BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

Originally posted by ADVISOR
All the sources used in the book are not even contradicted online. Show me the errors or inaccuracies, and I'll reconsider the book. Until then, and from what I have seen it is useful.

Tell me, does Gunaratna devote any time in his work to the abundant evidence of involvement of western security/intelligence services in what is called 'Al Qaeda'?

Do you have a personal issue on this, some bad blood between you and the author or publisher? You seem a bit emotional in your responce.

No personal issue, other than thinking it is hilarious and outlandishly stupid that someone who takes this source seriously is a moderator of a 'truth seeking' forum.

Please provide sources that this publication is baseless and trash, I would like to see why your attacking the and discrediting a potential tool. The diclaimer is if you read anything else, is because he personally interviewed terrorists.

Precisely, and speculates on whether they told him the truth, i.e. included the material that held up the story he wanted to tell. His publisher was evidently aware of this, hence the disclaimer.

It would be their info that would be speculative at best isn't it?

He reports on the info as though it were true.

Not a man who is and has be involved in multi national advise on terrorism.

The very fact he's been an official terrorism advisor is in my eyes a reason to discredit him further. Most terrorism analysts are buffoons who just repeat official propaganda. Gunaratna is among the very worst at this. He doesn't subject his sources to any analysis, hardly ever bothers to seek confirmation, and misses so much of the story that calling him an expert is like calling Paul Merson a football expert just because he played football.

reply to post by warrenb


Is their a difference between taking things out of context and lying? I wonder sometimes.

reply to post by masonwatcher


No truly intelligent person ever accepted Al-Qaida as a reality. We knew that America assisted (and even created) Osama for their benefit previously, his supposed ideology didn't exist before 9/11.

It's just more evidence that America created this big bad boogey man to justify an invasion of Iraq to secure the oil and the land for a future combat with Iran.

Notice how they are now moving away from Al-Qaida and focusing on the Taliban? That's because they are a new boogey man they created when they went into Afghanistan (again strategically for a future fight with Iran).

This allows the "coalition" to focus on a physical enemy and distract people from an imaginary one, and doesn't require them to create future terrorist atrocities on their own soil to solidify public anger. They can go on fighting the Taliban in their strategic locations for decades if they wanted to.

The one remaining question is what the American government will create on their own soil to convince people that it's right to attack Iran.
I dread to think what horror they'll create in America to blame on Iran. But chances are it will be nuclear.

Be worried when there are real signs that America can completely leave Iraq and Afghanistan, because that will be the moment when something happens in America to change the combat theatre to Iran and justify an invasion, and therefore their continued presence in this pivotal region.

reply to post by Vinciguerra


Very very well
See the Wikipedia page about the 1993 WTC bombing, the first line of the first paragraph is : "Ramzi Yousef, who was born as Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim in Kuwait, spent time at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan,[4]...". It's misleading at best, almost anachronic. And it implies a connection to Bin Laden. It's "common" knowledge you will find in many websites nowadays. Expect members to throw links back at you to prove the connection No one admit to rely on Wikipedia but of course, most people do.

Like one poster said : "It's called history. Study it some time."
But when was this "history" written ? Most of us, we were well and alive at the time, we have witnessed the writing of this history. This particular link was insidiously established after 9/11 with no new material or evidence, to give credibility to the existence of Al Qaeda as an actual organised network. It made sense to link them to a past Islamist bombing in US territory. Historical facts are manipulated in front of our own eyes but who minds.
Al Qaeda should not be called an organisation, it's a names list, the original use of the term or an ideology strongly opposed to the US power. Some terrorists groups have associated their actions to this ideology like it's a brand name. There are no cells operating for the same organisation in secret with no contact with each other. There are different groups with other goals usually domestic, they receive no funding, no logistic help from the supposed Al Qaeda leaders, they are not in the same organisation. The only link if there is one is loosely ideological, but even then, some groups have used it only to gain more coverage and raise fear.

It's interesting the source [4] for the Wiki page is the same book who sources the AFP article, Lawrence Wright, Looming Tower, Knopf, (2006). It looks like a must read.

