I have always wondered about Bin Laden's supposed to be world-wide connected terrorist group Al Quaida. The mainstream media and the western governments do not get tired off pointing out how dangerous this "network" is. After 9/11 here in Germany we were warned about 1000 possible "sleepers" connected under the term Al Quaida, anxiously waiting for them to wake up and spread Terror over our nation. Well, if they do exists, they must have overslept because we didnt hear from them since 9/11.

What makes me think all this is a statement by Saad Al-Faghi towards the News-Magazine "Frontline". Al Faghi, today living in London, used to be a leading medical doctor in Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia, working in the so-called "Jihad-Scene". According to him in the mid-80s Bin Laden had opened a recruiting-office, with which Al-Faghi was associated. He told the reporters:

"It still makes me laugh when I hear the FBI talk about Al Quaida as the organisation of Bin Laden. Its a very simple story: When receiving new Jihad-recruits from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Bin Laden did so at his guest house in Peschawar. From there they went to the battle fields and if they survived they came back. So it was nothing but a friendly reception, you go to fight, you return. A very simple process.
But after a while Bin Laden was asked by the relatives of many Jihad-soldiers about where their sons ended up, if they died, if they survived. But Bin Laden couldnt answer them, because none of his fighters were ever registered. So he ordered his people to write lists with all his recruits. They wrote down the date of arrival, and how long they stayed with him - some even just for a space of two or three weeks, until they left again.
These notes, these lists, were termed Al Quaida by the FBI. No mystery, no Terror-organisation or underground-group. According to my information Bin Laden has never even used this name. If you want to label them, call them 'Bin Laden Group'. Al Quaida is just a list of all people, who once happened to be guest in Bin Laden's house in Peschawar, and then fight against the Russians. Altogether about 20-30 000 people, most of them have only been there for a short time.
Most information on this is in the hands of the Saudi-government, because the Jihad-soldiers were flown in with Saudi-Airlines under special conditions, with cheap fare. 75 percent discount to Islamabad..."

This makes me think. Which proof did the FBI, CIA and all other networks really show that Al Quaida really does exist in the form we are being made to believe? Where is the proof that Mohammed Atta was really on the payroll of Bin Laden? Why did no media ever follow the story that the ISI, the pakistani secret service (America's partner), has tranferred 100 000 Dollars to Atta only 3 months prior to the attack? Is Bin Laden really behind the attack (although he profits of it)? Or is it some unknown forces in Pakistan, because for some reason all the hints are there?
This is no conspiracy theory... Because I am not pointing with the finger at anybody.. just again many, many open questions...

Soulpower...I normally take time out to read your posts. But does the word overkill mean anything to you? I suggest to try these threads at http://forums.indigital.c...ent?lgnF=Y
I think you'll fit right in. Everyone there seems to have an answer for everything.

RandomDuck said:

Yeah, but here he can pose as intelligent...
There he'd be exposed...

Did I type that out loud?

Oooops...

soulpower said:

Why do you put "network" in quotation marks? Your issue is with the actual name "Al Qaida" right? Not with the existence of a network whose express goal is to kill Jews and Americans. It's amazing how eager you are to see these kooky Knights Templar organizations holding power in the States but unable to credit other countries with the ability to do this. Are they not "evolved" enough in your view?



That's because Atta's cell operated in Hamburg with complete dispatch under the nose of German "intelligence." (There's an accurate use of quotation marks.)



Ummm, no that would be Mujahadeen. Al Qaida was the financial and spiritual network that broadened the goal of the Mujahadeen beyond expulsion of the Soviets and targetted the West and Jews in general. And yes they come mainly from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Afghani cause was hijacked by these idiots, just like Chechnyan independence is being hijacked for some Pan-Islamic cause that has very little to do with Islam itself or the real needs of an oppressed people who have ben suffereing terribly for years.



Ummm, the destruction of the World Trade Center? I don't know if you heard about this. I'll try to Google a link for you.

