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

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Solsky, thanks for pursuing this story, which is pretty much common knowledge in academic circles. No wonder its so vigorously denied by the sheeple!

UM, you havnt responded at all to any Solsky's excellent points, most notably, 1) that no sleeper cells have been found or convicted of terrorism within the U.S., and 2) that Al-queda was in fact created by the CIA. On top of that there are direct money laundering links from officials in the U.S. govt to Al-queda.

Proof? It exists, otherwise I wouldnt even bother making a post or even thinking about it. (I have to know something is verifiable before I waste time entertaining its possibility) The proof has been provided by dozens of FBI whistleblowers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiyJ_l2a8

Most conveniently ignored is Sibel Edmonds, who uncovered documented evidence (proof) that top officials in the FBI were protecting terrorists.

So an FBI agent claims that a suspected terrorist cell could not be arrested at a certain point in time and that the information gathered had to remain secretive. Uh, okay. It's difficult to prove the existence of terror cells in the place where they are the most likely to be caught if they are too overt. Afghanistan and Iraq are much better places for terrorists to train and have meetings. Plus, conspiracy is very difficult to prove before a group acts on intent. And how does that prove that Al Qaeda doesn't exist? I don't see your proof that Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA. And how could there be money laundering links to Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda doesn't exist? Since you have started baaaaaahing to this Twilight Zone episode of an idea, please counter my arguments which SolSkye never countered. Thanks.

"Common knowledge in academic circles"

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Solsky, thanks for pursuing this story, which is pretty much common knowledge in academic circles. No wonder its so vigorously denied by the sheeple!

UM, you havnt responded at all to any Solsky's excellent points, most notably, 1) that no sleeper cells have been found or convicted of terrorism within the U.S., and 2) that Al-queda was in fact created by the CIA. On top of that there are direct money laundering links from officials in the U.S. govt to Al-queda.

Proof? It exists, otherwise I wouldnt even bother making a post or even thinking about it. (I have to know something is verifiable before I waste time entertaining its possibility) The proof has been provided by dozens of FBI whistleblowers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiyJ_l2a8

Most conveniently ignored is Sibel Edmonds, who uncovered documented evidence (proof) that top officials in the FBI were protecting terrorists.

I'll tell you what. When I'm in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'll ask some POW's if they are Al Qaeda. Oky doky?

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no proof that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. I can't even fathom the argument!! You know, not everybody in the FBI has classified information at their fingertips. Those people are just speculating.

Who cares if no sleeper cells have been arrested? They're called "sleeper cells" for a reason. Saying that sleeper cells don't exist soley because they have never been caught is like saying that dark matter doesn't exist, simply because we can't see it. Are sleeper cells actually here? I have no idea, and I hope not.

I'll believe it when i hear a reason why the government would do this.

Originally Posted by CymekSniper

I'll believe it when i hear a reason why the government would do this.

They will tell you it was for oil and money. I mean, if they wanted oil they could have just busted Saddam first for violating the UN resolution of 1993. But, according to their theories Al Qaeda is Muslim-Christian conspiracy in which 1 group gets rich as the other group dies. Both get what they want!!!

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no proof that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

Haha.

So lovely to see the same kind of fluked logic coming from cornered people with a bad case of indoctrination. There is no structural difference between saying what you said, and, -to quote Keeper-, "Why do you think there isn't a soul? you can't disprove it!". lol.

Great logic.

Think Harder.

Shut up with the indoctrination bullshit. Its really annoying and completely unfounded. I could just as easily say you have been tricked into believing a false reality about Americans because your leaders are bitter that they are not leaders of the supercool, totally awesome, dominant United States of Freedom, protector of the world.

But, you're right. "There is no proof that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist" is a stupid argument. The notion that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist is absolutely fucking retarded, and doesn't really deserve argument.

So whatever. How about "Al-Qaeda, fanatical organization, has been around since before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970's". It has been proven.

Btw, thanks for adding to the conversation, neruo

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Shut up with the indoctrination bullshit. Its really annoying and completely unfounded. I could just as easily say you have been tricked into believing a false reality about Americans because your leaders are bitter that they are not leaders of the supercool, totally awesome, dominant United States of Freedom, protector of the world.

But, you're right. "There is no proof that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist" is a stupid argument. The notion that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist is absolutely fucking retarded, and doesn't really deserve argument.

So whatever. How about "Al-Qaeda, fanatical organization, has been around since before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970's". It has been proven.

Btw, thanks for adding to the conversation, neruo

You're welcome.

