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.

 

The Al Qaeda Misconception

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
The Al Qaeda network can best be compared to the early Christian church.

I know this is a controversial comparison to make but it really is the most effective comparison if you want to understand the Al Qaeda organisation.

We may cringe at the thought of Bin Laden the prophet or become uneasy at the idea of Bin Laden the anti-christ with all it's theological baggage but it is the best model if you want to understand.

Alive or dead Bin Laden has become an iconic figure espousing a new philosophy based on Islam in the same way that Jesus formed the base of a new philosophy on top of Judaism. That one was peaceful and the other destructive is of little significance.

We expect a certain pedigree of our prophets and for all intents and purposes Bin Laden stands up well. Born into a wealthy family, he became more religious as a student when he studied Egineering at university. He gave up all the trappings of his wealthy status to fight the Soviet athiests who had invaded Afghanistan, a traditionally Muslim country. After the Soviet withdrawal his general philosophy was refined and he embarked on a policy of driving all infidels (non-muslims) from traditionally Islamic countries and specifically the most holy Islamic sites.

Instead of undertaking futile, little publicised attacks in the Middle East he struck at the perceived heart of the of the infidels, the west and specifically the USA. In the process he became an icomic hate figure of the west and a rallying figure for the impotent masses who sensed a cause worth fighting for and a leader who would not, could not, betray them.

On the death of Jesus the apostles dispersed across the known world and spread his word. Rome was deeply suspicious of this new religion and so the early Christians formed small cells. Bin Laden may or may not be dead, the most important thing to remember is that as long as this uncertainty persists he, like Haile Salassi or even Jesus, will forever live in the hearts of those who follow him.

It may be a controversial thing to say but Al Qaeda does not exist, it has never existed. Al Qaeda, meaning 'The Base', was a name bestowed upon followers of Bin Laden by the U.S security services and it has stuck. This fact has caused the greatest misconceptions surrounding the Al Qaeda organisation. The name Al Qaeda may have been adopted by Bin Laden and his followers but it is the name of something far more than merely a terrorist organisation, it is a philosophy and a cause and these things are far more dangerous.

The terrorist cells that exist are spreading in the same way that Christian cells once spread in Rome.

To Christians I would ask how do you feel about the early Christian Martyrs ? Would you sacrifice everything for Jesus including your life ?

This is the power of the Al Qaeda philosophy. One needn't have met Bin Laden or any of his lieutenents. The mandate to act in the name of Al Qaeda is clear and unambiguous. There are no clear threads from Bin Laden to any cell which security services can follow. They are operationally independent and isolated. They are a poison within our society which is ironic because that is exactly what the Romans thought about the early Christian church.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now officially the head of Al Qaeda operations in Iraq but it is doubtful he has ever met or had contact with Bin Laden just like Paul never met Jesus and like Paul if he is crucified others will follow him.

Al Qaeda is a religious philosophy not a terrorist organisation.

For more on Al Qaeda ~ www.terroranalysis.com...

[edit on 11-7-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
As the Daily Mirror said;

"they didnt need to met Bin laden, they knew what he wanted"

Al Qaeda ideology is the most dangerous thing on this planet, Islamic terrorists all seem to have the Al Qaeda ideaology, which is very dangerous

[edit on 11-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
John Bull 1: your bottom line is quite the bottom line.
I think their actually Terrorists. They plan and kill innocent people to signify their so-called cause. The more blood and death they create on all occasions against the government's peoples, the better they think their making their point.

I believe Bush was right here in saying those countries that harbor Terrorists are as guily as the terrorists. Screw philosophy..

Dallas



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   

I believe Bush was right here in saying those countries that harbor Terrorists are as guily as the terrorists. Screw philosophy..


That is a fine attitude........................ as long as you're happy with perpetual war !!

The people who act under the auspices of Al Qaeda are terrorists what I'm saying is that Al Qaeda is something much greater than simply a group of terrorists. The cells are not bound to the centre of any organisation, so what does bind them ?

What binds these disperate isolated cells ?

Answer ~ common philosophy espoused by an iconic leader.

Religious philosophies have often been the basis of terrorist groups. The zionist killed thousands in Palestine before 1948 and around the time of Jesus there were many disaffected groups who followed charismatic leaders just as there are many Islamic groups like Hamas today.

Perhaps you don't like the comparison of early Christian Martyrs to Suicide bombers ?

I can't help that.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
John Bull 1, has made a valid point here. Islamic terrorist seem to be using the Al Qaeda ideaoloy and adopting it to fit their cause.

Al Qaeda are not like the IRA, Al Qaeda do not have a political motive or goal, its more religious then political.



Perhaps you don't like the comparison of early Christian Martyrs to Suicide bombers ?


John, thats a good point



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

as posted by John Bull 1
Al Qaeda is a religious philosophy not a terrorist organisation.


