Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Al Qaida is US asset
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-10-2009 07:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr_Baltar wrote:
....I've seen no evidence that makes the case for AQ being controlled by the CIA, other than vague paranoid hearsay and anonymous accusations.


And the fact that history is riddled with examples of one group funding another group which ultimately goes on to attack them is often overlooked when the accusation rears its head.

I very much doubt the Romans had the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in mind when they trained Arminius, or that the British saw the Indian Mutiny as it's long term aim when it began to train the Sepoys. Short term strategy is often played out at the expense of long term strategy (it might not be far off the mark to claim that many conflicts actually arise at the point where the two connect).

I don't doubt for one minute the possibility that at some point in their disparate careers some members of the nebulous organisation we choose to call Al Qaeda might have received CIA (or similar) training. As it's already been stated the CIA has engaged in such activities before. However this viewpoint should not automatically lead to the conclusion that AQ is actually controlled by the CIA - unless you use some pretty rusty logic. Using this same logic would lead to the conclusion that because Republican terrorists received training and arms from Libya then Libya actually controlled the IRA. It doesn't wash - at least not when it rests solely on that single connection.
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 23-10-2009 06:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.
Islamic militants/mujahadeen/AQ were used to attack the pro Soviet Government of Afghanistan for the express purpose of suckering the Soviets into invading so we could give them their own 'Vietnam' type war.(Brezenski 1998).
We gave them their mission,funded them,trained them,armed them and our good friend Osama Bin Ladin lead them. They succeeded in bringing down our arch rival the Soviets. Who benefited?

The 'collapse' of the Soviet Union (complements of AQ) did two things:

1. It created an opportunity for the USA to militarily secure the energy resources we are dependent upon but Only if a way could be found to get the American people willing to fight the needed wars. 911 (complements of AQ) solved that problem & today we have an army sitting on top of some of the world's largest energy reserves. Who benefited?

2.It created a problem in that the American people had been told for 50 years that America's military needed to be as large as it was & expensive as it was to counter the Soviet/Communist threat. Fighting the 'commies' was a way of life that tens of millions of American jobs were dependent upon. A replacement for the Soviet/Communist threat would have to be found or the American people would eventually demand the military be downsized & it's budget drastically cut! 911 (complements of AQ) solved that problem too by stepping forward to fill the Soviet's shoes as our NEW permanent enemy & introducing the 'war on terror'. Who benefited?
They knew from day one that the collapse of the Soviet Union would cause a problem for America's military industrial complex. So, when it became obvious that a replacement would indeed have to be found AQ's 'mission' changed from one of bring down the Soviets to one of becoming their replacements.
They knew that a 'new' enemy couldn't simply appear overnight & that this new enemy would have to have a history of attacking America & her interests. So,what do we see? The first attacks attributed to AQ begin just as the Soviet Union is collapsing. Coincidence? I think not.
Consider this,before the dust even settled on 911 AQ/OBL had been named as THE suspects. Based upon,what? Their history! So,you see, even AQ's history pre 911 of attacking the US & her interests has benefited America's Military Industrial Complex.
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 23-10-2009 07:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.


Well, actually it is...sorry...IS true if one grossly manipulates any convenient facts, completely ignores the inconvenient ones and presents one's own opinion as an inarguable statement of obvious fact.
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-10-2009 00:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spookdaddy wrote:
waitew wrote:
Well,of course,AQ is a CIA asset. It always has been. The trouble with the,"history is full of examples of one group funding another that then turns on them" argument is that EVERYTHING that AQ has done from the day it was created until today has benefited the CIA & America's Military Industrial complex! That's NOT true of the other examples.


Well, actually it is...sorry...IS true if one grossly manipulates any convenient facts, completely ignores the inconvenient ones and presents one's own opinion as an inarguable statement of obvious fact.



I tell you what. I'll ask two things of you:

1. Give an example of a group that 'turned' on their financiers and whose actions afterward benefited their former financiers 100% of the time. please be specific.

2. Give me an example of an inconvenient 'fact' I've ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 31-10-2009 18:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a matter of fact, Al Qaida was known only after 911 attack. Many didn't hear it before then. Even for Syria president Assadt.

Quote, "A norwegian professor believes al-Qaida is a Pentagon-fiction:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article.jhtml?articleID=396241

Al Qaida exists where US intelligence dominate. Al Qaida in US when Bush need excuse to activate Mid-east war. That is 911 attack. Al Qaida is everywhere in Iraq now to bomb innocent civilians when US occupies Iraq. Strange to say, under the Saddam regime, there is no Al Qaida. Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. No wonder Assad doubt it:

Syrias president questions the existence of al-Qaida:

May 26, 2003
«Syria Denies Existence of Al Qaeda»

«KUWAIT CITY (Talon News) -- Syrian President Bashar Assad revealed in a newspaper interview on Sunday that he does not believe there is a terrorist group called al Qaeda, the organization widely believed to be the perpetrators of the hijackings on September 11, 2001 as well as the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.»

«"Is there really an entity called al Qaeda? It was in Afghanistan, but is it there anymore?" Assad asked.»

«Assad speculated about the existence of al Qaeda and its notorious leader Usama bin Laden in a Kuwaiti newspaper called Al-Anba. »

«Nevertheless, questioning the existence of the al Qaeda terrorist network is very popular in Arab countries. Many people in these countries believe that the United States has hyperbolized the danger of al Qaeda as a means for portraying Muslims as violent and dangerous.»

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/may/0526_assad_denial.shtml
Back to top
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 31-10-2009 18:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, a belligerant only fights in areas where it's professed enemy has influence. Who'd have thought it?

Possibly some people misunderstand the term 'conflict'.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ENTIANONMULTIOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Total posts: 382
Location: Miskatonic University Engineering Department
Age: 37
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 02-11-2009 15:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any attempt to make use of local assets only works while you can fully control them or your goals tie in with theirs, a democracy supporting local assets has the problem that a change of government can result in a changing of goals, look at the Mujahideen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, all where supported at times by the US.
As for the US only fighting in areas where Al Qaida is, this is a chicken and egg situation, also Al Qaida isn't an organisation with membership cards membership secretaries, so proof of who the enemy really are is difficult.
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 07:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

ENTIANONMULTI wrote:

As for the US only fighting in areas where Al Qaida is, this is a chicken and egg situation, also Al Qaida isn't an organisation with membership cards membership secretaries, so proof of who the enemy really are is difficult.


So, Al Qaida is a 'shadowy' terrorist organization whose existence must be accepted as a matter of faith,right? No member ship cards etc. How do you know they exist at all? Because the CIA told you so? Hell,Al Qaida has replaced the USSR as our 'new' permanent enemy. It's what keeps the CIA funding flowing in this post cold war world. That's a hell of an ulterior motive.
You say Al Qaida is only active in areas where the USA military is active because they are there to fight us. I say 'they' only appear to be active in JUST those areas because 'Al Qaida/terrorist' are convenient labels that are applied to anyone and everyone who resistances American domination.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the people of Afghanistan & Iraq didn't take exception to having their countries invaded? That none of them fought/are fighting against us just for that reason? and that everyone who is fighting us over there is a member of Al Qaida/terrorists? Come on.
The big question is,what is Al Qaida? Well,I don't think it's any one thing it's several. So,here's my list:

1. AQ is a list (the data base) of Islamic militants who answer to the CIA & other Western intelligence services (MI5/6,Mossad) These are the guys who brought down The Soviet Union.
2. A mythical,non existent, world wide,highly sophisticated terrorist network completely independent of the CIA. America's Military Industrial complexes'
new boogie man. The one that justifies maintaining a huge military & it's cost & the needed threat to keep the people paying for it without protest. AQ is a much much better enemy than the USSR because it isn't tied to any one country and can be claimed to be active anywhere they want a war for what ever reason (or even at home to justify the loss of civil liberties). An all purpose enemy that can never be defeated because it doesn't exist.
3. A convenient label applied to anyone who resists American domination.Thus anyone who fights us is either AQ or a terrorist. This is why they only 'appear' where the US military is.
4. A convenient label applied to 'patsys' ('terror' cells in the West). The CIA (and others) send operatives into Mosques etc. until they gain the trust of the denomination. By this time, they have identified the young,disgruntled young men they seek. They approach them,"want to joint AQ"? if they accept, they are given a mission,money,explosives,arms etc. (whatever is needed for the mission). During this time they are protected from legitimate law enforcement (if the police,FBI etc are tipped off they are called off from above..see 911 for examples). If the PTB decide the attack should take place, they see to it that it does. If they decide against it,they can bust them & call it a 'sting' operation. Since they control any investigation there's no chance of being caught. It's creating their reality. Considering the payoff,why wouldn't they?

If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8590
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 07:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
.. If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.

The obvious counter-point being have you any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Thought not.

Now, that doesn't mean I disbelieve you - I think there's possibly some truth in some elements of what you say, but that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to give a precise overall picture - however, you need to beware of basing supposition upon unproven supposition (I won't say the "O" word as it gives Rynner attacks of the vapours Wink.)

