swright777
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 897
BBC now admits al qaeda never existed
- Thread starter Clayton Moore
- Start date
This isn't the BBC. This is a guy being interviewed by the BBC. They don't necessarily endorse it any more than Discovery Networks endorses the Ancient Aliens guy.
Ah, yes, equating "incorrect" with "lying" again.
And...dodge!
Ah, yes, equating "incorrect" with "lying" again.
And...dodge!
So, they have to talk to people.
Afghanistan is over 200,000 sq miles, much less the entire Middle East.
He was working pro bono. Also, he was rich.
Yes. Thing is, it's very difficult to eavesdrop on good old sneakernet.
Unproven, irrelevant. There are shedloads of people who have had CIA connections who work against US interests.
Considering that he almost certainly had the help of Pakistan's government in hiding, it makes sense for him to go there. Note that they didn't actually protest the US's actions in killing him, just the fact that they went in without permission. You need to stop your incredulous "why not do X?" and start thinking about "why do Y?" What benefit would planting OBL in an enemy country have?
It is often beneficial to leave enemy assets in place when neutralizing leadership, since they tend to lead to the rest of the group. Also, do you think OBL and his family were the only people in the compound? What contacts were these? The guys who run out to the market and buy stuff?
Not if they're part of an organization that's known for using suicide bombers and may be reaching for a gun or trigger, no.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Yes and we have been making that especially difficult for them to accomplish without getting whacked.
1) By not parking in their driveway?
2) By not using electronic communications. You might remember satellite phones were all the rage with them pre-2002 and how we used those signals to drop large bombs on their heads?
His trust fund.
Yes and using less and less electronic forms to do so over the years.
Since he was never a "CIA helper" your point would be?
Apparently you are not familiar with Pakistan are you?
Apparently you are not familiar with war are you?
I suggest reading this Wikipedia article first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
I'm not from the US so I can't refer to them as "our" but I must say that most of those unfortunate deaths would not have been neccesary. When you consider that a substantial part of the basis of islamic terrorism was fuelled by the US in the 80's, financially, with arms and so on.... Even Hillary Clinton had to admit this. The name of the Youtube video is misleading though, because it must be Mujahideen, which was a forerunner of.
And if we have to believe that this article from The Nation about the US funding of the Taliban is correct, than you know it goes much deeper than what most of the mainstream reporters told the American people. And if we have to believe that this Guardian article is correct than you can add "trained them" to the list...
And watch here CIA director mr. Leon Panetta talking about verrry scary amounts of fighters for this organisation who where considered being in Afghanistan then. Afghanistan? Yes, one of the purposed hotbeds or terrorism I might recollect? View that video more than once if neccesary, yes he really said "50 to a 100, maybe less..."
And you might look on page 8 of this report, from one of your major thinktanks for your DoD. They concluded that at the time that report was written propably less than 300 people in Pakistan where followers this organisation... And while Pakistan harbors according to Wikipedia about 178 million muslims, then it resembles to about 0,00017% of that muslim population.
But, they're comming to get us of course. But you already knew that, don't you?
But to get back ontopic on the cherry-picking. With cherry-picking in the islamophobia-agenda I meant video footage, quotes which are taken out of context, and so on. Way too broad to discuss here.
Last edited:
He was indeed never a helper. But the CIA was involved in creating a substantial part of the movement like him.
This quite fascinating New York Times article which was published recently
lays out that it's not a standard war situation. Collateral damage is quite easily dealt with, because of the very loose term 'militant.'
I want to highlight 1 sentence from it which sums it up quite nicely I think
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
I'd rather have the government overestimating the enemy than underestimating them.
And a Saudi ended up in Pakistan!?! A rich Saudi?
What wizardry could have let that happen? It's not like anyone has ever traveled from country to country before.
And a Saudi ended up in Pakistan!?! A rich Saudi?
What wizardry could have let that happen? It's not like anyone has ever traveled from country to country before.
OK, good point. That's the worst possible mistake you can make, to underestimate the others. But in this topic it wasn't about overestimating, but overinflating. The numbers, coherence, armament, etc. In the mass media and the polical arena then. They where in the media sometimes portrayed as the new nazi's, which was kind of rediculous, but it was only meant for the negative connection of course. Exactly as what they did with Saddam. It just always works. But, I'm pretty sure the intelligence agencies knew more or less what the size the danger was.
He was expelled by his family I remember, because of his militant beliefs. Most of the other Bin Laden family are businessmen. It must have been a long ride on the back of a camel, but doable.