-

Still, I just see a great deal of resemblance between people you can't talk out of their faith in god using proper arguments and people you can't talk out of their faith in their country using proper arguments.

Well, good thing Bush tells ya they caught like 90% of the Al-Quaida commanders. Proof of that? Nahhhhh. He's tellin' it, He no lie-lie!

Belief in the existence of Al Qaeda has nothing to do with my patriotism

Your ignorance about Americans is far worse than than any misconceptions I have about health care and communism. The worst part is you think you know the true America. I don't think I will ever be able to convince you otherwise.

Take it from an American. You don't know jack.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Belief in the existence of Al Qaeda has nothing to do with my patriotism

Your ignorance about Americans is far worse than than any misconceptions I have about health care and communism. The worst part is you think you know the true America. I don't think I will ever be able to convince you otherwise.

Take it from an American. You don't know jack.

oh yes, this makes perfect sense. According to your own logic, you can't even complain about north-korea, or some fucked up Iranian stone-unbelievers culture, because you don't live there yourself. You just don't know the true North-Korea/Iran. Yeah. Great argument.

Yeah. Or maybe I have a slightly more objective viewpoint. Or I just think differently. If I see a country's leader lying to it's people, at the cost of a bloody war, and the people don't hold the government accountable for it's lies, I see something wrong. If you don't see something wrong with that, it surpasses nationality by far. It doesn't matter weather you are American, Dutch, German, Chinese, went to Oxford, Harvard, University of Tokio, grew up in a coalmine, grew up in the desert, in the city, in tibet, if you don't care about the lies of your government, You are a fucking idiot.

Are you?

I dont know the true North Korea. Very true.

What lies did George W. tell us? Don't say WMD, because if you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, and you don't empty your pockets when your parents tell you, they know you have weed. Or something worse.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I dont know the true North Korea. Very true.

What lies did George W. tell us? Don't say WMD, because if you have bloodshot eyes and smell like weed, and you don't empty your pockets when your parents tell you, they know you have weed. Or something worse.

Oh my god, that comparison between global politics and parents relations mixed with recreational drug usage just made me Get it!

Bush must have been High when he thought about attacking Iraq!

-

(I posted a lot of bush lies in some other topic)

My analogy is absolutely relevent

Originally Posted by Neruo

Oh my god, that comparison between global politics and parents relations mixed with recreational drug usage just made me Get it!

Bush must have been High when he thought about attacking Iraq!

-

(I posted a lot of bush lies in some other topic)

What are the supposed lies?

Do you really need to ask? or is this a rhetorical question?

Lies...
ALL Lies...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Do you really need to ask? or is this a rhetorical question?

Lies...
ALL Lies...

WMD's- The Hussein regime had possessed them before, used them in a terrorist attack, and been reported by six governments and the U.N. to have them just before the invasion. Not a lie. Plus, we don't know if they were hidden. I think they probably were.

pursuing nuclear weapons- The regime had worked on them in the past. Israel destroyed a facility at one point. Not a lie.

ties to terrorists- Providing financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers. Support for Hamas and Hezballah. Meetings with Al Qaeda representatives. Harboring members of Al Qaeda, such as Zarqawi. Terrorists in the Hussein regime. Not a lie.

danger to the United States- Put together everthing I said above. That is a threat. Not a lie.

Next?

WMD's existing? What connection to terrorists? Link me to some of your sources, please. You all have continually given me nothing after countless requests. Just your hollow opinions. The ball has been in your court for over a week now and you've still provided me with nothing. If your opinions are in ANY way substantive, by all means, give them substance...otherwise stop blowing hot air.

Still waiting on those sources from you guys..

In the meantime, More Lies...
Keith Olbermann on Donald Rumsfeld
and some lighthearted fun, Why Rumsfield Really Got Fired!

Originally Posted by SolSkye

WMD's existing? What connection to terrorists? Link me to some of your sources, please. You all have continually given me nothing after countless requests. Just your hollow opinions. The ball has been in your court for over a week now and you've still provided me with nothing. If your opinions are in ANY way substantive, by all means, give them substance...otherwise stop blowing hot air.

Still waiting on those sources from you guys..

In the meantime, More Lies...
Keith Olbermann on Donald Rumsfeld
and some lighthearted fun, Why Rumsfield Really Got Fired!

Hussein regime's connections to other terrorist groups:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect5.html

The regime's use of WMD's in a terrorist attack (The source here is your beloved BBC.):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

More points to consider:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/5354

I would like for you to explain how reporting the intelligence of five other governments, your CIA, your Senate, and the United Nations qualfies as "lying".

