Al Qaida of Iraq Sought Terrorist Attack On US Mainland

Post Reply New Topic

ATTACKS were possibly requested by Bin Laden's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From ABC News:

(source link)

neat

I thought it was widely accepted that Osama Bin Laden was a valuable CIA asset last seen recieving kidney dialysis in a pakistani border hospital... I see no reason why his 'no. 2' would be any different?

My point being, if he is planning an 'attack' the feds would almost definately know about it looong before he does.

It is only "widely accepted" that Osama Bin Laden was a valuable CIA asset among conspiracy theorists without any evidence and people who are generally ill-informed. Osama Bin Laden did go to fight to Soviets in the latter stages of the war against them in Afghanistan but there is no proof he received assistance from the CIA. He himself denies it, although I admit he has lied often in the past.

The last tape released of Bin Laden was shortly before the 2004 United States presidential election. He, unlike previous tapes (although he had directly implicated by a tape found in Afghanistan earlier), admitted that he ordered the attacks on the United States.

For a somewhat lengthy scholarly article on what influenced the rise of Bin Laden, and al-Qaida read this article from Middle East Quarterly (link).

seems the french secret services would disagree with you on that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html

That 2004 tape doesnt look anything like OBL! (ill admit the complexion and beard were a good match)

'shortly before the 2004.. election' Hmmnn....

This is an old report that has long been discredited.



OK, so you think Bin Laden is a CIA agent or what?

Do you think the US behind is 9/11?

What actual evidence do you have rather then conspiracies theories followed by conjecture? Isn't evidence important?

Do you believe that the Islamists exist exists or is that all a myth? Do they pose a danger? If they don't then what it with all the ranting by people of the board about the horrible Christians (who aren't generally violent)? Why does everything have to be some vast evil American conspiracy? Isn't it possible that the leaders who are actually openly speak in evil terms ("Israel needs to be wiped out" and such horror) are evil themselves and the societies that appear to be open actually are open?

This nonsense is really pathetic and shows that people with AS are in all honesty no more rational then NTs.

2 + 2 = 5

This is an old story. It does not originally orginate from French intelligence, and if the anit-American French papers thought they could run with it they would have (From the Washington Times):



(source link)

Most likely.



I dont think theres much pointing all the blame on individual nations (much less individual administrations). Multinational corporations, media moguls etc are equally, if not more powerful than governments.



Whats important is keeping an open mind to all possibilities. Evidence is a valuable resource, but you have to weigh everything up and decide for yourself. This is politics, not science. It seems a lot of 'conspiracy theory' skeptics expect everything to be spelled out for them, with a big X marks the spot or something.



It doesnt, but a look at USAs history is enough to show they have more than enough form.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/ ... BlumZ.html

Im not going to sleepwalk into a police state just because i couldnt 'proof' something 100% one way or the other. For example, im not sure one can 100% proove the CIA flooded south central LA with cocaine in the 80s but, all things considered it would seem more likely than not, and ill share that information with anyone who'll care to listen.

Also, im not going to get panicked about Islamists just because the corporate controlled media wants me to. Last year there was a supposed 'terror plot' uncovered to blow up several planes on the same day using liquid exposives. It was quite a big deal at the time, however the fact that the proposed chemical reaction was simply impossible and that most of the alleged conspirators didnt even possess valid passports seemed to go unmentioned. In the same year, the police uncovered the largest illegal bomb factory in British history, also found some heavy munitions including a rocket launcher IIRC. Quite a story youd think, yet the press largely ignored it. (the conspirators in this case happenned to be white nationalists)




I assume your paraphrasing Ahmadinejad's speech. You might want to read this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 42,00.html

Reuters (who is not pro-American, when the September 11 attacks occurred they removed the American flags from their New York Headquarters) covered the speech and this they comfirmed what he said:

From the link you provided...



The Communists were not closer to the United States during the World War. In fact, the forces of Mao-Tse Tung, regardless of his own propoganda did remarkably little to actually fight the Japanese during the war and spent much of his efforts to fight the Nationalists forces. It was the Soviet Union, worried about a possible Japanese invasion, that through rather elaborate plot, required a previous unwilling Mao to kidnap Chiang (who was no saint himself) and officially confront the Japanese. And so what about the fact that we took sides? We also funded the pilots and planes of the "Flying Tigers" that helped the Nationalists fight off the Japanese during WWII? Was there something wrong with that?



This is true (although we didn't use "every trick in the book"). Can you imagine what a communist Italy (with Stalin still in power), would have looked like? It would have immediately dissolved the democratic institutions and joined the Eastern bloc. The United States was even prepared to admit pro-US Sicily as a US territory in the event of this eventuality.



