BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

[Robrob]

You people act as if the CIA doesn't exist. What do you think they do?

So in regards to your claims, the simple existence of the CIA means what, exactly?

 

[jaydeehess]

the existance of the CIA means, to CM, whatever he wishes it to mean even if that means drawing claims and assumptions from a dark, damp place behind him

 

[jaydeehess]

You people act as if the CIA doesn't exist. What do you think they do?

not really the point CM

You stated that thBBC has stated that AQ does not exist. They have not done this so that's strike 1
The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2
In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas?

 

[Robrob]

You people act as if the Chicago Cubs don't exist. What do you think they do?

 

[TSR]

Well, you know what they say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 103 times, shame on me..."

 

[skepteen314]

This has to be one of the most outlandish theories I have ever heard . If Al- Qaeda does not exist, then who killed Benazir Bhutto in 2007, put her father on trial back in the 1970's , had him hanged for not agreeing with the nuclear agenda of both India and the US, killed most of her brothers, put Zia-ul Haq in power, so she could not run for prime minister again in the 90's, putting Pakistan into a state of chaos? Huh?

Can anyone answer that? I meant the ISI when I said about her father's trial.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This has to be one of the most outlandish theories I have ever heard . If Al- Qaeda does not exist, then who killed Benazir Bhutto in 2007, put her father on trial back in the 1970's , had him hanged for not agreeing with the nuclear agenda of both India and the US, killed most of her brothers, put Zia-ul Haq in power, so she could not run for prime minister again in the 90's, putting Pakistan into a state of chaos? Huh?

Since you so want an answer, then the answer is: it depends on what species of conspiracy theorist you ask. The answer could be:
(1) The CIA, from the don't-trust-the-government crowd;
(2) Zionists, from the Don't-call-me-a-Nazi-I-didn't-actually-say-Jews sub-species (and I use the prefix "sub" in every possible sense);
(3) None of these things ever happened, because none of it's on YouTube; or,
(4) Shape-changing reptilian aliens, possibly including Prince Philip.

Take your pick of crazy.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

You stated that the BBC has stated that AQ does not exist. They have not done this so that's strike 1

The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2

In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas?

Still waiting on a CM thread declaring that bears defecate in wooded areas or failing that his admission that his declaration in the title of this thread is in error.
Not that I'm holding my breath

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This has to be one of the most outlandish theories I have ever heard . If Al- Qaeda does not exist, then who killed Benazir Bhutto in 2007, put her father on trial back in the 1970's , had him hanged for not agreeing with the nuclear agenda of both India and the US, killed most of her brothers, put Zia-ul Haq in power, so she could not run for prime minister again in the 90's, putting Pakistan into a state of chaos? Huh?

Oh, I am sorry, I meant the ISI. Don't they have connections with Al-Qaeda/Taliban in this whole Bhutto family character assassination plot I mentioned earlier?

Can anyone answer that? I meant the ISI when I said about her father's trial.

Ok, from what I've read - books like The Looming Tower, Perfect Soldiers, etc., - the ISI actually concerned themselves mostly with activities within Afghanistan, which meant that they undoubtedly interacted with Al Qaeda, but at the same time weren't joined at the hip by any means. None of the material I've read implicates the ISI with any Al Qaeda activities beyond Afghanistan, although I'm of course subject to correction if anyone has any evidence contradicting me.

So, does the ISI have connections with Al Qaeda? From what I've read, they must have. But do the acts the ISI committed against the Bhuttos, etc. prove Al Qaeda's existence? Unfortunately not; those acts are simply strongarm warlord-type politics inside Pakistan.

For information about Al Qaeda, the various books - such as the two I've mentioned, Ghost Wars by Steve Coll (he also wrote at least one book on the Bin Laden family, but I haven't read it (or them, if there's more than one) myself, so I can't tell if it's of any use in this context), ex-CIA director George Tenant's At The Center Of The Storm, and all the books by various authors - Yossef Bodansky, Peter Bergen, Michael Scheuer, etc. - with Osama's name in the title are of use to answering the question of Al Qaeda's existence. Note that the truthers who try to employ the "Al Qaeda doesn't exist" argument have been forced to resort to misquoting and misrepresenting bodies of knowledge that exist on the topic because the conclusion one could draw from those very sources is that Al Qaeda does indeed exist. The utter misrepresentation of what the BBC meant in this very thread (i.e. that Al Qaeda was something different than what they were made out to be, rather than not existing at all) is but one example of that.

