Mumbai Attacks inside Job Countdown

[PhantomWolf]

So any predictions on how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?

[parky76]

it wasnt an inside job. that suggests indian involvemant. it could have been done by the evil JooNazis.

[JihadJane]

How long will it be before the usual suspects start threads asking for predictions about how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?

[parky76]

lol

[geni]

Not completely imposible for broad enough values of inside job. Both the hindu and sikh nationalists have connections and although the sikhs have been fairly quiet of late the hindus haven't been.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Is Austrailia responsible for any "Inside Job" attacks?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

How long will it be before the usual suspects start threads asking for predictions about how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?

lol :)

And how long before the name Al-Qaeda is mentioned by the media. Or should I say how long before the phrases "possibly Al-Qaeda related" or "possibly the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda" are uttered?

And how long before the sub-organization "AL-Qaeda India" suddenly starts to exist and appears in media news articles?

[Dr Adequate]

So any predictions on how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai? Mossad Behind Mumbai Bombing (http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/mossad-behind-mumbai-bombing.html).

[PhantomWolf]

lol :)

And how long before the name Al-Qaeda is mentioned by the media. Or should I say how long before the phrases "possibly Al-Qaeda related" or "possibly the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda" are uttered?

And how long before the sub-organization "AL-Qaeda India" suddenly starts to exist and appears in media news articles?

Well to be fair, the Media use Al Qaeda like they use AK-47. Any muslim extremist group seems to be linked to Al Qeada by the media even if it isn't exactly like any assault weapon is an AK-47 even when it's an M-16.

In this case the group claiming responsiblity is an unknown, though uses a similar name to another indian group that has done oither attacks.

[Dr Adequate]

lol :)

And how long before the name Al-Qaeda is mentioned by the media. Or should I say how long before the phrases "possibly Al-Qaeda related" or "possibly the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda" are uttered?

And how long before the sub-organization "AL-Qaeda India" suddenly starts to exist and appears in media news articles? No, no, you're doing it wrong.

According to this antisemitic crackpot (http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/mossad-behind-mumbai-bombing.html), you can tell it's a false flag because they're not blaming al Qaeda but some group he's never heard of:

"As usual, a "never before heard of" group is claiming responsibility. FOX News is also reporting that the "terrorists" at the tourist hotel were specifically searching for people with American passports.

This reeks of a false-flag attack to get the US into another war."

"Okay, here are the reason I think this is a false-flag operation.

1. Brand new terror groups have tight budgets. This group, the "Deccan Muhajedeen" (sounds like a sports team, like Cleveland Indians or Cincinnati Pirates) appears from nowhere with a large force, fully automatic weapons, grenades, and intelligence resources on the scale of a nation state.

See? You ought to be complaining about how suspicious it is that "as usual" al Qaeda isn't beeing blamed.

[lionking]

Is Austrailia responsible for any "Inside Job" attacks?

There's a bunch of gun nuts who believe that the Port Arthur massacre was an inside job aimed at taking semi-automatic weapons away from shooters. Look it up - even loonier than 9/11 CTs.

[LightinDarkness]

Question to ponder: If something CANNOT be linked to the jews or the evil US government, then how can it be a inside job? We all know all the inside jobs are the creation of the jews and the US government.

+10 points to the first person who correctly predicts when the first nutcase is going to proclaim that this was a false flag mission.

My guess: within 24 hours Alex Jones will tell us it was a inside job false flag mission by the Zionists.

[boloboffin]

A likely (to me) connection for the name Deccan Mujaheddin is the Bahmini Sultanate, an independent Muslim state that first rebelled against outside Muslim influence and then manage to conquer a large share of India. It was based in the Deccan Plateau.

[gtc]

Is Austrailia responsible for any "Inside Job" attacks?

There's a bunch of gun nuts who believe that the Port Arthur massacre was an inside job aimed at taking semi-automatic weapons away from shooters. Look it up - even loonier than 9/11 CTs.

There is also the 'theory' that we helped the CIA stage the Bali bombings. According to this the CIA and the Australians discovered the plans by the Bali bombers and, unbeknownst to the bombers, replaced the real bomb with a nuclear bomb.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

No, no, you're doing it wrong.

According to this antisemitic crackpot (http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/mossad-behind-mumbai-bombing.html), you can tell it's a false flag because they're not blaming al Qaeda but some group he's never heard of:

"As usual, a "never before heard of" group is claiming responsibility. FOX News is also reporting that the "terrorists" at the tourist hotel were specifically searching for people with American passports.

This reeks of a false-flag attack to get the US into another war."

"Okay, here are the reason I think this is a false-flag operation.

1. Brand new terror groups have tight budgets. This group, the "Deccan Muhajedeen" (sounds like a sports team, like Cleveland Indians or Cincinnati Pirates) appears from nowhere with a large force, fully automatic weapons, grenades, and intelligence resources on the scale of a nation state.

See? You ought to be complaining about how suspicious it is that "as usual" al Qaeda isn't beeing blamed.

I'm not complaining about anything. :) Well apart from the senseless loss of innocent life. I will complain about that!

I have no reason to think it's false flag attack, but I'm sure it won't be too long before the name Al-Qaeda is mentioned even if the article says "AL-Qaeda isn't to blame" numerous times.

Just as long as the words 'Terror' 'terrorist' and 'Al-Qaeda' are mentioned in the same article that's all that matters :)

[ktesibios]

Well, this (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382868.shtml) was posted on the Portland Indymedia site (your one-stop-shop for all things conspiracist) at 2:05 PM PST.

If I'm doing my cipherin' rite that was about 2 hours before PhantomWolf's OP. It seems that hatefreaks aren't exactly slow off the mark.

[Drudgewire]

Is Austrailia responsible for any "Inside Job" attacks?


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/perryplatypus.jpg

I wouldn't trust this dude any farther than I could throw him. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/raise.gif

[parky76]

there are Indian Jews. they have posed as Muslims, to get Indians to support Israel.

=)

but in all truth, Muslim extremists have been commiting terror attacks in India for years. its nothing new.

[gtc]

Well, this (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382868.shtml) was posted on the Portland Indymedia site (your one-stop-shop for all things conspiracist) at 2:05 PM PST.

If I'm doing my cipherin' rite that was about 2 hours before PhantomWolf's OP. It seems that hatefreaks aren't exactly slow off the mark.

Its amazing how quickly the Indymedia network became overrun by conspiracy theories and anti-semitism.

[JihadJane]

Is Austrailia responsible for any "Inside Job" attacks?

" ... shortly after the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard 'admitted that Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but chose not to issue a warning.' (Christchurch Press, 22 November 2002. Similar warnings were made by the CIA)"


Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10931

[Trojan_Jockey]

And where else would you find the first "false flag" conspiracy theories but the David Icke forum.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43830&page=7

Although it somehow descends into this:

"Some months ago I would have thought of the idea of an elite hiding underground as completely ludicrous. But as far-out as it first might seem, the idea that extraterrestrials dwell underground is actually not entirely crazy, at least if we think of the Greys as droids. Droids can live underground easily, or even on the moon for thousands of years."

Hmmm...

"Underground races with advanced technologies are such a prevalent theme in the myths and legends of indigenous cultures that it strikes me as more absurd to dismiss the idea than it does to take it seriously."

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43830&page=11

Actually, after reading through the rest of the thread it can only be described as paranoid and delusional schizophrenia.

[moon1969]

Maybe they were just angry how fascist India kills muslims in Kashmir? India opresses muslims in Kashmir. :mad: Americans should really see what happens in Kashmir before trying to make India look like the good guys. Isn"t there a Kashmir mujahideen?

[moon1969]

Ignorant americans call the muslims in Kashmir terrorist but never say anything about what India does to muslims in Kashmir?

[8den]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6209

Prison Planet warn the Pakistan will be blamed for the attack.

With the corporate media desperate to pin the blame in order to score much needed propaganda points for the ailing war on terror, suspicion is likely to fall on Pakistan, a country that President elect Barack Obama openly threatened during his presidential campaign.

The bombings in Mumbai will also likely silence questions about controversial U.S. bombing raids inside Pakistani territory aimed at terrorists, strikes that have repeatedly killed innocent civilians.

Journalist Stephen Schwartz notes that several terrorist and criminal groups are “backed by senior officers in the Pakistani army, the country’s ISI intelligence establishment and other armed bodies of the state.” Author Daniel Byman states, “Pakistan is probably today’s most active sponsor of terrorism.”

It is commonly asserted that the Pakistani ISI helps fund and train terrorists.



Shakes fist angrily, gggggrrrr people blaming the IS for funding and training terrorists on the filmiest grounds.

Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden admitted meeting with the chief financier of the 9/11 hijackers in the days after September 11 after being confronted by We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski in the press room following Sunday's Democratic debate in New Hampshire. According to the FBI and as confirmed by various news reports at the time (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO308C.html), Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad instructed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the alleged assassin of Daniel Pearl, to wire $100,000 to alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001.


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/biden_admits_post_911_meeting_with_hijackers_finan cier.htm
:rolleyes:

[boloboffin]

I imagine some of them feverishly TIVOing every channel, charting out each report of explosions -- there's probably a list of official contradictions already 3MB in size.

[fullflavormenthol]

Maybe they were just angry how fascist India kills muslims in Kashmir? India opresses muslims in Kashmir. :mad: Americans should really see what happens in Kashmir before trying to make India look like the good guys. Isn"t there a Kashmir mujahideen?
But that doesn't excuse killing civilians, especially given that they aren't targeting those directly responsible but westerners. Not just Americans, but anyone who is from the U.K., Israel... Last time I checked I didn't oppress anyone in Kashmir.

Hey guess what? Both acts can be wrong. Why is it that people use this moral equivalency to somehow justify things? Yes, what happens in Kashmir is wrong, but it doesn't make the killing of innocent people in no way responsbile right.

Do you understand?

[portlandatheist]

Blame the US, ISI, Mossad, Free Massons, or lizards but no matter what you do, NEVER blame islamists for the attack. Anybody else is fine.

[parky76]

"Islamists" dont exist. neither do muslim extremists or muslims fundamentalists. ALL Muslims are peaceful, loving, kind, tolerant, and have cherry blossom smiles.

and they cant fly a plane. nor plan a complicated terror attack. nor shoot straight.

[parky76]

Maybe they were just angry how fascist India kills muslims in Kashmir? India opresses muslims in Kashmir. :mad: Americans should really see what happens in Kashmir before trying to make India look like the good guys. Isn"t there a Kashmir mujahideen?

ah...now it all makes sense. whenever Muslims are angry..for any reason..they are justified in slaughtering innocent women and children. regardless of nationality.

i see. and YOU wanted us to sympathize with the plight of YOUR people in the USSR? forget it!!!

if you have such a low level of respect for human life...you can expect people to treat you and your views accordingly.

