Do you think Al-Qaeda is real?<- About posts in "Al-Qaeda has won."

[originalpckelly]

When I wrote "Al-Qaeda has won" last week, a lot of people seemed to be skeptical of their existence. There were a lot of ideas floated around in the discussion, and I don't know what to make of them. I just have a few questions:
1. Do you think Al-Qaeda is real?
2. Do you think Al-Qaeda is real, but a pawn of the US government?
3. What do you make of the terrorist attacks against our nation during President Clinton's term in office? <- Were they planned as well or were they real?

Link to "Al-Qaeda has won." For reference:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1156035

[W_HAMILTON]

1. My answers

1-Yes

2-No, but this administration has no problem using them to further their own objectives.

3-They were real. Only difference is, that administration didn't use them as a ploy to launch their own deviant plans, and use them as a way to silence anyone that disagreed with them.

[originalpckelly]

2. See that is exactly how I feel...

but a lot of people seem to feel the other way.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Yeah, maybe...

...but then there are alot of rightwing types that believe you're part of Al-Qaeda if you dare to speak out against this president. There's some people that are out there on both sides.

I guess anything is possible, but the most logical answer seems to be that Al-Qaeda is real, and while they aren't directly cooperating with the USA, this administration seems to have no problem using what they've done to further their own agenda (ie, they apparently wanted to invade Iraq since very early in Bush's presidency).

[originalpckelly]

9. That makes a lot of sense...

who hell out there would want to help Al-Qaeda. It is so sad there are people stupid enough to believe that.

[DeBunk]

11. If Al Qaeda is a Mercenary group

Anyone involved in oil or oil exploration in the middle east might hire them to either disrupt the competition, or outright destroy billions in equipment.

Did anyone see Syriana? Think of it in that context. I know it's a pretty far fetched thing to say. But, how much money could a mercenary firm functioning in that way make? The sky is the limit.

[DeBunk]

3. I believe Al Qaeda is a pay for hire mercenary service.

I think Al Qaeda is real.
I think there are faction inside the US government that have hired them at times.
I think all terrorist attacks are real and planned.


I believe Al Qaeda is a pay for hire mercenary service. They will go and blow things up and create instability for money. Maybe they are working for a Saudi Prince one day, or maybe an American traitor the next.

They use naive, poor, and uneducated people as their tools, they are connected to the highest reaches of the global economic system and intelligence agencies.

[kentuck]

4. I can't remember the last time an al Qaeda was captured or killed??

So, good question. The mess in Iraq has nothing to do with the war against al qaeda.

[originalpckelly]

5. Well we all know that.(n/t)

[mr_hat]

8. Then you need to WTF up. Dude - we OWN the #2 guy.

[originalpckelly]

10. I think the President has definitely used Al-Qaeda as a tool...

but he doesn't directly control them. You better some hard hard evidence to back that up.

[mr_hat]

13. C'mon - how many times have we captured/killed

the #2 AQ dude?

Just being sarcastic.

[DeBunk]

14. LOL. They have pop up #2s

Bush says:

Watch me pull an Al Qaeda #2 out of my hat.

[mr_hat]

6. If AQ has won, then BFEE has won.

[sdok

[NVMojo]

12. Bush is Al Queda so i think it's real

[savemefromdumbya]

15. patsies organization

the guys and gals don't know who they are working for. They think it's all to do with Jihads etc. Infact it is run by you know who. If they found out they would not be pleased.

[Roland99]

16. Al Qaeda is real but it's FAR from the boogeyman the neocons tell us.

Watch The Power of Nightmares.

It's an excellent, three-part BBC documentary on the rise of Islamists and neoconservatives since the 1950s.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

[Junkdrawer]

18. Self delete (posted wrong spot). n/t

[reprehensor]

17. Read any Nafeez Ahmed?

http://www.gnn.tv/B12624

...My argument is not that there are no violent interpretations of Islam within the Muslim world that might be seen to endorse terrorism. Of course there are. And my argument is not that the West’s imperial role in the Muslim world should be ignored. Certainly, it should not. Rather, my argument is that when international terrorism is scrutinized impartially, scientifically, the conventional understanding of its supposed inextricable origination in the dynamics of radical Islamism is fundamentally weakened in surprising ways.

The evidence that 9/11 was the result of a distinctly radical Islamist plan is highly questionable. The nature of “al-Qaeda” as a distinctly radical Islamist organization is also questionable. Finally, compelling evidence that identifiable groups involved in terrorist activity around the world are, in fact, manipulated on behalf of entirely non-Islamist Western geostrategic interests challenges the entire official narrative of the “War on Terror”...

Very long read at link.

He has refined his analysis and presented it for publication in this volume;
The Hidden History of 9-11-2001

Hot off the presses.

[Roland99]

21. Might want to try this book, too

Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam - Jason Burke

[Junkdrawer]

19. I've had this theory for a long time (1984 SPOILER)....

Remember how in 1984, Winston was trapped by a fake terror organization called "The Brotherhood"? What if the Saudis set up such an organization during Gulf War I to entrap enemies of the Royal Family? What if Bin Laden was either tricked or recruited to lead such an organization?

