11 Reasons Why The Threat From Al-Qaeda Is Not Real

A bit a of read, but it nicely sums up how the "war on terror" is simply a nefarious tool used to manipulate US foreign and domestic policy. The intro...

The United States government has repeatedly stated that the threat from Al-Qaeda against America is very real, and that all action is being taken to eliminate that threat. Nobody in their right mind would question such a serious assessment about a sensitive national security matter from the world's leading democracy. But the truth is that over the past fifty years America's democratic institutions like the press have been weakened, and an elitist National Security State has risen, and taken control over all aspects of government.

Since World War II U.S. leaders have consistently lied to the American people about foreign threats in order to feed the military machine's appetite for war. All of these wars are unjust and unwarranted but that does not stop the self-interested criminals who control U.S. foreign policy. A recent example of a lie they told was their assertion that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. That episode revealed to many people the true nature of the American government. Simply put, it does not care about the truth, or the American people, or the members of the military. U.S. leaders like former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, to name but a few, tell lies at will. Dishonesty means nothing to them. They deceive the American people, the American military, and the world about their motives and methods - and they lie to themselves about their own powers and abilities.

Next to the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were slaughtered by the American war machine in its numerous criminal wars, U.S. soldiers have suffered the most - way more than the rest of the population in America. It can't be said enough that the U.S. government's treatment of its soldiers is scandalous and shameful. It is so out of whack that in America today dogs are treated better than military vets. Some dogs are even treated to luxurious spas while military vets are denied the proper health care that they deserve. Instead, they're left to rot, and commit suicide. And for what? To defend America? To defeat Al-Qaeda? Or to keep the war machine and its benefactors rich and powerful? As you will see by the end of this post, it is the latter.

Full Article

reply to post by NthOther


That was a very interesting read, I think the author has made some valid points however for the most part I disagree.

I do think that the threat being presented to the public is being exaggerated and in some way manipulated as a result of the neoconservative ideology. It is generally accepted that during the Cold war the neoconservatives would exaggerate the threat posed by the Soviet Union to validate their foreign and domestic policies. To some extent this can be seen today however this does not mean the threat is a lie and that is my fundamental disagreement with the author of this thread and a number of misconceptions that have been made.
Point 1: The information about the relationship between the CIA and the press is form the cold war era and it was true, 20 years ago. There is no evidence provided that shows us that this is still a continuing practice, indeed it is true with the spread of the internet and the globalisation of the press this is no longer possible. In the 60’s and 70’s the CIA only had to target a few news papers and a couple of national TV journalists. Now the media industry has exploded, there are countless news channels form all over the world broadcasting 24 hours a day and at the touch of a button any American can access any news paper in the world. With this the CIA has lost its ability to effectively manipulate the media. For example say they did manage to infiltrate FoxNews, and made up a lie of some description, all other news sources the world over would be in a position to discredit this story. To make matters only worse, it would not take long for a investigative journalist to publish the story either in America or abroad that FoxNews has been allowing the CIA to manipulate editorial decisions this would commercially damage FoxNews. The revelation that the CIA has been interfering with domestic affairs would lead to a massive political backlash, there would be calls to impeach the president for obstructing freedom of the press. This is not the Cold War, this is not the 60’s, the CIA simply cannot do it anymore.

The second theme that the author discusses in his first point is the use of PSYOPS which again originates from the cold war. It also assumes that again that the CIA would break the law by conducting clandestine operations on American soil and it also again assumes that the CIA can control the media, the fallacy of which I have briefly outlined above.

Point 2: it is clear from reading this that the author believes the Iraq war was based on the government lying, as do I. This however does not mean that they are lying about the threat from Al’Qa’ida, indeed it could mean the opposite if it were the case Al’Qa’ida was a fabrication then why not blame Iraq for 9/11 this would have gave much greater justification for going to war with Iraq. It is documented that bush was after 9/11 asked the CIA to focus on blaming Iraq something they were unable to do. The author also claims that “

In his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, Bush said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." This statement later was proven to be a complete lie

This was a lie but not as the author and others tend to believe. It is not possible to go into great detail on the story but the short version is that the CIA captured a Al’Qa’ida trainer called Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who deliberately feed misinformation to the CIA that Saddam had helped train Al’Qa’ida was protecting them. This was done for both ideological reasons and because of Bin Laden’s and most likely his loathing for Iraq and in particular Saddam. It’s a common misconception.