 

[Robrob]

Ok, from what I've read - books like The Looming Tower, Perfect Soldiers, etc., - the ISI actually concerned themselves mostly with activities within Afghanistan, which meant that they undoubtedly interacted with Al Qaeda, but at the same time weren't joined at the hip by any means. None of the material I've read implicates the ISI with any Al Qaeda activities beyond Afghanistan, although I'm of course subject to correction if anyone has any evidence contradicting me.

Correct AFAIK, the ISI provided financial and logistical support to the mujhadin at first, then to the Taliban later. Al Qaeda was privately financed by OBL and eventually paid the Taliban for protection and the right to remain inside Afghanistan.

Note that the truthers who try to employ the "Al Qaeda doesn't exist" argument have been forced to resort to misquoting and misrepresenting bodies of knowledge that exist on the topic because the conclusion one could draw from those very sources is that Al Qaeda does indeed exist. The utter misrepresentation of what the BBC meant in this very thread (i.e. that Al Qaeda was something different than what they were made out to be, rather than not existing at all) is but one example of that.

Saying the currently operational al Qaeda is different from the popular conception is so obvious one wonders how the CT loons arrive at their conclusion. It happens so often, I'm not sure if it's a reading disability or them being disingenuous.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Saying the currently operational al Qaeda is different from the popular conception is so obvious one wonders how the CT loons arrive at their conclusion. It happens so often, I'm not sure if it's a reading disability or them being disingenuous.

That's one of the many things that astound me about woo-peddlers in general as well as 9/11 conspiracy advocates in particular: The amount of cognitive suppression they have to perform in order to so selectively prune out surrounding detail and context. That intellectual and analytic suppression is so immense it's flabbergasting. I simply cannot understand why they don't have an epiphany about the phoniness of the claims each time they cut and paste them. I mean, the context is always right there, right in the very material they always quote! And yet, they continue to completely, totally miss the point! It's as if they know the refuting facts are there but they're just trying to sales-talk their way past people's skepticism.

That's why I've often said I believe that they're intentionally lying a good deal of the time. How can someone mistakenly miss all that context, all that exposition?

We've all seen the Hamilton quotes about the 9/11 Commission being "set up to fail", we've all seen the quotes about explosions and the like, and we in this thread can all see the OP. It's just flabbergasting that the conspiracy peddlers keep attempting to retail all that drivel. It's like spotting the headlights and missing the car; I mean, by sheer implication you know what else is there! Let alone by actual observation and first-grade level analysis!

 

[jaydeehess]

not really the point CM

You stated that thBBC has stated that AQ does not exist. They have not done this so that's strike 1
The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2
In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas?

bump for Clayton to perhaps comment on.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm beginning to believe Clayton's actually a Poe.

Don't forget Poe's corollary. Any sufficiently advanced kook is indistinguishable from parody.

 

[Robrob]

That's why I've often said I believe that they're intentionally lying a good deal of the time. How can someone mistakenly miss all that context, all that exposition?

Yes. For example, in the CT loons attempts to imagine Lee Harvey Oswald as a secret agent and not a crazed loner they frequently point to his military background. One of the things they present as evidence of LHO having received special training, etc... is his military medical records showing he contracted an STD while stationed in Japan. Because he followed USMC regulations and reported his condition to the clinic for treatment, his medical records indicate "in the line of duty."

Normal people who have served in the military (or simply have a modicum of knowledge about things) know injuries while in service are either "line of duty yes" or "line of duty no." The former means you were not in violation of policy and are entitled to treatment and/or a disability pension. The latter means you violated policy and the military is not going to provide you with free treatment or a disability pension for the injury.

CT loons read "in the line of duty" and fantasize LHO was some sort of 007 who's job involved using prostitutes (probably while wearing a tuxedo and gambling in a casino).

