It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Phony 'Al-Qaeda' Responsibility Claim a Proven Hoax

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   


With regard to the so-called claim of responsibility for the London bombings from an unknown Al-Qaeda group which the British government is treating as 'serious,' MSNBC reported.

MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said.

"This is not something al-Qaida would do," he said.

Furthermore, the website posting doesn't even claim personal responsibility, it simply references "the heroic mujahedeen" in the third person. The posting praises the attack, it doesn't even take responsibility for it.

These facts didn't stop countless newspapers and Neo-Con websites automatically assuming Al-Qaeda was behind the attack


www.infowars.com... a_claim_hoax.htm

Of course, reguardless, all you hear about on the news is Al Queda this and Al Queda that. Please open your eyes. Do you honestly think an extremist fundamentist muslim group would misquote the Quraan?

Something smells very fishy here.




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well they're already 'misinterpreting'
the Quran!!!

Or else they (the extremeist) would not kill innocents....

BTW, Your title is very misleading

And who is the experts that cracked the case on this one?




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Yeah I know. I just copied the direct title of the article.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The islamic terrorists aren't necessarily the most highly educated or professional people in the world. Is it so inconcievable that they could make a mistake in posting their message? Or even deliberately get it wrong, as part of some kind of coded message to others in the network?

It is true, of course, that Al Quada are the "usual suspects" these days. Given the events of the last few years, I think they're an obvious choice and you should not be surprised if most people come to (or "jump", if you prefer) to the same conclusion fairly quickly - especially given that the claim has been made.

Now, if you don't think its them, I'd like to hear your theory - and given that no-one else has claimed responsibility. You would think, wouldn't you, that if it was some other group, say for example the IRA, they would hasten to correct the record, don't you think?

By the way, I do notice, as I hope you have, that any commentary coming from official sources is always careful not to categorically state that it is Al Quada. I think the authorities are not so gullible as all that, and will look at all possibilities, including home-grown nut cases. You just never know.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Of course, reguardless, all you hear about on the news is Al Queda this and Al Queda that......


I tend to agree. It is really hard to believe that every single "terrorist attack" that has occured over the last 3 years (approx) has all been "Al-Qaeda", or an "Al-Qaeda" cell, or terrorists with ties to Al-Qaeda.

I would be very surprised to find out that even a fraction of these suicide bombers, etc.... even know OBL, much less are a part of Al-Qaeda, or even claim to be. I am of the opinion that rather, the newscasters are told to, or just do (for whatever reason), use the name "Al-Qaeda" whenever there is a "terrorist attack", because the very word, or name, Al-Qaeda seems to invoke fear in a lot of people.

As a matter of fact, I studied a bit on this subject, and posted about what I had learned in my Weblog, under the Post Entitled: " A Look at Al-Qaeda In A More Realistic Light." If you would happen to want to read it, of course. It is partially opinion, and partly what I believe to be facts derived from several different sources.




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
CyberKat, you make a good point. The way the term "Al Quada" is used these days, is often just short hand for pointing at Islamic extremists, as opposed to the "real" organization. Partly this is because the organization itself is so amorphous, and, of necessity, operates in the shadows. Secondly, extremists who want to "get in on the action" but may not have actual links to the real Al Quada, may decide to call themselves that for the notoriety, or because they want to add their efforts to the main group. Thirdly, extremists may actually refer to them differently, but others (governments, journalists) may link them to Al Quada because of some percieved linkage. And many of us may simply not make the effort to distinguish between the different groups, and simply use "Al Quada" as a general descriptor for convenience.

ON the other hand: is there not some advantage to Al Quada getting its various cells to use various names? Doing so would help confuse the enemy, obscure the trail, and by having many different names, serve the cause of propaganda by giving an impression of broader support for the islamic extremist cause by creating the impression that their numbers are greater than they really are.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
CyberKat, you make a good point. The way the term "Al Quada" is used these days, is often just short hand for pointing at Islamic extremists, as opposed to the "real" organization.


The "real" organization is a CIA /ISI created fiction.

Who did the London bomb? Mayb it was Rumsfeld's PG02 Group? Do a google search on that.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
EastCoastKid, I'm not going to get drawn into your fantasies. "Maybe" it was all kinds of possible perpetrators, but we shouldn't give credence to anybody who cares to create a mischievous post (which costs nothing). These kinds of musings are nothing new. Some people even used to claim that FDR "caused" Pearl Harbour to happen, just to provide an excuse to enter the US into WW II. Its nonsense. So is the idea that any US administration would wreak havoc on its own allies, never mind its own people. It just doesn't make any kind of sense.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
EastCoastKid, I'm not going to get drawn into your fantasies. "Maybe" it was all kinds of possible perpetrators, but we shouldn't give credence to anybody who cares to create a mischievous post (which costs nothing). These kinds of musings are nothing new. Some people even used to claim that FDR "caused" Pearl Harbour to happen, just to provide an excuse to enter the US into WW II. Its nonsense. So is the idea that any US administration would wreak havoc on its own allies, never mind its own people. It just doesn't make any kind of sense.


