It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Does the Al Qaeda exist in reality?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link is running an article that is an attempt to lead one to believe that Al Qaeda never existed before the Bush/Blair administrations created it for a straw enemy.
Here is there side:

Not that I would put it past these NWO types to do something as sneaky as that, but here is another version of Al Qaeda history:

With so many propaganda machines at work, you'd think everyone is trying to hide a thing or two, wouldn't you?

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:52 AM
hmmm...Are using reference to reflect the reporting of the Qatar based news channel?

If so, is not affiliated with Aljazeera. The correct site is or

If not, my mistake.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:56 AM
I think if Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist in reality as what they want us to believe, they do exist in our mind. All of us needs a good guy bad guy kind of perception in our lives. The ones against terrorism is the good guys and Al-Qaeda HAS to be the bad guys. The human mind cannot exist without an antagonist and protaganist system.

Back to the topic, I think the terror cell doesn't really exist in a form of an organisation of one people with one loud voice. But I preceive them as a group of different people from different kinds of race but with one common goal which is allegedly defending Islam. They probably don't recognise themselves as Al-Qaeda but the name Al-Qaeda has become a sort of substitution word for "enemy" by the good guys and I think they, the bad guys, have adopted it ever since.

Well, that's my opinion. Though I think Al-Qeada is a real major threat. Be it physically or mentally.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:03 AM
I made a thread about this awhile back. *shrug*

Who knows whats real nowadays? Terrorists, boobs etc.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 05:57 AM
Hmmm, interesting.

Notice how it only uses questions to make it's points. This is a way of saying something without saying it! Most of it's context is along the track of the general conspiracy that Al-Qaeda is a western creation, the fuel for this war to get the last of the black gold energy but i find it interesting that it repeats in closing that the only way these conspiracy questions could be proven FALSE, was if America were to be attacked again.

Propaganda in the lead up for a 9/11 repeat i say. Couple this (as if it were propaganda) with the recent British getting caught with their fingers in the terrorism pie and someone out there could be trying to frame Iran for a blockage of uranium and a much safer war to remove the threat for Isreal (and score the oil & gas).

It reads as good for the conspiracy angle but time could prove it to be a forewarning. A war with Iran by Christmas '05 has been floating around since early 2004.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:51 AM
Al Qaeda means THE BASE.

The former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, said that Al Qaeda is not an organisation.

In his article to The Guardian newspaper (8 July 2005), he detailed his conclusions about the CIA and their involvments with Bin Laden.

He resigned from the British Government in protest of Iraq invasion.

He was murdered in a conspiracy for opening too many secrets.

United States needs terrorists to exist; and if they dont exist, then they need to be created by any means. Otherwise they would not be able to justify their military campaigns around the world.

Most of the bombings are done by them followed by fake videos and mysterious letters to convince the masses.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:00 AM
Mr. Conspiracy.

I know this is slightly off topic, but since you implied that Mr. Robin Cook was murdered in part for revealing that Al-Queda doesn't exist; I'm curious as to what would make you believe that his death was really a murder. My understanding of his death was that he collapsed from a heart attack while hiking with his wife in the Scottish countryside. A discussion of his death here on ATS had a number of folks who like you thought his death was suspicous, but no one could supply any evidence that his death was anything other than a natural heart attack. Can you?

As to the topic at hand...

Thomas Crowne,

The Aljazeera article you linked to is basically a re-hashing of a Pravda online editorial piece which itself refers to "The power of Nightmares" a BBC "documentary". Niether the Ajazeera article nor the Pravda editorial give any evidence to back up their theories other than those already stated in the power of Nightmares broadcast. Luckily, the PON series has been discussed twice on ATS. You can find those two topics here and here

What it boils down to is whether or not Al-Queda actually existed as a large pervasive terrorist organization or, as the PON series suggests, it was an overstated nebulous threat that was hyped by the Neo-Conservatives to create fear and allow them to gain power and control.

Personally, I believe this question is purely academic now, as even IF Al-Queda was originally just a loosely affliated group of individual terrorist organizations, they have grown to become the worldwide terrorist power that the conservative governments have always claimed them to be.

It's kind of like the chicken and the egg: What came first, the threat called Al-Queda, or the threat posed by Al-Queda?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by Cypher]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:38 PM
I've thought about this too. We're supposed to be taking this 'war on terror' as serious as a heart attack, yet we hear on the news updates on the al qaida websites, but why haven't they been taken down? why haven't we heard stories of seizure and arrests?

Why hasn't al-qaida messed with our drinking water? or shot planes down w/ rocket launcher's her ein america? Or released any biological toxin in our super markets like anthrax?

They have all these opportunities to get the american people because they hate them soooo much and what they stand for (freedom) that they aren't jumping at the opportunity because they've had a change of heart or apparantly the fbi gets them before they can act out?

