• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Moving On is coming.

derail - what 'al qaeda' might mean

Jason Burke offers a fairly comprehensive account of different possible meanings of Al Qaeda: the word "comes from the Arabic root qaf-ayn-dal. It can mean a base…or a foundation…It can mean a pedestal that supports a column. It can also mean a precept, rule, principle, maxim, formula, method, model [or] pattern” (see Burke, J. (2003) Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, p7). The 'database' interpretation of the name comes from Robin Cook so far as I can tell - http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html - but, while it's interesting, I haven't been able to verify Cook's claims (though would be interested if others can).

The term Al Qaeda was in use among anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan from the 1980s (see the above Burke book, for example). However, it's not at all clear at which point this began to look like an Al Qaeda network or network of networks - it was more a way of working, to begin with.
 
Gravy,

Parroting?

I have personally contacted many of the people and agencies mentioned so far in this thread including the rescuer who sent the photos that ended up on rense.com.

I have put my shoes to the concrete as you also have. I don't do this anonymously from behind a computer and neither do you. We both put our names, faces and hearts to this and hit the streets albeit with diametrically opposed points of view.

The arguments against 9/11 being a conspiracy are also "parroted" extensively. If "parroting" is the criteria for whether or not something is true, should we then discard the information due to repetitive use on both sides of the fence?

I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Gravy,

Parroting?

I have personally contacted many of the people and agencies mentioned so far in this thread including the rescuer who sent the photos that ended up on rense.com.

I have put my shoes to the concrete as you also have. I don't do this anonymously from behind a computer and neither do you. We both put our names, faces and hearts to this and hit the streets albeit with diametrically opposed points of view.

The arguments against 9/11 being a conspiracy are also "parroted" extensively. If "parroting" is the criteria for whether or not something is true, should we then discard the information due to repetitive use on both sides of the fence?

I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Russell
Click to expand...
My thoughts are that yes, you have done extensive research, but in the specific quote Gravy provided, you seem to be reaching a conclusion without the foundation of evidence to be expected of serious research. The paragraph could have been authorized by killtown, and I can't think of a worse thing to be said about your work.

Seriously...

host of anomalies that I propose wouldn't exist in a pure surprise attack scenario
Click to expand...

That sentence is prototypical CT sentence, pure and simple. That sentence is the basis for alien abductions, Bigfoot, chemtrails, speaking with the dead. Sylvia Browne, etc. etc.

You are better then, at least based on a lot of the Pentagon work I've seen.
 
Dave,

So they found a website that had a nice selection of photographs and text proving that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. Agreed it's sloppy, but hardly the stuff to hang a conspiracy on!

Just imagine when that particular assignment was handed out....

"Bob! Bob! Come in here a moment, I got a job for you...."
Click to expand...

Does that State Department website using links to a conspiracy site and links to newspaper articles satisfy the evidential criteria and degree of substantiation you are expecting here from me?

I can't speak for Bob but if that assignment was handed to me this would be something like the response I might offer:

Are you aware of what the conspiracy theorists are doing with the void of official data we have created? It is disrespectful to the victims and their families. Why are we allowing this to happen?

Let's get some antecedent samples from the family members of the hijackers and positively identify them to put this to rest. While we're waiting for the results let's take a MSM media contingent to the hangar where the aircraft parts are stored and document that like we did with TWA 800 and do an accurate video reconstruction.

We could also take the photos of the wreckage that investigators took at the scene and do a presentation of the that combined with the video from the facade of the Pentagon directly above the crash site, you know the one that was so close it was damaged? Or the ones on the Navy Annex 100 feet away from the flight path?

Then we'll have the NTSB do a full and proper report on the DFDR and explain all of the questions raised about it. We could also produce the accurate cell phone records and documentation related to those claims. That would be a lot more professional and substantial than claiming they are disinformation and only linking them to newspaper articles they have already read and linking them to emails on a conspiracy website. I mean come on you just had me build a page discrediting that very site.

Heck give me the information and I'll do it myself right now. By the way, none of the information mentioned above is an indictment on incompetence either. So if hiding incompetence is the excuse offered for them, then not releasing factual and physical data must have another motive?

Russell
 
Here is another POV.

"The US intelligence community used the term "al-Qaeda" for the first time only after the 1998 embassy bombings', he says, when suspected bin Laden followers detonated bombs at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people. Dolnik says al-Qaeda was used as a 'convenient label for a group that had no formal name'. Prior to the 1998 bombings, US officials were concerned about Osama bin Laden and the financial backing he appeared to provide to Islamic terror groups - but they rarely, if ever, mentioned anything called 'al-Qaeda'."