What form is that anyway? A loose network of like-minded idiots, whose chief advantage is that they don't adhere according the western conception of nation states? Are you denying the validity of other ways that groups can identify themselves, through a cause or through a religion? That sounds incredibly small-minded and imperialistic of you.



You're right, this isn't a conspiracy theory. It's outright blindness and lunatic ranting. Of course there were elements in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,and Egypt that were involved. Are you suggesting that we broaden the war on terror to include those countries as well? Doesn't the US government focus on Al Qaida accentuate the fact that this is not a war on Islam and recognize that countries like Pakistan are undergoing there own extremely difficult times?

This also reminds me why it is such a bad idea to be going into Iraq!







triple
[This message was edited Fri Nov 1 5:03:17 PST 2002 by 2the9s]

RandomDuck said:

I'm just having a few days off and I am enjoying this

2the9s said:

Ouch!



.
[This message was edited Fri Nov 1 5:18:17 PST 2002 by RandomDuck]

This quoting is gonna be a mad task, but here we go:

2the9s said:

soulpower said:

Now wait a minute! I am not by any means suggesting that the only Islamic Organizations are terrorist in nature! What I was sugesting is that the way these countries are organized according to western ideas of "national" boundaries is itself a foreign notion, imposed at various times (especially by Britain) after the First and Second World wars.

We see this in the partition between Pakistan and India; the creation of the Jewish state and even in the dissolution of Persia nto Iraq and Iran (if I remember correctly). Much of Bin Laden's gripe comes from the geo-political divisions that are mainly British in origin, as well as the ending of the Caliphate and the secularization of Turkey.

We talk rather loosely about the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan as if there were these rigid borders established, when in fact there are not. This is not necessarily a sign of lawlessness and backwardness, just a different way of understanding the relationship between the people and the land.

soulpower said:

That's true about the Germans warning the US (from what I remember reading anyway). But the planning didn't happen mainly in the US: it took place in Spain and Malayasia and Afghanistan (probably not in Czechoslovakia as the US govt. early on was suggesting in order to tie Atta to Iraqi intelligence) -- but in a lot of places! We warned Indonesia about Bali for crying out loud! So what?

2the9s said

soulpower said

It was more than a guess.

[...]

soulpower said

Why is it strange? We attacked the Taliban, which was a puppet regime of Pakistan. That's at the very least a message to Pakistan. Plain and simple. Those tribal areas and the Taliban in general were nothing more than cannon fodder for Musharraf and the previous government anyway. And they were harboring Bin Laden and whatever terrorist organization you choose to call it!

If we would have attacked a country that possessed nuclear weapons, a lot worse shit would have gone down. Besides, Pakistan was and is a country striated by a variety of groups and interests, unlike Afghanistan which was directly under the fist of a totalitarian leadership and an increasingly thocratic order. Isn't this evidence that we do not use force randomly and recklessly?

Which is again why I remain convinced that this particular response (to topple the Taliban) in its broad parameters was one that was drawn up by some think tank years ago and has nothing to do with George Bush. (Other than that he greenlighted this plan.) Evidence of the fact that Bush wouldn't have had the smarts to come up with a plan like this from scratch we see everytime he beats the war drums on Iraq.




important edit
[This message was edited Fri Nov 1 6:29:51 PST 2002 by 2the9s]

Before terrorists reared their ugly heads, it would have sounded like a nice Spanish dish.

bubblegum?

Applause 2the9s! Now its really fun debating with you. I am short on time right now, I just wanted to tell you that you have shared some great information with us in your last post and yes, I have learned something. Please continue in that style. Thanks!

Many of these groups that are called terrorist now were trained and supported by and in the U.S. Both daddy Bush and Baby Bush have known of this threat since before the mid 80's. A security report done Prior to the 1984 Olympics spelled things out and the possible solutions.2.5 million dollars spent to do this research into terrorist activities. What did they do with this report. Throw it away and said that's nice. Honey. I was not shocked when the towers fell. The real was from within this country. Let me tell you Lt. Montel Williams wasn't all to happy to be called an idiot after all intelligence gathering was his specialty. If I told you what I know I'd have to kill you.