And give me those counterarguments I kept requesting and you never gave.

Funny, how those first two links would even be considered as sources of your well-formulated, and articulate opinion since ALL the 'content' of those links just refer to the speculations of the Bush administration for their sources of their information, which proves absolutely nothing to your claims. I have clearly posted videos showing the bush administration knows absolutely dick from shit about anything. Enough for anyone to know they can't possibily be taken seriously as sources of valid truthful information.

Here are some flaws in your first two links:

...The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share...

...There is still some debate surrounding the Bush administration’s case for going to war with Iraq...According to the president, the invasion of Iraq was also an integral part of the larger war on terrorism...

"Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State[Condoleezza Rice; Bush administration] as state sponsors of international terrorism...."

FEAR, SUSPICION, and DESIGNATION from known liars are NOT proof...
Sorry, son. You lose...got any more links?



As far as the third link goes, it's common knowledge that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. It's also common knowledge that he got the mustard gas, and financial support to do this long before and long after that incident from THE UNITED STATES, themselves...thus rendering that so-called 'threat' null and void for OVER 20 years. Why is the 'threat' pertinent now?


The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the tens of thousands.

BUUUUUT.... America didn't care about that, and continued to support Saddam. During the mid to late 1980s amidst the Iran-Iraq war and up to the first Gulf War, the US and Britain provided financial and tactical support to the Iraqi government. Subsequent charges that the American administration had supported Saddam militarily and technologically became known as the "Iraq-gate" scandal. President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

Looks like you need to read up some more on your history before you go saying what 'threats' are what, son.
Direct U.S. Support for Iraq


Does that suspicion of WMD's existing mean a real risk to our nation, and justify a full scale invasion and regime change? Uhhh, hell no...There was a COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE supporting this.

"Despite frequent media reports that coalition military forces are finding "signs" and "indications" of chemical and biological weapons, usually turning out to be unspecified documents and possible dual-use equipment, to-date no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found. Substantive evidence of a ‘smoking gun’ remains as elusive as ever."

"As the coalition forces advanced increasing effort was devoted to locating CB weapons, but to no effect. For example, an entire artillery brigade, typically comprising 3,000-5,000 soldiers,
was retrained to secure and examine sites suspected of holding banned weapons. The Pentagon offered rewards of up to $200,000 for help in finding Iraqi leaders or chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons."

"In mid April, US forces were reported to have narrowed their hunt for banned weapons to about three-dozen sites dispersed throughout Iraq. Inspection of these sites was expected to
take about at least a month. By the end of April it was being reported that around 90 of the top 150 ‘hot’ sites that US intelligence indicated were most likely to hold illegal weapons had been visited." (End of Page 6-7)

Moral of the story?
"It is important to establish whether the threat was either genuinely miscalculated or deliberately exaggerated. In either case, unless independent evidence to the contrary arises, it would appear that the biological and chemical agents in the country did not present a realistic threat to the US or UK that could not be dealt with by vigorous international inspection." (Same link, Page 16)


[Edit: As for the fourth link, The author of the article mainly goes off on a diatribe of his opinion on the Bush administration's claims. And with him having a webpage titled rightwingnews.com it's no doubt he'd be a mindless Bush supporter, and think everything coming from him is the truth.]

Saddam Hussein violated so many sanctions and laws it was almost a necessity he be taken down. Forget about 9/11 and WMD's and fear of Saddam attacking the US. Focus on SCUD missile attacks on Israel to start a race war. As you said, Solskye, focus on race purification of the Kurds with extremely painful gas bombs. Focus on his constant hostility with his neighbors. Focus on the fact that Saddam's sons would have kept the Hussein legacy going for god knows how many years.

Then, after all that, focus on the intelligence from so many other nations. Focus on the fact that Saddam refused entry to inspectors. What did he have to hide? His doll collection?

Why aren't all UN countries helping Iraq?

Again, you're doing that thing I don't like, mouthing off with your opinion like it actually amounts to something without backing it up with any kind of evidence. Nearly every post I provide people with something showing where my ideas stem from.

How many times must I say it? SHOW ME SOMETHING BACKING YOUR ASININE ASSERTIONS.

Nothing Saddam did warranted an invasion. The UN didn't approve war. WE supported Saddam through the worst of his cleansings, only when he switched from the petro-dollar to the petro-euro did it cause us to react the way we did. As, that decision would most closely affect the value of our dollar, and our economy on a macroscopic level.

Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict
A move away from the dollar towards the euro could have a disastrous effect on the US economy

(Note: bolded fields in correlation with the graph)
1) January 1999: launch of the euro.
2) January 1999 Oct 2000: euro in "bear market² versus the dollar.
3) November 2000: Iraq switches oil sales to euro. Euro's fall versus the dollar is halted.
4) April 2002: senior OPEC representative gives speech in which he states that OPEC would consider possibility of selling oil in euros.
5) April 2002 to May 2003: euro in "bull market" versus the dollar.
6) June 2003: US switches Iraqi oil sales back to dollar.
7) June 2003 to September 2003: euro falls versus dollar.
8.) October 2003 to early February 2004: statements by Russian and OPEC politicians/officials that switch to euro for oil sales is being considered. Euro's value versus the dollar increases.
9) 10 February 2004: OPEC meets and no decision to switch to euro is taken.
10) February 2004 to May 2004: euro falls versus the dollar.
11) June 2004: Iran announces intention to establish oil-trading market to rival those of London and New York.
12) June 2004: euro's value versus the dollar begins to increase again.

SERIOUSLY... Instead of blindly defending America at every turn like a mindless and confused peon all the time, why not look into american policy and question it's inherent value and worth to the global community on the whole, or the country its affecting for that matter? Obviously, you aren't doing that and just have red, white, and blue blinders on.

******************
HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

******************

YYYYAAAAWWWNNNN....are you still not finished blowing hot air

Sure, it an opinion, but not just mine. Its the opinion of several prominant government intelligence agencies.

I've told you probably 1000 times by now what backs up my assertions.

Saddam didn't warrant an invasion!? I suppose SCUD missile attacks and an invasion of Kuwait were for good neighborly relations. And the only reason the UN didn't approve of war is because the UN is a puppet organization who's to afraid to committ to..anything. The UN is just a symbol to make the countries in it feel like they're worth a damn. Its pathetic and needs to go away.

I think its funny how you portray me as a blindly patriotic redneck American. It only displays your ignorance.

What "country" are you from, Solskye?

Mimicing my posting style will accomplish nothing to help your cause. Especially, when your opinion is founded knee-deep in fecal matter. Although, they do say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", so thank you!

For one, you fervently support the war and can't wait to get over there and start killing some 'al Qaeda', without knowing anything about the insurgents you are going over there to fight. Clearly proving to me your level of peonism. You have continually made many logical errors in judgement into your thoughts on america's foreign policy, the insurgents, and on the war itself, and provided us with NO sources or links as to where you obtained your ideas from.

...told me 1000 times, eh? Go back through the many pages of posts (on any of the threads for that matter) and find me those links to those sources of yours, son. I'm still waiting. Go ahead and find me something other than a stupid Team America clip, that shows me some actual substance to your ideas. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Also, had you being remotely paying attention you should already know I'm from our nation's capital, Washington D.C...That doesn't mean I have to mindlessly support our current retarded administrations decisions. I'm an open-minded free-thinking truth seeker, first and foremost.

...where in america did you say you were from again? The midwest?

[Edit: To those following these crazy antics, notice how he conveniently just skipped over valid irrefutable sourced information to talk about how his way of thinking is so widespread and important. No sources there to back it up, mind you ]

Oh yea, I remember your story about seeing the cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. Your misunderstanding of Americans led me to believe you were from a different country.

Whatever, at least I'm going to do something about my stance on the subject. All you're going to do is bitch about it. So please, start a march on Washington with picket signs.

My stance on the war doesn't need "links". Its common knowledge for anybody who knows the history of Iraq. Are you are going to argue that Saddam didn't gas Kurds, invade Kuwait, send missiles into Isreal, and hide bunkers from inspectors?

I want a straight answer on this. What did Saddam have to hide?

I never said I saw a cruise missle do shit, so you can get that out of your thick skull right now. Why don't you go back, and actually try and formulate the letters into words and read them one at a time. I know it's hard for you, but you should try it.

I said I never heard or saw a plane fly by, being within earshot distance (5min) of the pentagon on 9-11. And, considering the goverment has yet to release any of the over 80 confiscated security tapes of the day in question, I think it's a reasonable thing to question the story put forth on that day. Don't put words in my mouth to try and escape your own lack of understanding of the situation.

Obviously Saddam wasn't hiding anything which is evident to anyone that actually follows the news...

Wake up... You must be Half/Dreaming in order to still blindly believe those lies spun to you by the Bush administration. What will it take for you to see? His impeachment? A prison sentence? Why are you so blindly up Bush's ass it's scary?