[Trojan_Jockey]

Blame the US, ISI, Mossad, Free Massons, or lizards but no matter what you do, NEVER blame islamists for the attack. Anybody else is fine.

Well, how else would they appear to be an "ungovernable rebel" if they actually expressed a conventional interpretation of the events?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6209

...

The following quote from Prison Planet is very true though ....

With the corporate media desperate to pin the blame in order to score much needed propaganda points for the ailing war on terror, ....

Just type mumbai terror al-qaeda into google and there's immediate proof of that.
Typically top of the list is Fox News :rolleyes: with it's story ...

Spy Agencies: Mumbai Terror Attacks Show Hallmark of Al Qaeda (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,458384,00.html)

The word "Al-Qaeda" appears TEN TIMES in that article.

Deccan Mujahideen, the group who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks appear TWO TIMES in the articles.

The article doesn't seem to care about the victims or even the attacks themselves, but is more interested in the propaganda of Al-Qaeda continuing to be a threat to the West.

Why can't they give this Al-Qaeda crap a rest? Most people aren't BSed by it anymore.

[ktesibios]

Rule 34 of The Internet states:
If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.I propose an equivalent: Rule 34 of conspiracism, which states:
If it happened, someone has blamed the Jews for it. No exceptions.

[parky76]

um...do u really think the american people really care anymore? i live in nyc, and i am not phased one bit by this new "al qaeda terror warning". im sure in 3 weeks we will find out that the planning of this "operation" never got past the cocktail napkin phase.

[JihadJane]

ah...now it all makes sense. whenever Muslims are angry..for any reason..they are justified in slaughtering innocent women and children. regardless of nationality.

i see. and YOU wanted us to sympathize with the plight of YOUR people in the USSR? forget it!!!

if you have such a low level of respect for human life...you can expect people to treat you and your views accordingly.

By that logic, why should anyone sympathise with the plight of the people of the USA?

[parky76]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mossad-behind-the-mass-terror-attack-in-mumbai-india.html

and here it is!! blaiming Mossad and the Jews...again.

why cant they just leave the Jews alone?

anti-semitic pigs.

[moon1969]

Kashmir is the Tibet of India. :mad:

[Tin Foil Timothy]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mossad-behind-the-mass-terror-attack-in-mumbai-india.html

and here it is!! blaiming Mossad and the Jews...again.

why cant they just leave the Jews alone?

anti-semitic pigs.

You need to wind in your anti-semitic light sabre buddy.

Is blaming the CIA for something racist? NO

So is blaming Mossad for something racist? NO

They are NOT blaming Jews they are blaming Mossad. Crying Anti-semitism every time someone criticises an organisation that's based in Israel.

You're actually doing a disservice to all the real victims of racism.


blaiming Mossad and the Jews...again.

And please stop lying. The article does not mention 'Jews' and they are NOT blaming the Jews!!

And they are not even directly blaming Mossad. They are questioning whether it's a possibility that Mossad are involved. Stupid? Yes. Racist? No

You should be ashamed to keep playing the race card.

[moon1969]

Orwellian media here in the west will make it look like the muslims of Kashmir are the bad guys and fascist hindus of India are good guys and saints. Just like they did in Russia after Beslan. Chechens are bad guys but people like Yuri Budanov are good guys. There are too sides to every story. :mad:

[lionking]

" ... shortly after the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard 'admitted that Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but chose not to issue a warning.' (Christchurch Press, 22 November 2002. Similar warnings were made by the CIA)"


Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10931

Okay you have quoted something, but do you believe that the Bali bombing was an "inside job"?

[dudalb]

Okay you have quoted something, but do you believe that the Bali bombing was an "inside job"?

To some people, everything is a an Inside Job.

[boloboffin]

You need to wind in your anti-semitic light sabre buddy.

Is blaming the CIA for something racist? NO

So is blaming Mossad for something racist? NO

They are NOT blaming Jews they are blaming Mossad. Crying Anti-semitism every time someone criticises an organisation that's based in Israel.

You're actually doing a disservice to all the real victims of racism.




And please stop lying. The article does not mention 'Jews' and they are NOT blaming the Jews!!

And they are not even directly blaming Mossad. They are questioning whether it's a possibility that Mossad are involved. Stupid? Yes. Racist? No

You should be ashamed to keep playing the race card.

Even worse than Prison Planet's constant anti-Semitic rants blaming the Jews for everything is a self-appointed scold like you coming around trying to shame someone for calling anti-Semitic :rule10 for what it is.

Why is it that we need so many defenders of the right to criticize Israel? Because that's not what's really happening. Criticism of Israel starts with a recognition that it's there, it's not going anywhere, and it has a right to be there. Most "criticism" of Israel that seems to need defending doesn't start with those basic assumptions.

We will not shut up. We will continue to call out Alex Jones for his antisemitism. You will have to get over it.

[Trojan_Jockey]

You need to wind in your anti-semitic light sabre buddy.

Is blaming the CIA for something racist? NO

So is blaming Mossad for something racist? NO

They are NOT blaming Jews they are blaming Mossad. Crying Anti-semitism every time someone criticises an organisation that's based in Israel.

You're actually doing a disservice to all the real victims of racism.




And please stop lying. The article does not mention 'Jews' and they are NOT blaming the Jews!!

And they are not even directly blaming Mossad. They are questioning whether it's a possibility that Mossad are involved. Stupid? Yes. Racist? No

You should be ashamed to keep playing the race card.

You should be asking whether blaming Mossad for everything is racist! It never seems to occur to you that the point of blaming Mossad and Israel for every single war, conflict or terrorist outrage in the world today is because of antisemtism. If it were actually true that Israel was behind all these events, what would be the solution? Something tried in the 1940's perhaps?

I think it's you that should be ashamed. You are up to your neck in paranoid antisemitic rhetoric and propaganda and you keep accusing everyone who challenges you on it of playing the "race card". Can't smell nice where you are buddy.

[parky76]

why didnt they blaim the ISI? MI6? the French Secret Service? The Saudi intelligence? The Russians? they keep blaiming the Mossad..and Israel.

what is gonna take for you to accept that the reason why they blaim the Mossad and Israel...is because Israel is FULL of Jews?

i honestly think you are just being the devil's advocate, and just defending Alex Jones just for the sake of defending Alex Jones.

its really sad and pathetic.

I DO NOT run around calling every single Dick and Jane who critisizes Israel, an anti-Semite. go to the Politics section and find out just how much I critisize Israel's racist policies and Apartheid regime in the West Bank.

However, when someone blaims Israel....and just blaims the Mossad..again..and again..and again..with ZERO evidence...just pure speculation. then I will call it what it is.

hatred of Jews!!
anti-Semitism!!
racism!!!

[gtc]

" ... shortly after the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard 'admitted that Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but chose not to issue a warning.' (Christchurch Press, 22 November 2002. Similar warnings were made by the CIA)"


Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10931

There are warnings of possible attacks all the time. Most warnings are nothing more than vague suggestions that some country contains groups of people willing to commit terrorist acts and places with Westerners or where the locals don't support the terrorist group are possible targets.

Knowing that there was a warning doesn't say anything about whether the warning was credible and specific enough to warrant publication. Of course, it certainly doesn't say anything to indicate that the government that didn't release the warning was responsible for the attack.


You should be ashamed to keep playing the race card.

Actually, it is anti-semitic. The anti-semitic world view states that the Jews are evil, have a plan to secretly dominate the world and have almost supernatural reach and influence.

When people claim that Mossad or the Zionists are the evil ones, with the plans and the influence they are still anti-semitic. All they are doing is saying that there are some Jews who aren't part of the plot (and these people usually accuse the rest of the Jews of being dupes or not doing enough to stop the evil ones).

Its like the people who claim they can't be anti-semites because Arabs are semites too and they don't hate them or the anti-Freemason conspiracy nuts who think that the higher-up Freemasons are the evil ones.

Irrationally hating a subset of a larger group may be (in some small way) morally superior to irrationally hating the larger group but it is still irrational.

[parky76]

And please stop lying.

You should be ashamed to keep playing the race card.

Do NOT accuse me of lying again.

And it is not I who is playing the race card..it is PrisonPlanet and Alex Jones by blaiming the Mossad. Again....again..and again.

[Skeptic]

There is a vicious cycle here, since all kind of groups which have 3 members and work out of someone's basement are happy to claim the attack is their doing, which, naturally, have the conspiracy theorists claiming such groups could NEVER have created such an attack, so their claims must be part of a conspiracy.

Ah well. About such groups, Efraim Kishon, the late Israeli satirist, once wrote that if Quaddafi demands the Nobel Prize for literature and is turned down, a terrorist group calling itself "Palestinian Youths for Literary Justice" will start organizing instantly.

[defaultdotxbe]

Maybe they were just angry how fascist India kills muslims in Kashmir? India opresses muslims in Kashmir. :mad: Americans should really see what happens in Kashmir before trying to make India look like the good guys. Isn"t there a Kashmir mujahideen?

Ignorant americans call the muslims in Kashmir terrorist but never say anything about what India does to muslims in Kashmir?
is there some reason you often make 2 nearly identical posts in the same thread within minutes of eachother?

im just curious

[Skeptic]

It's not true, of course, that every criticism of Israel, Zionism, or the Mossad is antisemitic. But those who blame every outrage in the world instantly and indiscriminately on "the Mossad" or "the Zionists" or "the Israelies", this is obviously antisemitism, since it's claiming a shadowy group of Jews is out there to dominate the world.

Such people use "Mossad", "Israel", and "Zionist" in precisely the same way their predecessors, 100 years ago, used "The Elders of Zion". If the latter is antisemitic, which it obviously is, so is the former. Just because the modern antisemites sometime say "well, I don't blame every Jew" after blaiming it all (whatever atrocity "it all" is at the moment) on "the Mossad" or "Zionists" is besides the point -- the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion didn't explicitly blame all Jews for being in on the Elders' conspiracy, either.

[Dr Adequate]

The following quote from Prison Planet is very true though ....



Just type mumbai terror al-qaeda into google and there's immediate proof of that.
Typically top of the list is Fox News :rolleyes: with it's story ...

Spy Agencies: Mumbai Terror Attacks Show Hallmark of Al Qaeda (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,458384,00.html)

The word "Al-Qaeda" appears TEN TIMES in that article.

Deccan Mujahideen, the group who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks appear TWO TIMES in the articles.

The article doesn't seem to care about the victims or even the attacks themselves, but is more interested in the propaganda of Al-Qaeda continuing to be a threat to the West.

Why can't they give this Al-Qaeda crap a rest? Most people aren't BSed by it anymore. Let's read the article, shall we?

