://fromthewilderness.com/members/10 ... _names.php
 
The following is a quote from Kat Hak Sung about his opinion of Al Qaida. Kat Hak Sung is accused of "spam" for telling his own opinion in different web sites.

Who supplies weapon to Al Qaida?

What excuse the Neocon uses to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not. There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq. "

Then who support the insurgence and militias and Al Qaida the weapon they need? To my analysis, there is only one suspect: US. which has motives and ability.
The following news proved it's no others than US supplied weapon to the Iraqi insurgence and militias and Al Qaida, though media use the word "missing".

Quote, "ABC News: 190,000 AK-47s Sent to Iraq Are Missing

A young boy aims an AK-47 assault rifle during clashes between ... The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3450946

Do you have the conception how many is 190,000? It can arm a force bigger than the whole US occupation troop in Iraq. (170,000 after surge) Whom do you think are the receipants of these "missing" weapons?
Click to expand...
 
kathaksung1 said:
...

How do you define "spam"? When I cut and paste my own article in different web sites, that is "spam"? ...
Click to expand...
That is indeed spam, as Kathaksung is well aware, having been warned several times, over several years.

Kathaksung1 has been banned for spamming.

Thread Locked.

P_M
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top