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
 
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
PaulStottOffline
Grey
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Total posts: 12
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-11-2009 08:47    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French argument 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 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 28-11-2009 09:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

PaulStott wrote:
I saw Gilles Kepel speak in the week, who is probably the leading French argument 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).



That's not so much the Shia who rose up against the jihadists, but the latter who, supposedly, attacked them and divided Muslims. It seems that they were used to split the national resistance, which was really dangerous to the occupants. I repost a comment I had previously posted here : http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27671&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=870 , on the alternatively incredibly cunning or stupidly fanatical alqaidists, according to the needs. Now that breaking the insurgency in Iraq is not needed anymore, and that the country is embedded in a state of perpetual civil war, the "war on Shia heretics" has vanished from the Al Qaeda agenda. Because it was there only for the neo-conservative propaganda. This propaganda now reverts to the denunciation of Iran-Al Qaida alliance :

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
They make useful boogeymen. They are evil, ruthless and irrationnal. Their behaviour is easy to explain this way, they're evil, period. Very convenient for all kinds of manipulations. If all the jihadists wanted was to bring war to the Middle-East so that the Muslim nations would unite, they had a perfect opportunity with Iraq. They ruined it for the benefit of the occupant. The neo-conservative "thinkers" were in the need of a new concept to divide the Iraqi resistance and Muslim nations. They invented the "Shia Crescent". It was pure propaganda, but it worked. Thanks to "Al Qaeda", whose shifts strangely seem to mimick perfectly the needs of US foreign policy.

In April 2004, the US occupation forces in Iraq faced a Sunni Arab revolt. Shia Arabs friended the insurgents and came to their rescue, Sunni families posted Moqtada Al Sadr pictures in their home. This was the birth of a national resistance movement. A formidable threat to the occupants. Coincidentally, at the same time Al Zarqawi started to attack savagely Shia Arabs. How convenient. Earlier, most jihadists were pan-islamist, anti-Shia hostility was a negligible part of their doctrine (if they existed at all). Now they acted as if they tried to promote the new US agenda. We can see now what the results were: first, Sunni Arabs vs Shia Arabs, then Sunni Arabs vs Sunni Arabs. The resistance was broken and civil war followed, to the only benefit of US troops. Arab states were in a dismay, Saudis planned an intervention in Iraq, the region was in chaos, while the US policy rised hostility towards Iran. At the same time, a new jihadist group emerged in Lebanon, set in turmoil by a series of unsolved political assassinations. Both were without proof blamed on Syria, and a new civil war was narrowly avoided. Al Qaeda seems to follow the old plans of dividing Near and Middle Eastern into their ethnic and religious components. In fact it seems to follow systematically the neo-imperialist agenda.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 02-12-2009 15:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/maurice-hinchey-george-w-bush-intentionally-lost-osama-bin-laden

Quote:
Latest News25 Comments Print
Share
December 1st, 2009 12:58 AM
Maurice Hinchey: George W. Bush 'intentionally' lost Osama bin Laden

By Andy Barr / Politico

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) on Monday accused former President George W. Bush of “intentionally” letting Osama bin Laden escape during the American invasion of Afghanistan.

“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC.

“That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.”

When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”

“I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it’ll strike a lot of people as being very accurate,” Hinchey said. “All you have to do is look at the exact circumstances and see that’s exactly what happened.”

“When our military went in there, we could have captured [the Taliban],” he insisted. “But we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration, and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.”
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 02-12-2009 15:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.newschannel34.com/content/developingnews/story/Phillips-Blasts-Hincheys-Outrageous-Bin-Laden/82BkHCmhh06pz3_fSwIXJg.cspx

Quote:


Phillips Blasts Hinchey's Outrageous Bin Laden Comments on MSNBC

Groundless Allegations Should Be Retracted and Apology Issued

Binghamton, NY --- George Phillips, Candidate for US Congress in NY's 22nd Congressional District sharply criticized his opponent Maurice Hinchey for outrageous comments he made on MSNBC yesterday.

Hinchey stated President Bush 'intentionally let Osama Bin Linden get away' as part of an Iraq War plan.

Phillips stated, "These wild accusations by a Member of the United States Congress on national television are simply outrageous."

Phillips added, "I saw Gary Berntsen, the CIA commander at Toro Boro where Bin Laden was thought to be located, speak last year. Americans put their lives on the line to capture this terrorist leader. Hinchey's comments are simply insulting to our men and women in the armed services. He should retract these groundless allegations and issue an apology."

Phillips also commented on President Obama's decision to add troops to Afghanistan. He felt it was the right decision, maintaining that it remains a key spot for combating terrorism, and that the plan of action moving forward must combine strategic use of the military and diplomacy.