 

[twinstead]

Bond. James Bond.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Since you so want an answer, then the answer is: it depends on what species of conspiracy theorist you ask. The answer could be:
(1) The CIA, from the don't-trust-the-government crowd;
(2) Zionists, from the Don't-call-me-a-Nazi-I-didn't-actually-say-Jews sub-species (and I use the prefix "sub" in every possible sense);
(3) None of these things ever happened, because none of it's on YouTube; or,
(4) Shape-changing reptilian aliens, possibly including Prince Philip.

Take your pick of crazy.

Dave

Who do you think does the CIA's dirty work? Agents who look like Harry Potter or Helen Trent or Marcus Welby or Kobie or Nancy Drew? Or a group of agents whose membership is made up of agents who look kinda like Harry Potter and Helen Trent and Marcus Welby and Kobie and Nancy Drew?

 

[TSR]

Who do you think does the CIA's dirty work? Agents who look like Harry Potter or Helen Trent or Marcus Welby or Kobie or Nancy Drew? Or a group of agents whose membership is made up of agents who look kinda like Harry Potter and Helen Trent and Marcus Welby and Kobie and Nancy Drew?

This distinction is significant, because ... ?

Some people just can't hold their liquor...

 

[jaydeehess]

You stated that the BBC has stated that AQ does not exist. They have not done this so that's strike 1
The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2
In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet ?

Who do you think does the CIA's dirty work? Agents who look like Harry Potter or Helen Trent or Marcus Welby or Kobie or Nancy Drew? Or a group of agents whose membership is made up of agents who look kinda like Harry Potter and Helen Trent and Marcus Welby and Kobie and Nancy Drew?

Rather on the topic of the title of this thread, how about commenting on my post there CM.

Seems you have a choice, either admit that the title is incorrect or defend it somehow. Seems pretty clear to me that neither the BBC or the doc producer have said that AQ doesn't exist.

 

[Clayton Moore]

That's one of the many things that astound me about woo-peddlers in general as well as 9/11 conspiracy advocates in particular: The amount of cognitive suppression they have to perform in order to so selectively prune out surrounding detail and context. That intellectual and analytic suppression is so immense it's flabbergasting. I simply cannot understand why they don't have an epiphany about the phoniness of the claims each time they cut and paste them. I mean, the context is always right there, right in the very material they always quote! And yet, they continue to completely, totally miss the point! It's as if they know the refuting facts are there but they're just trying to sales-talk their way past people's skepticism.

That's why I've often said I believe that they're intentionally lying a good deal of the time. How can someone mistakenly miss all that context, all that exposition?

We've all seen the Hamilton quotes about the 9/11 Commission being "set up to fail", we've all seen the quotes about explosions and the like, and we in this thread can all see the OP. It's just flabbergasting that the conspiracy peddlers keep attempting to retail all that drivel. It's like spotting the headlights and missing the car; I mean, by sheer implication you know what else is there! Let alone by actual observation and first-grade level analysis!

Of course the Bush Administration telling people a 9/11 investigation is not necessary means nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission includes a variety of criticisms of the 9/11 Commission, the United States congressional commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks in 2001 and chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. Because the investigation was controversial and politically sensitive, many participants have been criticized during the process. Leading critics include members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and the Jersey Girls, who according to the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth, were instrumental in overcoming government resistance to establishing the 9/11 Commission.

Resistance to investigation

Commission chairmen Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of making a conscious decision to impede the commission’s inquiry after the agency received a memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel's former executive director. Zelikow prepared this memorandum after former commission members reviewed thousands of classified documents following the disclosure that the CIA in November 2005 destroyed videotapes documenting the interrogations of two Al Qaeda operatives. The review concluded that the commission made repeated and detailed requests to the agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of al Qaeda and that the commission was told by a top CIA official that the agency had "produced or made available for review" everything that had been requested. The memorandum concluded that "further investigation is needed" to determine whether the CIA's withholding of the tapes from the commission violated federal law.

 

[TSR]

How could there have been interrogations of operatives of an organization you maintain never existed?