Denying Al Qaeda is an actual organisation is not denying 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamists. It's another topic. It's pertinent because US international policies were partly based and motivated on the fight against Al Qaeda and the capture of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda "does not exist" which means not as a global terrorist/funding organisation.

I`ve just wasted reading 4 pages on whether Al Qaeda does or does not excist.

Maybe somehere would like to read this site.

Gives far better acurate info on what is happening and where.

www.secret-bases.co.uk...

Even shows photos of the extended 2009 Echelon programme buildings.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by electrodom]

I can remember when we financed them back in '79, it was on the news.

I guess the OP wasn't alive then.

You did finance Al Qaeda in 1979 and it was in the news ?

Considering it was founded in the late 80's according to all sources, it's simply amazing !

reply to post by jprophet420

I can remember when we financed them back in '79, it was on the news.

You got to be joking right? AQ does not exist is the way Bush and Co package it. However, there was a database of names of those fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

What part of your comment is religion and what part is a fact?

[edit on 013131p://pm3106 by masonwatcher]

Who is "WE".

Wasn`t Bin a CIA agent fighting the Russian or was he a mole for the JYU 2 Brigade.

I thought Bin didn`t excist, they were using a car salesmen from New Jersey in the vid`s.

What does Al Qaeda stand for anyway ?

Originally posted by Manouche
You did finance Al Qaeda in 1979 and it was in the news ?

Considering it was founded in the late 80's according to all sources, it's simply amazing !

We called them freedom fighters then, not terrorists.

Yes, you should remember them. They were the people the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, and even Ronald Reagan promoted them as Freedom Fighters and Liberators.

Well, here are just some of the 'moral values' of the people that would later create Al Qaeda and the Taliban:

A "favorite tactic" of the Afghan freedom fighters was "to torture victims by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another", producing "a slow, very painful death". The Moujahedeen also killed a Canadian tourist and six West Germans, including two children, and a U.S. military attaché was dragged from his car and beaten; all due to the rebels' apparent inability to distinguish Russians from other Europeans.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Washington Post, 11 May 1979, p. 23. U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Islamic rebels killed Soviet male and female civilians and mutilated their bodies, New York Times, 13 April 1979, p. 8.

New York Times, 11 September 1979, p. 12.

reply to post by masonwatcher


al-Qaida It means "the Base". It was founded by Shaikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam in 1988. There were numerous factions primarily mobilized in Afghanistan against the Russians. Azzam was assassinated in 1989. Some suspect Bin Ladin. Regardless, Bin Ladin assumed control over the organization afterwards.

Now here is what the video is trying to tell you are concept of an organization and there concept are two diffrent things. We expect command and control they never had that consider them more like a group of like minded people operating under the same banner. If someone in al queda wants to blow up an embassy they recruit the people and come up with the money. Bin Laden was nothing more than the guy that said this is what al-Qaida does and what we stand fo and if you come to me ill help you find backing and get you support. However that doesnt mean other members of al-Qaida didnt plan operations without his knowledge because there is no command structure jihadist often operate like this.

Was there al-Qaida before the cia there is little doubt were they an organization no they werent they are just a bunch of terrorists working together for a cause guided by a vision of what they believe to be right.

hah, nothing we didnt already know.

the media is so warped. they are the puppetmasters and we are their puppets.

they can string us along any way they want, and people actually believe most of the crap they hear on tv.

ive come to the point where i dont believe a damn thing the government says anymore, and ive come to accept that.

i think the vietnam war was really what changed a lot of things that scultped the world we live in today.

when people saw what was REALLY going on in wars, they felt much differently.

the government can get away with a lot more when they lie to the vulnerable.

Please look at this link. This is where they were first actually seen in the current organization structure they have now.

LINK

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Look up who they are. They are all linked together. They are real. They kill for religion. They have money and do not need the money from the CIA. We funded the Taliban and not AQ in Afghanistan. Who did we fund in Chechnya? They are all proxy wars.

