Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Backatcha Bandit said:Also worth noting is that the exact article that prompted FridgeMagnets comments is currently sitting as the lead story (sorry - story) on the BBC UK Frontpage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/default.stm
Whereas the link you just posted is the bottom article listed as a 'comment'. So no, that's not really what I'd consider the prevailing message regarding 'ricin'.
Also worth noting that the 'Al-Queada London Ricin Terrorist Plot' was the lead story being beamed across the planet by BBC World Service all night, reiterating the Ricin / Iraq / Terror cells bullshit.
The wording of that particular report was even more outrageous than anything else they've come out with... a masterpiece of propaganda.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
It sells papers, or boosts readership in this case, propoganda or just dumbing down?Backatcha Bandit said:
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Here's an interesting commentary:
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2005/04/more_bbc_ricin.html
Thanks to FridgeMagnet for that info. I thought I had been seeing things before.
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2005/04/more_bbc_ricin.html
Thanks to FridgeMagnet for that info. I thought I had been seeing things before.
Dissident Junk
picking oakum
My tuppence worth . . .
I think al-quaida did exist. I think it was the name of an administrative compound in Afghanistan that trained and tracked fighters during the civil war.
I don't think OBL has got anything to do with 911; apparently, he is just not that bright and would rather spend time trying to outdo America over the size of their sunflowers. I also recognise that 911 could be done very cheaply and simply.
I think al-quaida is a notion, a bogeyman, a useful term that sums up an amorphous threat, and completely disregards modern political realities. It is an evolution of the fear of the foreign jihadi turning up within a civil conflict (as seen in Bosnia where the presence of dead Africans and Arabs fuelled the fear of an Islamist plot). However, now they are all orchestrated by a renegade Lex Luther figure, which helpfully removes any taint from various Arab nations that have a habit of utilising conflicts in other countries to deter attention from their own crook behaviour and failing economic and political systems.
Everyone is a winner with al-Quaida. It is a wonderful catch-all excuse. You got militants in Pakistan that try to blow up government compounds? It's al-Quaida. You got militants bombing housing complexes in Riyadh? It's al-Quaida.
I am waiting for the day when a suicide bomber blows up a mall and Hamas turns around and sighs: "We've been infiltrated by al-Quaida."
I think al-quaida did exist. I think it was the name of an administrative compound in Afghanistan that trained and tracked fighters during the civil war.
I don't think OBL has got anything to do with 911; apparently, he is just not that bright and would rather spend time trying to outdo America over the size of their sunflowers. I also recognise that 911 could be done very cheaply and simply.
I think al-quaida is a notion, a bogeyman, a useful term that sums up an amorphous threat, and completely disregards modern political realities. It is an evolution of the fear of the foreign jihadi turning up within a civil conflict (as seen in Bosnia where the presence of dead Africans and Arabs fuelled the fear of an Islamist plot). However, now they are all orchestrated by a renegade Lex Luther figure, which helpfully removes any taint from various Arab nations that have a habit of utilising conflicts in other countries to deter attention from their own crook behaviour and failing economic and political systems.
Everyone is a winner with al-Quaida. It is a wonderful catch-all excuse. You got militants in Pakistan that try to blow up government compounds? It's al-Quaida. You got militants bombing housing complexes in Riyadh? It's al-Quaida.
I am waiting for the day when a suicide bomber blows up a mall and Hamas turns around and sighs: "We've been infiltrated by al-Quaida."
Well Dissident, the reason for asking this question of who or what al Qaeda is to explode the myths that are perpetuated by the government. As you point out it serves a useful purpose as it can be blamed for every terrorist atrocity wherever it happens. I want to outline what Alberto Piris wrote about this. He mentions Jason Burke's analysis in Foreign Policy magazine who proposes that the structure of AQ, which was built in Afghanistan was destroyed during the Afghanistan invasion and that OBL and his faithfuls are dead or incapable of coordinating the remote actions of AQs followers. However, the ideology of the organization has been adopted by diverse terrorist groups who embrace "a radical ideology, internationalist, supported in anti-Western, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric" and they have next to nothing to do with OBL or his aides.
However, there are several terrorist groups that fulfill the orginal aims of OBL and follow his methods. The anti-terror strategy adopted without much reflection by the US and countries like Britain use the idea of AQ to persecute clandestine networks around the world, to look for and to annihilate its central nucleus with the aim that once beheaded, all terrorist networks will sink. Just like they believed that once SH was captured all Iraqi resistance would vanish. Iraqis did not receive the US as liberators with flowers and rice as believed and a once non-existent Iraqi terrorism grew which has engaged the US in a fight the US was not prepared for.
To quell the fears and insecurity of voters post 9/11 the administration is suggesting the use of new technology that would be able to monitor suspicious behaviour of individuals who might be carrying bombs in public places for instance. Essentially, everybody will be monitored by the state through the use of these new kinds of technology. And this is to reassure the citizenry that the government takes their security seriously. (Of course, one would not start a war in a very sensitive region, kill 100,000 people and occupy their lands without expecting some kind of blow-back and if the idea were to prevent future terror attacks like 9/11 then this would have to be the most hare-brained scheme ever).
