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.

 

Washington’s Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and never did

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Interesting article comparing Al Qaeda from past to present, talking about how the Syrian/Iraqi/Libyan Al Qaeda really has no relation to OBL's Afghan Al Qaeda. The common thread that these splintered groups have are their hatred for America.

I'm pretty much gonna copy & paste the majority of the article but read it in it's entirety here.< br />

TAMPA, December 11, 2013 — For twelve years, the Bush and Obama Administrations have promoted a narrative about the War on Terror. It has changed slightly in superficial ways, as when President Obama gave it a new name, but the crux of the narrative has not changed. The United States is fighting a war against a worldwide terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, formerly .ed by über-terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Americans are led to believe that this organization has a single mission against the United States and is directed by a hierarchy of terrorist leaders, all reporting up to a senior command located somewhere in Afghanistan. Many of the lawmakers and cabinet personnel who promote this narrative likely believe it themselves, at least to some degree.

Washington sees al-Qaeda the way it sees itself, a centralized, top-down hierarchy with a chain of command reporting up from every corner of the earth. It makes for a good story, but it’s not even remotely true. Virtually every incident involving this fictional organization refutes the narrative.


Interesting choice of words there, fictional organization. Many of us are on board with that line of thought and sick of the West increasing their drone operations and wars based on the boogymen that are Al Qaeda. Now don't get me or the article wrong, there are Islamist bad men who are engaging in acts of EVIL under the name of Al Qaeda.


Veteran reporter Eric Margolis never believed it. He’s been reporting on the true nature of the Islamic militant groups from the very beginning. He should know what he’s talking about. He was embedded in Afghanistan in the 1980’s when bin Laden and what is now al-Qaeda and the Taliban were U.S. allies, fighting the Soviet Union.

For what it’s worth, bin Laden and other Islamic militants apparently regarded Margolis’ reporting as accurate. He was named as one of a small group of reporters who “fairly and accurately reported on the region” in alleged al-Qaeda letters released last year.

Commenting on that release in “Osama’s Almost Letter to Me,” Margolis wrote, “Al-Qaida was not founded by Osama bin Laden, as many wrongly believe, but in the mid-1980’s in Peshawar, Pakistan, by a revolutionary scholar, Sheik Abdullah Azzam. I know this because I interviewed Azzam numerous times at al-Qaida HQ in Peshawar while covering the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Azzam set up al-Qaida, which means ‘the base’ in Arabic, to help CIA and Saudi-financed Arab volunteers going to fight in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. In those days, the west hailed them as ‘freedom fighters.’”

Margolis goes on to report that neither Al Qaeda in Afghanistan nor the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Their raison d’etre is fighting foreign troops within their borders. When the invaders were Soviet, they fought the Soviets, using similar but updated tactics to those previously used against the British. When the invaders were American, they fought the Americans. Thus Afghanistan’s ominous nickname, “Graveyard of Empires.”

According to this alternate narrative, the “extremists” in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 nor any tangible connection to the group that perpetrated the attacks. Those were mostly Saudi Arabian nationals who planned the attack in Hamburg, Germany and Madrid. The only thing the attackers had in common with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was hatred of the United States. But they hated the United States for different reasons.

The 9/11 attackers, being Saudi, most likely hated America for precisely the reason Osama bin Laden stated: U.S. bases in the Muslim holy land and (secondarily) its support for Israel. Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan hated America because the United States invaded, ignoring the Taliban’s quite reasonable request for the U.S. to produce evidence of bin Laden’s guilt before demanding his extradition.



They had nothing to do with 9/11 and we all know the official story tells us that Saudi men were on board (so lucky that passport was found by the FBI on the streets below
) those planes but the US still invades Afghanistan and has been there ever since and never holding Saudi Arabia responsible. The FBI never even charged OBL for these crimes yet Obama & friends boast his murder. I recall articles from years past talking about how many Afghan's don't even know about 9/11. America and her allies have a clear Middle Eastern agenda that's been on going for decades. 9/11 was a ploy to convince the public that more war was a needed. Playing on our emotions, you bastards.