How many cells are operating in america? I know the buffalo cell was broken up and arrests were made, I know that mall bombing never happened because the fbi got wind of that. I know the bridge in nyc never got blown to shreds because they got wind of that too. They can't be getting every single plan. I just wonder what it is w/ this al qaida group, they have so many members and are well funded yet we haven't seen anything happen here in 4 years.

Are we being dooped? Are we being spoonfed false information to make it look like an authentic terror group? Is this a group the government dictates to telling them where and when to strike and how? Do they use this group to their own advantage as a stepping stone? I have all these questions because I don't know everything, I don't pretend to have all the information on these clowns because none of us get the whole truth, our media is run by the elite and the government no doubt tells them what htye can and can't report. What was that bill clinton passed about monitoring the media or somehting? free press doesn't mean freedom to opine about anything. why dont' we hear real stories these days like these?

why the need to hide all this stuff from us?


posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:14 PM
Robin Cook's comment on Al-Qaida was as 'the database' not 'base'. Something which I had heard before and was only reinforced by reading the words from one of the few politicians that I viewed as still holding some moral ground.

Here is the article:


    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The words above from Mr. Cook expressing surprise that the US admistration failed to take into consideration the consequences of their actions make for interesting reading. The Soviet Union did apparently warn the US on the continued funding of Islamic militant extremists but the warning was wither ignored, or perhaps misinterpreted. Here is an interesting article: Reagan's Osama Connection ~ How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin which touches on warnings from the Soviet Union on the dangers of a rising militant Islam.

    In September 1987, after the previous spring's escalation failed to produce results, Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze met with Secretary of State George Shultz to tell him that Gorbachev planned to pull out of Afghanistan soon. He asked Shultz for help in containing the spread of "Islamic fundamentalism." Shultz had nothing to say. Most Reagan officials doubted Gorbachev would really withdraw, and they interpreted the warnings about Muslim radicals as a cover story for the Soviet Union's military failure.


[edit on 23/10/05 by JAK]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:51 PM
I remember that this question about Al quaeda being real came as a topic a while back, and it was some good information gathered about how it made have started thanks to US intervention back in the seventies when US used to train fighters in Afghanistan or something like that, no sure if it was Afghanistan or Iran.

But nerveless US was credited with training the fighters.

Any body remember any of that?

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:54 PM
Why would Al Qaeda keep the name that was given to them by the West or at least the name that was shared with the West?

Keeping the name sort of implies that they are still connected with the West, doesn't it?

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:27 PM
Does Al Qaeda exist? Yes, but not as an efficient terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden... Instead, it's a boogyman.

I like this explanation better than any I've seen.


"Al-Qaeda is as much an ideology or a set of values as a single organisation led by a single leader."

"The mere mention of al Qaeda conjures images of an efficient terrorist network guided by a powerful criminal mastermind. Yet al Qaeda is more lethal as an ideology than as an organization. Al Qaedaism will continue to attract supporters in the years to come--whether Osama bin Laden is around to lead them or not."

"Al Queda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad. By those terms, Al Queda is cast like 'the Mafia' and similar nonsense coming from police lobbies.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:41 PM
Yes, Al Qaeda exists " in reality ". It makes me wonder what reality some of you people are in. Have you not seen the news for the last 5 years ? It's not " the database " but " the base ". I doubt it was an actual database of names as many of these fighters go by one name only and were living in caves while fighting the Russians. Yes, we trained them and armed them to kill Russians in Afghanistan - in part a tit for tat for supplying arms to our enemies - as in Vietnam. They used us as we used them. Read George Friedman's " America's Secret War ". He gives great backround on what led to 9/11 and the emergence of Al Qaeda.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:24 PM
Somebody posted here that "Al Qaeda" literally means "The Database", being those on the CIA payroll dating back to the US backing of Taliban forces during the Afghan/Soviet war.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by cargo]

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by cargo
Somebody posted here that "Al Qaeda" literally means "The Database", being those on the CIA payroll dating back to the US backing of Taliban forces during the Afghan/Soviet war.

[edit on 23-10-2005 by cargo]

huh wat u say cargo? back the Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan war? the Taliban didnt exist back then. not until 94.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:34 PM
u r rite. Sorry, dat should have read simply "Afghans".

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:49 PM
I remember when this subject came up about a year ago, I heard that the Bush adm. had to create an orginization to try Osama Ben Ladden for the USS COLE explosion, because the penalty for terrorist attack when affiliated with an organization, means a larger judicial responsibilty, rather than an individual acting alone. Again, I aslo believe that just like the 911 plot, the BUSH peeps, exploited it to their advantage. Now we will all be scared of terrorist so the old patriotic generals can have something to do while they smoke their cigars. Face it, militaries are getting bigger all around the world. This, I'm sorry, is not a step in the right direction. Al Queda is just around to keep the generals fresh for when a real threat presents itself.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:37 PM
Of course Al-Qaeda does not exist. The oldest trick in the book is to create an enemy.

new topics

top topics


log in