What is Al-Qaida?
Is it a worldwide group of international terrorists like we are let to believe, or
as the late Robin Cook wrote, a 'computer file' of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, 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. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
Do Al-Qaida as an organised worldwide terrorist group even exist ? Or are there 'many' separate groups with a similar Bin-Laden orchestrate Sept 11th or not, let's have a look at the FBI's webpage;
QUOTE;Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the OF QUOTE
Who can spot the missing event ? So is there any proof of Bin-Laden's involvment or have they not updated their webpage since 2001 ? Seeing as this has now been ingrained into popular culture I would like to see some evidence of his involvement.I do agree that Bin-Laden is a terrorist, that's not in doubt, just the proof of his involvement in 9/11. It would appear that the FBI do not consider the 'fat' Bin-Laden tape, to be proof, as 9/11 is still not listed.
Now let's look at MI6's involvement in the plot to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, a plot that involved the funding of 'an islamic group' by MI6, a story that got David Shayler arrested for breaking the official secrets act !
"We need a statement from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary clarifying the facts of this matter. In particular, we need to know how around £100,000 of taxpayers' money was used to fund the sort of Islamic Extremists who have connections to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Did ministers give MI6 permission for this? By the time MI6 paid the group in late 1995 or early 1996, US investigators had already established that Bin Laden was implicated in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre. Given the timing and the close connections between Libyan and Egyptian Islamic Extremists, it may even have been used to fund the murder of British citizens in Luxor, Egypt in 1996.
Including some very interesting documents.
Panorama
Now let's look at the history of this mystery group Al-Qaida;
Adam Curtis-The Power Of Nightmares
The most telling and up to date, being the third part, where the issue of Al-Qaida as an 'organised worldwide terrorist group' is questioned !
answer:- cia/british intelligence. read zibignew brezinski's book "the grand chessboard" and everything will become clear.
I saw The Power Of Nightmares a few years back. It was a brilliant documentary series on BBC about how the media and governments worldwide manipulate things to 'frighten' the general public.
One thing it said about Al Qaida was that it was invented by the US authorities in order to prosecute certain cases. Under the US constitution, certain crimes can only be investigated and brought to court if there is an "umbrella network" of "organised crime". The US created Al Qaida to include all muslim extremists regardless of how connected they were. The Mafia is exactly the same. They are all different "families". They have no connection to one another apart from them all hailing from Italy.
The idea of Bin Laden being in control of every muslim extremist terrorist cell is ludicrous. Especially when you bear in mind he lives in a cave in a remote part of Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Al-Qaida is a label so that people can identify them but made up of numerous cells with some working with each other and some not, some have the same ideologies and some do not. This is similar throughout history by well known European equivalents
French resistance = Maquis, FAFI
Yugoslav resistance = Cetniks, Yugoslav Partisans
NI cells = IRA, OIRA, INLA, PIRA
Dave_Notts
I make no apology for the comparisson because only history and whether you are on the side of the victor or defeated decides whether they are bullies and cowards or brave freedom fighters.
Guerilla warfare has been fought the same for centuries with the excemption of the types of armaments that are available. They are the same type of men and women who believe they are fighting for a just cause.
So in my view, to call one set cowards and bullies then the same applies to guerillas the individual believes is right.
This reminds me of a Blackadder sketch when General Melchard compares German spies and British spies
German spies = Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
British spies = Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
Dave_Notts
There you go. Since they were not a regular army then the taking of prisoners was not an option, but mutilation is going too far in my eyes. They have just lost the moral high ground by acting in that manner
Dave_Notts
This is where the legitamcy is questioned. The French surrendered so the spoils go to the victors. De Gaulle set up an alternative Government that was supported by the Alies and called it the State of Free France, but in my view the legitimate French Government had already surrendered. So there was two governments with equal legitamacy in the eyes of those who were pursuing the war. Which one takes precedent? The one that is on the winning side at the end.......and that goes back to "the spoils of war go to the victor".
If the allies did not win, then the Vichy Government would have become the legitimate government to this day. The French resistance and Maquis would then be on equal footing to the IRA. Just bcause the allies won does not make what they did acceptable, when we are talking mutilations (against the Geneva Convention), taking no prisoners (against the Geneva Convention) , etc.
I am not saying the Resistance is wrong in what it did, just that it is no better or worse than any other freedom fighter in the rest of the world.
The intersting thing about the Alsatian Waffen SS was that some were Frenchmen killing Frenchmen who were then tried but freed by the French after the war.
Another interesting point is that the Germans retaliated at this site because the Resistance had executed 40 of their soldiers two days previously. Neither is right in my books, so they were both using activities that were not in the spirit of the Geneva Convention.
Now the word terrorist is an interesting question. Since France surrendered, are they then terrorists as stated by the Germans? This has been argued by different authors for years...........and I am none the wiser to the true definition. It once again depends which side the person is on. Some argue if the freedom fighter only attacks soldiers or military targets then they are not terrorists. This arguement has even been used in 9/11 where the Twin Towers was counted as terrorism but the attack on the Pentagon was not.
