BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

[Dave Rogers]

As I already mentioned, the difference is either perpetual war or a war that can be won (or HAS BEEN WON). Up to you which one you prefer.

False dilemma. The War on Terror has always been a political fiction invented by the Bush administration and based on a misapplication of the word "war". There are disaffected Moslems, and some of them are sufficiently militant and/or desperate that they're prepared to resort to killing people and destroying property by whatever means is available to them. This situation is neither perpetual, capable of being "won", nor a war. None of this is relevant to the OP's purpose, which was to argue falsely that these people do not exist and that therefore the only possible agent capable of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks was a governmental one.

Dave

 

[Natan]

If you think the war on terror can ever be won then I have a big clock in London I'd like to sell you.

I guess that's why I read headlines like:

And now, only one senior al Qaeda leader left

of my "favorite" journalist.

False dilemma. The War on Terror has always been a political fiction invented by the Bush administration and based on a misapplication of the word "war". There are disaffected Moslems, and some of them are sufficiently militant and/or desperate that they're prepared to resort to killing people and destroying property by whatever means is available to them. This situation is neither perpetual, capable of being "won", nor a war. None of this is relevant to the OP's purpose, which was to argue falsely that these people do not exist and that therefore the only possible agent capable of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks was a governmental one.

Dave

I will agree with that. I however did not react to the OP but rather to what I thought was the belief of some that the BBC's documentary is also completely grasped out of thin air.

 

[funk de fino]

I guess that's why I read headlines like:

And now, only one senior al Qaeda leader left

of my "favorite" journalist.

Who cares what they write? Do you like being spoon fed all day? Even if that last dude get waxed there will still be a war on terror. However there will be an end to the search and destroy mission fot those closely aligned with OBL and who were part of his organisation, whatever name it had. All this nitpicking about names and structures is irrelevant.

When writers need to write about something they need a noun. Al Qaeda fitted the purpose.

And did you read your own link?

Some might say that that while al Qaeda the organization may be basically dead, its ideology continues to thrive and to inspire "lone wolves" to attack the United States.

 

[000063]

That he abandoned his OP when proven wrong.

...

No, I meant what thread?

You gotta love the anti Christian slurs. Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF.

Irrelevant and incorrect. We can all tell you're avoiding substantial points, like usual.

 

[jaydeehess]

Qaeda al Jihad can also be an abstract concept, for it literally means the base of the jihad. It is not necessarily the name of an "organization". Bin Laden seems to consistently deny it is an organization. It seems more like muslim extremists with a common goal. It matters very much as an organization can be defeated and face it, "Al Qaeda" as it was claimed to be HAS BEEN DEFEATED. If Al Qaeda is however just sunni muslim extremists / terrorists, than it can never be defeated as there will always be sunni muslim extremists and terrorists. The difference is the end of the multi billion dollar War on Terror, data snooping and harassment of passenger or an Orwellian state of perpetual war. Maybe not a big difference to you, but it is to me.



I thought the Lebanon marine barrack bombings were always blamed on Hezbollah / Iran. NOT Al Qaeda. Again without a shred of evidence ever having been presented.



Well, even Bin Laden seems to deny such an organization, now already in TWO documents. An interview with Tayseer Allouni and thank you garethdjb for the second document.



I like the analogy but I'm afraid the stakes are higher than that. The implications are either perpetual war or a winnable war. Do you want the War on Terror to ever be won or you don't think that is possible? What would it take?

It is common knowledge in spy orgs that AlQada is not a typical organization and OBL's descriptions of what he WAS doing is closer to that of a facilitator or fun0der or clearing house or consultant of matters of taking Jihad to the west. So its not suprising that he would say he has not started a group or that it never had an official(to him) name. Nonetheless he DID facilitate certain operations and others brought plans to HIM for his thoughts.