Britain's spy agencies had little warning of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, which bore some Al Qaeda hallmarks but appears unlikely to be linked to the group's core leadership, officials said Thursday ... the Indian attack was carried out by gunmen and not the suicide bombers frequently employed by Al Qaeda and its affiliates ... "It's too early to say definitively at this stage, but based on what we've seen so far this doesn't look like a core Al Qaeda attack," another British security official told the AP on condition of anonymity ... Western security officials believe attacks organized, directed and funded specifically by Al Qaeda's core leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border are not frequent.

[Skeptic]

By the way, as usual, the "anti racist", "anti fascist", "anti imperialist" gang is already feverishly looking for the "root causes" of the terrorist attack, in order to make the terorrists the good guys.

It's strange that these "anti racists", "anti fascists", and "anti imperialists" are always on the side of thugs who want to resurrect a fascist-style mideaval, theocratic empire, and who choose their victims in the most racist way possible -- to wit, solely based on the victims being (a) defenseless, and (b) of the "wrong" ethnic group (the one the thugs dislike).

A rather curious kind of anti-fascism, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism, don't you think? Pro-fascism, pro-racism, and pro-imperialism is a rather more accurate description of the "root causers"' behavior, if not of their ego-flattering self-appointed titles.

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

Tin Foil Timothy -- looking at Dr. Adeuqate's most recent reply to you, I feel compelled to ask: you just searched the article you yourself linked to for the WORDS "Al Quaeda" or "Deccan Mujahideen" by pressing "Ctrl-F" on your brower without actually reading it, didn't you?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Even worse than Prison Planet's constant anti-Semitic rants blaming the Jews for everything is a self-appointed scold like you coming around trying to shame someone for calling anti-Semitic :rule10 for what it is.

Why is it that we need so many defenders of the right to criticize Israel? Because that's not what's really happening. Criticism of Israel starts with a recognition that it's there, it's not going anywhere, and it has a right to be there. Most "criticism" of Israel that seems to need defending doesn't start with those basic assumptions.

We will not shut up. We will continue to call out Alex Jones for his antisemitism. You will have to get over it.

And I will continue to help those who are real victims of racism by speaking out against false accusations of Racism. And YOU You have to get over it.

Now you could of course make your argument credible by citing where Alex Jones.

Why is it that we need so many defenders of the right to criticize Israel?

Because there's far too many people flying the ADL flag by attaching anti-semitism (racism) to political criticism. That's why!

[parky76]

please show where I..or anyone here...has called someone an "anti-Semite" for simply critisizing Israeli actions or policies.

I welcome you to critisize Isael's racist policies and will defend your right and obligation, as an American tax payer, to do so.

falsely accusing the Mossad of carrying out false-flag attacks..again and again..is not critisizing Israeli policy. it is attacking the Mossad without any evidence or basis.

Russia has suffered greatly at the hands of Muslim Chechnyan extremists. Putin even staged a false-flag terror attack in Moscow so that the people would support his murderous rampage in Chechnya. Yet no one ever seems to blaim Russia and the FSU for Muslim terror attacks. Why is that? Hmmm???

Blaiming the Mossad for any and every terrorist attack that happens has become an anti-Semitic broken record.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

(Sigh)

Tin Foil Timothy -- looking at Dr. Adeuqate's most recent reply to you, I feel compelled to ask: you just searched the article you yourself linked to for the WORDS "Al Quaeda" or "Deccan Mujahideen" by pressing "Ctrl-F" on your brower without actually reading it, didn't you?

You are falling into the same trap of Dr Adequate. I did read the article as well as using CTRL-F to easily count the instances.

And that's precisely the point. It's about how many times the word Al-Qaeda can be inserted in the article, not so much whether it's in a positive or negative light. It reinforces the association with Al-Qaeda in the reader. The brain doesn't read negatives.

For example if you keep telling yourself "I am not a failure" the brain reads "I am a failure" - Psychology 101 Therefore you say "I am a success"

This kind of media psy-op works even better on TV and radio as a casual listener here's Al-Qaeda multiple times. Even if the article actually says "It wasn't AL-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, It wasn't Al-Qaeda, "


But none the less there's plenty of articles pumping the old "This has the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda."

Do not change a user's name so as to insult.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

please show where I..or anyone here...has called someone an "anti-Semite" for simply critisizing Israeli actions or policies.

I welcome you to critisize Isael's racist policies and will defend your right and obligation, as an American tax payer, to do so.

falsely accusing the Mossad of carrying out false-flag attacks..again and again..is not critisizing Israeli policy. it is attacking the Mossad without any evidence or basis.


Trying to pin Mossad on every terrorist incident in the world is stupid and I certainly don't condone it.

What I am trying to point out to you is that's it's not racist.

[parky76]

Israel is the Jewish State. pretty much everyone in goverment is a Jew.

if the only secret service agency that you blaim..is the Jewish one...not the British, or German, or American, or Irish, or Russian, or Saudi, or Egyptian, or Pakistain....then you are illogically and indiscriminately blaiming Jews..and that is racism.

if some folks had a strange habit of always blaiming the British Secret Service for every and any terror attack..I would consider that to be an anti-British bias.

why cant you see this as being an anti-Jewish bias?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It's not true, of course, that every criticism of Israel, Zionism, or the Mossad is antisemitic. But those who blame every outrage in the world instantly and indiscriminately on "the Mossad" or "the Zionists" or "the Israelies", this is obviously antisemitism, since it's claiming a shadowy group of Jews is out there to dominate the world.

Such people use "Mossad", "Israel", and "Zionist" in precisely the same way their predecessors, 100 years ago, used "The Elders of Zion". If the latter is antisemitic, which it obviously is, so is the former. Just because the modern antisemites sometime say "well, I don't blame every Jew" after blaiming it all (whatever atrocity "it all" is at the moment) on "the Mossad" or "Zionists" is besides the point -- the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion didn't explicitly blame all Jews for being in on the Elders' conspiracy, either.


Claiming a shadowy group of Jews is out there to dominate the world is no more racist than claiming a shadowy group of Americans is out to dominate the world.

In fact as near as damn it there is a group of Americans that wanted to dominate the world. PNAC

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC) "The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."

What if there was a group called PNJC which stated goal was to "to promote Jewish global leadership."

You can see where I'm going with this can't you?


Now if there were a group of Jews whose aim was to dominate the world, and that's not a CT I subscribe to, it wouldn't be racist to criticize it anymore than it's racist to criticize PNAC.

[parky76]

Claiming a shadowy group of Jews is out there to dominate the world is no more racist than claiming a shadowy group of Americans is out to dominate the world.

In fact as near as damn it there is a group of Americans that wanted to dominate the world. PNAC

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC) "The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."

What if there was a group called PNJC which stated goal was to "to promote Jewish global leadership."

You can see where I'm going with this can't you?


Now if there were a group of Jews whose aim was to dominate the world, and that's not a CT I subscribe to, it wouldn't be racist to criticize it anymore than it's racist to criticize PNAC.

attacking PNAC is not racist...because the members of PNAC are of all colors and religions.

attacking the Mossad and the Mossad alone, without any evidence, again and again...is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli. its especially anti-Jewish when your anti-Mossad targeting is matched with conspiracy theories about Israel wanting to take over the world.

and by the way, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had NOTHING to do with Zionism or Israel.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Israel is the Jewish State. pretty much everyone in goverment is a Jew.

if the only secret service agency that you blaim..is the Jewish one...not the British, or German, or American, or Irish, or Russian, or Saudi, or Egyptian, or Pakistain....then you are illogically and indiscriminately blaiming Jews..and that is racism.

No it's not racism. There's a BIG difference between blaming a group that is Israeli(Jewish) for their alleged behavior and blaming people because they are Jewish.


if some folks had a strange habit of always blaiming the British Secret Service for every and any terror attack..I would consider that to be an anti-British bias.

why cant you see this as being an anti-Jewish bias?

So at least you're getting away from racism. We're getting somewhere.

What I'm saying, using your British example above, is that someone always blaming the British Secret Service might be doing it because they have reason to believe they are guilty of the 'crime' rather than because they hate British people.

[gtc]

Because there's far too many people flying the ADL flag by attaching anti-semitism (racism) to political criticism. That's why!

We aren't talking about people who criticise Israel's actions here. We are talking about people who irrationally claim that there is a world wide conspiracy of Jews that has infiltrated every major government and is killing civillians and blaming the attacks on Islamist terrorists.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

attacking PNAC is not racist...because the members of PNAC are of all colors and religions.

attacking the Mossad and the Mossad alone, without any evidence, again and again...is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli. its especially anti-Jewish when your anti-Mossad targeting is matched with conspiracy theories about Israel wanting to take over the world.

This is nothing to do with color/religion. You can still be racist against Americans even if they are all shapes sizes and colors and religions.

My analogy was fine. PNAC are all American and the agenda is American world domination

Attacking a person for belonging to a group, whether that be America, Israel, Germany, yadda, yadda is racial/national prejudice.


Blaming a group ( like Mossad, or the CIA, or PNAC) for everything might be stupid but it's not racist.



and by the way, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had NOTHING to do with Zionism or Israel.

I never mentioned the Protocols. Or were you replying to someone else?

[gtc]

You are falling into the same trap of Dr Inadequate. I did read the article as well as using CTRL-F to easily count the instances.

You can get into trouble here for changing people's usernames.


What if there was a group called PNJC which stated goal was to "to promote Jewish global leadership."

Now if there were a group of Jews whose aim was to dominate the world, and that's not a CT I subscribe to, it wouldn't be racist to criticize it anymore than it's racist to criticize PNAC.

Is there a such an organisation?

Your argument would be correct, if there was such an organisation and the allegations weren't purely invented.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

We aren't talking about people who criticise Israel's actions here. We are talking about people who irrationally claim that there is a world wide conspiracy of Jews that has infiltrated every major government and is killing civillians and blaming the attacks on Islamist terrorists.

I know exactly what is being discussed.

I'm just speaking out against accusations of racism where I don't see racism. And the reason for that is that their are real victims of racism out there and it's wrong to deflect focus away from their plight.

These claims might be irrational and in many cases downright ludicrous, but unless the criticism is based upon a prejudicial hatred of someone for their race/ethnicity then it's NOT racism.

[gtc]

What I'm saying, using your British example above, is that someone always blaming the British Secret Service might be doing it because they have reason to believe they are guilty of the 'crime' rather than because they hate British people.

But if there is no reason to blame the British secret service other than an irrational hatred of the British then it is racist.


You are ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that Mossad had anything to do with the events in Mumbai. The only Jewish connection that I am aware of is that the terrorists purposefully attacked a Jewish target in the city.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You can get into trouble here for changing people's usernames.

Sorry, it was a freudian slip




Is there a such an organisation?

Your argument would be correct, if there was such an organisation and the allegations weren't purely invented.

You are kidding? Please tell me you're kidding! You've never heard of PNAC? :eek::eek:

Well I've never heard of anyone not knowing about PNAC before but there's always a first I guess.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

[Tin Foil Timothy]

But if there is no reason to blame the British secret service other than an irrational hatred of the British then it is racist.

