Al Qaeda a myth says Russian

[Raisin D'etre]

Fubert that was all detailed in the Project for A New American Century and to reiterate, they needed a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbour to bring it about.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to plonk a shed load of WMDs in Iraq (easily done), let the inspectors find them and bingo! Instant justification for a war without the need to blow up New York and slaughter thousands of their civilians (and risk political suicide - and near civil war - if the Biggest Secret In Modern History ever got out)?

It would not have provided the rationale for clamping down on civil liberties at home, nor would it have given them the rationale for the war against terror or justified increasing the military budget by about $100bn.

 

[neilh]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to plonk a shed load of WMDs in Iraq (easily done), let the inspectors find them and bingo! Instant justification for a war without the need to blow up New York and slaughter thousands of their civilians (and risk political suicide - and near civil war - if the Biggest Secret In Modern History ever got out)?

though i'm not convinced by the theories that the american government or parts of it in some way caused 9/11 or allowed it to go ahead, i think the advantages they have gained from this event are much more than just justifying a war on a foreign country

 

[fela fan]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to plonk a shed load of WMDs in Iraq (easily done), let the inspectors find them and bingo! Instant justification for a war without the need to blow up New York and slaughter thousands of their civilians (and risk political suicide - and near civil war - if the Biggest Secret In Modern History ever got out)?

Hey what a good conspiracy...

 

[fela fan]

though i'm not convinced by the theories that the american government or parts of it in some way caused 9/11 or allowed it to go ahead, i think the advantages they have gained from this event are much more than just justifying a war on a foreign country

Thing is tho neil, are Al Q a theory as told to us by the US, or are they something else, something more real, as not told to us by the US?

 

[fela fan]

No, that wasnt what I said and certainly not what I believe!

Ed was reading between the lines raisin.

Well, in this case between the words since it was only one line...

 

[slaar]

I think one of the major things that conspiracy theorists don't seem to realise is that intelligence agencies are composed of humans, not omnipotent beings. They're often flawed, show poor judgement, get things wrong, screw things up, don't pay attention to things they should, just like any other human being or organisation.

Yes, their activities are hidden; I think we'd judge a lot of their activities as being far more incompetent if we knew what they were doing with our money, just as mistakes in the medical profession are now coming to light after decades of deference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4396457.stm

A famous case of the wrong concept was in 1973 when the Israelis were convinced that the Egyptians could not and therefore would not attack across the Suez Canal. The attack took place.

No amount of built-in dissent can protect an organisation from the wrong attitude.

In 1944, a young intelligence office named Brian Urquart warned his superiors that the Germans had a Panzer division near the Arnhem Bridge which was the last and most important objective of Operation Market Garden, the attempt to leap frog into Holland to break though into Germany.

Urquart was ignored. The Panzers were there and the bridge was not taken.

That's just two examples (plenty of links off that story about recent flak for US and UK intelligence services; is that all staged too? I think not). There must be thousands. To imbue intelligence agencies with some kind of mythical power, able to organise the most complex and spectacular operations for some kind of greater good, I think represents a mystifying attitude towards the power of government when it has proved time and time again that it can be incompetent as the rest of us can be.

Of course there are interests, of course there are agendas, but they work in ways a lot more obvious and simple than most conspiracy theories would have us think.

 

[fubert]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to plonk a shed load of WMDs in Iraq (easily done), let the inspectors find them and bingo! Instant justification for a war without the need to blow up New York and slaughter thousands of their civilians (and risk political suicide - and near civil war - if the Biggest Secret In Modern History ever got out)?

sure. that would have allowed the invasion of iraq.

it would not have however allowed the replacement of the government, allowing the caspian pipeline to be built, nor would it have given them the justification to introduce the new laws as they have done.

 

[editor]

it would not have however allowed the replacement of the government.

Whyever not?!

 

[Pickman's model]

What??? No i don't, but i cannot work out what you mean by that question.

Surely you're not going to tell me that if the tv news tells us US intelligence is a shambles, then it is a shambles??

I'm confused man.

there has been a report published which was covered on the news yesterday or the day before about what a fucking pile of wank yankee intelligence is.

are you arguing that of course the yankees want us to think they're up shit creek with their spies? cos that would be particularly barking.

 

[fubert]

Whyever not?!

the afghan government.

 

[Lock&Light]

are you arguing that of course the yankees want us to think they're up shit creek with their spies? cos that would be particularly barking.

That's normal fare for fela fan.

 

[slaar]

the afghan government.

?

WMDs had nothing to do with Afghanistan

 

[neilh]

?

