Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Nov 4, 2009.
YouTube - BBC now admits al qaeda never existed
saw this... quite a story... one that, not surprisingly, gets zero air play in/on the U.S. corporate media....
of course, the usual cowardly suspect here one-stars it, then hides behind anonymity and runs along, not brave enough to challenge the story by commenting.
Nothing surprises me.... have heard this before.
Once again proves that the Main Stream Media is nothing but a figment of the imagination of the right... once again asleep at the wheel..
anyone ever read 1984?
fictitious terrorist enemies created in order to fuel constant war.
What is amazing is the outcry about ACORN and anything perceived to be from the left, and there is absolute silence on this whole matter.. it points out the culpibility of our previous administration, and only confirms that most of what we were lead to believe in the war on terror is based on lies, and appeasement to the military industrial complex.
Reminds me of the war on drugs... amazing parallels.
The enemy is a "religion" a very barbaric religion.
What is this "irreprehensible" that you speak of? Does that mean that it's good?
Its a very interesting story, and i can see why the "AL Qaeda" story would continue to be propagated. But i have to take it with a grain of salt because whenever i see something like this i'm concerned that the author has an agenda in this case he as a book to sell. Just look at the main charecters a man with a mohawk that looks like Travis Bickle and a New York lawyer. I want to see at least another independent source back this idea up.
I remember a 60 minutes episode from the mid-90's that was all about Bin Laden being the greatest danger to the U.S, he was hold up in Sudan with a group of fighters, if he had a group of fighters with him why did he need to hire extras for a video like the author said...he wouldn't. Maybe this group got its official name from us but i believe it existed beforehand. After 9/11 and its naming it we may have gotten copy cat groups using the name AQ to increase the terror factor in an attack and to increase recruting.
They Praise Their God Before They Kill.
So do we, HB.
Both religions being used to stir passions in this war are barbaric.
Right, but chances are this soldier will have for his target the scum that is praising God before he intentionally blows himself up in a crowd of innocent civilians including women and children.
There is a difference between killing someone because they are a different religion from you, and killing someone because they want to kill you, and having a Bible verse telling soldiers that God will take care of them. If you truly believe that we are fighting terrorists because they are Muslim, then you are farther gone than I even imagined.
They "Praise God" when they Stone their women but their greatest excitement comes when they are carving off a screaming gurgling human head.
My country "America" is by no means perfect but by God it's my country and I will stand by it as I would my own family especially when Dirty Smelly Savage Scumsucking Pigs attack it and kill innocent men women and children who have no way or chance to fight back or protect themselves also my disgust is directed at the Other Dirty Smelly F-cking Savages around the world that danced in the streets when this slaughter took place, I put a curse on them, we need to see the movies of the poor bastards floating down from the Towers flapping their arms trying to fly then smashing onto the streets below and splattering like god damn watermelons, Pigs came out of their rotten homes all over the Middle East and cheered this carnage as though it was the greatest event in their lifetime, I just put another curse on them.
It's not "collateral damage" when those women and children ARE THE TARGET.
They aren't Collateral Damage, they intended to kill them (american men women children)
No I think strudel's saying since we sometimes inflict some when we target these scum bags that it's all the same. Thus the "So do we" line.
So anyone want to steer this topic back to it's original purpose?
This forum is dying becuase of the constant hijack, although remoately related, the hijack isn't what is being debated.
Is this fictitious? Or not?
The problem with looking at one report from the very, VERY well-respected BBC in a cynical light is that you can just go ahead and apply the same doubt to the many other sources that declare the exact same, and in so doing ignore the corroboration as a whole. You ask for other sources? Very well.
Global Research Center, with a dozen or so sources of their own:
The myth of "al Qaida" is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute "enemy" for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant "freedom fighters," all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the "great leader."
We now know that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings in July 2005. This is the conclusion of the British government's official inquiry report leaked to the British press on April 9. ... We now also know that the U.S. military is deliberately misleading Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world about the extent of Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraqi insurgency. This was reported in The Washington Post on April 10, on the basis of internal military documents seen by that newspaper.
Wherever in the world Al Qaeda crops up, its appearance has often been uncannily convenient for the local authoritiesâ€”dictators, warlords, occupation forces and elected governments alike. And often the precise nature of the Al Qaeda connection turns out, on close examination, to be tenuous or non-existent. But by that time the message has gone out and sunk in: "Al Qaeda was here".
The Christian Science Monitor, even... from before the invasion of Iraq (based on fraud):
The United States and its allies in the war on terrorism must defuse the widespread image of Al Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organized terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as "Al Qaeda." Most of the affiliated groups have distinct goals within their own countries or regions, and pose little direct threat to the United States. Washington must also be careful not to imply that any attack anywhere is by definition, or likely, the work of Al Qaeda.
Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service:
â€śThe U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat,â€ť Shebarshin said.
Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al-Qaeda expert at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the U.S., Shebarshin said: â€śWe have agreed that [al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion. The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich Muslim regions.â€ť
The tendency will be to leave it at the lie: We fought and beat al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it's a lie we'll pay for later. By mischaracterizing the enemy in Iraq, we mischaracterize the enemy in Pakistan.
I could go on and on and on and on and on... but at what point does the average skeptic stop saying "show me more!"... ?
Separate names with a comma.