Thread: Al-Qaeda doesn't actually exist, it's just fear-mongering on the part of the American goverment

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are closing your mind to the possibility that the idea that Al Qaeda does not exist is insane. Do you know how many people would be involved in such a conspiracy? Do you know how easily such grand information would leak? I am talking about a leak worlds bigger than some former British marine with a mohawk doing some silly loonie land talk. We have thousands and thousands of people working on the Al Qaeda situation. We have captured or killed 2/3 of their leadership and used a great deal of network information to catch others. We have leaders on video after video after video talking about what they are up to. This is such an Art Bell show topic. It's fun, but if you want me to be serious, I am nowhere near agreeing with it. Try opening YOUR mind to that, if you think you can.



Washington, D.C. is not in the South. If you think you are smarter than I am because I am from the South, you are showing a major intelligence deficit.

SOLSKYE, now let's talk about your BBC video of "Mohawk boy said" and get to the bottom of it in about two seconds. First of all, the proof offered in that video is nonexistent. I could post a video of people saying, "Uh, the United States government does not exist. Nobody even mentioned the U.S. government before 2005." Big deal! Now I will point out the two easiest lies to slam lies from that video. Do you remember where the video said that we used our most powerful weapons to attack Tora Bora? Guess what. We did NOT use nuclear weapons in Tora Bora. Can you prove that we did? And now for an even bigger one... One of the videos' biggest points was that the term "Al Qaeda" didn't even exist before the 9/11 attacks. Let me snap this discussion right out of the Twilight Zone by bringing up the fact that the Clinton Administration discussed Al Qaeda in the mid-1990's and that the National Security Council had a major discussion on Al Qaeda in January of 2001, not that that was the first time the federal government expressed Al Qaeda concerns. Check out this link...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Look at the January 25, 2001 memo.

So that's two lies I can expose right off the top of my head in regard to a video of some guy with a mohawk talking about some very crazy shit.

Duh, they are obviously talking about conventional weapons, not nuclear.

And, about them referencing the term "al Qaeda". According to some people, "Al Qaeda" supposedly translated into "the base". Well did you know that "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is an Arabic colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". Now why would hardcore terrorists determined to destroy the infidels call themselves after a euphemism for taking a crap? But also according to former house of commons Robin Cook:

"Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." There you go, Al-Qaeda...

Now, I'm not saying that people with the intent of destroying and bringing terror to the west don't exist because that's obviously not true. What I am saying is, those with that intent to destroy and bring terror to the west don't automatically belong to some well-organized network that we so quickly refer to as "Al-Qaeda". There just isn't any evidence pointing to this vast and powerful network of sleeper cells existing, most definitely not to the degree that the media and goverments would have us believe. By saying it doesn't exist, I'm trying to emphasize the fact that we have, in essence, made one huge imaginary mountain out of many mole hills...in other words, isolated incidents.

Again, had you actually made the time to watch it, what the documentary was actually trying to point out was, the idea found floating around in a few young muslim men's heads is the real threat, not some imaginary interconnected and highly trained organization that they all secretly belong to without even knowing it.

So yeah...don't take my topic title out of context
Do 'al Qaeda' exist?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Duh, they are obviously talking about conventional weapons, not nuclear.

And, about them referencing the term "al Qaeda". According to some people, "Al Qaeda" supposedly translated into "the base". Well did you know that "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is an Arabic colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". Now why would hardcore terrorists determined to destroy the infidels call themselves after a euphemism for taking a crap? But also according to former house of commons Robin Cook:

"Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." There you go, Al-Qaeda...

Now, I'm not saying that people with the intent of destroying and bringing terror to the west don't exist because that's obviously not true. What I am saying is, those with that intent to destroy and bring terror to the west don't automatically belong to some well-organized network that we so quickly refer to as "Al-Qaeda". There just isn't any evidence pointing to this vast and powerful network of sleeper cells existing, most definitely not to the degree that the media and goverments would have us believe. By saying it doesn't exist, I'm trying to emphasize the fact that we have, in essence, made one huge imaginary mountain out of many mole hills...in other words, isolated incidents.

Again, had you actually made the time to watch it, what the documentary was actually trying to point out was, the idea found floating around in a few young muslim men's heads is the real threat, not some imaginary interconnected and highly trained organization that they all secretly belong to.

Check this out... Do 'al Qaeda' exist?

They said we used our "most powerful weapons". That was false.

Did you read my link about the National Security Council and the Clinton Administration's dealings with Al Qaeda? You didn't counter any of what I said about it.

I am not a Middle East languages expert, so I don't know the ins and outs of what "Al Qaeda" means, but I have yet to hear a single Arab say, "Oh, I've got you now. The term 'Al Qaeda' is about going to the toilet and absolutely nothing else." Can you give me a petition signed by people who claim the mass media reports about what "Al Qaeda" means are totally false? There should be about a billion signatures on it.

I obviously watched the link you are talking about because I commented on the specifics of it. Duh.

As for the link you just posted, I will go back to the issue I keep bringing up without ever getting your counteranalysis. I told you why I think the competitive corporate media has more to lose by lying and is therefore far more credible than the left wing fanatic blog sites. Do you remember the details of my argument? I have told you about it several times. Please tell me why in the world I am supposed to think your link has more credibility than the competitive cut-throat corporate media.