AS for his 10 reasons.

1) This information might actually be true be true, it originates from FoxNews and based on Anwar Al-Awlaki’s history of spending time in the west it is indeed possible. However my own personal interprition of this meeting is that it was possibly a attempt to bring Anwar Al-Awlaki on to the Americans side of this “war”. This clearly failed and it does not prove by any means that the Al’Qa’ida threat is a lie.

2) This is a example of the difficulty people have with grasping post-2001 Al’Qa’ida. Al’Qa’ida is not the same today as it was in 2001, there are probably only 50-100 “hardcore” Al’Qa’ida who are still active, which is what the CIA direction was most likely referring to. However there are tens of thousands of splinter Al’Qa’ida groups, Al’Qa’ida is a franchise now, it’s like a badge of honour for a terrorist group. A lot of time when you hear about a Al’Qa’ida plot on TV what you are probably hearing about is some group with the Al’Qa’ida prefix or it might even be a group that has nothing to do with Al’Qa’ida but because the its easer for the public to understand they will just use the Al’Qa’ida badge because it works. Some argue that this has immortalised Al’Qa’ida and made them even more dangerous and with this in mind the threat becomes very real.

3) Again this report might have been talking about the hardcore Al’Qa’ida and not the franchise. For example the threat in Yemmen is very real we can see that by looking to the Christmas day bomb plot. However as I said at the start I do agree the threat is exaggerated but this is as a result of neo-conservatism and not the threat being a fake.

4) IS that not a known twist of the tongue?

5) All other subsequent points are based on this idea that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA cration, I have already wrote to much for one post. All i can say is if you want to know this truth go find a book on Al’Qa’ida that isn’t found in the conspiracy section.

Really I could go on all day. Buy a book and stop getting your information form bias conspiracy websites.

reply to post by kevinunknown

The information about the relationship between the CIA and the press is form the cold war era and it was true, 20 years ago. There is no evidence provided that shows us that this is still a continuing practice...

All you need to do is look at who are the board members of the all the major media networks, there is a strong military presence there. The media has also reduced the competition of the main players in the market place making it easier to exert control.

Now the media industry has exploded,

Only thanks to the internet. For people who do not use the internet for information, they still rely on television and newspapers which are still strongly regulated and vetted in the stories presented.

it would not take long for a investigative journalist to publish the story either in America or abroad that FoxNews has been allowing the CIA to manipulate editorial decisions this would commercially damage FoxNews

There are many stories of good journalists sacked and important stories dropped. It does take a bit to find them on the internet, issues with Monsanto and the BP Gulf disaster are some classic examples. There is a culture in the media that you are careful in the stories you present if you want to keep your job.

The revelation that the CIA has been interfering with domestic affairs would lead to a massive political backlash

Not just domestic, but international. Many stories of drug running, election fixing and other stuff all around the world working for western powers and big business.

There would be calls to impeach the president for obstructing freedom of the press

This one is out of the presidents hands and in that of big business who has all the dollars and have bribed their way into government.

As for who exactly Al-Qaeda is and there agenda, things have gotten really smelly since 9/11. We do need more integrity and courage back in the media to investigate the stories and sort out the facts from the fiction.

reply to post by kwakakev


That is an interesting response, to just one of the many problems I have identified with this article and there are more I just got bored.

On ATS we see all the time the threads about how the CIA are planting journalists into the nations press desks to plant totally fabricated stories into the national press. This paranoia all go back to the WWII propaganda campaigns to the 60’s and 70’s when the CIA did indeed have the capability to plant stories in the press knowing that the Soviets would have a read. The most notable story is the UFO article planted in Time magazine to try to persuade the Soviets that the lights they were seeing over their territory were UFO’s and that there was a genuine UFO threat. The context of these highly unethical actions however has to be taken into account, this was at a time when no one had access to the internet and there where almost no international papers or foreign news channels broadcasting in America. It was easy to plant a story and have no one question it, some journalists could even have been persuaded that they were doing this to defeat the communist threat.

Now it is not possible.

According to recent statistics 77% of Americans have access to the internet and for the period 2000-2010 there has been a 150% increase in the number of people using the internet and this upward trend is expected to continue. In addition to this the advent of satellite TV and increased demand for braking news has lead to a explosion of 24 hour news channels both national and internationally. This dramatic change in the media industry has lead to most people having access to every news paper with the touch of a button and watch almost any major news channels they want such as BBC, France24, Russia Today, Aljazeera and so on in addition to this let’s not forget we have wikileaks. With all of these massive resources at the average persons hands it is not longer possible to plant a story in the press.