We wanted Afghanistan and Iraq for one reason...they surround Iran. We have access to all the other -stans in the area as well as the Israelis this time. Problem is Afghanistan and Iraq took longer than first thought just like Russia in Afghanistan. Now Russia has interest in the area to rebuild when we destroy it. It is all about money in the big picture and as long as AQ stciks around they will be used to play RISK.

reply to post by jprophet420


Which group are we discussing? The mostly Afghani Muslims that the CIA assisted through the ISI? Or the Arab Muslims funded by people like Osama Bin Laden? You do realize that there were TWO seperate groups in Afghanistan right?

reply to post by dragonridr


I agree with your information but I also think that bin Laden's activities were self evident and transparent to the US. No one, at the time, objected to any group or individual to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets; in fact it was encouraged by the US.

Also there is no such thing as a jihadi or jihadist. This is part of the lexicon of the War on Terror. In the 1980s they were known as mujahideen and considered to be freedom fighters.

The radicalisation of Osama bin Laden is based on his anger of foreign soldiers in his country. The Taliban are fighting Nato forces in their country because they view there presence as an invasion.

If bin Laden is guilty of 9/11, it should have been dealt with as a police matter with military support. In fact I think most Muslims would have supported this action and helped. Everyone was appalled by 9/11. Instead we get the Clash of Civilisations as if the US is the first place in the world there has been an atrocity. There is a 9/11 every year and this year we had two, in Gaza and Sri Lanka.

Al-Qaeda . Arabic: ; al-qāʿidah; translation: The Base



Look at the faces of those people who got the inside joke.





[edit on 8-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


Keep reaching

The stories are just getting wilder and wilder.

reply to post by jprophet420


Obviously, you were refering to mudjahideens. But did you actually read the thread ?
The CIA funded the mudjahideens in 79 and after, in 1979 it's not Al Qaeda. They are distinct denominations for two different things. Al Qaeda originates from the mudjahideens, everyone agrees I think.

I can't get your link to work. From the quote and the title of the article, it's not clear if it says the US was financing them. It was a covert action by the CIA, I don't think it was all over in the american news. Maybe it was revealed at the time by some investigation journalist, I'd like to read it if you have a link. Otherwise, I'll still believe you had seen it in the news but it was the mudjahideens not Al Qaeda

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I agree with your information but I also think that bin Laden's activities were self evident and transparent to the US. No one, at the time, objected to any group or individual to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets; in fact it was encouraged by the US.

Also there is no such thing as a jihadi or jihadist. This is part of the lexicon of the War on Terror. In the 1980s they were known as mujahideen and considered to be freedom fighters.

The radicalisation of Osama bin Laden is based on his anger of foreign soldiers in his country. The Taliban are fighting Nato forces in their country because they view there presence as an invasion.

If bin Laden is guilty of 9/11, it should have been dealt with as a police matter with military support. In fact I think most Muslims would have supported this action and helped. Everyone was appalled by 9/11. Instead we get the Clash of Civilisations as if the US is the first place in the world there has been an atrocity. There is a 9/11 every year and this year we had two, in Gaza and Sri Lanka.

Clinton screwed that up he was offered Ossama but actually refused because at the time AL qa-eda was a no name terrorist group.As far as foreigners in his country that was never his goal he was a Saudi citizen.His goal has been to spread sharia law he saw Afghanistan as good place to start thats all.Hes fighting a religious war that is the exact reason he became so dangerous. Until radical Islam is dead we will continue to have jihads valid term by the way since jihad of the sword is accepted in Muslim dogma. Eventually i see once radicals disappear it will become jihad of the soul but for now thats a pipe dream.And bottom line comes down to interpretations there is alot of violence in the Quran and this can be used to condone almost anything.

Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1941–1989) is often credited with creating enthusiasm for the Afghan mujahideen cause in the Arab Muslim and greater Muslim world. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Shaikh Azzam issued a fatwa, Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation after Faith [2] declaring defense jihad in Afghanistan fard ayn (a personal obligation) for all Muslims. "Whoever can, from among the Arabs, fight jihad in Palestine, then he must start there. And, if he is not capable, then he must set out for Afghanistan." While Jihad in Palestine was more important, for practical reasons, "It is our opinion that we should begin [Jihad] with Afghanistan before Palestine."

I admit they changed the name, not the MO or the players.