What Washington is calling “al-Qaeda in Syria” is also a completely different group. They exist to overthrow the Assad regime. Since that regime is a longtime ally of Russia’s, the U.S. has actually supported these rebels, amidst heavy criticism from within Washington’s ranks that the Obama administration is supporting al-Qaeda. This was apparently confirmed when Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri.

However, the pledge of allegiance actually supports the alternative narrative, not Washington’s. It is apparent from the reports on the pledge that the Syrian group had no previous connection to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It came immediately following an announcement by the Islamic State of Iraq that al Nusra was part of its network.

The ISI is one of many militant groups that filled the vacuum left after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and which had no active presence before Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled. ISI similarly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2004 while fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

According to The Telegraph’s April 10, 2013 report, Syria’s al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda,” al-Joulani (al Jawlani) was quick to clarify the relationship with ISI:

“’We inform you that neither the al-Nusra command nor its consultative council, nor its general manager were aware of this announcement [the announcement by ISI]. It reached them via the media and if the speech is authentic, we were not consulted,’” Jawlani said. ‘We reassure our brothers in Syria that al-Nusra Front’s behaviour will remain faithful to the image you have come to know, and that our allegiance (to al-Qaeda) will not affect our politics in any way,’ he added.”

In other words, the Syrian rebel group al Nusra was a group organized around toppling the Assad regime in Syria. It pledged allegiance to what Washington calls “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” but which is really the ISI. The ISI in turn was a group organized to fight U.S. forces in Iraq, with the long term goal of establishing an Islamic state there after U.S. forces withdrew.



edit on 12-12-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Good stuff. people need to think more about WoT to unravel the propaganda. Why does this "War on X" theme play so well in the US? What does that say about the cultural values? I hope to live to see the day when America regains it's moral footing. It's good for the world.

I would contend that the US Intel knows full well that AQ has a decentralized in structure. They've said as much on a number of occasions. I know the narrative needed an enemy and villains but that's the one assertion of the article I would personally toss in the rubbish bin. Minor detractor though.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


This all should be common knowledge. Sadly, it never will be.
So long as the sheeple keep their attention on american idol and facebook, we as a whole will remain oblivious to what's actually going on in the world around us.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


America should just burn the flag, hoist the Jolly-Roger and dissolve congress. Game-on



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Precicely. Its a fictitious "Legion of Doom" dreamed up to scare us all into submission to a police state and provide an excuse to buffalo our way into whichever countries have natural resources our keepers feel they deserve.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Really hard to make perfect sense in the ball of confusion called the Middle east but I am thinking that Turkey has some very serious places at that table .Saudi will be hit hard in the future is my guess ..Not by the Americans either but I think Iran will do those guy's in ..wont hurt my feelings either ...It's a round puzzle with all round pieces the colour of sand .or I mean oil
edit on 12-12-2013 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I think Al Qaeda is nothing but an arm of the CIA, hence the NWO. The nazis got involved in the middle east after WWII (Jim Marrs has a lot to say on the topic). The nazis also helped create the CIA after they came over to the OSO. I think they are all role players in the big reality show called planet earth. It's like the Truman Show - somewhat scripted, heavily controlled, and designed to manipulate us for their own goals. And we all know Osama was a CIA asset in Afghanistan with the Mujahadeen.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Interesting article and material there... I do have some serious issues with it, having kinda lived the history some there would work damned hard to re-write into a whole different narrative than what actually happened. It's a weird mix of accurate and wild, off the deepend wrong there tho...So I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

Even the last part you quote...is very mixed. The whole first part seems to read like we shouldn't equate Al Nusra to Al Qaeda in the sense that Al Qaeda isn't really a bunch of bad guys after all, at least not like we've been "led to believe" ...it almost sounded like a pitch to not think so bad about the terrorist scum fighting Assad in Syria..but then there, the last piece of it hardly supports what the text above it seemed to be leading toward. Hmm.. Odd set there to really examine and pull apart for facts, piece by piece. A couple points that really stand out tho..


The United States is fighting a war against a worldwide terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, formerly .ed by über-terrorist Osama bin Laden.


