Who Says it Was Al Qaida?

I ran across this writing on a website and the author poses the same question that immediately ran through my mind. Right after the recent attack in Saudi, before the dust had even settled, Saudi and American officials were saying.. "It was Al Qaida!"
HELLO? How the hell do they know who it was? I was under the impression an investigation would have to be conducted to ascertain the responsible party in the absence of a group taking credit. I havn't heard any such thing.
The article brings up some good points to consider.
Who gained the most by what happened?


Monday, November 10, 2003 12:39:53 PM Who says it was Al Qaeda ?

Lets look at the facts. On 25th October 2003 the CIA released statements that warned of 'imminent Al Qaeda' attacks in Saudi Arabia. ( see BBC report ). A few weeks later, BOOM. Either the CIA has infiltrated Al Qaeda so well, that they are able to tell when they will attack, or there is something fishy about this whole incident.

If the CIA did know about it, then clearly the information was coming from a source who would be pretty senior in Al Qaeda's network. Anyone who knows how the organisation works, would know, only those people who are DIRECTLY involved, have any knowledge about whats going to happen. This minimises the possibility of outsiders finding out.

Therefore the CIA's mole, must have been directly involved in the planning or execution of this terrorist act. If so, why didn't the CIA stop it ?
www.wwviews.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I ran across this writing on a website and the author poses the same question that immediately ran through my mind. Right after the recent attack in Saudi, before the dust had even settled, Saudi and American officials were saying.. "It was Al Qaida!"
HELLO? How the hell do they know who it was? I was under the impression an investigation would have to be conducted to ascertain the responsible party in the absence of a group taking credit. I havn't heard any such thing.
The article brings up some good points to consider.
Who gained the most by what happened?


Monday, November 10, 2003 12:39:53 PM Who says it was Al Qaeda ?

Lets look at the facts. On 25th October 2003 the CIA released statements that warned of 'imminent Al Qaeda' attacks in Saudi Arabia. ( see BBC report ). A few weeks later, BOOM. Either the CIA has infiltrated Al Qaeda so well, that they are able to tell when they will attack, or there is something fishy about this whole incident.

If the CIA did know about it, then clearly the information was coming from a source who would be pretty senior in Al Qaeda's network. Anyone who knows how the organisation works, would know, only those people who are DIRECTLY involved, have any knowledge about whats going to happen. This minimises the possibility of outsiders finding out.

Therefore the CIA's mole, must have been directly involved in the planning or execution of this terrorist act. If so, why didn't the CIA stop it ?
www.wwviews.com...

Based on this terminology, the CIA was involved in 911. I'm not saying they were or weren't, but I watched TV that morning and I heard mention of Bin Laden being responsible (I believe) within an hour of the attacks.

Moira

Yes. Again, how did they know that so soon? Sounds like they had their manufactured chump sitting there waiting to be patsied.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

I say evidence should always be shown to the public, but even when taht is done. People like me wont take it and like it, i dont trust any 'evidence' thrown together by governments. Too easy for them to alter and change it

I agree
Im under the impression that the Girl Scouts are responsable
Damn green little She Demons of the NWO
Its all tied in with the mind altering drugs
hidden in those damn cookies

Cheney has Goebbels BIG LIE down pat. Just tell the people the big lie enough times and they'll believe it. The Nazis would be so proud...

THE VICE PRESIDENT
Cheney Theme of Qaeda Ties to Iraq Bombings Are Questioned by Some
By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: November 11, 2003

ASHINGTON, Nov. 10 � Vice President Dick Cheney has in recent speeches mentioned the major bombings in Iraq this past summer in the same breath as the deadly strikes in Bali, Casablanca and Riyadh, which authorities say were carried out by Al Qaeda or groups affiliated with it.

The clear implication is that militants linked to Al Qaeda were responsible for the Iraq bombings, too. The attacks in Baghdad last month would appear to lend credence to that claim except for this: senior military, intelligence and law enforcement officials say there is no conclusive evidence pointing to a particular group � Al Qaeda or not � as the mastermind behind any of the major attacks in Iraq. "At this point it isn't clear who's responsible for those bombings," a senior American official said.

Indicating who is behind the bombings � militants linked to Al Qaeda or homegrown loyalists to Saddam Hussein � is important politically for Mr. Cheney and his boss, President Bush, terrorism experts say.

Mr. Cheney has repeatedly sought to cast the Iraq war and its aftermath as part of the broader campaign against terrorism. Administration officials say that linking the bombings in Iraq to Al Qaeda and the broader war on terrorism puts the attacks in a better political light than if they are viewed as guerrilla strikes by Baathist die-hards.

www.nytimes.com...

