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.

 

Al Qaeda : more than meets the eye

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
9/11 seems to be the most “holey” official story ever with the cracks turning into gaping holes in inaccuracies, Heres my theeory on how much the CIA was involved who have “played” on this for the past 5 years.

They have never attacked Israel despite openly stating their support for Palestine, I mean really how hard can it be to set up a bomb in one of the most insecure places on Earth.



"Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni Muslim umbrella organization established to recruit young Muslims into the Afghani Mujahideen and is aimed to establish Islamist states throughout the world, overthrow ‘un-Islamic regimes’, expel US soldiers and Western influence from the Gulf, and capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city."


Yes that must be the reason their have never been any Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Israel. More likely the more than "supportive allies" America dont want to destroy anything in their very "religiously" significant city.

1979America stops supporting the Iranian development of Nuclear power.
1979Iraqs President Hassan al Bakur resigns and makes way for Dicator Saddam Hussein who is funded by America to fight the Iraqi people,the Kurds and their "old allies" the Iranians
1979Soviets Invade Afghanistan, Bin Laden supports the rebel movement in Afghanistan, they fight off Russian occupation through the CIA funding them



“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”


Words of Robin Cook, Former Labour politician who was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom and also President of the Foreign Policy Centre and a vice-president of the America All Party Parliamentary Group and the Global Security and Non-Proliferation All Party Parliamentary Group.


The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him


Words of Peter Bergen, CNN journalist.

So one is directly contradicting what the other said ?who is lying?
Look at the word choice he actually says that they “agree” on “very few things”.


So who would you believe ? A Politician? or a Journalist respectively?
I think ill go with the Politician on this one, this guy did resign in protest at the British decision to invade Iraq.
The other is a Journalist working for the “questionable” CNN.


the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'


Right okay but would it not have been more “successful” had the attacks taken place in Israel? It certainly didn’t help drive them out of the “lands of Islam”.
For what is supposedly a very intelligent man he isn’t showing a great deal of it, and so far to this day is still contradicting himself.

He would rather attempt the most daring inconceivably hard plot in which he mastermind havng his “fellow” extremists “hijack” 4 planes crashing them into the WTC and Pentagon with the 4th crashing in a field (Was supposedly destined to hit the White House) respectively.


“According to Waheed Mozhdah, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter two days later to Taliban leader Mullah Omar urging him to attack the Northern Alliance. In the letter, bin Laden noted that America's failure to respond to the September 11 attacks would signal its end as a superpower.”


So their saying the “intelligent man” that is Bin Laden thought that by “demolishing” 1civilian populated landmark and crashing another “plane” into the Pentagon, in the least populated side where a lot of “renovation work” was going on. Minimising casualties and also “funnily enough” deciding keep away from the “Top Military chiefs”, And he thought he was going to cripple the worlds most powerful country? That is an insult to the mans “Intelligience” and the Publics, any attacks like these in reality were only going to do one thing let the companies and tenants owning the WTC getting massive payments from the Insurance policies which ran into the “Billions“ so whilst they where all pocketing the hard dough they were already on their way to their next money maker throughMass scare mongering.

Sources;

Al Qaeda: September 11th

Al Qaeda: US targets
Al Qaeda: Soviet Invasion

[edit on 22/9/06 by JAK]




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Al qaeda: Chain of Command

Al Qaeda :Israel

Other posts I could not fit in.

Also the name Al Qaeda simply means "the Database" right, so why would the most creative terrorist movement to date name itself so...? blandly?

sounds more like an American-gave-name, well it is anyway but why would they keep it?

Robin Cook

[edit on 21-9-2006 by marcopolo]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by marcopolo


Also the name Al Qaeda simply means "the Database" right, so why would the most creative terrorist movement to date name itself so...? blandly?



[edit on 21-9-2006 by marcopolo]


Actually I believe it is just "The base" rather than "The Database"

Look for a film on google video called " Who killed John O'neill" If you haven't already seen it. There's plenty of stuff on there about Al Quaeda like where they got their name from, what they are doing in Afganistan and even who created them.

Who killed John O'Neill

*edited with link to vid*

[edit on 22-9-2006 by DodgeG1]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
OK thanks I will have a look at it
But what do you think of the points I made?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The point you make about them not attacking Israel is a very good point. The same way they have never attacked someone who is in charge. IE bush, Blair etc.. If they have got such a big problem with the way these Country's are run why not take them out.

Instead they are hurting innocent people which has always never made sense to me. I know if I had a problem with someone I'd go to the top of the chain and eliminate that person or people.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   


The same way they have never attacked someone who is in charge.


This puts it very well, how come they have never tried an ambitious assassination of the President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and French President Jacques chirac?

the reason could be that they only ever have went for civilian targets (9/11,7/7,Madrid & the Bali bombings), they are a part of some top-secret "Government" group that is used intentionally to influence the publics opinion/Votes or support by creating events that would scaremonger them into thinking that this could directly affect them. To do this would mean that they would never need to hit the "Chain-of-command" who are currently supporting them (even if they are not in-on-it,UK & France) because the public would be scared and would want their Leaders to do something to solve the situation, In Britain Tony Blair joined the WOT, In France Chirac I believe was very much opposed to invading Iraq but it didnt truly affect their "relationship" with the States.

If they ever did attempt an assassination on one of those mentioned, and they succeeded, this could be disastrous (FOR "THEM")as the person to replace them might have different views on a lot of things including thei countries international support of the US.

Who was it that said the,"The easiest way to control the population is to make them scared",?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by marcopolo]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I think that bombing or killing innocent people to get a point across is stupid. Do the people in charge really honestly care that some of their people have died? They don't know them, they just say it's a tragic loss and get on with life.

Where as if something happened to them, or their family then I think it would be a different story. There's definatly something suspicous about all this.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join