That may be so, to some.
I would agree with the philosophy aspect, anyhow.
I would also agree with the iconic aspect, as well.
What I do find ironic though, being that you have mentioned the philosophical aspect, is that one preaches life, whereas, the other preaches dealing death to obtain 'life'.





The zionist killed thousands in Palestine before 1948...

Just as Islamic factions killed thousands of Zionists and Jews alike in that region in and around Palestine prior to 1948. Your point?





Perhaps you don't like the comparison of early Christian Martyrs to Suicide bombers ?

I can't help that.



Interesting...
Question: Did the early Christian martyrs maliciously, and with calculation, target and kill innocent civilians? The only comparison that can be drawn from what you compare is that they both give their life for a cause. Other than that, the comparison losses any valid meaning because their methods of self-sacrifice are quite different, are they not?






seekerof



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Even when Seekerof agrees with me he has to create an argument.


From the original text.


We may cringe at the thought of Bin Laden the prophet or become uneasy at the idea of Bin Laden the anti-christ with all it's theological baggage but it is the best model if you want to understand.

Alive or dead Bin Laden has become an iconic figure espousing a new philosophy based on Islam in the same way that Jesus formed the base of a new philosophy on top of Judaism. That one was peaceful and the other destructive is of little significance.


I'm not defending Al Qaeda. Just because I make a comparison doesn't mean I don't know it's limitations.

My point about the early Christian Martyrs was not to give suicide bombers credence but to show how dying for a cause or admiring those that die for a cause is not beyond our own cultural experience. How many fundementalist Christian would give their life for Jesus ? They did in the medieval crusades and they would today.


Just as Islamic factions killed thousands of Zionists and Jews alike in that region in and around Palestine prior to 1948. Your point?


I find it amusing that you take one example that I use and feel you have to defend it. Why did you think I used that example ? You think I have an agenda ................... yet you leaping to the Zionist defence only highlights your own. I used it only as an example because there are none more historically clearer.

Still perhaps in another thread you can explain your statement as it's not based in fact only distorted myth. Many Brits may like to google "King David Hotel Bomb " and see what comes up. Perhaps you meant post 1948 in that case I'd agree with you.

The notion of Al Qaeda as a Death Cult is not far from the truth or perhaps an Anti-Religion.

As I clearly state I'm not saying early christianity was a terrorist organisation comparable to Al Qaeda.



[edit on 11-7-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

as posted by John Bull 1
I find it amusing that you take one example that I use and feel you have to defend it. Why did you think I used that example ? You think I have an agenda ................... yet you leaping to the Zionist defence only highlights your own. I used it only as an example because there are none more historically clearer.


Likewise, just as I found it amusing that you assumed that I was defending Zionism/Zionists, when I was merely presenting the other side of the equation. As such, being that we are discussing these type things in the virtual realtime world [the internet], perhaps you could have placed a disclaimer or clarification so as to avoid others taking possibly what you mentioned different than what you described above as the intended purpose. Sorts out any type confusion, no?


But since we are on this, if you have no "agenda" with that mention that I supposedly "defended", how is that you then proceed on to state:


Still perhaps in another thread you can explain your statement as it's not based in fact only distorted myth. Many Brits may like to google "King David Hotel Bomb " and see what comes up. Perhaps you meant post 1948 in that case I'd agree with you.

"Myth," whether "distorted" or factual, is subjective depending on where one does their research and what access to information they have other than the internet, John Bull 1.
Trust me, I am not as reliant on the internet and its so-called sourcings as you are.

As such, this matter is for another topic, as you have mentioned, and another day. You and I have been having go-rounds over this matter for a few years now.



Other than the slight misunderstanding we are exeriencing, I would agree with most, but not all, of what you assert, in regards to your original content and follow-up above post explanations.






seekerof

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
As most Zionist terrorists were European Jews who had specifically travelled to the region to kill and maim innocent Palestinians and British troops the only comparison for Zionist Terrorists is with Al Qaeda.

I thank you for highlighting that comparison.

I'm sure we can agree that terrorists should never win which is why this historical episode set a dangerous precedent.

I'm sure you can find counter information. There are always those willing to defend the indefencable. I've just read a piece from the Jewish Library after following my own advice and googling King David Hotel Bomb only to find a rather hypocritical defence of the murder of almost 100 people.

I guess the power of a cause is only outweighed by the power of revisionist propaganda.

Still Seekerof I thank you for raising the issue.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
John bull 1, do you intend to justify Al quida's & other islamic terror organisation's actions by your arguments ???

and are you trying to convey that just because the christians behaved pathetically in the middle ages, the muslims have equal right to do so now ???

The bottomline is that today Islam is licence to terrorism.

Sure there are non-islamic terror as well ... like IRA and LTTE in sri lanka but these are negligible compared to islamic terror that it will not be wrong to make terrorism synonymous with islam (the vice- versa is not true).