If al Qaeda is an entrapment mechanism, several mysteries unravel:

1.) Those caught by this entrapment could never be released for fear that the secret would get out. Hence Gitmo.

2.) If the NeoCons needed a "modern Pearl Harbor", perhaps all they needed to do was put a call in to their Saudi friends. You know, Sen. Bob Graham maintains the Saudi Government paid several of the 9/11 hijackers and I find him credible.

The other reason this seems plausible to me is that it insulates the Bush administration from direct involvement, although they seem to be involved with insuring that the "Saudi Op" was not detected/stopped by the FBI and/or the CIA (a theory often referred to as LIHOP).

[Roland99]

23. How do you explain Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-related attacks within S.A.?

[Junkdrawer]

26. How much damage have they done in S.A. vs. NYC or Africa?

:shrug:

[Roland99]

28. The Relativism Game doesn't play well

[Junkdrawer]

30. Imagine you're a real opponent of the Saudi royal family....

Along comes this former GID (Saudi CIA) agent talking a bunch of smack, waving a big bankroll and saying "come join my band of merry men". You're first thought has to be "this is a trap". But now, if the guy starts actually blowing things up and the Saudi government is acting like "Wow, this guy is our worst enemy", well, then you start thinking hey, maybe the guy is real.

[Ringo84]

20. Re:

I think they're real. I just think that Duh-bya (I invented that one myself this afternoon) has managed to exploit fear about Al-Qaeda since 9/11.

As for "Al-Qaeda has won", I agree.

What is the number one goal of terrorism? To scare a populace into submission. Al-Qaeda soldiers largely succeeded in doing this on 9/11.

You would think that after such a horrible attack on American soil by religious nuts, Duh-bya would do everything he can to make America everything Al-Qaeda hates - increasing women's rights, promoting acceptance of gays, promoting religious freedom, promoting freedom in general, etc.

Duh-bya played right into Al-Qaeda's hands. With the passage of the Patriot Act and its unconstitutional measures, the establishment of Abu Ghraib, the establishment of Guantanamo Bay and the "either with us or against us" talk, our "President" showed Al-Qaeda that they had managed to scare us shitless.

Why? Because they caused us to go against the values that we, as Americans, used to hold dear: freedom of expression and the "higher moral ground" - not resorting to torturing our prisoners, like Al-Qaeda does, because we're supposed to be the "good guys".

Whenever a country compromises its own values to make its people feel safer, it is a good indication that they have been so terrorized that they will do anything to prevent further attacks. At heart, there isn't anything wrong with wanting to feel safe. It's only when a group of people compromise their own values to feel safer that there's a problem.

The United States may go against its own Constitution and values to feel safer. In the short-run, that may work. But eventually, we will have compromised everything we used to hold dear - what would be left? We would be safer, perhaps, but we would no longer be the United States of America.

So in that way, Al-Qaeda has won. That's a clear way that Duh-bya has mismanaged this so-called "War on Terror" from the beginning.
Ringo

[originalpckelly]

25. Right but you didn't mention there is a possibility...

someone could take power and do more harm to Americans than Al-Qaeda could ever do.

[Ringo84]

29. To originalpckelly

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Imagine what could happen to this country if someone seized power and malevolently used the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, etc. to silence dissent....
Ringo

[upi402]

22. OBL is a figure head, like Hitler. Al Qaeda is like an umbrella

with an ever-larger head count beneath. Many are ready to blast themselves into oblivion for the sake of a cloud being of a different name...

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. No. There's no such thing as 'Al Qaeda'.

It's become a convenient term used of any group of Islamic terrorists, whether they're actually connected or not. The idea that there's a centralised and structured organisation that's behind all of the things we're told Al Qaeda are responsible for is a delusional paranoid fantasy. A connection between Muslim separatists in Chechnya, Sunni militias in Iraq, Taliban fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Islamic fundamentalists responsible for bombings in far-flung locations like London and Indonesia just really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 'Al Qaeda' is merely a convenient catch-all for all of these to lend some credence to the idea of a 'global war on terror', but what actually exists are many and disparate smaller groups that may be united in a common ideology but aren't in fact a part of some larger and cohesive whole.

[originalpckelly]

27. That is exactly how I view it as well...

Like so many others have said before, Al-Qaeda is just a brand name. Each and every organization is different and every person in those organizations are motivated by different things.

We can't fight against some loosely linked cause, but we can try to stop them from getting new recruits. The President is partially right, we have to change the governments of the hot-beds for recruits. but we shouldn't use force. Israel has used the same "catch them at all costs" techniques, and while it may kill the target it gets more and more people recruited. More and more families have children with no father or mother or other relative, and they blame it on Israel and grow up to be terrorists. It is a self-sustaining cycle that will only end with some major intervention.

I don't want our country to have to deal with that, but I also don't want our country to give up what we are fighting for, liberty.