Here is an article I found by Israeli journalist (in Jaffa) Israel Shamir. He questions the very being of "Islamic terrorism" as defined by the Bush administration since 9-11. He questions the truth of there actually being a world-wide terror network and argues that it's more a group of disperate movements across the globe from Sri Lanka (Tamil Tigers) to the IRA. I agree with his assumption.

Consider 9-11, not a shred of evidence has been produced to the people of the United States or the world to prove anyone's actual involvement. It was proven soon after 9-11, that half of the supposed hi-jackers were actually quite alive and well. Identity theft, no doubt. Someone in the shadows set them up and used their identities.

Too many unanswered questions and loose ends to buy anything BUSHCO says.




In Kuala Lumpur, a futuristic and lush tropical city of hospitable Malays, the Foreign Ministers of the
Islamic States convened the 'Conference on Terror' Israel Shamir attended it as an observer. The following is:

What Islamic Terror?
(a Talk I Never Gave at the Conference)
or 'UFOs and Terror'

�My wife has been raped by a Martian�. It was a favourite and frequent headline in 1950s, when the power was not concentrated to the present extent, and journalists had to do with UFO stories. With years, veracity of the opinion-makers decreased, but their malice grew considerably. Millions of newspaper copies, billions of TV frames and zillions of words postulate Islamic Terror as the latest scourge of mankind.

It is not strange, Your Excellencies, that your defensive reflexes took precedence over your common sense, and you try and justify, renounce or explain Islamic Terror � by the persecution of Palestinians in the Apartheid State of Israel, or by the US siege of Iraq and colonisation of Saudi Arabia. You gave some pretty good reasons, but, as a PR professional, I�ll tell you: one can find good reasons for anything.

In the fervour of explanations, you forgot to ask yourselves the first question of a scientist: does it exist? Is there such a phenomenon, Islamic Terror? Yes, there is a lot of spin, and the media takes it for granted. But a say-so would not suffice as a proof of existence. In 18th century, good people of Salem in New England carried out a crusade against witches. Whoever would doubt the very fact of the female alliance with Devil, would surely be marginalised or presented as a Satan�s stooge. For centuries, there was a spin about Jews who consume Christian children�s blood for Passover. Hundreds of books and articles were published on the subject; England still has a child saint supposedly martyred by bloodthirsty Jews.

But now we disregard this silly spin. It is a right time to do the same with the latest Witch Hunt, the newest Blood Libel, so-called Islamic Terror.

globalist.org... el/020407_shamir_islamic_terror.html

This is an article from 2002 discussing a supposed terr'rist mastermind being protected by British officials. Why in the hell is this guy being protected? If he is who they claim, why isn't he being tried?


Sheltering A Puppet Master?

By BRUCE CRUMLEY/PARIS




Sunday, Jul. 07, 2002
As worldwide investigations into the mysteries of the Sept. 11 terror conspiracy roll on, officials in Europe have pondered an enigma: Where is Abu Qatada? Described by some justice officials as the spiritual leader and possible puppet master of al-Qaeda's European networks, Abu Qatada has been missing since mid-December after British authorities confiscated his passport, froze his assets and ordered him confined to his London home. With Jordan seeking his return to serve a life sentence for terror-related crimes, some observers figured Abu Qatada went underground�and perhaps left Britain�to avoid extradition. But senior European intelligence officials tell TIME that Abu Qatada is tucked away in a safe house in the north of England, where he and his family are being lodged, fed and clothed by British intelligence services. "The deal is that Abu Qatada is deprived of contact with extremists in London and Europe but can't be arrested or expelled because no one officially knows where he is," says the source, whose claims were corroborated by French authorities. "The British win because the last thing they want is a hot potato they can't extradite for fear of al-Qaeda reprisals but whose presence contradicts London's support of the war on terror." British security services officials declined to comment.

�With reporting by Helen Gibson/London

www.time.com...

Al-Quaeda has become an all-purpose whippign corpse for the Bush government. Anything they can't pin on someone for sure, they pin it on them. Sad.

Does anyone else notice how whenever ANY bombing happens, officials immediately say "We think Al Qaida is responsible" without a shred of evidence? Al Qaida is - LARGELY - a fiction and Osama is a CIA-related/created BOOGYMAN.

yep...i noticed that..

im wondering why all the War Mongerers[pro-bush-republicans] have not posted anything about this "of coarse this was osama"....i have heard this argument in a previous thread...

Here's a letter a guy wrote to Pravda about this very thing. I totally agree with him.

And I know some folks might have a problem with Pravda, but the truth is, they have some excellent stuff, believe it or not.