WMDs had nothing to do with Afghanistan

exactly, so the finding of them in iraq wouldn't allow the invasion of afghanistan, whereas 9/11 did; and i don't think there was any way of them seriously trying to make a case that afghanistan had wmd's.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to plonk a shed load of WMDs in Iraq (easily done), let the inspectors find them and bingo! Instant justification for a war without the need to blow up New York and slaughter thousands of their civilians (and risk political suicide - and near civil war - if the Biggest Secret In Modern History ever got out)?

You are assuming that they didn't try?

 

[fubert]

?

WMDs had nothing to do with Afghanistan

what's your point ? i never said they did.

 

[slaar]

OK I know why I was confused now. It's because the conspiracy theories are about as twisted as logic can get. The US has been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq for 15 years, that's hardly a shot of blinding insight. There are plenty of ways the US could have justified invading Afghanistan and Iraq without blowing up the twin symbols of their contemporary power. The whole idea is absurd.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The whole idea is absurd.

Why 'absurd', exactly, slaar?

 

[slaar]

Why 'absurd', exactly, slaar?

There are plenty of ways the US could have justified invading Afghanistan and Iraq without blowing up the twin symbols of their contemporary power.

...not to mentione killing thousands of their own citizens, risking the biggest outcry the world has ever known given just one whistleblower etc etc.

 

[almeria]

i disagree almeria.

al-qaeda were identified as carrying out us embassy bombings in 1998 in africa. the clinton administration responded with missile strikes into afghanistan iirc

Yes but identified by whom? By the US intelligence agencies who needed a name to blame the people they wanted to blame. As far as I know, no terrorist organisation has picked up the phone and said, "we are AQ, and we just bombed your ship/tower/defense installation." Traditional terror organisations like the IRA generally do admit to their hits, otherwise there would be no point.

 

[almeria]

OK I know why I was confused now. It's because the conspiracy theories are about as twisted as logic can get. The US has been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq for 15 years, that's hardly a shot of blinding insight. There are plenty of ways the US could have justified invading Afghanistan and Iraq without blowing up the twin symbols of their contemporary power. The whole idea is absurd.

Noone is suggesting that the US government was behind the attacks, only that is was remarkably convenient for their aims, as you have noted.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

(@ slaar)

Would it have provided the rationale for all of the domestic security legislation and erosion of civil liberties (here as well as in the US)?

e.g...?

 

[Lock&Light]

Traditional terror organisations like the IRA generally do admit to their hits, otherwise there would be no point.

Traditional 'terror organisations', like the IRA, have generally had a coherent political purpose. AQ does not, but simply wants to destroy anything that smells of Western values. They don't make demands, and so don't have to admit their hits.

 

[almeria]

given the total fucking shambles the various us intelligence services have been in for fuck knows how long, what makes you think you can trust what they say about anything, such as their identification of aq as the bombers of the african embassies?

given that aq have made a habit of not claiming their attacks....

Hang on, if they don't claim their attacks, then who is to say that they (if they exist) are responsible?

 

[almeria]

Traditional 'terror organisations', like the IRA, have generally had a coherent political purpose. AQ does not, but simply wants to destroy anything that smells of Western values. They don't make demands, and so don't have to admit their hits.

Ahh of course... they hate our freedoms that badly. Silly me.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They do make demands. Well, people that are called "al Qaeda" by the govt/media and say anything at all do, anyway.

 

[almeria]

They do make demands. Well, people that are called "al Qaeda" by the govt/media and say anything at all do, anyway.

What demands? All I'm aware of is a dodgy Osama tape in which he alludes to a government within the US government that he (if he exists) then urges to butt out of Saudi Arabia. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[slaar]

Noone is suggesting that the US government was behind the attacks

That isn't how I've interpreted some of the wilder claims made around here. It's convenient to dress up a motley crew of disenchanted and disenfranchised Islamin fundamentalists as some sort of super-threat, but that doesn't mean the threats themselves don't exist at some level.

Bakatcha - No, but I don't see how taking advantage of events can be compared to deliberately engineering them; it's a huge leap of blind faith to make that step, which is one reason why I don't (the other being that there's no convincing evidence at all).

 

[Lock&Light]

Ahh of course... they hate our freedoms that badly. Silly me.

AQ is not in business in order to add to humanity's freedoms.

 

[slaar]

Al Qaeda

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-1279353-8651064?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Anyone interested in what the term represents should start with this, highly recommended:

Award-winning reporter Jason Burke shows how the threat from Islamic terrorism comes not from a single criminal mastermind, or even from one group. In this revealing account, he characterizes it is a broad movement with profound roots in the politics, societies and history of the Islamic world. Using hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents, Burke shows how "Al-Qaeda" is a convenient label applied misleadingly to a diverse, disorganized global movement dedicated to fighting a "cosmic battle" with the West. This is the definitive account of the mysterious organization, retelling its story from scratch and challenging many myths that threaten the very foundations of the "War on Terror."

This makes a lot more sense to me than anything else I've read.