However that drives the media nuts when they want 3 minute clips and stories its unweildy to go on explaining who OBL is with background (some of which may be disputed) It also drives politicians crazy since they require something other than an ethereal entity to blame and thus the term is coined FROM OBL's own words.

However, to deny the existance of a group of people who DID IN FACT have a hand in operations and call upon Believers to carry out their own operations independant of OBL is folly in the highest.

In fact ignoreing such people, such as the admin of GWB did, or orchestrating limited and ineffective responses, such as Clinton did, simply emboldens them by giving the impression that they are untouchable.

So IMHO persons who simply deny that anyone was actually trying to orchestrate attacks on western and USA targets is WORSE than what GWB or Clinton did.

 

[carlitos]

Irrelevant and incorrect. We can all tell you're avoiding substantial points, like usual.

You are aware how many denominations of Christianity there are? Most of them are not Young Earth Creationists. The Catholic Church is undoubtedly the biggest Christian denomination and it doesn't preach YEC nonsense. So how is attacking a theological doctrine rejected by the majority of Christians worldwide being 'anti-Christian'?

Unless you're now saying that the Pope is anti-Christian?

I'm pretty sure that CM was referring to "christ on a crutch" as an anti-Christian slur. I vaguely recall him pretending to be offended by that one before.

 

[jaydeehess]

.........the difference is either perpetual war or a war that can be won (or HAS BEEN WON). Up to you which one you prefer.

We went through this before when Clayton tried to extrapolate Rummy's statements and cute diagrams with there being no such thing as a loosely connected like minded collection of separate groups with a few men, OBL and Zawahiri among them, facilitating and loosely coordinating or funding operations by these groups or individuals.

Certainly there was propaganda by GWB et al, and they were in over their heads in trying to pull it off. Sure some people bought into it and the media jumped on some aspects, story and sensation whores that they can be.

GWB was incompetant, Rumsfeld was incompetant and the most competant man in his admin, and several high ranking military officers chose or were forced to resign because they could not abide the direction that the admin was forcing upon them.
Incompetant men in positions of power can really F### things up, especially for those attempting to dissuade them from folly.

 

[000063]

I'm pretty sure that CM was referring to "christ on a crutch" as an anti-Christian slur. I vaguely recall him pretending to be offended by that one before.

In the Holocaust Denial thread, IIRC. Even when a Christian came in and told him they weren't offended, he kept going on about it.

Then again, reality has always been a sort of suggestion for Clay.

 

[jaydeehess]

I already told jaydeehess about why it IS relevant.

Actually you simply explained why it is irrelevant.

Did you see me make that point? I am however agreeing it is quite possible there is/was no fixed organization with that name.

There is/was a group of high profile persons who attempted some coordination and communication between others with a common agenda and who reamrked upon themselves as Al Qaida or Qaida al Jihad.

That is where the discussion should end. Has this group of persons been largely defeated or killed? Yes.

Can a war on terror be 'won' when it is being carried out on an endless supply of disaffected angry Islamic men? No! Does that relate to the OP? Also, no, except in the most tenuous and tangential way possible and to use it that way belies a political agenda of that person.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm pretty sure that CM was referring to "christ on a crutch" as an anti-Christian slur. I vaguely recall him pretending to be offended by that one before.

I suppose "Christ on a cracker" or simply "Jesus Christ" (when used in other than a request that He listen to a supplicant's prayers) are also anti-Christian slurs.

I did find CM's statement quite hilarious.

I am a lapsed Baptist and I can safely say that while my former pastor would find the term sacrilegious, he would not refer to it as an anti-Christian slur.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You are aware how many denominations of Christianity there are? Most of them are not Young Earth Creationists. The Catholic Church is undoubtedly the biggest Christian denomination and it doesn't preach YEC nonsense. So how is attacking a theological doctrine rejected by the majority of Christians worldwide being 'anti-Christian'?

Unless you're now saying that the Pope is anti-Christian?

and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker
Is that a doctrine attack? No.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.