'Bin Laden never used the term al-Qaeda prior to 9/11', Dolnik tells me. 'Nor am I aware of the name being used by operatives on trial. The closest they came were in statements such as, "Yes, I am a member of what you call al-Qaeda". The only name used by al-Qaeda themselves was the World Islamic Front for the Struggle Against Jews and Crusaders - but I guess that's too long to really stick.'

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm

Russell
 
U.K.

Robin Cook is dead.
Click to expand...

Obviously I didn't know that. I just emailed the address at the end of the article linked above and now feel rather foolish.

The email hasn't been returned.

What happened?

Russell
 
Russell,

You seem to be grasping here a bit. Does it really matter if Mr. T was the first person who came up with Al Qaeda or if OBL came up with it?

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, no?

I think you're a nice guy and all and I genuinely hope that you are capable of seeing the truth but I'm starting to doubt it.

I don't think you belong at a critical thinking forum for your lack of critical thinking ability. See, you weigh what you call "coincidences" very highly on the factual evidence side of things where as we might just call that WOOO!
 
A bit on the origin of the term al-Qaeda, and its early uses in the U.S. NesNYC sent me an email declaring that "al-Qaeda" was invented by the U.S. in 2000, and that the organization did not in fact exist. This is an excerpt from my reply to him.

You incorrectly claim that the name al Qaeda (or any variant
spellings) originated with the U.S. government's trial of the African
embassy bombings. That trial made al Qaeda a household name, but its
first known mention in print, "Al Qaeda al Sulbah," was by one of its
co-founders, Abdullah Azzam, on page 46 of the April, 1988 issue of
"Al Jihad."

The first reference to al Qaeda in the mainstream U.S. media was on
14 August 1996, in a UPI article that referenced a U.S. State
Department Fact Sheet issued that day:

“Earlier, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin
drew on his family’s wealth ‘plus donations received from sympathetic
merchant families in the Gulf region’ to organize the Islamic
Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida."

The full text of that State Department memo is here:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd4_8-15.htm

The FBI began its criminal investigation into al Qaeda's activities
in the U.S. in 1996, based upon information from an informant who had
been brought in by the CIA.

On August 24, 1998, MSNBC ran a story about bin Laden's ties to the
CIA which mentions al Qaeda:
"In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business,
bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and
established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more
extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan."

The New York Times first mentioned "al-Qaeda" four days later, on 8/28/98.

Then there were the September, 1998 U.S. arrest warrants and
November, 1998 indictments which mention al Qaeda's history
extensively.
http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/usa-v-qaeda.htm
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

Finally, as for al Qaeda not existing, someone should really tell
Osama bin Laden, because he uses that name all the time. Al Jazeera
reported in 2001 that bin Ladin spoke about the origin of the name:
"We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda ["the base"]. And the
name stayed." http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10207

The bin Laden statement that immediately came to mind when I read
your email was his famous "Your security" video message of November,
2004, in which he mentions al Qaeda as a real organization eight
times. You can watch that video, and read al Jazeera's translation,
here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
 
DavidJames,

Linking what I have presented here to a researcher you don't respect (and despite our significant differences Killtown is a firend), "alien abductions, Bigfoot, chemtrails, speaking with the dead. Sylvia Browne, etc. etc." is kind of FOXnewsish to me.

Associating me and my work with the above concepts is considered evidence that a conspiracy did not happen? May I use the same criteria and have it regarded as valid?

One standard for skeptics and one for CT's?

Most of the work you have given me some semblance of credit for was directed I presume at the evidential presentations related to showing the reality of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon. That is a moot point here in this forum.

OK. So let's regroup.

If you can imagine the possibility of a conspiracy in relation to 9/11 for one minute - what evidence are you expecting to see for instance?

A memo from somebody ordering it?

Explain to me what you would like to see demonstrated and exactly what kind of trail would have been left.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
U.K.



Obviously I didn't know that. I just emailed the address at the end of the article linked above and now feel rather foolish.

The email hasn't been returned.

What happened?

Russell
Click to expand...

Robin Cook was former foreign secretary and then leader of the house of commons who resigned over the iraq war.

He died in august 2005 (I think it was) of heart attack

(From memory)
 
Thank you, Wildcat and Brainache, for the NZ time zone info. Very helpful, and much appreciated.
 