But Phillips added he was "extremely disappointing that the President waited so long to make a decision that was recommended by his military advisors months ago" and that "this delay could put the mission at risk."
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-12-2009 08:47    Post subject: Reply with quote

A politician criticizes his opponent. Political games.
Back to top
View user's profile 
SpookdaddyOffline
Cuckoo
Joined: 24 May 2006
Total posts: 3932
Location: Midwich
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-12-2009 10:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
A politician criticizes his opponent. Political games.


Is not the same argument applicable to both instances?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 03-12-2009 11:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spookdaddy wrote:
Analis wrote:
A politician criticizes his opponent. Political games.


Is not the same argument applicable to both instances?


Exactly my point in posting it. Thanks for noticing Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 18-12-2009 19:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al Qaida and Mujahedeen

Bin Laden was an asset of CIA and was used to fight against Soviet Union in 80s. At that time Bin Laden's group was called as Majahideen. Qaida was used as a data base in communiction.

In early 90, when Soviet Union collapsed, US intelligence turned its resource on to Mid-east countries which are rich in oil resource, they revive the retired asset - Bin Laden. Bin Laden returned to Islamic world trying to provoke a conflict so that US could justify an interference and invasion.

On 2001, when US inside group had their puppet Bush to be the president, the war was ready. 911 was done to justify the war. To prevent people to link the "terror attack" with Islamic fannatic (Mujahedeen) and CIA, US intelligence then starts to use "Al Qaida" as "terrorist" group to justify the "war on terror". Since then, they blame every terror attack on "Al qaida". Al Qaida could be viewed as a group of special opratives commanded by US intelligence. Their mission is to activate false flag terror attack on civilians to justify US military action.

What Al Qaida did - bombing WTC, killing US civilians on 911, and bombing innocent civilians in Iraq, all targetted at ordinary people. It tarnished Islam as savage, inhuman, cruel. Who benefited? Who expanded the police power by Patriot Act? Who got fat budget? If you can answer these questions, then you know what is Al Qaida - a tool of US intelligence.
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: 02-01-2010 18:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who supplied "Al Qaida"?

Any resistence needs resource, from money to ammunition to human resource. Vietcon had the support from two big powers - Soviet and China.

Where did the support of Al Qaida come from? Not from Saddam's Iraq, Syria, Iran. If there was, US already beat the drum to invade. Al Qaida only prosperous in Iraq after it is occupied by US army. Because they are supported by pentagon and intelligence. Bin Laden's resistence is known as Mujahiddem before 911. Everybody knows it was trained and supported by CIA. Al Qaida was only a data base in communication for Mujahiddem before 911. After 911, to prevent people to link CIA from Mujahiddem, they created Al Qaida and since blame everything on it.

But where did Al Qaida get the money from? No nation dare to offend US - a super power. So the support must be from either from Alladin's magic Lantern or US secret budget.

Quote, The head of Pakistan’s ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, had ordered to wire $100,000 to the leader of 911 attack, Mohammed Atta through the hand of Omar Sheikh. This has been confirmed by the director of the FBI’s financial crimes unit, Dennis Lormel.

Quote, " Musharraf names 9/11 suspect as possible British asset
Fails to mention links to 9/11, ISI, CIA
By Devlin Buckley
© Copyright 2006,

http://fromthewilderness.com/members/102506_possible_names.php
Back to top
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8587
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 03-01-2010 07:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kathaksung, please see my post here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
Guest
PostPosted: 15-01-2010 19:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

The following is a quote from Kat Hak Sung about his opinion of Al Qaida. Kat Hak Sung is accused of "spam" for telling his own opinion in different web sites.

Quote:
Who supplies weapon to Al Qaida?

What excuse the Neocon uses to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not. There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq. "

Then who support the insurgence and militias and Al Qaida the weapon they need? To my analysis, there is only one suspect: US. which has motives and ability.
The following news proved it's no others than US supplied weapon to the Iraqi insurgence and militias and Al Qaida, though media use the word "missing".

Quote, "ABC News: 190,000 AK-47s Sent to Iraq Are Missing

A young boy aims an AK-47 assault rifle during clashes between ... The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3450946

Do you have the conception how many is 190,000? It can arm a force bigger than the whole US occupation troop in Iraq. (170,000 after surge) Whom do you think are the receipants of these "missing" weapons?
Back to top
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-01-2010 21:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

kathaksung1 wrote:
...

How do you define "spam"? When I cut and paste my own article in different web sites, that is "spam"? ...

That is indeed spam, as Kathaksung is well aware, having been warned several times, over several years.

Kathaksung1 has been banned for spamming.

Thread Locked.

P_M
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
Page 4 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