Now the section on mutillating live soldiers and civilians I can't find again, but it was during the same search where I found the one I posted. It gave the history of the Maquis post war and its crimes that it committed........but can't find it now :doh: It was a big eye opener though. I'll try and find it again. It wasn't in a Wiki but more on a history journal that was linked to the internet.
Dave_Notts
You are right about some of the Alsacians being French; Alsace was of course French territory until the capitulation then was annexed by the German Reich. It has since returned to being French but it has a long history of swaying one way and then the other.
The French Alsacians (who could be identified and were still alive by that time) were tried and there are complex reasonings as to why they escaped "justice", just as the commander of the Waffen-SS unit which carried out the atrocity did. I believe it still leaves a bitter taste to this day (although they, as indeed I, quite enjoy the wine from that region!)
It is also curious that the rebuilding of Oradour-sur-Glane across the road from the site of the atrocity was not given the prominence that people expected. There was something fishy about the whole affair.
I doubt that the Vichy Government would have survived much after the war if the Germans had won. Charles de Gaulle, for all his faults, managed to stave off a number of military coups but France remained incredibly unstable politically. He came back to prominence in 1959 over the Algerian affair subsequent to which he became the first President of the 5th Republique which he drafted. It is doubted that Marshal Pétain could have commanded such respect from military commanders who had already sentenced him to death for treason. The Germans would have found ruling France impossible which is why they installed Pétain in the first place.
The rest, they say, is history.
i thought this thread was about the question "what is cia qaeder"? ft london july 2010
top aid to osama bin liner, al alawaki dines with pentagon to brass months after 9/11,
in the public domain folks.
now al cia qaeder is in yemen posting printer bombs to chicago via east midlands on non existant ups flights out of yemen ? funny how they moved from afghanistan to iraq and now the gateway to the straights of hormuz further surrouding iran. funny how they are fermenting civil war in yemen and being drone attacked along with pakistan ? oh, and now alawaki is head honcho of ciaqaeder masterminding all manner of terror.
funny how the "grand chessboard" published in 1997 lays out the very geostrategic plan to secure the oil, gas and minerals of eurasia to maintain america's primacy in the world by creating a perceived threat of terror with a catastrophic event on the scale of pearl harbour in order to get the diverse, multicultural americans to go along with the necessary wars and occupations of the very same, exact countries they are in ?
funny that innit ?
al qaeder was formed under the carter administration by the c.i.a., armed, trained and funded by the c.i.a. and led in the field by osama bin laden of the wealthy saudi bin laden family closely associated with the bush family and shareholders of the carlyle group. the "data base", loosely translated from arabic "al qaeder" was the c.i.a. enrolement of the mujahadeen fighters recruited by the c.i.a. and led by osama bin laden firstly to overthrow the pro soviet government in kabul and later the soviet occupying forces in afghanistan.
this proxy american war was the policy of zbignew brezinski, foreign policy adviser to the white house and part of the continueing geo-strategic strategy of the u.s. to maintain its economic and military primacy in the world.
eurasia (turkmenistan, uzbekistan, georgia, caspian sea area, afghanistan, iraq, pakistan and iran) have under their soil, the largest deposits of oil, gas and minerals on the planet.
as brezinski points out in his book "the grand chessboard", it is essential, in order for america to maintain its primacy into the next century, it must secure these reserves and prevent russia, india and china from aquiring them. in order to acheive this aim, the american people must percieve a threat in order to go along with the necessary wars and occupations that will be required to carry out this policy. in order to create this perceived level of fear, a catastrophic event on the scale of pear harbour will be required.
al qaeder is run by the c.i.a. and osama bin laden (if he is still alive aged or not) and al alawaky the c.i.a. lacky serve the interests of american imperialist interests and have not changed sides. i am amazed at the propaganda power of the media but even more so peoples inability to join up the dots.
Al-Qaida was sung by Quincy Jones in 1982
People in forums are always saying that they don't care too much for labels, Gay, Bisexual, straight, BBW amongst the most disliked.
Does it actually matter what group a terroist is acredited too, or what group they claim to support ?
Terrorists use terrorism to get thier point accross or to achieve thier goals.
I have fought terrorists despite supporting thier objectives, I supported the objectives of the IRA, seeking a united Ireland, a better standard of living for the Catholic Community of Northern Ireland and equality from the Protestant rulers of the Province, I supported them but I spent years of my life fighting them.
I would go and fight the Muslim terrorists in any theatre I was asked to serve in yet I have many Muslim friends, agreeing with what the Muslims are fighting for does not come into the equation of my mind, Terrorism in any form is wrong.
I don't care if they are UVF, Black Panthers, Bader Meindhof, Al Quaeda or any other label, if they terrorise people they are wrong.
I would like to fight some of the other terrorist organisations such as the Governments of many African Nations who terrorise thier people and other Governments around the world who do the same to thier subjects.
Yes the Mujahadeen fighters were supported by Britain and America during the occupation of Afghanistan by Russia, no doubt some of these fighters now fight in the name of Al Quaeda, but many do not, most actually support the removal of the Taliban because when the Russian were defeated and left Afghanistan the Taliban seized power and many Mujahadeen saw that as out of the frying pan into the fire.
Don't worry about labels worry about what the world would be like if the "Al Quaeda" terrorists achieved all thier aims.
.