Russell Pickering said:
OK. So let's regroup.

If you can imagine the possibility of a conspiracy in relation to 9/11 for one minute - what evidence are you expecting to see for instance?

A memo from somebody ordering it?

Explain to me what you would like to see demonstrated and exactly what kind of trail would have been left.

Russell
Click to expand...
This wasn't directed to me, but I'd like to see a single piece of solid evidence of ANY kind.

Do you have ANY evidence that anyone in the U.S. government, or connected to it, was responsible for LIHOP or for planning or executing the 9/11 attacks?

If so, present it. Preferably to a prosecutor, secondarily to a respected news outlet, but we'll do in a pinch.
 
Russell Pickering said:
U.K.



Obviously I didn't know that. I just emailed the address at the end of the article linked above and now feel rather foolish.

The email hasn't been returned.

What happened?

Russell
Click to expand...

Heart attack. The 'database' interpretation of 'Al Qaeda' is a very appealing idea - and quite a few people have taken it up - but (apart from Cook's article) I haven't found a source to back it up. Sadly, Cook obviously won't be answering any questions.

re. the Spiked article - the term Al Qaeda was clearly in use earlier (for example, 1993 WTC bomber Ahmed Ajaj had a text titled Al Qaeda, which in this case probably meant 'basic rules'). At which point it came to refer to Islamist networks, and when it came to refer to networks associated with Bin Laden, is less clear.

If you're interested in Bin Laden's statements, the Messages to the World compilation of his announcements is a book you ought to read. Bin Laden has been involved with a range of Islamist networks for some time; these networks and coalitions of networks have had a range of names (WIF was one of them).
 
Last edited:
Gravy,

Thank you for the documentation.

I will consider myself accurately informed on the chronology and origin of the name.

Do you feel there was any validity to the claims that he was a US asset during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?

Russell
 
For a clarification on my position regarding terrorists and terrorism in general, let me say:

1) Terrorists have always existed in various forms.
2) Terrorists will always exist in some form.
3) Islamic terrorists are real and intend harm towards Israel and the U.S.
4) The more extreme factions would dominate the world if they could as would most extremists of most organized ideologies.

With that said, if 19 of them were able to orchestrate 9/11 then I guess the burden of proof is on the government to fully reveal how it happened and to positively prove their identities.

In the interim, nobody can be blamed for speculating on how this was carried out.

Al Qaeda has a more solid existence now and terrorism is increasing exponentially as a result of the "war on terror". Thousands of future terrorists have been bred and guaranteed for future perpetual war which is the policy of neo conservatism and thus the PNAC.
 
Do you feel there was any validity to the claims that he was a US asset during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if he wasn't. A wealthy and influential person on the front lines of a proxy war would ,IMO, almost certainly become an assest of some kind.


The enemy of my enemy.....
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
For a clarification on my position regarding terrorists and terrorism in general, let me say:

1) Terrorists have always existed in various forms.
2) Terrorists will always exist in some form.
3) Islamic terrorists are real and intend harm towards Israel and the U.S.
4) The more extreme factions would dominate the world if they could as would most extremists of most organized ideologies.

With that said, if 19 of them were able to orchestrate 9/11 then I guess the burden of proof is on the government to fully reveal how it happened and to positively prove their identities.

In the interim, nobody can be blamed for speculating on how this was carried out.

Al Qaeda has a more solid existence now and terrorism is increasing exponentially as a result of the "war on terror". Thousands of future terrorists have been bred and guaranteed for future perpetual war which is the policy of neo conservatism and thus the PNAC.
Click to expand...

Point of contention. The 19 hijackers did not orchastrate the attacks; they merely carried out what they had been trained to do. NPR's interview with the author of The Looming Towers discusses how the actual plan came in to being, iirc.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
We've been through this before, Killy-poo.

Your racism and bigotry are a matter of record.

"Whats wrong with judicial-inc.biz?"
-Killtown

I've always had a problem with the claimed numbers of Jews that allegedly died there. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million." That alone is a HUGE discrepency. Some say the number was as low as 280,000. Suspecting what the Israeli/Palistine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."
-Killtown


One of the reasons I think the Holocaust has been totally exaggerated is the sheer hostility that you get if you dare question it. I mean when countries enact laws against questioning it, something's wrong!
-Killtown
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha!!! That makes my a Hitler lover?!!! Ha ha ha!!!

Btw, the Judicial.biz part. do you know why I asked that question at the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom