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: 21-11-2009 11:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
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)...


Part of the problem might be that you seem incapable of accepting that the word 'benefit', around which your entire argument seems to be based, is not synonymous with financial gain. Possibly a dictionary might help.

And possibly the arrogance of your tone might not help:

Quote:
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?


No, there's a big difference between conceding defeat and the weary resignation that comes with the realisation that absolutely nothing you say will halt the flow of false logic and self-serving misinterpretation of basic facts that stem from a mind made up and closed to all other arguments.

And if you think that's wrong - take a look at some of the other threads and witness the fact that people with differing, sometimes polar opposite, opinions are managing to engage in (admittedly sometimes over-heated) discussion and then ask yourself why that's not happening here?
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 21-11-2009 14:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact, Al Qaida did not benefit from the attacks only from a financial perspective. It didn't benefit from the attack militarily, strategically or tactically. They never did anything to lead Muslims to revolt against their ennemies. They acted only to encourage them to rise up... against Al Qaida. In Iraq, they fought the insurgents, acting as de facto US allies.

In Afghanistan, where the insurgents are on the rise, they have not much to do anymore with Al Qaida.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 241
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-11-2009 20:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
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?


Good Muslims go to heaven. Infidels go to Hell. That sounds pretty successful for the cause to me.

In any case, as Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan) show, you can defeat an enemy even if you take disproportionate casualties in the process.


Do you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory, or just the idea that it 'must' be true on the basis of cui bono?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 11:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
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?


I failed to see how their benefitting or otherwise had any bearing on your claim that they're a US asset, so there didn't seem much point in answering an irrelevant question.


Quote:
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?


Who are the "insurgents" if not the people of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 11:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

wembley9 wrote:


In any case, as Vietnam (and Iraq and Afghanistan) show, you can defeat an enemy even if you take disproportionate casualties in the process.


Pyrrhus of Epirus being the eponymous example.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Twin_StarOffline
Profane, Harsh, Unharmonious
Joined: 05 May 2009
Total posts: 203
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 15:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think on the balance of probability, the almost-entirely US dominated 'intelligence' agencies have a hand, indirect or direct in the continuing existence of AL-Quaeda. The reason i say that, is they have such demonstrable previous "form" for such actions. Christ, they've even got their old poster boy Ollie North writing execrable ideo-trash - now about the war against "radical islamism" - right up until the present. That's the level of regard they have for the people they supposedly are in place to serve.

Moving on to "who's getting rich out of all this?", these guys aren't (or weren't in at least 1 confirmed case), living in spider holes out in the boonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Adel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordin_Mohammad_Top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab

and they're just the tip of the iceberg. of course they may have had a cave for publicity purposes, but they are very well funded individuals. As for whose funding them, it's a melange. Governments, charities, front-companies, individuals. One of the reasons that US/UK governments are pushing for the Swiss to be even more transparent wrt the numbered account system. Obviously, its tougher to open one today, but some of these accounts were opened in the 60's, alongside Onassis and Taylor. They're highly-prized customers, with regular deposits and withdrawals, after all Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 15:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twin_Star wrote:
the almost-entirely US dominated 'intelligence' agencies


Which agencies are you referring to?

Quote:
The reason i say that, is they have such demonstrable previous "form" for such actions.


Well, I'd agree that the CIA has form for funding "dodgy" groups and that this has often come back to bite them. Can you cite examples where they have funded a group whose express aim is the wholesale murder of Western, and specifically US, citizens? Can you site examples where they have used the funding of such groups as an excuse to launch one, let alone two, major wars? I'd need specific examples, not just hearsay, rumour and anti-American rhetoric.

Quote:
Moving on to "who's getting rich out of all this?", these guys aren't (or weren't in at least 1 confirmed case), living in spider holes out in the boonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Adel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordin_Mohammad_Top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Al-Khattab

and they're just the tip of the iceberg. of course they may have had a cave for publicity purposes, but they are very well funded individuals. As for whose funding them, it's a melange. Governments, charities, front-companies, individuals. One of the reasons that US/UK governments are pushing for the Swiss to be even more transparent wrt the numbered account system. Obviously, its tougher to open one today, but some of these accounts were opened in the 60's, alongside Onassis and Taylor. They're highly-prized customers, with regular deposits and withdrawals, after all Very Happy


One of them's in prison and two are dead. I fail to see the benefit they've gained. As for who's funding them, if we're honest, we're all just guessing. However, there are individuals and groups out there with just as much, if not more, funds available to them as the CIA.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 5357
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 16:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some money probably comes from Saudi Arabia, from those who don't like the House of Saud as they see it as toadying to the US.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Twin_StarOffline
Profane, Harsh, Unharmonious
Joined: 05 May 2009
Total posts: 203
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 23-11-2009 18:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Which agencies are you referring to?