You gotta love the anti Christian slurs(ETA by JDH: slurs, plural). Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF.

and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker
Is that a doctrine attack? No.

Ok so then your original post did not imply a plurality of slurs in the post you quoted, despite your use of the plural form of the word?

The YEC make up a small fraction of Christians, as pointed out by Nick Terry. You were then asked if bad mouthing the doctrine of a small fraction of Christians is an attack on all Christians.

In typical CM fashion you then post a cryptic non-response.

Not that any of this has anything to do at all with the OP which has been established, I believe, as being incorrect.

 

[Nick Terry]

and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker
Is that a doctrine attack? No.

So when you said 'anti-Christian slurs' you were in fact exaggerating and only referring to one instance of blasphemy.

Taking the Lord's name in vain isn't "anti-Christian", anyway. For someone to think "Jesus frakking Christ, what is Clayton Moore going on about this time?", they have to have been brought up in a Christian culture, share that culture's values, and they don't need to be an opponent of Christianity to think that thought.

What would be anti-Christian is something like this:

You go to the church, you kiss the cross
You will be saved at any cost
You have your own reality
Christianity
You spend your life just kissing ass
A trait that's grown as time has passed
You think the world will end today
You praise the lord, it's all you say

Jesus saves, listen to you pray
You think you'll see the pearly gates
When death takes you away

For all respect you cannot lust
In an invisible man you place your trust
Indirect dependency
Eternal attempt at amnesty
He will decide who lives and dies
Depopulate satanas rise
You will be an accessory
Irreverence and blasphemy

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way

Jesus saves, no words of praise
No promised land to take you to
There is no other way

 

[VonKleist]

Slayer wins any argument.

 

[Nick Terry]

Slayer wins any argument.

 

[TSR]

Get in line in that processional
Step into that small confessional
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's Original:

If it is, try playing safer --
Drink the wine, don't chew the wafer
Two, four, six, eight! Time to transubstantiate!

Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and doin' the Vatican Rag!

 

[jaydeehess]

Nick, it appears that only the reference to the insufferable attitudes of the YEC adherents is a slur against Christians in general and the the addition of the 's' was exaggeration or a mistake on Clayton's part.

Its a rather mild slur IMHO. A much more direct slur would be something such as the words to a song I heard being taught to the Sunday School in the Baptist chruch I once belonged to. I cannot find it online but it was a definite slam at evolution and those who believe in it. Its refrain was "I'm not the Monkey's Uncle. Are you?"

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Qaeda al Jihad can also be an abstract concept, for it literally means the base of the jihad. It is not necessarily the name of an "organization". Bin Laden seems to consistently deny it is an organization. It seems more like muslim extremists with a common goal. It matters very much as an organization can be defeated and face it, "Al Qaeda" as it was claimed to be HAS BEEN DEFEATED. If Al Qaeda is however just sunni muslim extremists / terrorists, than it can never be defeated as there will always be sunni muslim extremists and terrorists. The difference is the end of the multi billion dollar War on Terror, data snooping and harassment of passenger or an Orwellian state of perpetual war. Maybe not a big difference to you, but it is to me.

So let me get this right- you think the war on terror hinges on the labelling of AQ??

 

[DC]

You held a survey confirming that or you're just trolling?

ooh lucky i didn't say somthing like most, but merely said many, and thats the case, just take a look at Alex Jones and Icke cultists.

 

[Natan]

So let me get this right- you think the war on terror hinges on the labelling of AQ??

That's one of the things. How many times have you heard of terrorists or terrorist groups "linked to Al Qaeda" with any link being specified, other than the ideology (extremist sunnis) being similar? Another thing it hinges on is a supply of new (ridiculous) threats, I'm still waiting for that "Al Qaeda" attack on US railways or "Al Qaeda" attacking cruise ships. Unless of course if that Italian dude on the Costa Concordia was an undercover "Al Qaeda" operative. There are other things it hinges on too.