Here's your al Qaeda!

I've been saying ever since the invasion of Afghanistan that al Qaeda is largely manufactured - a fiction - for the benefit of the military industrial complex. Take a look at this. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will:

DIPLOMATIC CABLES 07/30/2005

A number of US military-contractor incidents have taken place in and around Baghdad International Airport.
WASHINGTON, DC AND TASHKENT -- July 30, 2005 -- As first reported here on July 8, relations between Washington and Tashkent finally boiled over after evidence that Pentagon special operations teams were involved in the Islamist revolt against President Islam Karimov's government in the town of Andijan on May 17. On July 29, Tashkent formally evicted the United States from its airbase at Karshi-Khanabad, also known as "K2." The Pentagon was given 180 days to evacuate all personnel, aircraft, and equipment from the base, which had been used by the United States since the Afghan war broke out following 911. The State Department was apparently blindsided by the abrupt Uzbek decision. It planned to send a diplomat to Tashkent on August 2 to negotiate the base's future. However, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had already decided to scrap K2 after he secured continued basing rights in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Uzbek media has been abuzz with revelations that Pentagon special operations teams secretly met in Afghanistan with Tohir Yoldashev and members of his Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), a group the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization allied to "Al Qaeda." The meetings were reported to have occurred before and after the Andijan revolt, which was blamed on IMU forces. The US-IMU meetings in Afghanistan were also referenced in an article in Asia Times by India's former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey, M. K. Bhadrakumar.
The Uzbek government obviously believes the Pentagon has been dealing with terrorist groups and decided to deny the Americans a base from which they might be using to foment Islamist terrorist operations in Uzbekistan and in surrounding countries.
www.waynemadsenreport.com...

I can't get that picture out of my head of Saddam shaking Rumsfeld's hand back in the '80's. I bet theres one of him and USAMA, too.


[edit on 7/31/05 by EastCoastKid]

Well Technically, Al-Qaeda the name is given by the US to a group of Mujahideen fighters that fought in the Afgan uprising. It was basically a file called The Umbrella- which translates to Al-Qaeda. Also the whole thing of getting them organized and equipped were all America basically so I guess you could say we started them.
About these new developments, I am truly facinated. Why would the US want another Islamist state when their are already so many ones that are causing problems?
It just doesnt seem right to me.

The sole purpose is to provide the west with an enemy - an external threat to justify the continuation of the military industrial complex's predominance. There are other factors as well, but that is the main factor. It's always about the bottom line.

Originally posted by IAF101
Well Technically, Al-Qaeda the name is given by the US to a group of Mujahideen fighters that fought in the Afgan uprising. It was basically a file called The Umbrella- which translates to Al-Qaeda.

I read that it translate to "the base".

The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.
CNN

That is Bin Laden speaking, so how knows if what he is saying is correct.

Wikipedia says this:

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." [2]en.wikipedia.org...

Who do you believe, all the sources seemingly as believable as the next.

The answer is, which ever one supports the conscious or sub-conscious desire of your brain.

The true answer to what it means? well that's another question................

[edit on 31-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

The Uzbek government obviously believes the Pentagon has been dealing with terrorist groups and decided to deny the Americans a base from which they might be using to foment Islamist terrorist operations in Uzbekistan and in surrounding countries.

AHhhhh... Sure Brings Back Memories of the Good Old Cold War and the Russian Invasion of Afganistan, when Arab Freedom Fighters were Allies with the USA and Rambo III was in the Movies Theatres.

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." [2]

this make perfect sense to me. i bet thats where it came from

You probablt can find pics of U.S. officials shaking Bin Laden's hand somewhere from the 1980's. It's a known fact that the CIA trained him and other now know terrorists to fight the Russians in Afganistan back in the 80's.
That does not mena that terroists do not exists that want to attack us though. and it's also clear the the current Bush admistrations is full of corrupt people.

Originally posted by Souljah
AHhhhh... Sure Brings Back Memories of the Good Old Cold War and the Russian Invasion of Afganistan, when Arab Freedom Fighters were Allies with the USA and Rambo III was in the Movies Theatres.

Firstly, In Afganistan the freedom fighters were mostly, Afgans.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with the cold war.


[edit on 31-7-2005 by IAF101]

In the '90's bin Laden visited secure US military bases and went by the name Tim Osman.