No, I think he must have been in many countries in the Middle-East, because I read in a biography of him that he was quite on his own and travelled a lot.
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Well, to be fair a more accurate description might be "in order to have deniability with the USSR, the CIA gave funds to the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) to distribute to Mujhadeen fighting the Soviet invaders."
I guess trusting the ISI was the lesser of two evils?
IIRC, his agitation against the Saudi Royal family was instrumental in getting him booted. His first plan had been to attack the House of Saud for their sin of allowing "infidel" bases to occupy the holy sands of Saudi Arabia (which house Mecca, etc...)He was expelled by his family I remember, because of his militant beliefs. Most of the other Bin Laden family are businessmen. It must have been a long ride on the back of a camel, but doable.
Two very good books on the subject are "Ghost Wars" and "The Bin Ladens" both by Steve Coll.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
When the Soviets were in Afghanistan the USA in the form of the CIA were supplying the Muhajadeen with weapons. I know CM doesn't but does no one else, recall the debate that these diverse groups were not friendly to the USA or the west in general and that there could come a time when they would be attacking US interests?
Lo and behold a charasmatic, independantly wealthy man who's agenda meshed with the dreams of many of those groups came along and helped facilitate the jihad to rid the holy land of western influencejust as he and the others had done with the Communists in Afghanistan
AQ was never a monolithic organization, it was more of a facilitator for other groups or individuals wishing to carry the war to the greater enemy. But that's a hard sell to take to the western public and Rummy and others chose to hype AQ as something it wasn't, including embellishing the Tora Bora caves.
The author of the documentary on BBC basically says all of this, never suggests that AQ does not exist and certainly does not indicate or suggest that AQ and OBL were not responsible for 9/11, nor does the BBC, who aired the show.
As is so very common, CM is utterly and demonstrably wrong,,, again!
Lo and behold a charasmatic, independantly wealthy man who's agenda meshed with the dreams of many of those groups came along and helped facilitate the jihad to rid the holy land of western influencejust as he and the others had done with the Communists in Afghanistan
AQ was never a monolithic organization, it was more of a facilitator for other groups or individuals wishing to carry the war to the greater enemy. But that's a hard sell to take to the western public and Rummy and others chose to hype AQ as something it wasn't, including embellishing the Tora Bora caves.
The author of the documentary on BBC basically says all of this, never suggests that AQ does not exist and certainly does not indicate or suggest that AQ and OBL were not responsible for 9/11, nor does the BBC, who aired the show.
As is so very common, CM is utterly and demonstrably wrong,,, again!
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Good analysis. Since 911, AQ has become shorthand for a conglomerate of related/unrelated jihadi organizations. "AQ in Iraq" was in name only, AQ. Doesn't mean they were any less real or any less dangerous just, as you said, not part of some "monolithic" organization. Doesn't mean we shouldn't root them out, just that they aren't as identifiable as sometimes portrayed.
I'd make an analogy to old timey pirate bands. Same intent, same goals, same tactics, different organizations.
Last edited:
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Don't forget Rumsfeld's assertion that they were abound and working from multiple mountain fortresses.
http://www.dailypaul.com/164816/don...in-fortresses-meet-the-press-with-tim-russert
http://www.dailypaul.com/164816/don...in-fortresses-meet-the-press-with-tim-russert
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Don't forget Rumsfeld's assertion that they were abound and working from multiple mountain fortresses.
http://www.dailypaul.com/164816/don...in-fortresses-meet-the-press-with-tim-russert
There was a reason Rumsfeld got booted as SecDef.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Yeah sure. Like all the lies and the subterfuge and mismanagement of the war at the cost of the lives of our precious soldiers weren't sanctioned by and with the blessing of neocon scum.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
,,, and this has what, exactly , to do with your OP and the existance or non- existance of AQ?Don't forget Rumsfeld's assertion that they were abound and working from multiple mountain fortresses.
http://www.dailypaul.com/164816/don...in-fortresses-meet-the-press-with-tim-russert
I have given my opinion as have others, of the incompetance of many of the GWB administration and their ideology. i have also opined that that administration will be seen by history as one of your country's worst.
None of which has anything to do with the title of this thread.
You have been proven wrong yet again and seek to change the subject.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Gosh. Let me see. The SoD, with the obvious blessing of the Bush administration and of course the neocon scum and the full acceptance by the MSM, blatantly fabricates a wild eyed tale of huge fortresses built into mountains by AQ/terrorists with virtually unlimited funding, tech, resources, manpower. Built secretly no less.
Incompetence? Try agenda. And the instigators of that agenda transcend administrations.