BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

The BBC claims that there was no Al Qaeda before 9/11 and bin Laden only used the name once he realised the US starting describing him as the head of this organisation.

While it is understood that bin Laden used his immense wealth to finance the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets, financed building and development projects like in Sudan, gave money to various militant groups that approached, he had no supreme control of a wide ranging network of terrorists nor did this network actually exist.

It seems that the US hoped to tie in its various interest around the world and the associated conflicts as one issue to wage an ongoing war easily packaged and saleable to the US public.

So if this position by the BBC is true the question is what portion of the official version of 9/11 is untrue?

It could be argued that even though Al Qaeda does not exist, bin Laden was involved in financing or even organising groups, loosely affiliated to him, to attack the US.

Further still, it is possible that the Bush administration were ostensibly telling the truth of bin Laden's involvement in the terrorist attack and wished to take advantage to employ the 'politics of fear' to sustain the military industrial complex.

[edit on 013131p://pm3108 by masonwatcher]

Yes, well the cia and the war industial complex prefers war which keeps them in buisness. Yet there are other egomaniacle reasons. Alot of alpha wolf types gavitate to such jobs and its no wonder we have such insanity playing out .

Shame on them, and guess what they have to deal with the karma ,oh i guess they don't like that word?

all the wasted lives and money and time .......

and all of that could of been put to better use, need i even suggest how.

reply to post by masonwatcher





When I read this I thought what how could this be... And then I thought a little longer.... No way, Al-Qaida has been a round for at least a decade.... Then I remember an argument I had with someone and the mentioned that Al-Qaida was a threat to the South America Before it was a threat to America.... But I have not been able to find any evidence or news on this.... But a simple Google search brings up a plethora of information on how long they have been around.....

Do you not remember the 1993 WTC bombings; or how about the embassy bombings?

Don’t take this as an Insult but to do you do any cross-checking before you post your articles?




en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.fas.org...
www.francesfarmersrevenge.com...
www.therationalradical.com...

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


AL Qaeda's first mentioning in the media - May 30, 1993.
www.historycommons.org...

a bit more history:
www.historycommons.org...


Per the first link, the name Al Qaeda was first used by the French media.

reply to post by masonwatcher

March 14, 2008

CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Doesn't Exist
noworldsystem.com...

July 15 2005

Blair Finally Admits: Al-Qaeda Doesn't Exist
www.foxnews.com...

July 4 2005

Al-Qaeda Is Fiction: The Organization Doesn't Exist
www.propagandamatrix.com...

IMHO...not entirely new news

reply to post by warrenb


he didn't exactly say al qaeda didn't exist.

Al Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here," Blair said.

if they didn't exist, they couldn't provide training and expertise now, could they?

reply to post by warrenb


By chance did you read the any of those or skim them? and one of them is blocked because it is a scam url.... Look they exists... now if they happen to be paid by the CIA or Russians or Saudis or Chinnesse or who ever else is around that is a story unto its self.

All this over one man's testimony?!! We really are headed down a dark road.

Several things here:

1) This is a clip from Adam Curtis' documentary The Power of Nightmares, and the man being interviewed is Jason Burke, author of the book Al Qaeda.
2) Both Curtis and Burke broadly blame Bin Laden for 9/11 without any proof, this should give you a sense of their research/analysis capabilities.
3) Burke claims Al Qaeda does not exist as a single organised network, but a set of loosely affiliated Islamic militant groups and movements across much of the world. He and Curtis make no mention of the long history of western intelligence/security service involvement with these groups. This should give you a sense of their honesty and integrity.
4) The 1993 WTC bombing was not carried out by Al Qaeda, it had very little if anything to do with Bin Laden. The bomb maker was Ramzi Yousef, who was not an Islamic militant in any sense of that term, the group were led by the Blind Sheikh who was head of his own Egyptian terrorist group separate from Bin Laden's efforts.
5) Bin Laden formed an organisation in 1988 (you can find the memo online) in which they refer to themselves, or at least the process of forming the group, as Al Qaeda.
6) Operatives including Ali Mohammed explicitly told investigators during the 1990s that they belonged to an organisation called Al Qaeda, and that they took orders from Bin Laden. Burke/Curtis make no mention of this sort of thing.


At best this clip from the BBC is only half true. The reality is more complex. There are disparate, not particularly connected Islamic militant movements in most parts of the world. The extent to which they are internationally organised and mobilised is the extent to which the West, or Western-endorsed governments like in Pakistan and Indonesia, have organised and mobilised them.

Then there's Laui Sakra, a senior Syrian militant who contrary to the espoused Salafism of Bin Laden, does not pray and happily drinks alcohol. At his trial in 2003 in Turkey he laid it all out, leading to this report:

Amid the smoke from the fortuitous fire emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an intelligence agency operation. Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda. Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept “fighting terror” is the background of the “low-intensity-warfare” conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as “al-Qaeda.”

www.todayszaman.com...

reply to post by warrenb


The CIA with its unlimited supply of black funds and drug-running cash provides the training. As do the Pakistanis and the Israeli MOSSAD and British MI5.

reply to post by Vinciguerra


Now some of what you said I can agree with and even see.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

AL Qaeda's first mentioning in the media - May 30, 1993.
www.historycommons.org...

a bit more history:
www.historycommons.org...