As a result Western democracies are particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack now but when governments become secretive and begin to treat their electorates as infantile beings acting as the protective father or when the state treats all its citizenry as potential terror suspects who must be monitored and controlled then terrorism has won and democracy suffers as civil liberties are curtailed. In this way, without undergoing any terrorist attack democracy begins to suffer its more pernicious effects.
The problem that confronts democracies cannot be solved that way and without ever surrendering to terrorism, govts must build an effective counter-terrorist policy while society needs to adapt to this modern reality i.e the threat of terrorism is very real. He goes on to say that in todays world terrorist actions must be considered as serious threats to human activity like air disasters, for instance, and that terrorism, like delinquency, will never disappear totally, although both have to be unceasingly persecuted. Yet there will always be circumstances that induce the growth of terrorist groups and governments will have to adapt themselves to the dangers. Any democracy can survive terrorism, if it has the mechanisms necessary to confront it and is able to anticipate some of its actions. But society cannot survive a fear epidemic, in which disturbed and surprised citizens submissively allow their most elementary democratic rights to be snatched from them.
However, there are several terrorist groups that fulfill the orginal aims of OBL and follow his methods. The anti-terror strategy adopted without much reflection by the US and countries like Britain use the idea of AQ to persecute clandestine networks around the world, to look for and to annihilate its central nucleus with the aim that once beheaded, all terrorist networks will sink. Just like they believed that once SH was captured all Iraqi resistance would vanish. Iraqis did not receive the US as liberators with flowers and rice as believed and a once non-existent Iraqi terrorism grew which has engaged the US in a fight the US was not prepared for.
To quell the fears and insecurity of voters post 9/11 the administration is suggesting the use of new technology that would be able to monitor suspicious behaviour of individuals who might be carrying bombs in public places for instance. Essentially, everybody will be monitored by the state through the use of these new kinds of technology. And this is to reassure the citizenry that the government takes their security seriously. (Of course, one would not start a war in a very sensitive region, kill 100,000 people and occupy their lands without expecting some kind of blow-back and if the idea were to prevent future terror attacks like 9/11 then this would have to be the most hare-brained scheme ever).
As a result Western democracies are particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack now but when governments become secretive and begin to treat their electorates as infantile beings acting as the protective father or when the state treats all its citizenry as potential terror suspects who must be monitored and controlled then terrorism has won and democracy suffers as civil liberties are curtailed. In this way, without undergoing any terrorist attack democracy begins to suffer its more pernicious effects.
The problem that confronts democracies cannot be solved that way and without ever surrendering to terrorism, govts must build an effective counter-terrorist policy while society needs to adapt to this modern reality i.e the threat of terrorism is very real. He goes on to say that in todays world terrorist actions must be considered as serious threats to human activity like air disasters, for instance, and that terrorism, like delinquency, will never disappear totally, although both have to be unceasingly persecuted. Yet there will always be circumstances that induce the growth of terrorist groups and governments will have to adapt themselves to the dangers. Any democracy can survive terrorism, if it has the mechanisms necessary to confront it and is able to anticipate some of its actions. But society cannot survive a fear epidemic, in which disturbed and surprised citizens submissively allow their most elementary democratic rights to be snatched from them.
editor
hiraethified
I'll "dominate" any thread I choose to, thanks - just like you're equally free to "dominate" any thread of your choice.DrJazzz said:are you seriously saying that you cannot - out of goodwill - allow a single to thread to pass without you dominating it?
I think this says an awful lot about you
And your snidey comment says an awful lot about you
editor
hiraethified
Scared?! WTF?DrJazzz said:
It's up to me what threads I choose to contribute to, just like other posters are free to contribute wherever they see fit.
If you want to set up some cosy ring fenced area where your bonkers views go unchallenged, you're on the wrong boards, chum.
I was asking as a personal favour, silly. I wasn't suggesting you rewrite the FAQ!
I also wanted to make the point (re: Pickman's suggestion) that you are extremely keen to post on 9-11 threads, and cannot bring yourself to leave one alone; something that would be truly appreciated by this poster.
I also wanted to make the point (re: Pickman's suggestion) that you are extremely keen to post on 9-11 threads, and cannot bring yourself to leave one alone; something that would be truly appreciated by this poster.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you've previously made it plain that some people are less welcome to contribute on some topics than others - i'd give you a link, but if memory serves you deleted the posts which would substantiate my point.editor said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
ok. there was a thread about cardiff and relegation. i joined in humorously saying that at least their hooligans were near the top of the table, to which you responded in an appropriate spirit. some weeks later in the thread you said that i knew nothing about cardiff and should stop contributing to the thread. i said in response that you'd never let your ignorance about the swp stop you posting on threads about them - which is undeniably true. to which you made some sort of arsy comment about banning discussion of the swp from the sports forum, though i had never sought to initiate any. your posting tone suggested to me that you and the plot were parting company, and on-topic contributions i made on that thread met with sneers and aggression.editor said:And why might that be?