For sure. People like that would be hating British people period wouldn't they?


You are ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that Mossad had anything to do with the events in Mumbai. The only Jewish connection that I am aware of is that the terrorists purposefully attacked a Jewish target in the city.

I'm not ignoring that at all. There's no evidence that Alex Jones hates or even dislikes Jews. Until there is then he's not racist.

I asked in the "Alex Jones is not even hiding it" thread for links to any Alex Jones Anti-Semitism. As yet no one has provided any. I would be the first to call him racist if there's evidence of it.

[gtc]

I am talking about the mythical Jewish organisation. Not the American one. It was very clear from the quote and my comments.

Criticising PNAC is not necessarily racist because there is an actual organisation to criticise. The only way it would be racist is if the argument went something like I hate PNAC because it is full of Americans.

Inventing the myth that there is a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world is different.

[Pardalis]

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC) "The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."

What if there was a group called PNJC which stated goal was to "to promote Jewish global leadership."


Do you believe Al Qaeda exists, and that its intended goal is islamic world domination?

[gtc]

I'm not ignoring that at all. There's no evidence that Alex Jones hates or even dislikes Jews. Until there is then he's not racist.

Go back and read the thread again.

He has claimed that there is a secretive organisation of evil Jews with a plan to dominate the world that has almost supernatural reach and influence. This is a lie. He has no evidence for this. None whatsoever.

The fact that he claims that only some Jews are part of the evil organistion doesn't mean that he is not anti-semitic.

[parky76]

Yes Tinfoil, do you believe that Al Qaeda actually exists and is responsible for countless terror attacks throughout the world since the late 1990s?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I am talking about the mythical Jewish organisation. Not the American one. It was very clear from the quote and my comments.

OK, sorry. My mistake. I thought you were talking about PNAC. I take that back then.



Criticising PNAC is not necessarily racist because there is an actual organisation to criticise. The only way it would be racist is if the argument went something like I hate PNAC because it is full of Americans.

Yes I agree.


Inventing the myth that there is a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world is different.[/QUOTE]

Still doesn't make it racist.

Mossad is an actual organization to criticize.

And if I may borrow your statement above and modify it .......

The only way it would be racist is if the argument went something like "I hate Mossad/Zionist Movement because it is full of Jews".

You know there are real Jews being attacked for being Jewish. This is real real bad. It's pure racism filth. Can we not keep the label of racism for real racism?

All the energy spent throwing accusations of racism against people like Alex Jones would be much better spent attacking real racists!

[parky76]

it is our contention that the Mossad is constantly blaimed for terror attacks, without any evidence, because it is full of Jews.

jews have been accused of everything from the Lincoln assassination, to the attack on the Lusitania, to the sinking of the Maine, to the assassination of Francis Ferdinand of Serbia, to the founding of the Federal Reserve, to 9-11, to the Iraq war.

it doesnt take a genius to tell that these conspiracy theories are based in hatred of the Jewish people.

but apprently, you think all these conspiracy theories must be based in some sort of fact.

now, tell me, do you really think the Jews killed Honest Abe?

do you think that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Go back and read the thread again.

Please don't patronize. I know what the thread is about and I know what lex Jones claims are


He has claimed that there is a secretive organisation of evil Jews with a plan to dominate the world that has almost supernatural reach and influence. This is a lie. He has no evidence for this. None whatsoever.

The fact that he claims that only some Jews are part of the evil organistion doesn't mean that he is not anti-semitic.

Claiming there is a group of evil people planning to dominate the world, even they are from one race, might be crazy, laa laa land and worthy of insertion in the loopy house. But it's not racist.

Until you provide evidence that Alex Jones hates or dislikes Jewish people then I'm not buying him being anti-semitic.

[gtc]

Mossad is an actual organization to criticize.

So. The lies are not 'criticism'. They are wholly invented myths claiming that there is a secret organisation of Jews intent on evil.

You have not addressed the fact that the claims about Mossad are lies. Why is that?

Why would he decide to lie about Mossad? Why not any other organisation?


You know there are real Jews being attacked for being Jewish. This is real real bad. It's pure racism filth. Can we not keep the label of racism for real racism?

All the energy spent throwing accusations of racism against people like Alex Jones would be much better spent attacking real racists!

Alex Jones' rhetoric is just as dangerous and provides fuel for the rest of the racists.

[Pardalis]

Please don't patronize. I know what the thread is about and I know what lex Jones claims are

Lex Jones? You're giving him pet names now? ;) :p

[moon1969]

Who cares if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did it. There is no proof but Bin Laden has many times talk about the oppressed muslims in Kashmir. Just ignore the problem and blame those evil terrorists. Then when muslims exposed what India does in Kashmir after that India blames Pakistan. Google human rights violations in Kashmir. :mad:

[gtc]

Until you provide evidence that Alex Jones hates or dislikes Jewish people then I'm not buying him being anti-semitic.

He is spreading anti-semitic propoganda lies. I can't speculate as to why he is doing that. Do you have an explanation for why he would do so?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

it is out contention that the Mossad is constantly blaimed for terror attacks, without any evidence, because it is full of Jews.

jews have been accused of everything from the Lincoln assassination, to the attack on the Lusitania, to the sinking of the Maine, to the assassination of Francis Ferdinand of Serbia, to the founding of the Federal Reserve, to 9-11, to the Iraq war.

it doesnt take a genius to tell that these conspiracy theories are based in hatred of the Jewish people.


That's where you let yourself down badly. You automatically assume that because people are focusing on criticism of people who are Jewish/Israeli are doing it becuase they hate Jews.

That is absolute crap. Of course there are people who hate Jews. There are also people who hate Americans, hate Brits, hate the French, hate Arabs. Everyone has someone who hates them.

But it's crap to assume that all these CTs are based upon hatred of Jews. I would say they are more based upon people's observance ( rightly or wrongly ) of a Jewish/Zionist/Israeli influence in Western governments and not a hatred of Jews.


but apprently, you think all these conspiracy theories must be based in some sort of fact.


:confused: - Now you've lost me.

[Pardalis]

Who cares if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did it. There is no proof but Bin Laden has many times talk about the oppressed muslims in Kashmir. Just ignore the problem and blame those evil terrorists. Then when muslims exposed what India does in Kashmir after that India blames Pakistan. Google human rights violations in Kashmir. :mad:

Killing hundreds of innocent people in cold blood isn't a violation of human rights enough for ya?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

He is spreading anti-semitic propoganda lies. I can't speculate as to why he is doing that. Do you have an explanation for why he would do so?

He might be spreading lies, but that's not the point here. The point is whether it's racism or not.

So, like I say, provide evidence that Alex Jones hates or dislikes Jews then I will be the first to call him anti-semitic and condemn him for it.

[Stout]

By the way, as usual, the "anti racist", "anti fascist", "anti imperialist" gang is already feverishly looking for the "root causes" of the terrorist attack, in order to make the terorrists the good guys.

It's strange that these "anti racists", "anti fascists", and "anti imperialists" are always on the side of thugs who want to resurrect a fascist-style mideaval, theocratic empire, and who choose their victims in the most racist way possible -- to wit, solely based on the victims being (a) defenseless, and (b) of the "wrong" ethnic group (the one the thugs dislike).

A rather curious kind of anti-fascism, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism, don't you think? Pro-fascism, pro-racism, and pro-imperialism is a rather more accurate description of the "root causers"' behavior, if not of their ego-flattering self-appointed titles.

Yep, I've been reading that stuff too, must be my inner masochist.

So far, all they've been able to come up with is India being a victim of British colonialism but I'm failing to predict how they're going to link that to the subject of this thread.

I've never understood the far left's fascination with defending Islam.

IMO both the far left and radical Islam are equally scary.

[gtc]

He might be spreading lies, but that's not the point here. The point is whether it's racism or not.

I think the fact that he is spreading racist lies is the point.

Do you believe what he says about Mossad? You haven't actually said whether you do or not.

[Pardalis]

Isn't there aleady a thread about alex Jones and his anti-semitism?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Do you believe Al Qaeda exists, and that its intended goal is islamic world domination?

Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist as an organisation. It's just a name given to a 'movement' and was created by the FBI as the only way they could get Bin Laden indcited on pre 911 terror attacsk was for him to be officially part of a terrorist group. Hence Al-Qaeda was born.

You might find this helpful. It's a paper by the British Govenrment's Select Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding 'Al-Qaeda' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool for western propaganda to provide a name for the enemy in the so called 'War on terror'

Do I believe there are Islamic Fundamentalists who want to spread Islam across the world and kill all infidels? Yes of course I do.

[Pardalis]

Al-Qaeda doesn't really exist as an organisation. It's just a name given to a 'movement' and was created by the FBI as the only way they could get Bin Laden indcited on pre 911 terror attacsk was for him to be officially part of a terrorist group. Hence Al-Qaeda was born.

You might find this helpful. It's a paper by the British Govenrment's Select Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding 'Al-Qaeda' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool for western propaganda to provide a name for the enemy in the so called 'War on terror'

Do I believe there are Islamic Fundamentalists who want to spread Islam across the world and kill all infidels? Yes of course I do.

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X

[Dr Adequate]

You are falling into the same trap of Dr Inadequate. You mean, looking to see what the article actually says?

And that's precisely the point. It's about how many times the word Al-Qaeda can be inserted in the article, not so much whether it's in a positive or negative light. It reinforces the association with Al-Qaeda in the reader. The brain doesn't read negatives. Only if the brain in question belongs to someone who is severely retarded, or perhaps has suffered a left-sided stroke.

I can assure you that when my brain reads a statement like: "this doesn't look like a core Al Qaeda attack", it takes that to mean that this doesn't look like a core Al Qaeda attack. Rather than that it does. 'Cos my brain reads negatives, and so can distinguish between "does" and "doesn't".

If that makes me "inadequate" in your eyes, I much prefer that to the alternative, which would involve me looking like I was mentally handicapped in the eyes of, well, pretty much everyone else in the world.

[stilicho]

You might find this helpful. It's a paper by the British Govenrment's Select Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding 'Al-Qaeda' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4050402.htm

Al-Qaeda is a convenient tool for western propaganda to provide a name for the enemy in the so called 'War on terror'.

Your statement isn't supported by your link. The link explains that "there is a global jihad movement composed of many autonomous groups, and al-Qa'ida is one component."

Hardly the "convenient tool for Western propaganda" as you interpreted the link.

Your link is instructive, however, if you want to wander back to the topic of the OP. It is likely that there are dozens of similar autonomous groups that haven't even been discovered yet. Some of them will undoubtedly only appear once they've attacked and killed innocent people.

[dudalb]

It's going to be interesting to see how those already screaming that the Zionist are behind the Mumbai attacks explain away the fact that a Jewish Community Center was a major target of the attacks.
I expect some unusually loony opinions concerning this.