However we want to term it..and however we want to define or we learn of our OWN involvement as a nation for dirty dealing and duplicity......The street fighters shooting and blowing up Westerners and Americans when opportunity presents are not ghosts. In Afghanistan, the casualty lists are real and built from the start. Almost from Fall of 2001 when it truly had still been the old U.S. Allies (The Northern Alliance...*NOT* The Taliban..and they hated each other. They aren't interhchangeable.. -sigh- ) in a brutal civil war. That's since 2001 tho..and the fighting is extremely real, right along with the hate that fuels it ....to the guys actually holding the AK's and killing people with them.


Washington sees al-Qaeda the way it sees itself, a centralized, top-down hierarchy with a chain of command reporting up from every corner of the earth. It makes for a good story, but it’s not even remotely true.


That's true enough... Al Qaeda would have been broken and shattered like a beer bottle on concrete inside 6 months if they operated like we do, since they don't have the 'empire' to protect their core...as we do. Al Qaeda's an umbrella org like Amway. They franchise..always have and that is world wide. Got a cause? Hate the west? Al Qaeda might give you a grant..kinda like Washington with foreign aid..and about as concerned with what happened afterward too. (maybe not so much lately.. cash is thin for them, I hear) The franchisee gets the fancy little brand to slap on their name tho. Still a franchise.


He was embedded in Afghanistan in the 1980’s when bin Laden and what is now al-Qaeda and the Taliban were U.S. allies, fighting the Soviet Union.


This is the part I always get my fur rubbed the wrong way hard by. That, right there, is a statement of pure and complete ignorance...or it's deliberate falsehood to rewrite history. Plenty of material FROM that time period and following it, document how that all happened. A movie was even made about part of it with Charlie Wilson, altho I recommend the book ..and even it was very limited and narrow for what it viewed of a much bigger thing.

Bin Laden DID NOT like America, even then, and had a special thing about CIA ..even then. He just couldn't kill 'em at the time but I recall reading a quote somewhere in a book that he'd said he'd take a CIA Agent as happily as a KGB Agent if he could get away with it.

For reference..and how this all makes sense...is the context almost ALWAYS left out. The CIA was allied with and helping the Afghans (Who later formed the Northern Alliance to try and obliterate the Taliban). Bin Laden led and was bankrolling the Arabs. Two very distinct factions within the larger Afghan occupation during the 80's. Afghans tolerated, but didn't much care for the Arabs..in part because of their superior 'tude. Likewise, Arabs looked down on the Afghans like second class or lower.

That, explained for perspective about how anyone could be working and supporting one side of the Mujahadeen, but not another when they were all fighting together. That's just it...Unlike Syria...they weren't one big happy family ..and that is where contemporary material and books written before the need existed to re-define how things happened are invaluable for the context.

Of course, learning some of this at the time, as current events and the day's news...not interpretations of history..helps too.

Another curious point... Al Qaeda owes us 2 U.S. Embassies..level, destroyed and with many dead. They owe us for extremely expensive repairs on a U.S. Warship, not to mention what happened to the men too close to the hull when it happened. They also scored a near hit on the WTC in 1993...and one of the current events I recall the fear from, even now..that it hadn't been a single hit and more was coming. I was in Denver and about to have rough times of my own..the day they took their first crack at the towers.

Real people did those things..real hate for us fueled them. Why, how or what to do about it is all debatable ..but the events happened. The people were real and they happened to call themselves affiliates of the Al Qaeda umbrella.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


I've read this several times just to be sure.

OBL was in Afghanistan at the time, no? They also at the time refused to turn him over, no? He was supposedly later killed in Pakistan, no? The ISI mentioned several times are from Pakistan, no? Al Queda was originally formed in Pakistan, no?

The ISI from Pakistan supports the Al Queda version in Syria, no?

Also,

'An Almost letter supposedly"

edit on 12-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I think when I watch the news and these gun toting men quack on about AQ its now become a 'spiritual' principal rather than an organised group of sweaty gun thugs and murderers.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000

For reference..and how this all makes sense...is the context almost ALWAYS left out. The CIA was allied with and helping the Afghans (Who later formed the Northern Alliance to try and obliterate the Taliban). Bin Laden led and was bankrolling the Arabs. Two very distinct factions within the larger Afghan occupation during the 80's. Afghans tolerated, but didn't much care for the Arabs..in part because of their superior 'tude. Likewise, Arabs looked down on the Afghans like second class or lower.