Go on - have a guess...
Your context free statement is both misleading and irrelevant.
it seems to be a general thing of your's that on some subjects there is only one opinion that counts - your's.
editor
hiraethified
As far as I could see, you were only in that thread to disrupt, having never expressed the remotest interest in the fortunes of Cardiff City bforePickman's model said:
But did I stop you posting in that thread?
Nope.
Mind you, let's look at the sum total of your important contributions to another CCFC thread amd see the added real value you added to the thread with :
Pickman's model said:
Pickman's model said:
DrJazzz said:When the pub loudmouth is also the landlord, no table is safe
That's totally out of order, Dr.J. You're making yourself even more ridiculous than ever.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
two posts massively disruptive?editor said:
on this thread alone you have the best part of 200.
and one of them echoes red faction's comment that it could be worse, could be swansea.
since you've deleted the relevant posts to which i refer above, it's difficult to show just how the thread i was talking about developed.
anyway, returning to topic, back to lizards and aliens and whatnot...
editor
hiraethified
I see quite a lot of difference actually. I'm not telling you to "fuck off" - I'm simply suggesting some alternatives if you find it so tewwibly unbearable here.DrJazzz said:
Remind me how many posts have you've made on these boards so far?
Over 4,200 is it?
Perhaps it's not quite so oppressive as you like to make out.
It is extraordinary that you cannot bring yourself avoid posting on one single thread. The line 'if you don't like the way things are around here you can fuck off elsewhere' is one you have told me countless times; almeria was hardly 'lying'. I do like it here - that doesn't mean I don't have big issues with the way you handle the topic of 9-11, or that everything you do is correct. It isn't - not by a long way. If a nightclub bouncer, or policeman, was to handle conflict in the way you do, they would be sacked straight away. Indeed, if you were to post on another board with your aggressive, rude style, you would find things very difficult.
The person who can't take a bit of criticism here, and is 'tewwibly sensitive' is you - as proved with almeria
The person who can't take a bit of criticism here, and is 'tewwibly sensitive' is you - as proved with almeria
editor
hiraethified
FFS: almeria was banned because he posted up a dishonest and unprovoked personal attack, refused point blank to respect my privacy - despite several requests - and then capped off his disgraceful FAQ-busting performance with a remark about my mother.DrJazzz said:
His ban was richly deserved and I don't want the likes of him polluting these boards, thanks very much.
Not quit whining about it. It's not my fault that your chum was too arrogant to respect the rules around here, you know.
I didn't condone his mentioning your name, nor his latter remark, but they were entirely provoked by your stream of insults. His initial post was one I applauded; although critical it was not the 'dishonest personal attack' you make out.editor said:
He wasn't my 'chum' - where did you get that from? I have no idea who he is and had never even exchanged a pm with him.
I'm not 'whining' about it - I'm just pointing out that YOU are the one who cannot take criticism. Unusual for someone who dishes so much of it out.
editor
hiraethified
Hold on: the first post in his thread whining about "censorship" contained a wholly unprovoked personal attack on me, based on his foolish misconception that I'd deleted some crappy 9/11 thread of his.DrJazzz said:
His attention-seeking defamatory rant accused me of being a "megalomaniac editor" who "instantly bins anything he doesn’t like the cut of the jib of", citing his self-proclaimed "interesting thread on 9/11 conspiracies" as an example, adding that I suposedly "rant drunkenly at posters at the drop of a hat."
Despite this unprovoked attack, he was still allowed to carry on posting, only getting banned when he point blank refused to respect my privacy.
Have you ever had a thread binned? It is rather trying, old fruit.
Only innacurate thing in the above list is that you do tend to wait a little before binning a thread. And you can rant irrespective of alcohol consumption, I fancy. He made a great post!
The astonishing thing is that you think the solution to disgruntled banned posters signing you up for spam is to hide your easily-available name, rather than ceasing your offensive and aggresive insulting behaviour!
Only innacurate thing in the above list is that you do tend to wait a little before binning a thread. And you can rant irrespective of alcohol consumption, I fancy. He made a great post!
The astonishing thing is that you think the solution to disgruntled banned posters signing you up for spam is to hide your easily-available name, rather than ceasing your offensive and aggresive insulting behaviour!
editor
hiraethified
Err, clearly the vast majority of posters have absolutely no problem with my behaviour on these boards - that's why the daily post rate is going up, up and up!.DrJazzz said:
And your suggestion that I should change my personality for fear of upsetting anonymous cowardly tossers who sign me up for spam deserves all the contempt I can muster.
Still, I guess it's still hard for you to come to terms with a fellow fruitloop being banned because he fucked up, bigtime. I know it's a lonely job, and despite al your endlessly repeated threads here, no one seems particularly impressed, do they?
As for almeria, you may think that people should be allowed to break the FAQ at will because they babble the same conspiraloon language as you, but I'm having none of it.
almeria was rightly banned for unacceptable conduct.
And I say: good riddance to the tosser!
Similar threads
- Locked