+ Although only a small %age of muslims engage in terrorism, the same is condoned by the vaaaast majotiry of muslims by giving them moral if not direct support. IMO Terrorists occupy a special place in most (not all) muslims hearts and minds.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Amen !

Killers are killers, I just hate when it's done at all but can't put into words my feelings when innocent People and Children are targeted.
dallas



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Sorry that I am late to respond, but I had a couple students I was working with to get their schedules set for Fall semster.

As to your last post, typical rhetoric, John Bull1.

As such, bear in mind your own words, in regards to your original topic:


You think I have an agenda ...................

After reading your last post, the above quote says it all, doesn't it?


For the sake of keeping your original intended topic from degenerating into an off-topic discussion, I will abstain from further commentary.





seekerof



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
It may be a controversial thing to say but Al Qaeda does not exist, it has never existed. Al Qaeda, meaning 'The Base', was a name bestowed upon followers of Bin Laden by the U.S security services and it has stuck. This fact has caused the greatest misconceptions surrounding the Al Qaeda organisation. The name Al Qaeda may have been adopted by Bin Laden and his followers but it is the name of something far more than merely a terrorist organisation, it is a philosophy and a cause and these things are far more dangerous.


en.wikipedia.org...


Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization rarely uses the name to formally refer to itself. The origin of the name "al-qaeda" is disputed; some allege it was coined by the United States government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made at the MAK in the Bait al-Ansar guesthouse during the late 1980s. Bin Laden himself says of the origin, saying "We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed."


so much for yer theory that we name his organization as Al Qaeda wen in reality he Osama, as the primary source, gave the western world his name of the group. he made videos and letters of the group that he adopted since the late 80s.

its bad to compare him to Christ in the philosophy that people will adopt it. his group is like ani other terror groups who have their own philosophies like the ETA, IRA, Hamas, etc. does that mean all the other groups leaders are equivalent to Christ?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
JB1,

Excellent analogy


I have a few questions for you. As proposed by your opening statement, AlQueda may well be on the road to becoming an offshoot of Islam, much like the Catholic/Christian connection. I myself agree completly with this comparison, but it begs the question; how can we use this information to put an end to this crap before something else like London or 9/11 happen agian?

I have had the opinion for a long time that AlQueda is twisting Islam for its own agenda. If AQ is the begennings of a new religon, what is its agenda? Do they plan on converting the world to their version of Islam? And furthermore, if this last question proves a positive answer, then can we expect another 'Inquisition' for Islam?

I know these questions are a matter of speculation, but I would be intrested to hear your speculation on them.


[edit on 7/11/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Delta Boy I think your quote actually backs up what I've said doesn't it ?

Al Qaeda is not a name chosen by Bin Laden for his organisation it is a name chosen by the CIA because they needed a label.

I'm not trying to compare Bin Laden in any theological sense to Jesus.

But Jesus was a Jew and after his death his followers formed a new religion though with distinctly jewish roots.

Al Qaeda is not a religion but it is an offshoot of Islam.

KF

What all this means is that unlike other terrorist organisations it does not need a central organisation. It is a stand alone philosophy which anyone can adopt. Ideas and philosophies have no geographical boundaries in this modern age.

The only counter to Al Qaeda is the re-enforce the original values of Islam on those that might be tempted along that path.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1

The only counter to Al Qaeda is the re-enforce the original values of Islam on those that might be tempted along that path.





But what happens if they start forcing converts? Many religons have taken this route before, especially in their infancy. If AQ is attempting to evolve into a religous philosophy, and their obvious maliciousness turns into rabid recruitment, how can we possibly deal with that in any other way than war? Keep in mind, I am an Anti-war treehugging Lib who doesnt want this option. But I know sometimes there are no other alternatives and wars must be fought.

This agian begs the question, if we have seen this path in the past and we know exactly where it leads, are we not responsible for stopping it before it starts? I guess Im thinking too much now. I hurt my back and the Doc gave me Lortabs and Somas. They be WORKIN!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Only the sympathetic can be converted to their cause.

Only our actions can make a Muslim sympathetic.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Unique among the relegions of the world is Islam; the more secular you are towards it, the more fundamentalist its followers become.

Read my other views on muslims, especially Indian muslims who constitute around about 10% of India's population at : www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Delta Boy I think your quote actually backs up what I've said doesn't it ?

Al Qaeda is not a name chosen by Bin Laden for his organisation it is a name chosen by the CIA because they needed a label.



maybe u need to read his interview back in the late 80s where he says he adopted the name which in turn we accepted the name he gave us.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Only the sympathetic can be converted to their cause.

Only our actions can make a Muslim sympathetic.


So what do you suggest?

Institute Sharia law in the US and the UK before Bin Laden and / or his follwers comes and imposes it on us?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join