I will give this example again, but say the CIA plant a story in FoxNews that is a complete lie it would only take one journalist form anywhere in the world to expose it and before you know the CIA would be facing the axe and the president impeached.

It is true that all media is bias on most political subjects however bias does not mean lying. It is also true that the neoconservatives and indeed others with in the American political alumni who probably do tell journalists things they know to be either lies or exaggerations this however does not mean that the press are full of CIA stooges. These lies are also usually exposed such as the “lies” (this is complex) that we were allegedly fed in the run up to the war in Iraq. The important thing to remember is that this does not mean the threat from Al’Qa’ida is a lie, it might be exaggerated to some extent or even underestimated in other ways (such as CBRN).

Once you start to accept that the threat posed by “Al’Qa’ida is a fake, you become complacent about the very real threat of violent Islamic extremism. If you really want to know their agenda and more information on Al’Qa’ida and violent Islamic extremism then go buy a book that isn’t found on the “conspiracy” shelf of the book store.

reply to post by NthOther


America is an example of what positive thinking brings. It brings countries to just being mass murderers, like how uk and usa are behind gaza, thats all positive thinking garbage like how oprah or who ever teaches.

Positive thinking brought the idea of al queada, which even the garbage station bbc admits is rubbish and does not exist.

Thats all al queada is, is just america and its positive thinking, using things like al queada to bring about more of there murder campaigns.

There is no one doing anything to america, but americans.

reply to post by kevinunknown


That was a very good and well thought out response. The internet has made a big difference to the media and communications and it is getting harder to plant fake stories thanks to the peer review the internet offers. The media is allowed to lie, generally no one gets sacked or investigated and a minor retraction may appear at a later date. It does start to hurt the branding of the media company when it happens to often and a lot of people on this and other sites are disappointed with the quality of the mainstream media in general.

Here is one example of how the CIA is involved in trying to destabilise the recent Iran elections www.voltairenet.org... . Iran was smart enough to see what was going on and has leant from previous CIA influences in the region. Part of the reason there is so much tension in that part of the world.

As for the threat of Al’Qa’ida, I am blind from the fog of war around the topic. There are some reports that it is part of a CIA contact list. I know Eastern and Western regions have been fighting for a thousands of years, Afghanistan has had generations of conflict going on against one neighbour or another. I acknowledge there are risks and threats globally, just not clear enough to know where to draw the line at this stage. With the first suspect behind 9/11 in the clear I would like to see a stand down to the ongoing destruction of a Nation.

The threat from alquaeda is very real. When alquaeda thinks people need to die, then people will die. Alquaeda isnt just run by whom people think it is run.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by NthOther

 

Point 2: it is clear from reading this that the author believes the Iraq war was based on the government lying, as do I. This however does not mean that they are lying about the threat from Al’Qa’ida, indeed it could mean the opposite if it were the case Al’Qa’ida was a fabrication then why not blame Iraq for 9/11 this would have gave much greater justification for going to war with Iraq. It is documented that bush was after 9/11 asked the CIA to focus on blaming Iraq something they were unable to do. The author also claims that “

The Iraq war was not untill 2003. In 2001/02 the war in Afghanistan was stepped up, to capture USAma bin Laden in Afghanistan and drive alquaeda out of afghan caves. No Alquaeda found. However they continued to be present on the internet and on tv as some kind of virtual terror organisation.

The pretext for the invasion in Iraq was wmds.

alquaeda, I believe it means the toilet seat in their language. What a name, only an american could think of that one. The toilet seat gang are causing crap again.

Selig Harrison, a current member of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, a former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and an expert on South Asia, said in March 2001 at a conference called “Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia,” that the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI helped create the backward and tyrannical Taliban.
The September 11, 2001 attacks, which serve as the basis for America’s wars in the Middle East, were committed by the United States government with assistance from the government of Israel. This is an indisputable fact

Al-Qaeda is the term that is used in the media. The real name is mujahideen, and they are very real and very much a threat.

reply to post by deessell


Only because you change the name it does not change the story. Who ever heard of the mujahideen before they were bankrolled by us to fight the soviets?