Any rational person would know they are refering to conventional weapons since nuclear weapons haven't been used in any armed conflicts since they were first implemented. You are obviously searching for some lame excuses to immediately write the documentary off as some bad journalism without giving it a chance. When I said had you actually made the time to watch it, I meant the entire documentary not the 8minute clip which only brings up one of the many good points in there. However, I knew you wouldn't make the time to actually watch anything but the 8minute one since you love to choose to remain uninformed.

But, hey man...by all means...that's your prerogative. Do what you like. However, I'm not going to sit here and try and have a rational debate with someone who doesn't even aquire the knowledge to debate.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Any rational person would know they are refering to conventional weapons since nuclear weapons haven't been used in any armed conflicts since they were first implemented. You are obviously searching for some lame excuses to immediately write the documentary off as some bad journalism without giving it a chance. When I said had you actually made the time to watch it, I meant the entire documentary not the 8minute clip which only brings up one of the many good points in there. However, I knew you wouldn't make the time to actually watch anything but the 8minute one since you love to choose to remain uninformed.

But, hey man...by all means...that's your prerogative. Do what you like. However, I'm not going to sit here and try and have a rational debate with someone who doesn't even aquire the knowledge to debate.

I watched what you posted, but I didn't watch the links within a link that add up to about four hours worth of stuff. Summarize that Dr. Chivago length arugment, and I will analyze it. And how many times do I have to keep making the same points and challenging you to counter them before you finally do it? I keep blasting holes in your bizarrre hypotheses, and all you do back is act condescending and tell me I am uninformed. I have countered your points, so come back with something, if you have anything. I don't think you do.

How does posting a link to memo written in Jan 2001 refering to al Qaeda blast holes in anything? They clearly talk about the Jan 2001 meeting in which they came up with the term al Qaeda in the clip, what's your point? Even if the name was rolling around before that time, that doesn't prove anything. As I said before, the name al Qaeda was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Definitely not the people we so quickly like to associate with the word today. Bin Laden didn't even know about the term before 9-11 because his small group lacked any real organization enough to be called anything.

Rather than continue using flawed logic to debate wording on what kind of weapons were used to blow holes in the mountains of Tora Bora where the supposed al Qaeda network of bases that didn't exist were, why not show me evidence of the advanced network of bases Rumsfeld pointed out ACTUALLY existing? Better yet, How about showing me some evidence of any WMD's in the possession of either known 'al Qaeda' terrorists or Saddam Hussein? That's right...yet again you can't...Because it's all clearly speculative BS that NEVER panned out since it's...*gasp*...NOT REAL.

My point has been there is no real threat from any organization called al Qaeda, because it's not really there. It's just some scare tactics used to make a few people look like they have a lot more organization, and are a lot more dangerous than they actually are...

All the supposed sleeper cells that president Bush twarted were all cleared of charges and quietly brushed under the carpet but those arrests were viewed of as great victories in the war on terror that you probably thought of as real, didn't you? Tsk Tsk..Silly sheeple... Trix are for kids...

ABC News: Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaeda Capabilities
No 'True' Al Qaeda Sleeper Agents Have Been Found in U.S.

A secret FBI report issued this month and later leaked to the press states, “Al-Qaeda leadership’s intention to attack the United States is not in question. However, their capability to do so is unclear, particularly in regard to ‘spectacular’ operations. We believe al-Qaeda’s capability to launch attacks within the United States is dependent on its ability to infiltrate and maintain operatives in the United States. To date, we have not identified any true ‘sleeper’ agents in the US.… Limited reporting since March indicates al-Qaeda has sought to recruit and train individuals to conduct attacks in the United States, but is inconclusive as to whether they have succeeded in placing operatives in this country. US Government efforts to date also have not revealed evidence of concealed cells or networks acting in the homeland as sleepers” ABC News notes that this seemingly contradicts the sleeper cell depiction seven men arrested in Lackawanna, New York, in 2002. It also differs from warnings by FBI Director Robert Mueller and other US officials, who have warned that sleeper cells are probably in place. [ABC News, 3/9/2005] In 2002, it was also reported that no sleeper cells can be found in the US (see March 10, 2002).

The video talks about how a trial (not the meeting or the memo) BEGAN in January of 2001 and how the U.S. government needed a group to associate with Bin Laden to make it easier to prosecute him. Then it talks about how Bin Laden never used the term "Al Qaeda" until after 9/11. I took that to mean that they were suggesting that as the birth of the term, or close to it. If Bin Laden hadn't used the term yet, then the term couldn't have been around for too long, yet it had been. Bin Laden might not have used the term on video before then, but of course he had been using the term before then if the U.S. government was associating him with it.

Is that all you're going to talk about? I have made so many repeated points. Do I need to post them again? Where are the petitions I keep asking for? When are you going to tell me how your sources have more credibility than the big cut-throat corporate media? What about the other points I have made? Do you have counters for them?

Originally Posted by born_2_kill

seriously everybody in east knows that bin laden never existed

By the way, that is the funniest thing I have read in this thread. Who is the actor playing Bin Laden? Is that Robert De Niro covered in make-up and towels?

Yea, Yea, Yea. You were still searching for stupid excuses and you know it. Why must you continue to suck on the mass media teet as if it's milk is so pure and true?

Look around and taste all the different kinds of milk before you start formulating opinions...You might find the milk you came to know and love has actually been spoiled for some time now... :p