That, explained for perspective about how anyone could be working and supporting one side of the Mujahadeen, but not another when they were all fighting together.



Great point. I'm glad others actually bother researching this topic on their own instead of regurgitating what they've read in a blog or saw on youtube. To be honest, I'm sure someone will inevitably post the following image declaring the US Supported the Taliban not bothering to mention those were the Mujahadeen.



mujahideen

Mujahideen forces caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces, and made the war very costly for the Soviet Union. In 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over power in Kabul.

After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan.This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools known for producing extremism. Veteran mujahideen were confronted by this radical splinter group in 1996.


Meanwhile, the Taliban were established in 1992 or there about and the Reagan administration left power in 1988, the image in question is from the 80s

Taliban

The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان‎ ṭālibān "students"), alternative spelling Taleban, is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread from Pakistan into Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001, with Kandahar as the capital. However, it gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Mohammed Omar has been serving as the spiritual leader of the Taliban since 1994.

edit on 12-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hmmm, I'm pretty certain the Taliban were established long before 1992. I think around that time their power increased thanks to Pakistan but they weren't newbs.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


If you could find a unbiased, non political, non religious, no agenda qualified source to corroborate that often posted claim/belief I'd love to read it.
edit on 12-12-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wait, so you're telling me the Taliban didn't exist until 1992?



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


That's the controversy isn't it?



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
This really is not new info. I've known this for about a decade or so. When I would bring this up in the past on other forums I was called all sorts of names. Now with respectable news sources putting this info out maybe more will wake-up and realized they have been played by the government and MSM.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Is it? I've never heard that before so I find this all very interesting. From my memory the Taliban fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. You're not wrong, the Taliban really gained political power in the early to mid 1990's after the Soviets departure.

www-pub.naz.edu...



Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Taliban emerged as a resistance movement aiming to eject the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. With the United States and Pakistan providing considerable financial and military support, the Afghan Mujahideen were able to inflict heavy losses on the Soviet troops.


en.wikipedia.org...



The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.


www.cfr.org...



The Taliban was formed by Afghan mujahideen who fought against the Soviet invasion in the 1980s and Pashtun tribesmen who studied in Pakistani religious schools (madrassas) and received assistance from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).


www.britannica.com...



Taliban, Pashto Ṭālebān (“Students”), also spelled Taleban, ultraconservative political and religious faction that emerged in Afghanistan in the mid 1990s following the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the collapse of Afghanistan’s communist regime, and the subsequent breakdown in civil order. The faction took its name from its membership, which consisted largely of students trained in madrasahs (Islamic religious schools) that were established for Afghan refugees in the 1980s in northern Pakistan.


www2.gwu.edu...



Formed in 1994, the Taliban began with only a few followers, mostly religious students who fought with the Mujahideen in the war against the Soviets and who were schooled in Islamic seminaries (madrasahs) in Pakistan. These students, or seekers, as they are referred to in the documents, wanted to rid Afghanistan of the instability, violence, and warlordism that had been plaguing the country since the defeat and withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989.


www.mtholyoke.edu...



The Creation of Taliban goes back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. In 1973, The Soviet Union brought their soldiers into Afghanistan claiming to rebuild the crushing economy. However, the Soviet was resented by the Mujahidin (from whom the Taliban evolved from).


edit on 12-12-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Umm no.

Reread your own sources and what site is this one from your first link?

linky here



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Why? I'm agreeing with you. The Taliban really took form in the early 1990s but their roots are apart of the Mujahideen.

Btw, you're linky does what? Oh I see, you have a problem with that link, well just ignore it then but they do cite their sources at the bottom of the page.

On a side note, I enjoy the Bad Santa avatar. That's a keeper for the holiday season.
edit on 12-12-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





Bin Laden DID NOT like America, even then, and had a special thing about CIA ..even then. He just couldn't kill 'em at the time but I recall reading a quote somewhere in a book that he'd said he'd take a CIA Agent as happily as a KGB Agent if he could get away with it.


I guess that makes it true then



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join