Take your pick, no really. after the 1947 National Security Act it would probably be some wing of the CIA. And probably the Military Service Intelligence boys for the hands-on stuff.

Quote:
Can you cite examples where they have funded a group whose express aim is the wholesale murder of Western, and specifically US, citizens? Can you site examples where they have used the funding of such groups as an excuse to launch one, let alone two, major wars?


Well, thats the problem isnt it. Old Uncle Minh seemed a pretty good bet, fighting the Japs in 44-45. Look, i won't insult you with a history of the next 20 years in South-East Asian , but Diem's rigged elections et al have more than a whiff of Karzai about them. The current means are just depressingly familiar to anyone that cares to look.


Quote:
One of them's in prison and two are dead. I fail to see the benefit they've gained.

Ah, but thats the risk they were prepared to take. And while they lived they probably had a whale of a time. Not everyone is the pipe and slippers and live the usual three score and ten. Anyway, there's plenty more out there that arent banged up. And so the tawdry pantomime lurches and shudders again. A ways back in this thread i think it was mentioned that it seems that terrorist resistance is found most in those countries that are being policed by an occupying force. who would have ever believed it, eh? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-11-2009 09:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twin_Star wrote:
...The current means are just depressingly familiar to anyone that cares to look...


I'm not sure many of us would disagree that there's something depressingly familiar about what's going on. However whether we see that as an indication of some global conspiracy, or simply another example of humanity's endlessly short-sighted stupidity and it's recourse to an incredibly constricted imagination and limited vocabulary of action when faced with certain situations, is another matter.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 25-11-2009 19:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
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?


Who suffered from Al Qaida attack? Ordinary people. They lost their lives in bombings done by Al Qaida. And Islamic, they are tarnished as cruel, irrational people. Who benefitted? Pentagon got fat budget and wars in Mid-east. D.O.J. got their power entended - by Patriot Act. And US controls oil rich country - Iraq.

Are you still not clear whom Al Qaida works for?
Back to top
waitewOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Total posts: 312
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-11-2009 08:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off 'financial' isn't the ONLY benefit I recognize,but when you've got a ratio of 10,000 to 1 in terms of deaths & a situation where 100 more come for every ONE killed,I find it hard/difficult to call it a BENEFIT,at the very least!
Look,White English speaking people have,in just a few hundred years,gone from inhabiting JUST a couple little islands off of Europe to colonizing nearly half the bloody world. Where it seemed possible to exterminate the natives (North America & Australia) we attempted it. Where it was hopelessly impossible (due to sheer numbers) we had to content ourselves with merely ruling over them (India/parts of Africa). we stole their resources (including labour) & imposed our will upon them...ALWAYS at the point of a gun. It's all we know.
So, here we are today with an army sitting right on top of the world's largest reserves of a finite resource we are entirely dependent upon..guns drawn. What is an honest man to think? Take a GOOD honest look at what put us there (ie 911) & just what are we to think?
Can you answer the questions the 911 truth movement asks? No,you can not! and are forced to ask them to speculate hoping that you can find some fault in their speculation...BUT their questions you CAN NOT answer BECAUSE there is no benign answer to them and ,quite frankly,if you are this far INTO it,you know that!
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-11-2009 10:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd suggest that asking questions simply in order to answer them on behalf of everyone yourself makes this entire exercise one of pointless intellectual onanism.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 241
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-11-2009 17:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

waitew wrote:
when you've got a ratio of 10,000 to 1 in terms of deaths & a situation where 100 more come for every ONE killed,I find it hard/difficult to call it a BENEFIT,at the very least!


All this shows is that you don't think like a terrorist.

Which is nice.
Back to top
View user's profile 
PaulStottOffline
Grey
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Total posts: 12
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-11-2009 08:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French expert on Islamist groups.

He argues Iraq has been a graveyard for Al Qaeda - they were broadly defeated there, in large part because Shia Muslims rose up against them (probably funded to do so by the Gulf petro-monarchies).

The problem is in Afghanistan AQ remains protected by the Taleban, who are resurgent, and have the numbers AQ do not.

Kepel's conclusion was pessimistic - that the US/UK are now stuck in the same position that the Soviets were 25 years ago.

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2009/11/the-trail-of-jihad.html
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
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 3 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