[parky76]

well, they targeted a Chassidic center. Israel hates religous jews...so thats why they tried to kill them. the rabbi still held hostage must be anti-Zionist. thats why the Mossad hates him.

=)

[fullflavormenthol]

Look Kashmir is an awful situation. The conflict in Chechnya is an awful situation. The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is an awful situation. The conflict in Tibet is an awful situation.

Okay I agree.

BUT...........

This does not excuse or justify the killing of innnocent people who are not invovled! You have a problem with Indian forces in Kashmir, you fight it out in Kashmir against those forces. You don't go around killing women and children. This isn't a "well, but they...", no it is simply a matter of what those cowards did was wrong. Simple as that.

You're right, it doesn't matter who those cowards were; they are wrong. And yes...They are bad guys.

[parky76]

as we speak, a Rabbi and his wife from Brooklyn are held hostage. God I hope they are not killed...just cause they are Jews. But this is what I fear will happen.

Mossad is responsible for this? Yeah right.

[parky76]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081128/ts_nm/us_india_mumbai_shootings

looks like the Israelis were wrong. atleast 10 israelis being held hostage by the bums.

[fullflavormenthol]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081128/ts_nm/us_india_mumbai_shootings

looks like the Israelis were wrong. atleast 10 israelis being held hostage by the bums.
I would like some people defending the terrorists to explain how those Israelis are resonsible for Kashmir? I am waiting.

[Foolmewunz]

There are alot of violations in Kashmir. Indian army tortures, rapes and murders muslims in Kashmir. Kashmir is a genocide done by the hindu army of India just like what Russia is doing in Chechnya. :mad:

Moon.... Shut up!

You've made this same statement six times in six different ways. Now either complete the statement so that we can all mutually detest you, or stop repeating it. We get it. Bad things have happened in Kashmir. Now extrapolate that and complete the statement. It would read something like this....

Since the Indians have evidently done some bad things in Kashmir (and of course the Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan have not done any such bad things), then it is okay, in fact it is excellent that a bunch of terrorists have attacked non-combatant civilians and bystanders and murdered them.

Now is that what you're saying, Moon? 'Cuz if it is, I think you should just be real clear to everyone instead of deflecting the discussion of the murderous events in Mumbai onto a discussion of Kashmir.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Your statement isn't supported by your link. The link explains that "there is a global jihad movement composed of many autonomous groups, and al-Qa'ida is one component."

Hardly the "convenient tool for Western propaganda" as you interpreted the link.
.

How is Al-Qaeda hardly the "convenient tool for Western propaganda" because it exists as a movement without an organized structure.(as described in the link and by my statement)?

The logic of your post makes no sense whatsoever.

[parky76]

I would like some people defending the terrorists to explain how those Israelis are resonsible for Kashmir? I am waiting.

clearly, the India/Pakistan conflict over Kashmir is a Zionist proxy war. Don't you read Prisonplanet?

:D

[geni]

You have a problem with Indian forces in Kashmir, you fight it out in Kashmir against those forces. You don't go around killing women and children.

Generaly people want to minimise damage to their own civilian population which means keeping the war away from it. Obviously this isn't always posible due the disadvantages of operating away from much of your supporting infrastructure. That said the Kashmir popualtions seems to be carming down a bit and going in for peaceful protest and the like.



You're right, it doesn't matter who those cowards were;


Cowards? From what we can tell they were operating in an unfamilia area in a city full of rather a lot of people who wanted them dead then when thing inevitably started to go against them for the most part fought to the death. Cowards is not I feel an appropriate description

[gtc]

Cowards? From what we can tell they were operating in an unfamilia area in a city full of rather a lot of people who wanted them dead then when thing inevitably started to go against them for the most part fought to the death. Cowards is not I feel an appropriate description

They attacked unarmed civillians. How can they be anything but cowards?

[lionking]

Generaly people want to minimise damage to their own civilian population which means keeping the war away from it. Obviously this isn't always posible due the disadvantages of operating away from much of your supporting infrastructure. That said the Kashmir popualtions seems to be carming down a bit and going in for peaceful protest and the like.




Cowards? From what we can tell they were operating in an unfamilia area in a city full of rather a lot of people who wanted them dead then when thing inevitably started to go against them for the most part fought to the death. Cowards is not I feel an appropriate description

Am I understanding you correctly? The Mumbai terrorists who open fired on unarmed civilians in restaurants and hotels were not cowards?

[lionking]

Sorry gtc. Didn't copy you, just posted at the same time.

[fullflavormenthol]

They attacked unarmed civillians. How can they be anything but cowards?

Am I understanding you correctly? The Mumbai terrorists who open fired on unarmed civilians in restaurants and hotels were not cowards?

Well...you two keep me from approaching another rules violation.:D (in all fun of course to that mod)

You both are right...it is the same ol' moral equivalency argument. I could walk into a college with "over whelming odds" and fight to the death. It doesn't make me brave.

What is wrong with saying that killing innocents is wrong? Where have we gone in society that we can't just simply say that "Well what goes on in Kashmir is wrong, but so is killing innocent women and children."

How hard is that. The two don't excuse each other, but honestly I have a lower opinion of a terrorist that kills tourists than a soldier who fights rebels. And I am not taking the Indian's side on Kashmir.

(Actually I think both are qually stupid on the matter)

Why is it people fight over the most worthless real estate in the world?:boggled:

[geni]

They attacked unarmed civillians. How can they be anything but cowards?

They also attacked a police station but you miss the point. When a plane bombs something the taget itself will frequently have no defenses. Does that mean that pilots who bomb munitions factories are cowards? Well no because while the factory itself may be unarmed the AA bateries and fighters that will take an interest in you as a result are going to tend to be rather well armed.

[geni]

Am I understanding you correctly? The Mumbai terrorists who open fired on unarmed civilians in restaurants and hotels were not cowards?

From what we can tell their actions strongly suggest they are not. They are not under most widly professed ethical systems good people. Under most of them they are extreamly bad people but that does not make them cowards.

[lionking]

They also attacked a police station but you miss the point. When a plane bombs something the taget itself will frequently have no defenses. Does that mean that pilots who bomb munitions factories are cowards? Well no because while the factory itself may be unarmed the AA bateries and fighters that will take an interest in you as a result are going to tend to be rather well armed. Much the same applies to other forms of infrastucture.

"Infrastructure"? Hotels and restaurants? I did understand you correctly. You are wrong, and in an offensive way.

[fullflavormenthol]

They also attacked a police station but you miss the point. When a plane bombs something the taget itself will frequently have no defenses. Does that mean that pilots who bomb munitions factories are cowards? Well no because while the factory itself may be unarmed the AA bateries and fighters that will take an interest in you as a result are going to tend to be rather well armed.

But my friend, the munitions factory is a means to war, but the police station, the hotel, the train station is different. The police station is people merely seeking to keep social order, and those cops are not part of any war effort. Friend, you need to understand that there is a difference in attacking a police station and attacking a military outpost. Do you understand that many people that work in a police station are not police. The person answering the phones in many police stations will not actually be an officer, but a total civilian who simply takes that job.

From what we can tell their actions strongly suggest they are not. They are not under most widly professed ethical systems good people. Under most of them they are extreamly bad people but that does not make them cowards.

It does, because they attacked and killed people unable to defend themselves. A hotel is not a military target, friend. Taking civilian hostages is not a brave act friend. Do you not understand how killing women and children is wrong? I am merely trying to reach out to you my friend and help understand how violent actions can be wrong and cowardly.

[geni]

Well...you two keep me from approaching another rules violation.:D (in all fun of course to that mod)

You both are right...it is the same ol' moral equivalency argument. I could walk into a college with "over whelming odds" and fight to the death. It doesn't make me brave.

No it makes you insane.


What is wrong with saying that killing innocents is wrong?


Because there are so many times when doing it is useful. You could probably make a stronger case for deliberately killing innocents is wrong although even that would probably have to be modified to "diliberately killing innocents is wrong when doing so is the primary imediate objective of your actions" if you wanted to get an honest degree of acceptance.


Where have we gone in society that we can't just simply say that "Well what goes on in Kashmir is wrong, but so is killing innocent women and children."


becuase people will start jumping on you with words like "apologist"


How hard is that. The two don't excuse each other, but honestly I have a lower opinion of a terrorist that kills tourists than a soldier who fights rebels.


The second is rather too generalised to form an opinion on.


Why is it people fight over the most worthless real estate in the world?:boggled:

A mixture of sudanses banking and the goverment of chad favoring the Zaghawa tribe to the exclusion of all others. France is involved because it is their former turf and they still haven't really managed to let go.

[geni]

"Infrastructure"? Hotels and restaurants?

Yup. With that kind of atitude britian would have lost the Second Boer War.

[Skeptic]

By the way, the "anti-fascists" who support Islamic fascism by looking for its "root causes" by blaming its victims are the relatively more sophistiated terrorism apologists.

There's also the (even) dumber terrorist apologists: the openly neo-nazi who blame the Jews for being "fascists", or the openly Jew-haters who blame the Jews for being "racist".

That makes as much sense as blaming the smelly, stupid darkies for not being multicultural, or blaming all those fat, ugly lesbians for being anti-feminist.

I know, I know--I'm looking for logic, or traces of it, among antisemites and racists. Me bad. What am I thinking?

[fullflavormenthol]

No it makes you insane.



Because there are so many times when doing it is useful. You could probably make a stronger case for deliberately killing innocents is wrong although even that would probably have to be modified to "diliberately killing innocents is wrong when doing so is the primary imediate objective of your actions" if you wanted to get an honest degree of acceptance.



becuase people will start jumping on you with words like "apologist"



The second is rather too generalised to form an opinion on.



A mixture of sudanses banking and the goverment of chad favoring the Zaghawa tribe to the exclusion of all others. France is involved because it is their former turf and they still haven't really managed to let go.
Well then my friend there is no way to reach you now is there? You seem to be aware that attacking a college is insane, and yet unaware that attacking a hotel full of tourists is both insane and cowardly. What else can I say to you friend? You will one day find that you are clearly on the wrong side of this issue, and I hope that you never have to suffer the pain of the family members of these victims; and have to hear or read about how the terrorists are brave.

Do you not understand that these are real people who were killed friend? Would you look into their mothers, wifes, brothers, childs eyes and tell them how brave the terrorists were as the tears roll down my friend? A bit of hyperbole, yes, and an hoesnt bit.

[lionking]

Geni,

Because of the spelling, punctuation and grammatical mistakes (and your avatar), I'm guessing you might have imbibed a bit much at the moment. I hope I'm right.

[fullflavormenthol]

By the way, the "anti-fascists" who support Islamic fascism by looking for its "root causes" by blaming its victims are the relatively more sophistiated terrorism apologists.