Old buddies are so cute together, look at those smiles.



Love is in the air.


[edit on 31-7-2005 by C0le]

Whooz that? Chirac?

Back then Saddam was the west's man. That means UK, USA and France. We are the one's who put him in place and backed him, until the Gulf War. Then all of a sudden he became some big boogy man. It's amazing how much power over the minds of the masses the mainstream media has.

I have been throught the link given in the start of this thread and I find that it is quite biased about the US. It always goes on about how the US secretyl does this and does that. They even blame that the US recently staged a coup in Nepal and their is some conspiracy with the media going on in the Govt. CIA agents supposedly masterminding attacks etc .
This all seems that the author of this site wanted to pass of biased reporting as unbiased news.
Here is what they hope to accomplish:

this on-line publication tackles the "politically incorrect" and "politically embarrassing" stories and holds government officials accountable for their actions. This web site extends a warm open invitation to whistleblowers and leakers. Business as usual for the crooks and liars in Washington, DC is over.

- Wayne Madsen, Editor

They have titles like
-Are the wheels falling off at the international neo-con propaganda machine called News Corp?
-NEWS FROM BEYOND THE EMPIRE
-LET'S MAKE THE NEO-CONSERVATIVES NEO-CONVICTS
also:
If you would like to support WAYNE MADSEN REPORT.COM as an independent and corporate-free source of news and opinions from inside Washington -- and keep us from going where Karl Rove and his friends would like us to go -- Out of Business --

This site is basically a BIASED Democrat mouth peice.
Sorry EastCoastKid Dont buy it!

[edit on 31-7-2005 by IAF101]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Whooz that? Chirac?

Back then Saddam was the west's man. That means UK, USA and France. We are the one's who put him in place and backed him, until the Gulf War. Then all of a sudden he became some big boogy man. It's amazing how much power over the minds of the masses the mainstream media has.

it doesnt have power over the minds, it is the minds, it has replaced the minds of the masses and now it is 'reality.' power doesnt even have to come into it.

Originally posted by IAF101
This site is basically a BIASED Democrat mouth peice.
Sorry EastCoastKid Dont buy it!

You see it that way because you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. That does not make what I posted a biased moutpiece.

Wayne Madson is an excellent journalist who backs up what many other respected writers, analysts and experts have to say on all this. Look around. Expand your sources. You will discover this for yourself.

Originally posted by C0le
Old buddies are so cute together, look at those smiles.

Love is in the air.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by C0le]

Kinds looks like Liam Neeson (however you spell it)

Originally posted by IAF101
Secondly, this has nothing to do with the cold war.

No?

Are You Sure?

It was about Cold War Games in the Middle East....

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a 10-year war fought between the Soviet Red Army, Afghan, and foreign fighters in Afghanistan. The 'shooting' war is generally held to have started December 24, 1979. Soviet troops ultimately withdrew from the area between May 15, 1988 and February 2, 1989. The Soviet Union officially announced that all of its troops had left Afghanistan on February 15.

The war was regarded by many as an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country by another. The United Nations General Assembly passed United Nations Resolution 37/37 on November 29, 1983, which stated that the Soviet Union forces should withdraw from Afghanistan. However, others supported the Soviet Union, regarding it as coming to the rescue of an impoverished ally, or as a pre-emptive war against Islamist terrorists. The CIA invested US$2.1 billion over a 10-year period to assist the anti-Soviet resistance.

Two Years Later the Soviet Union Fall Apart.

Some Analysts Say that by the Defeat in Afganistan Soviet Union Collapsed...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Whooz that? Chirac?

Back then Saddam was the west's man. That means UK, USA and France. We are the one's who put him in place and backed him, until the Gulf War. Then all of a sudden he became some big boogy man. It's amazing how much power over the minds of the masses the mainstream media has.

Actually, Saddam had/has a better and closer relationship with Chirac than any other western leader. Their friendship certainly didn't end with the Gulf War, regardless of France's involvement. Of course, Chirac wasn't in power at the time or it might have been a different story. Chirac and Saddam were pals going back to the 70's. Do the research...

Google: Chirac AND Saddam

So tell me, Senator , why were you holding hands with Saddam just three months after his chemical attack on Halabja?

I think its saddams cologne, he's strikingly dead sexy for rich corrupted politicans.