US FEDS SEE AL QAEDA BEHIND EVERY ROCK
11/19/2003 15:31
A Letter from our Reader:
The US federal government is attempting to blame the Al Qaeda for the October, 2003, fires that burned southern California. A June 25 memo from the Denver office of the FBI allegedly reported that one of the "terrorists in detention" confessed that the Al Qaeda was planning to set wildfires throughout the western USA.

The only problem us regular people have with such a scenario is that we know that the "terrorists in detention" have been tortured and therefore would say anything to end the torture. The US admits that it questions the POW's at the Guantanamo Bay kennels "only sixteen hours a day." Can you imagine how quickly you'd snap after being grilled 16 hours a day for months on end? Even without the sensory deprivation methods and other psy-ops experiments, that'd be enough to turn the bravest fanatic into a bowl of jello. This is why such 'confessions' have zero credibility with decent people.

Since 9/11 we have been hearing over and over again, "Condition Yellow, Condition Red," touting threats to bridges, buildings, aircraft and the American Way of Life. Of all these dozens of warnings, not one terrorist incident has occurred. NOT ONE terrorist incident predicted by the Fed ever happened. Chicken Little had the same level of success with the sky falling. And for this, billions of dollars have been spent, a great bureaucracy was established in the name of "Homeland Security" and the civil rights of American citizens have been erased by the PATRIOT Act. All in the name of a little temporary safety that the Fed never could deliver in the first place. Our 'intelligence' agencies had already received billions of dollars before 9/11 and caught not one whiff of it, yet Congress keeps throwing good money after bad.

Desperate to justify the vast expenditures of money and manpower, the government now clutches at each and every calamity as a "terrorist incident." The Al Qaeda are behind every misfortune because they just have to be----to keep the illusion going.
The rest:
english.pravda.ru...

The fact that Al Qaida had been shooting it out with Saudi forces in the weeks before the bombing doesn't get mentioned.
The fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi doesn't get mentioned.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden is Saudi and hates the way the Saudi princes run the country doesn't get mentioned.

When you ignore enough facts, you can come up with any theory you like.

Originally posted by Leveller
The fact that Al Qaida had been shooting it out with Saudi forces in the weeks before the bombing doesn't get mentioned.
The fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi doesn't get mentioned.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden is Saudi and hates the way the Saudi princes run the country doesn't get mentioned.

When you ignore enough facts, you can come up with any theory you like.

The FBI has refused to acknowledge the fact that half the supposed 9-11 hijackers are STILL ALIVE. That is a fact that you cannot explain away. And it is only the tip of the ice berg. Provide us, please, with FACTS proving the government's charges against Osama Bin Laden & Al Qaida in relation to the events of September 11, 2001. You cannot, because the government has not provided a shred of evidence to support their THEORY.

Half the 9//1 hijackers are still alive and that is a fact?

Dude. You're so full of # you must have skidmarks down the back of your shirt collar.

Yeah. I can just see the headline - "Suicide Bombers on 3rd Mission".


Fact - You are braindead.

Leveller!

What the hell are you doing here? Shouldnt you be in London gassing, beating, and turning those damn hippies in?

Dude, the facts arent being ignored here.

Its out in plain view. The 9/11 Hijackers were all Saudis, funded by the Saudis, ect, yet Saudi Arabia didnt get invaded, instead, we hit Afghanistan and Iraq?

Now why on eareth would we do that?

The point here is that, within hours of the attack that our intelligence was entirely incapable of preventing or even warning, they had the name, address, and shoe sizes of the perps!

Fact.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...........

Somehow, it doesnt even matter that they were all Saudis, when you consider how deep in bed we are with the Saudis.

Al Qaeda probably did do 9/11. But they werent alone.

They were just the Hired help.

And Bin Laden is now a convienant excuse to invade any country.

Ill bet some money that soon, Osama is gonna get a little homesick for his #ty sandbox wasteland, and return home to visit the family, where he will be spotted, and the Saudis, who will deny he is there and refuse to turn him over because he isnt there, will be the next on the target of terrorism.

Originally posted by Leveller
Half the 9//1 hijackers are still alive and that is a fact?

Dude. You're so full of # you must have skidmarks down the back of your shirt collar.

Yeah. I can just see the headline - "Suicide Bombers on 3rd Mission"


he is saying that the supposed hijakers names that were provided to us have been proven---that some of them are still alive and in saudi!

[Edited on 11-19-2003 by sirCyco]

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Leveller!

What the hell are you doing here? Shouldnt you be in London gassing, beating, and turning those damn hippies in?

You're not there Skadi. Why waste my time?