There's also the (even) dumber terrorist apologists: the openly neo-nazi who blame the Jews for being "fascists", or the openly Jew-haters who blame the Jews for being "racist".

That makes as much sense as blaming the smelly, stupid darkies for not being multicultural, or blaming all those fat, ugly lesbians for being anti-feminist.

I know, I know--I'm looking for logic, or traces of it, among antisemites and racists. Me bad. What am I thinking?
Well those people are now so disconnected from the reality that they are unable to really understand that these were real people that died. It makes me so angry, but I have to keep it in. Passive aggressiveness....works wonders.

[Skeptic]

Oh, come on, TFT. You're building castles in the air about "Western propaganda" about Al quaeda based on an article that is nothing whatever of the sort -- that is, in fact, quite the opposite.

By your logic, any article that claims brand X is better than brand Y and explains why is "really" "propaganda for brand Y" since it, naturally, mentions brand Y quite a bit. Or, perhaps a better analogy, a zoology article that talks about the canine family and mentions the house dog as an example a lot of times is "really" a sly attempt to convince us all canines are dogs and that wolves, etc. do not exist.

[geni]

But my friend, the munitions factory is a means to war, but the police station, the hotel, the train station is different. The police station is people merely seeking to keep social order, and those cops are not part of any war effort.

Define war effort. It includes the an anti-terrorism Squad


Friend, you need to understand that there is a difference in attacking a police station and attacking a military outpost.

Heh go back about 6 months. There was an attack on an indian politice station that was exactly like attacking a military outpost (the raiding party was mostly after guns). Fortunetly the people who did it doen't care about us so less of a problem than it would be in some areas.


Do you understand that many people that work in a police station are not police. The person answering the phones in many police stations will not actually be an officer, but a total civilian who simply takes that job.

Do you understand that most of the people working at the UK's nuclear weapon research centre will be civilians?

But as I said the police attack was a side issue.



It does, because they attacked and killed people unable to defend themselves.

So you are only allowed to attack people able to defend themselves? You know this is going to make a right mess of the ROI for cruise missiles. But again side issue.


A hotel is not a military target, friend. Taking civilian hostages is not a brave act friend.

Taking civilian hostages when you know you will die as a result? That isn't cowardance. Rather unethical yes cowardly not so much.

Not a tactic I would aprove of mind. Apart form anything else I tend to feel there were more effective ones availible.


Do you not understand how killing women and children is wrong? I am merely trying to reach out to you my friend and help understand how violent actions can be wrong and cowardly.

Just because something is wrong doesn't make it cowardly.

Know thine enermy and thine enermy are not cowards in this case. If they were dealing with them would be a lot less effort.

I think part of the problem is that you are confuseing honor with bravery.

[fullflavormenthol]

Look my friend. Taking hostages, and attacking hotels while demanding people with U.S., U.K., and Israeli passports step forward is cowardice. Yes. I will declare this with confidence. None of these people have anything to do with the conflct in Kashmir. Again stating that I am not pro-Indian army in that conflct. Still it is wrong and cowardly to kill innocent civilians....and yes the researchers working as contractors for the military are still innocent civilians. Sorry, friend, but I am unwilling to excuse the violence against non-military personale.

[geni]

Well then my friend there is no way to reach you now is there? You seem to be aware that attacking a college is insane, and yet unaware that attacking a hotel full of tourists is both insane and cowardly.

Nope coldly sane. If it were insane it would again be easy to deal with. We know how do deal with the insane in any case they normaly burn out very fast.

Consider you are a commander. You have a lot of brave but unskilled young men some explosives a lot of AK-47s and some PRG-7s. What you going to do with them? Throw them against collition forces in afganistan? They would die bravely perhaps even honorably but would gain you nothing. Going up against collition forces forces in dirrect combat is insane (well other than the PR value and that has been rather overdone).

But take the same young men ship them to Mumbai and well have you any idea how much that attack will have cost India's Economy? Mumbai is vital to that economy and yet still large parts of it are a standstill. Tourism is not as important as it once was but it will take a dent as a result.

The attacks were sane the people who carried them out were not cowards (given the extent they were likely manipulated to brave is a tricky judgement call) and if we are to defeate them we have to understand this.


Do you not understand that these are real people who were killed friend? Would you look into their mothers, wifes, brothers, childs eyes and tell them how brave the terrorists were as the tears roll down my friend? A bit of hyperbole, yes, and an hoesnt bit.

Lieing to people for the sake of their feelings does not change the underlying facts of the matter. That of course assumes they think it somehow better to die at the hands of a coward.

[fullflavormenthol]

Dieing at the hands of anyone is a crime, my friend. I would hope you would come to realize that, friend. Nevertheless, friend, it is time for me to depart from that argument for now. Mainly because it is fruitless endevor, beause I am of the opinion that you are in the wrong, and beyond a uninformed moral equivalency; this debate is not evolving. Have a good night my friend, but it is time for me to get some rest. Still feel free to of course present any more arguments, but do not expect a reply for awhile. Have a good night friend and I look forward to continuing the debate at a latter time.

FFM.

[gtc]

They also attacked a police station but you miss the point.

And how heavily armed are the Indian police?

When a plane bombs something the taget itself will frequently have no defenses. Does that mean that pilots who bomb munitions factories are cowards?

Of course it doesn't.

Well no because while the factory itself may be unarmed the AA bateries and fighters that will take an interest in you as a result are going to tend to be rather well armed.

So? How is bomber aircraft attacking a military target under attack by miltary AA defenses comparable to someone attacking unarmed civillians believing that if they die they will face eternal pleasure at the hands of 72 virgins.

[lionking]

Geni,

You are now going to ridiculous lengths to justify your position by re-defining the meaning of the word "coward". Shooting an unarmed civilian is cowardly.

Use spell check.

[geni]

Look my friend. Taking hostages, and attacking hotels while demanding people with U.S., U.K., and Israeli passports step forward is cowardice. Yes. I will declare this with confidence.

You are forgetting the wider context. They are doing this in india not say saudi arabia. The police backed by the army are on their way and they are not going to mess around. They are going to kill anyone who opposes them. And yet rather than takeing the coward option (chuck away their guns and run) they chose to fight. Which is again interesting because in this case the coward option would be the smart option. Far better to have you terroist suspects dead on the floor than still at large.



None of these people have anything to do with the conflct in Kashmir.


Not confimed although I'm assumeing they didn't otherwise their failure to run is even more foolish


Still it is wrong and cowardly to kill innocent civilians....and yes the researchers working as contractors for the military are still innocent civilians.


Most major ethical systems would challange the innocent bit.


Sorry, friend, but I am unwilling to excuse the violence against non-military personale.

You view "not cowardly" as an excuse to do something? You have one messed up ethical system there. Brave does not equate to ethical in any way shape or form. Liberian civil war had some brave people in it. Doesn't make them some of the most evil people you could ever wish to hang mind.

[geni]

And how heavily armed are the Indian police?
Fairly but as I said side issue



Of course it doesn't.


Good so you accept that the fact that the target itself has no imediate
defences is not alone to decide the case.


So? How is bomber aircraft attacking a military target under attack by miltary AA defenses

I didn't say it was under attack during the actual bombing run.


comparable to someone attacking unarmed civillians


Because in both cases people being targeted are themselves unarmed. Remember we are not considering the ethics of the situation only the level of cowardice involved.


believing that if they die they will face eternal pleasure at the hands of 72 virgins.

Would it make any difference to you if the pilot believed that?

[Damien Evans]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward

Please tell me, which definition of coward covers these bombers?

Reprehensible I'll grant you, but not cowardly.

[geni]

Geni,

You are now going to ridiculous lengths to justify your position by re-defining the meaning of the word "coward".


No you are due to some apparent emotional need to demonise the enemy. Me I find the fact that they would wish to destroy a number of societies I care about enough.


Shooting an unarmed civilian is cowardly.


Absolutes like that are your problem. Shooting an unarmed civilian surrounded by 30 marines is not cowardly. Insane maybe. Stupid very much so. Likely to be very unethical yes. Cowardly no.

[gtc]

My dictionary defines cowardice as avoiding dangerous or difficult situations.

Until the military turns up, attacking unarmed civillians is hardly dangerous or difficult. Attacking a military target would have been dangerous or difficult.

A hero is someone who is distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility etc.

[lionking]

Geni,

Your last post was unintelligible.

[portlandatheist]

Who cares if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did it.
I care.

[Obviousman]

The Rabid Conspiracists Mutual Appreciation Society webpage. (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354)

[geni]

My dictionary defines cowardice as avoiding dangerous or difficult situations.

Until the military turns up, attacking unarmed civillians is hardly dangerous or difficult. Attacking a military target would have been dangerous or difficult.

A hero is someone who is distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility etc.

There is a considerable amount of space between coward and hero. Carrying out an action that will result in the military targeting you with a very high probability of success is not cowardice.

[fullflavormenthol]

There is a considerable amount of space between coward and hero. Carrying out an action that will result in the military targeting you with a very high probability of success is not cowardice.
Okay I am on my way to bed and all, but if you are already dead than it isn't an act of bravery to direct a military force towards people not involved. Friend the 9-11 hijackers aren't brave, because they directed a lot of pain toward fellow Muslims. These cowards in the Mumbai attacks just directed a lot of hurt towards people they had no right in directing it towards. No friend, you can't justify that....can you?

[lionking]

The Rabid Conspiracists Mutual Appreciation Society webpage. (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354)

My IQ dropped 10 points just browsing that thread, thanks very much obviousman (not that I have any IQ points to spare).;)

[geni]

Okay I am on my way to bed and all, but if you are already dead than it isn't an act of bravery to direct a military force towards people not involved.

No one involved in the attack was already dead. I think that would have been reported.


Friend the 9-11 hijackers aren't brave, because they directed a lot of pain toward fellow Muslims. These cowards in the Mumbai attacks just directed a lot of hurt towards people they had no right in directing it towards. No friend, you can't justify that....can you?

Oh dear again you seem to be takeing the position that as long as you are brave while carrying out an action that somehow justifies doing it.

It is possible for cowards to be ethical just as it is possible for brave people to be unethical (the British empire was full of brave but utterly amoral individuals).

To try and claim otherwise is irrational.

[lionking]

Semantic rubbish. How dare you use the word irrational.

[geni]

The Rabid Conspiracists Mutual Appreciation Society webpage. (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354)

Not even good CTers. Not one has picked up on the RDX claims.

[geni]

Semantic rubbish.

It is generally accepted that using words as they are commonly defined isn't "Semantic rubbish". If I was citing say the slightly non-standard WW1 army definition you might have a case but I was not.


How dare you use the word irrational.

It is a legitimate description of argument I was countering. If you don't want the word used avoid that argument.

[lionking]

Have another drink. Good night.

[boloboffin]

You'll be pleased to learn that this is NOT a CIA/Mossad job.