A cracking discussion / outright argument based on no unequivocal evidence in either direction? Welcome to Conspiracy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 08:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuneville wrote:
waitew wrote:
.. If you've got something to counter this or ANY evidence that what I've proposed isn't true,I'd love to hear it.

The obvious counter-point being have you any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Thought not.

Now, that doesn't mean I disbelieve you - I think there's possibly some truth in some elements of what you say, but that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to give a precise overall picture - however, you need to beware of basing supposition upon unproven supposition (I won't say the "O" word as it gives Rynner attacks of the vapours Wink.)

A cracking discussion / outright argument based on no unequivocal evidence in either direction? Welcome to Conspiracy!


So,can you disprove it? Thought not. Well,you know what they say,"follow the money". I believe I can demonstrate how the USA/UK etc benefits under my theory. Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8590
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 08:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
So,can you disprove it? Thought not. Well,you know what they say,"follow the money". I believe I can demonstrate how the USA/UK etc benefits under my theory. Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?

I think you missed my point, waitew. This is the whole problem with Conspiracy theories of any hue - for every point there's a counter-point, and the fact that evidence is at best ambivalent and at worst non-existent makes any line of argument or hypothesis just that - a hypothesis.

And that's what makes them conspiracy theories.

Feel free to advance your theory as much as you wish, but please don't go on the defensive if others then advance other theories entirely contrary to your own that nonetheless equally fit the known information. Could be neither of you are right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 10:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the people of Afghanistan & Iraq didn't take exception to having their countries invaded? That none of them fought/are fighting against us just for that reason? and that everyone who is fighting us over there is a member of Al Qaida/terrorists? Come on.


I would imagine anyone who actually thinks that is not in possession of enough wit to read, let alone access the internet and participate in this thread. Even the Bush administration wasn't outrageous enough to make that claim.

waitew wrote:
So,can you disprove it? Thought not.


In other words, "I made a bunch of stuff up and you can't disprove it, therefore I'm right and you're wrong". Nice debating style. How about this; Al Qaida are robotic assassins from Titan here to enslave humanity and the CIA are secretly a group of Atlanteans known as The Defenders of the Earth who we will one day come to worship as heroes, nay, gods.

So you can't disprove it? Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-11-2009 10:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?


Er...they've spread jihad and killed (or caused the death of) thousands of infidels? They're on a mission from God, what kind of benefits are you expecting?
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-11-2009 09:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr_Baltar wrote:
waitew wrote:
Can you tell me just how Al Qaida has benefited under the 'official' story?


Er...they've spread jihad and killed (or caused the death of) thousands of infidels? They're on a mission from God, what kind of benefits are you expecting?



LOL! So,they're on a mission from God? Says who? The CIA/MI6 'asset'/patsy with the big showy turban (so yous can't miss it) who screams," death to America,death to Isreal,death to Britian"? Yep,right,that's who says it & the BBC shows it front & centre just like they're suppose to.
So,they've killed,"thousands of infidels",but what's the ratio? 1 to 1000? They kill one Yank & the Yanks a kill a 1000 (or 10,000.... or more) good Muslims? That's 'bout right ,aint it? How's that benefit them? It doesn't & that's the point. For every one of 'us' they kill 10 more show up and that equals an even greater Western influence all the better to corrupt 'pure' muslim culture which is exactly what they don't want! LOL.
Show me some benefit. Tell me what muslims have gotten RICH $$ because of 911? Then we can compare notes. Deal? You want to know who's made money from 911 in the West? I thought not.
Back to top
View user's profile 
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 21-11-2009 10:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well,more than a week has gone by & no one has been able to answer my question about how Muslims/AQ/Islamic terrorists have benefited from 911 (none have gotten rich) so,I assume you have de facto conceded defeat? and now admit that they have ,in fact, not benefited but ,in fact,suffered? Is that right?
One more thing. If it's true that no one has claimed that the people of Iraq & Afghanistan didn't take exception to being invaded & have attacked us/are fighting us for just that reason then show me ONE..just ONE Western media report about an attack attributed to Iraqis or Afghans against the US?UK troops that is NOT attributed to either: 1. Al Quaida
2.Terrorists or
3.Insurgents
You can't! You admit they have fought back against us just because we invaded their country & claimed that NO one every said they didn't,but when it hits Western papers ALL the attacks are attributed to terrorists or AQ or insurgents. How do you explain that if it's NOT just a label?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group