Per the first link, the name Al Qaeda was first used by the French media.

Hi Crakeur!

I've never saw any link to a source at historycommons!

For all that we know, the information about the article from 'Agence France-Presse' regarding AQ in Jordan could have been planted/inserted & written in anytime at historycommons.

You know what mean?

A link to the AFP article could help! - I tried to google for the article with French searchwords in all combinations, but came up with nothing!

Regards!

Look up the members of Al-Qaeda and Anwar Sadat...follow the breadcrumbs. What the US did do was fund the Taliban in the 80's and it helped to bankrupt the Soviets who back off a few years and is now doing the same to us in Afghanistan and in Iran next. These men fought beside the people we funded because of the same ideology. We fed the devil only to deal with it later and still today.

Al-Qaeda is not a US creation. It was a loose description for a group of well funded rich kids with bad ideals if nothing else. Money makes the world go round and they have plenty of it. I mean, if there are terror camps in our own backyard do you really think we know where each one overseas is.

Personally, we should have glassed half of Afghanistan after 9/11 and no one would have done a thing but poppy exports would go down.

reply to post by Crakeur


No one is denying the existence of the term 'Al Qaeda'. It is an expression for database in Arabic and in the context of the US sponsored mujahideen war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was the list of volunteers recruited from the Islamic world brought to bear on the communists.

Only after 9/11, the term 'al qaeda' was given a special meaning and the first letters capitalised.

Even in Afghanistan, the mujahideen, were never a unified force but guerrilla forces spread across the Afghan mountains.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Only after 9/11, the term 'al qaeda' was given a special meaning and the first letters capitalised.

you must have missed the links to the original media use of the term in 1993. shall I repost it for you?

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Even in Afghanistan, the mujahideen, were never a unified force but guerrilla forces spread across the Afghan mountains.

they were, as pointed out, a bunch of rich kids looking for thrills. apparently, the real freedom fighters wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden and his crew.

reply to post by Crakeur

you must have missed the links to the original media use of the term in 1993. shall I repost it for you?

Don't go to that trouble, a link will suffice.

My understanding is that the attribution of the 1993 WTC bombing to Al Qaeda is a retrospective judgement largely made post 9/11.

1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected. www.infoplease.com...

The 1993 Blackhawk Down incident is also attributed to Al Qaeda. This in itself is questionable because the event was kicked off by the US in an attempt to capture Gen Aideed or some other strongman. There is no way in heck that an Al Qaeda type group would have known in advance of an American strike to have had enough men and arms in place to knock down helicopters and engage US soldiers.

Again the attribution of the Somalia incident to an Al Qaeda type group is made retrospectively after 9/11.

[edit on 043131p://pm3147 by masonwatcher]

reply to post by masonwatcher


this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com... provided links as did the one directly below it (mine).

perhaps reading each post, rather than responding only to certain posts, might aid in gathering all the information being posted in the thread.

reply to post by Crakeur


I am in no doubt that bin Ladin had orchestrated several attacks on US interests such as the USS Cole bombing. Also the database of mujahideen fighters may have contained several thousands or more. To tie in to an idea of a complex network of centrally controlled terrorists is questionable.

Bin Laden has one objective and it is not necessarily the destruction of the US and the conquest of the world. He wants the US and its influence out of Saudi Arabia and the holy places there.

The allegations against bin Laden's power are conflated as is the existence of an Al Qaeda with tentacles all over the world is a conflation of the facts.

[edit on 043131p://pm3100 by masonwatcher]

reply to post by masonwatcher


you're straying from your own topic, that al qaeda didn't exist and, it seems, you might actually be admitting that it did.

I should point out that what bin laden wants and what he says he wants are two different things. he says he wants us out of the holy land but, in reality, he wants attention. he's a spoiled rich kid trying to wreak havoc on those that are different from him. he's an intolerant bigot with issues against anyone who believes differently than how he interprets the koran.


but, again, the topic you started was that al qaeda didn't exist until after 9/11 and, I think, we've all seen that, in reality, it did.

reply to post by Crakeur

you're straying from your own topic, that al qaeda didn't exist and, it seems, you might actually be admitting that it did.

That is an obtuse take on what I have said. I am not denying the existence of a database or databases with lists of names nor the activities of bin Laden but I question the idea of a large and sinister organisation headed by bin Laden engaged in a global war with the US. There is no such thing as an Al Qaeda but there may have been a database of names of mujahideen. Calling the perpetrators of bombings in the 1990s as Al Qaeda inspired is retrospective and inaccurate description.