TiRtL8XCuP0

[dudalb]

You'll be pleased to learn that this is NOT a CIA/Mossad job.

TiRtL8XCuP0


Just what I thought my opinion of Rense could not be lower, he manages to do something which manages to lower it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Oh, come on, TFT. You're building castles in the air about "Western propaganda" about Al quaeda based on an article that is nothing whatever of the sort -- that is, in fact, quite the opposite.

By your logic, any article that claims brand X is better than brand Y and explains why is "really" "propaganda for brand Y" since it, naturally, mentions brand Y quite a bit. Or, perhaps a better analogy, a zoology article that talks about the canine family and mentions the house dog as an example a lot of times is "really" a sly attempt to convince us all canines are dogs and that wolves, etc. do not exist.

You analogy above is missing the point completely.


That article is typical of Western media. When ever something happens that is destructive the media try and get the words terror. Terrorists and Al-Qaeda in as much as possible. iI even happened with a bridge collapse. I heard lots of news stories saying "it probably wasn't a terrorist attack", and "Oh by the way it wasn't a terrorist attack" "We're getting reports in that confirm it wasn't a terrorist attack"

It's not about trying to pin anything on Al-qaeda so much as associate the name with the incident. And that's why Al-qaeda is mentioned 10 times in the article and Decca Mujihadeen twice.

[parky76]

the attackers were all south-asian muslims. some spoke Hindi. they were clearly from Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh.

none of the attackers were israeli.

=P

[dudalb]

Who do you think was reponsible for the Mumbai attacks, TFT?

[Trojan_Jockey]

Who do you think was reponsible for the Mumbai attacks, TFT?

Well, I'm guessing if he says "it wasn't Al-Qaeda" he is just saying that to get the thought of Al Qaeda in our minds....wooooooooo..

[Trojan_Jockey]

You analogy above is missing the point completely.


That article is typical of Western media. When ever something happens that is destructive the media try and get the words terror. Terrorists and Al-Qaeda in as much as possible. iI even happened with a bridge collapse. I heard lots of news stories saying "it probably wasn't a terrorist attack", and "Oh by the way it wasn't a terrorist attack" "We're getting reports in that confirm it wasn't a terrorist attack"

It's not about trying to pin anything on Al-qaeda so much as associate the name with the incident. And that's why Al-qaeda is mentioned 10 times in the article and Decca Mujihadeen twice.

Ah, just like you continually saying "I am not an antisemite" is really a way for us to associate you with antisemitism?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Who do you think was reponsible for the Mumbai attacks, TFT?

I've no idea. A hitherto unknown group calling themselves Decca Mujihadeen has claimed responsibility, and they look like Asian militants of some sort. I guess more will come out in the coming days.

It's the complete lack of regard for human life that angers me.

[portlandatheist]

By the way, as usual, the "anti racist", "anti fascist", "anti imperialist" gang is already feverishly looking for the "root causes" of the terrorist attack, in order to make the terorrists the good guys.

It's strange that these "anti racists", "anti fascists", and "anti imperialists" are always on the side of thugs who want to resurrect a fascist-style mideaval, theocratic empire, and who choose their victims in the most racist way possible -- to wit, solely based on the victims being (a) defenseless, and (b) of the "wrong" ethnic group (the one the thugs dislike).

A rather curious kind of anti-fascism, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism, don't you think? Pro-fascism, pro-racism, and pro-imperialism is a rather more accurate description of the "root causers"' behavior, if not of their ego-flattering self-appointed titles.

Sadly true. This isn't quite the same thing as Stockholm Syndrome but it is very similar phenomenon.

[parky76]

Oh good. Now I know that the reason why my co-workers relatives had to die, and one young girl is in critical condition with bullet wounds, died for a "root cause" of terrorism. Im sure that will make her feel so much better, if she recovers and finds out her father, brother, and mother....are all dead.

[dudalb]

It's strange that these "anti racists", "anti fascists", and "anti imperialists" are always on the side of thugs who want to resurrect a fascist-style mideaval, theocratic empire, and who choose their victims in the most racist way possible -- to wit, solely based on the victims being (a) defenseless, and (b) of the "wrong" ethnic group (the one the thugs dislike).

In the sheer bizarreness of far left support for Islamic Extremists grooups, it compares with the Hitler/Stalin pact of 1939.

But we are hearing the ususal crap from the Usual Gang Of Useful Idiots about Mumbai.

[portlandatheist]

Oh good. Now I know that the reason why my co-workers relatives had to die, and one young girl is in critical condition with bullet wounds, died for a "root cause" of terrorism. Im sure that will make her feel so much better, if she recovers and finds out her father, brother, and mother....are all dead.
I wonder if the terrorist apologists even stop to consider the ramifications of their blame the victim mentality

[Jonnyclueless]

You analogy above is missing the point completely.


That article is typical of Western media. When ever something happens that is destructive the media try and get the words terror. Terrorists and Al-Qaeda in as much as possible. iI even happened with a bridge collapse. I heard lots of news stories saying "it probably wasn't a terrorist attack", and "Oh by the way it wasn't a terrorist attack" "We're getting reports in that confirm it wasn't a terrorist attack"

It's not about trying to pin anything on Al-qaeda so much as associate the name with the incident. And that's why Al-qaeda is mentioned 10 times in the article and Decca Mujihadeen twice.

Well when the incident in India ends up turning out to be a bridge collapse we'll all give you a pat on the back.

Otherwise it's just insane for people to suspect Al Qeada in a terrorist attack that uses their methods to a T. Clearly they should have speculated the Jews instead. What on earth would make them speculate Al qeada, It's a mystery!

[moon1969]

Maybe Pakistan did it? Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan army and ISI are very corrupt and evil. Economy of Pakistan is also very bad.

[parky76]

cant we not blaim governments..and just blaim who we have in hand so far?

as of now, it looks like a small indian sub-continent terror group. there is no evidence of any government links yet.

lets not assume anything....when you assume..you make an XXX of u and me.

[geni]

as of now, it looks like a small indian sub-continent terror group. there is no evidence of any government links yet.

Reports of an RDX find. If that is real it is not consistent with a small indian sub-continent terror group. It's posible that someone is makeing the stuff somewhere and selling it on the black market or it means ISI involvement. Both would be rather worrying.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well when the incident in India ends up turning out to be a bridge collapse we'll all give you a pat on the back.

Given the paradigm of my post was nothing to do with the actual mechanics of any incident can you explain what you mean by the above?


Otherwise it's just insane for people to suspect Al Qeada in a terrorist attack that uses their methods to a T. Clearly they should have speculated the Jews instead. What on earth would make them speculate Al qeada, It's a mystery!

That's a very specific claim. So as you must an expert in these matters can you tell us what the specific methods of Al-Qaeda are? And more importantly how these methods match the Mumbai attack to a 'T' ?

[Jonnyclueless]

Given the paradigm of my post was nothing to do with the actual mechanics of any incident can you explain what you mean by the above?



That's a very specific claim. So as you must an expert in these matters can you tell us what the specific methods of Al-Qaeda are? And more importantly how these methods match the Mumbai attack to a 'T' ?

You used an example of the bridge incident and people speculating it might be terrorists. In this case since there is pretty much no debating there being terrorists, we can hope that it's not a bridge being mistaken for terrorists Do you now understand?

Explain? let's see multiple simultaneous attacks across a country carried out by islamic militants and directed towards Westerners. This is the tactics of most Al Qeada attacks. Are you not familiar with Al Qeada's methods?

In this case it's doubtful that it's Al Qeada, but more likely some other group that has learned from Al Qeada, hence the similar methods. However your claim about the media concluding it is Al Qeada is completely false. It's always the people who don't watch the media but instead get their information from tabloid sites who make a living denouncing the real media so as to make profits in advertising that make this claim. For example, here is the big headline form FOX news:

Terror Mystery: They mounted Brazen attacks on India's financial capitol, but experts are struggling to answer, who are they? Wave of attacks that killed at least 150 may be work of a terrorist group with roots in Pakistan.

No metnion of Al Qeada or claims of it being Al Qeada as you claim. This is supposed to be the big corporate evil sellout news outlet that is part of all the conspiracy theories is it not?

How about CNN? Aren't they also part of the evil NWO?

"The identity of the attackers remained a mystery. Police said they came by boats to the waterfront near the Gateway of India monument and the two hotels."

That's what CNN says about the terrorists.


So let's just stop with the anti-media propaganda. Let's face it that the source of these claims is from the tabloids who want to make money and depend on luring people away from the real media outlets to get traffic. They simply take pundits who talk about the incident and speculate about what they think might be going on and then claim it's news. It's like watching Dr Phil and claiming what he said is the voice of the news outlet.

It's important for the crackpots to make these claims because they want to downplay the absurdity of the tabloids they get their factless information from.

[PhantomWolf]

That's a very specific claim. So as you must an expert in these matters can you tell us what the specific methods of Al-Qaeda are? And more importantly how these methods match the Mumbai attack to a 'T' ?

The major calling card of Al Qaeda backed events since 1998 appears to be multiple near simultanous attacks against Western targets.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You used an example of the bridge incident and people speculating it might be terrorists. In this case since there is pretty much no debating there being terrorists, we can hope that it's not a bridge being mistaken for terrorists Do you now understand?

Yes, I now fully understand you've complete missed the point.



Explain? let's see multiple simultaneous attacks across a country carried out by islamic militants and directed towards Westerners. This is the tactics of most Al Qeada attacks. Are you not familiar with Al Qeada's methods?


Well 'Al-Qaeda' aren't an organisation but a name gioven to a movement, so they don't really have set methods as such do they?

And these attacks were not just directed at Westerners. They are also directed at Asians. In fact the bloodshed at the railway station was directly aimed at Asians and Asians were by far the highest causalities



In this case it's doubtful that it's Al Qeada, but more likely some other group that has learned from Al Qeada, hence the similar methods. However your claim about the media concluding it is Al Qeada is completely false. .....

You wasted an awful lot of typing after that. it would be helpful if you read my posts properly first.

And I don't wish to be the 'Spelling Cop' but it's Al Qaeda, not Al Qeada - you keep doing it so I assume it's not just a typo

[parky76]

Well 'Al-Qaeda' aren't an organisation but a name gioven to a movement, so they don't really have set methods as such do they?



wrong again. they call themselves "Al Qaeda" which means: The Base

the "database" theory is incorrect.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

wrong again. they call themselves "Al Qaeda" which means: The Base

the "database" theory is incorrect.

What's the matter with you?

I have never mentioned a database.

Al-Qaeda is a movement. It's not a structured organization. Everyone knows this. Well everyone with an ounce of a grasp on the subject knows it.

Of course some people are going to admit to belonging to this movement.

And even the Wikipedia page on Al-Qaeda you just visited called it a 'movement'

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, I now fully understand you've complete missed the point.