First off, it is interesting to claim that everyone who opposed the "Greek left" (ie: Stalinists) were neo-fascists (note: this is identical to what Stalin said). Also, there were pro-democratic Greeks who fought the Nazis as well. I have to admit I don't know much about Greek history but I do know that eventually Greece became a democracy. The stalinists never would have had this.

It was ironic that you had posted that brief "2+2=5" that is representative of Orwell considering not only his contempt of Communists but their naive leftist sympathizers.



The Huks were a violent band of guerilla fighters that were willing to take civilians as hostages. They were not the only people who fought the Japanese in the Phillipines, most of who fought them were US-allied. The US did not install puppets as Presidents. Eventually the US pressured and helped bring about the removal of Marcos from power.



Is this a reference to Kim Sung Il North Korean communists attempts to infiltrate the South and spark violence? This same regime launched an invasion that killed millions of people. He and his son has created the most oppressive country on the planet. More then a million people have died in famines under Kim Jung Il's leaderships (but at least they don't have media moguls). The North did have a period of dictatorial rule but it became a democracy unlike the North.

I am getting kinda tired so I will just do a couple more...



Dirty tricks against totalitarian East Germany? NO!! ! Like to inform people of the fact that life on the other side of the wall wasn't a hellhole. The wall was put up because people were fleeing to the West and it was embarrassing.



It is true that the US and Brits had a hand in overthrowing Mossadegh, however it must be kept it mind that in addition to what is mentioned here is that he had opened a contact with the Soviet Union and signaled closer contacts with them. Understand this is in the middle at the absolute heights of Cold War (with Stalin still in control until '53 I think and he had actually delusionally thought about starting a war with NATO towards the end).

...

Why are people who are communists tyrants and ordered people killed or tortured called "progressive" yet "right-wing" dictators who do the same vilified as evil? I mean, I agree with you that torture and murder are evil? Will you agree with me that it is equally evil in both cases?

Last edited by jimservo on 26 Jan 2007, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So there wouldn't be, maybe one guy, who would speak out. This conspiracy would have to be freakin' massive.

I mean, your question whether the videos themselves might be fake at the same time. Why? What's the point. After all, Bin Laden's a CIA agent all this time, why do they need a fake Bin Laden on the video tapes. Oh, BTW, one of the other guys who was on the video with Bin Laden as he watched the attack himself turned himself in as part of an amnesty deal by the Saudis. He was clearly on the tape. Is he a CIA agent also? Or was that tape of a guy who just looked almost exactly like Bin Laden, and was this guy on that tape?

You say this is about politics not science. But shouldn't you point to something specific and be able to say (with the backing of genuine experts), "Here is real proof!"

Nope, this is a popular misconception about conspiracies. There could be 100 people screaming their heads off, and we may never hear them. Thats why i mentioned the 2 'terror plots' and their differing coverage in the UK media.




Hypothetical reasons could be that OBL had already died, gone AWOL or was too ill at the time.

A translation i remember was something to the effect of ' ...regime wiped from the pages of history'. The overall context is whats important.



Maybe thats what the people wanted? Can you imagine what a neo-con USA would look like? It would soon dissolve the authority of NATO and lead to duplicitous wars for corporate profit. Oh wait a minute...



Do you think the ends justify the means then? secret police, systematic torture.



that was Peebo




'violent guerilla fighters' - surely all soldiers are violent?

The US is said to have helped install Magsaysay, Marcos's predecessor (the name Col Edward Lansdale appears a lot). US-phillipine relations seem to have been amicable at least until 1981 (G.Bush Snr praised Marcos at that time for his adherance to democratic principles'), prior to his dissapearnce in 86.



N. Korea isnt mentioned at all in Blums (admittedly very brief) comment. South Korea did become a 'democracy' ...eventually, but hindsight is always 20-20 as they say...

(i habitually put 'democracy' in brackets btw )



Unfortunately I dont know what 'dirty tricks' Blum refers to, but 'terrorism' in the classic sense is quite a different matter to propaganda as you suggest. Perhaps both methods were used?



/off topic
change the word 'Mossadegh' to 'Ahmadinejad' & switch 'cold war' to 'war on terror'. History might just repeat itself in the next 5 years...

...


Yes.

They are essentially the same method wearing a different dress. I think this probably also applies to a lot of right-left dualities in 'democratic' nations, at the very least the US/UK.

NWO theorists often state that communism was initially bankrolled by the major world banks. This is something ive been meaning to research for a while now..

Sorry.