I doubt you've even ever dipped into the pool I speak of.

You should. Google is power.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   


Google is power.

Hah, reminds me of that old School House Rock commercial...the one where at the end everybody says Knowledge is Power...ok that was lame.

Anyways, Google works both ways


It all depends on who is doing the Googleing


[edit on 8/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Anyways, Google works both ways


It all depends on who is doing the Googleing



Like I said, follow the tip.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I love how people treat Google as though everything it brings up is the Gospel. Any moron can make up a website and put whatever unfounded, uncorroborated information on it that he wants and link it to Google. It's sad that as of late the "burden of proof" according to most ATS'ers is a friggin link! They don't care if it has geocities in it, either!

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. It almost makes me laugh, were the situation not so serious, when people complain about al Qaida being unfairly blamed for terror attacks. Since when are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? Last I checked, al Qaida isn't in the Florist business. They're in the business of blowing up innocent men, women and children. Therefore, when innocent men, women and children are blown up a lot of people are going to point fingers at al Qaida. If for some odd reason al Qaida isn't involved, then they will be cleared when the evidence is processed and the real killers are found. Until then, everyone has the right to their opinion or educated guess as to who orchestrated this cowardly attack in London. I sincerely doubt that blaming al Qaida for this attack is going to hurt their excellent image throughout the world! Shouldn't we be more concerned about all the people on here blaming the attack on the Mossad or the US government? And those people aren't even providing the all-telling geocities link that so many of you demand!



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
"Google is power".

Huh? Gee, I thought it was a search engine. Granted, the web IS a powerful medium, but its usefulness as a source of information depends on the skill, maturity and discriminatory powers of the user.

Those who are gullible and believe everything they read, in the end learn nothing useful from the Web.

Those who are already disposed to a particular view will not be dissuaded from it, no matter how compelling the contrary information.

Those who are open-minded, but also know how to separate the silly from the serious, the propaganda from the truth, the sensible from the nonsensical - will benefit most from it.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Jeezas Krist YALL! ECK was not saying everything on google is gospel. He was not creating a mischevious post. Jeez! All he was saying is google the keywords he gave you for a different perspective on the story! What is up with you people latley? Everybody just feel the need to resort to personal attacks over someones words?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
ECK stated that Al Quada is a fiction created by the CIA, and then suggested that Rumsfeld was behind the bombings. Now, these are very serious claims, and all he offered as any kind of backup was a link to a very dodgy website, and an invitation to "google" further.

In my opinion, that makes it a mischievous post.

It was not a personal attack. Don't be so sensitive - these are very serious (life and death, in fact) issues. You should not be surprised if many of us take it seriously as well and and try to ensure that people are not misled about these events, not to mention the possibility of furthering Islamic extremist propaganda.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
There was nothing mischievious about his post. He presented his opinion as did you. Can you offer up conclusive proof of who was responsible? The fact is, we will never know, so sometimes we have to go with our gut feelings. ECK mistrust the gov as do many others here. Though the idea may seem ludicris to you, others are more receptive of his opinion.

All I am saying is he did nothing more than you and you and some others crucified him for it. This stuff is happenning more and more here lately. Thats why I am even bothering to point it out. ATS is a group of people who come from all different backgrounds and ideas. You had better get used to others haveing opposing views.

[edit on 7/9/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Ben Laden was trained by the CIA it is common knowledge


Who is Osama Bin Laden?


Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army.

Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others - numbering thousands in Bin Laden's estimate - joined their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion.

Turned against the US

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The word "trained" and "created" have two entirely different meanings as they have two distinct applications. That is also "common knowledge."




Can we please return to our regularly scheduled program of Phony 'Al-Qaeda' Responsibility Claim a Proven Hoax?

Thank you.





seekerof

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Nice article there.

Infowars, and prisonplanet are terrible biased sources.

They reprint articles and change headlines.

They quote local tv stations over the AP.

Now they are just making things up.

Go to the infowars article.

Click on the source.

Suprise!! There isn't one, it redirects you to prisonplanet.com, but doesn't show any article.

Seriously people, we know you hate the Bush administration, but just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

Deny Credulity!!



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Mossad agents arrested by the PA for attempting to set up phony 'al Qaeda' cells in the Gaza Strip.



MOSSAD also was busted setting up fake cells in the West Bank, and oddly enough, the largest Israeli Spy Ring ever busted up was operating right here in the US during 9-11. The CIA was meeting with Osama Bin Laden in Duabi weeks before the WTC disaster, Mohamed Atta was wired $100,000 bucks by a man who was meeting with Senate Intelligence Committee members... Odd huh? A Real Live "Phantom Menace".

You want to wipe out terrorism, as with any problem, you start at the roots, amung which are Infitada, and Aparthiede, unless of course you mean to harvest the evil crops.


[edit on 9-7-2005 by twitchy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join