No I most certainly did not. The joke was simply over your head. The fact taht you ddin't even realize it was a joke pretty much proves that.


Well 'Al-Qaeda' aren't an organisation but a name gioven to a movement, so they don't really have set methods as such do they?

Yes Al Qeada most certainly IS an organization. How can you sit here and claim they are not? Do you follow world events? Or do the tabloids site not post any actual information at all? Al Qeada is an organization and a well structured one with a chain of command as well. They are the most organized terrorist organization/network ever. It's anything but a name given to a movement.

And these attacks were not just directed at Westerners. They are also directed at Asians. In fact the bloodshed at the railway station was directly aimed at Asians and Asians were by far the highest causalities

They specifically asked for American and British passports. They chose their targets based on places that westerners are found. Obviously this group won't be the biggest casualty because they are the biggest minority in the area. And of course they picked a cliche Jewish center as part to the attacks.

Now I am sure that they weren't at all concerned with simply attacking Westerners, but they made it pretty clear that Westerners and Jews were the preferred target. To give you an example, there is footage of the terrorist driving a police van into a crowded square and firing indiscriminately into the crowd as they drove by.


You wasted an awful lot of typing after that. it would be helpful if you read my posts properly first.

It would help if you understood mine.

And I don't wish to be the 'Spelling Cop' but it's Al Qaeda, not Al Qeada - you keep doing it so I assume it's not just a typo

WRONG. It can be spelled either way. It can also be spelled Al Qiada. There are many spellings of it. So if you're going to be a spelling cop, learn about spelling first.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Yes Al Qeada most certainly IS an organization. How can you sit here and claim they are not? Do you follow world events? Or do the tabloids site not post any actual information at all? Al Qeada is an organization and a well structured one with a chain of command as well. They are the most organized terrorist organization/network ever. It's anything but a name given to a movement.



:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You are serious aren't you? What's your diet? Fox news?

But seeing as you are so clued up. Can you tell us this structure and who is who in the chain of command? I won't hold my breath.

Al-Qaeda is a movement dude. Stop listening to the propaganda. There is no structured organisation or chain of command. It's the name given to a collection of many extremist/terrorist groups that act as a movement.

[Pardalis]

But seeing as you are so clued up. Can you tell us this structure and who is who in the chain of command? I won't hold my breath.

Al-Qaeda is a movement dude. Stop listening to the propaganda. There is no structured organisation or chain of command. It's the name given to a collection of many extremist/terrorist groups that act as a movement.

They're the fusion between OBL's mujahideen and Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

The chain of command is well known, many of their emirs and generals have been killed and captured.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida-structure.htm

It's like you've never read anything about the subject and just spouting denial.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

United States of America – Early reports from a Joint U.S.-French Anti-Terrorist Task Force, headquartered on European soil, have linked the latest alleged terrorist attacks in India to elements of the Pakistani ISI with funding for the attacks from the noted East German Stasi DVD Hamburg cell, code name "Becker".

This Hamburg cell also had ties to the assassination of the former President of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto.
Note: The assassination of Bhutto took place two days before the 2008 Democratic presidential Iowa Caucus and two weeks before loser Hillary Clinton STOLE the New Hampshire primary and this attack comes two days before loser Hillary is about to be nominated as U.S. Secretary of State.
The BLACK OP attacks in India were coordinated with the cooperation of the rogue elements of British MI6 and the radical elements of Israeli Mossad aka Shin Bet, Israel's domestic internal security force, who have been linked to various staged bombings in Israel, which were then blamed on Arab terrorists.
__________________________________________________ _

Full story here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=147509065&blogID=452199719&Mytoken=99D4B2DE-2FA4-437B-9A38502DD39F185A74691569

(please don't yell at me; I didn't write it).

[gtc]

WRONG. It can be spelled either way. It can also be spelled Al Qiada. There are many spellings of it. So if you're going to be a spelling cop, learn about spelling first.

Many words have multiple spellings when they are written in a different alphabet and Arabic words seem to be particularly prone to this. I'm sure you know this, I'm just replying for the benefit of those who don't know.

[Old Bob]

My IQ dropped 10 points just browsing that thread, thanks very much obviousman (not that I have any IQ points to spare).;)

At last, a honest statement.

[lionking]

Well what do you have to add to this Old Bob? Or will we just put this down to more of your trolling?

Come on, who is responsible? Address the OP, not that you have a history of that.

[PhantomWolf]

What's the matter with you?

I have never mentioned a database.

Al-Qaeda is a movement. It's not a structured organization. Everyone knows this. Well everyone with an ounce of a grasp on the subject knows it.

Of course some people are going to admit to belonging to this movement.

And even the Wikipedia page on Al-Qaeda you just visited called it a 'movement'

The problem is that there are almost two Al Qaeda's. One is an Orgasnisation, though I wouldn't call it "the most organized terrorist organization/network ever" it's more about 30-50 guys with a basic structure and generally has been rather incompetent in its attempts to do things. It's major source of funding and success is in the ability to finance and train others, largely through several training camps on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. In its time it has been bigger (during the early 90's it had around 1,000 people in it), and much smaller (It dropped to around 10-20 in the '95-'96 period when OBL was exciled to Afghanistan virtually bankrupt) but now includes the remaining people from OBL's orginal group and people from the Egyptian Islamic Jihad due to the two merging.

It is also an idea, movement and network. Many Islamic groups use the name to "connect" themselves with the idea of AQ because it represents something bigger than themselves. That doesn't mean they are actually part of, or were even trained or financed by the real Al Qaeda. Some of them have been, most haven't. Much of what AQ does now is what it did back in the '89-'95 period, financing and training other groups who go and do the actual terror attacks. Al Qaeda's own planned and self run attacks have been very rare, the main three being the The Kenya and Tanzania US Embassy Bombings, USS Cole Bombing, and 9/11. While they have tried to run other attacks, most have been abysmal failures (such as the attack on the USS The Sullivans.)

Unfortunately the media hasn't helped. To them every Islamic group is part of this imaginary nebulous construct they created and call Al Qaeda just as every assult rifle is an AK-47. In a way all that has done is helped to hide the real Al Qaeda from sight behind something that is a bigger and more menacing, but also mythical. It is a mistake to believe that Al Qaeda is this super spider sitting in the middle of a web, controlling every Fudamentalist Islamic group in the world, but it's also a mistake to believe that they don't exsist at all too. The truth is somewhere in the middle, they really are a group, and they are part of a vast network of people that have trained in the camps run by AQ, but first off it is a very small and select group, and secondly most Islamic terrorist groups are not offically operating as, financed by, or even sanctioned by Al Qaeda in any way shape of form, even when they use the name or claim a connection.

For a very good understanding of the real Al Qaeda and the differenced to the mythical media made one, read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.

[Stout]

Great post there Phantomwolf

I have no problems with the media using the term Al-Qaeda when we're dealing with an unknown Muslim terrorist group as it's pretty much the only terrorist group I've heard of recently.

Now this is where to I confess my total knowledge of all things Kashmir comes form Led Zepplin and based on Moon1969s posts, I've been doing a little checking. The more I read, the more confused I become with my opinion at time of writing being this is one messed up place.

Most of the pro Islamic stuff I've been reading tends to refer to the CRPF as "Hindis" so I'm rather confused as to whether the whole Kashmir thing is a religious conflict, a tribal conflict, or a separatist movement.

One thing's for sure though, Kashmir is one of those places I'm glad I don't live.

Just speculating here, but if this really is a conflict between India and Pakistan, with the residents of Kashmir being caught in the middle, so to speak, might this have been a move by the Kashmiris to bring their plight to the attention of the international media. I mean, it "woke me up" and I'm wondering whether the "targeting" of US and UK citizens might just have been a ploy to garnet that desired attention.

I'll also speculate that the US and the UK might be the only western countries that the terrorists were familiar with.

The far lefties I was reading appear to have gone silent on this over the past two days. I'm wondering why. Are they waiting for new information, or is it one of those leftist conundrums where you have "brown people" vs other "brown people" without a white male dominated hegemonic colonial patriarchal yada yada.... structure to pin the blame on.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Great post there Phantomwolf

The far lefties I was reading appear to have gone silent on this over the past two days. I'm wondering why. Are they waiting for new information, or is it one of those leftist conundrums where you have "brown people" vs other "brown people" without a white male dominated hegemonic colonial patriarchal yada yada.... structure to pin the blame on.

Maybe they're waiting for an investigation?

[dudalb]

Maybe they're waiting for an investigation?


Oh, they have already made up their minds that "Capitalist Hegemonists" are behind it all.

[dudalb]

Reports of an RDX find. If that is real it is not consistent with a small indian sub-continent terror group. It's posible that someone is makeing the stuff somewhere and selling it on the black market or it means ISI involvement. Both would be rather worrying.

RDX is not that hard to get.

[geni]

RDX is not that hard to get.

Harder to get most explosives used by such groups. It's not exactly something you can buy on the open market without people asking questions or easily make yourself. It's posible that a small group managed to get hold of some but they would have to be rather lucky to do so. On the other hand we know that the Pakistani groups can get hold of it in fair sized ammounts (it was used in the attack on the Marriott Hotel). Not unreasonable to expect a connection.

[fullflavormenthol]

Harder to get most explosives used by such groups. It's not exactly something you can buy on the open market without people asking questions or easily make yourself. It's posible that a small group managed to get hold of some but they would have to be rather lucky to do so. On the other hand we know that the Pakistani groups can get hold of it in fair sized ammounts (it was used in the attack on the Marriott Hotel). Not unreasonable to expect a connection.
Not really, it was a widely used explosive during WWII; and it widely used in demolitions work. So, it isn't as hard to get as say...C4, and that isn't really uncommon on a world wide black market which can draw from unguarded supply caches from many regions of the world. Including the United States for that matter.

[dudalb]

Not really, it was a widely used explosive during WWII; and it widely used in demolitions work. So, it isn't as hard to get as say...C4, and that isn't really uncommon on a world wide black market which can draw from unguarded supply caches from many regions of the world. Including the United States for that matter.


Hell,if you are a professional chemist it is not that hard to make. The ingrediants are so commonly used in industry that they are very easy to get,and you can get the necessary equipment at any lab supply house. And it won't cost you that much.

[fullflavormenthol]

Hell,if you are a professional chemist it is not that hard to make. The ingrediants are so commonly used in industry that they are very easy to get,and you can get the necessary equipment at any lab supply house. And it won't cost you that much.
I didn't mention it in my post, but I started my research from wikipedia. Needless to say the chemical breakdown is readily available by using their links, following for awhile. Like I tell people, the secret to explosives can be found simply by looking to the advanced chemistry books. Which are available to anyone curios enough to look at them.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The plot thickens!

It can now be reported that on Wednesday, November 26th, a paramilitary team of seventy (70) Pakistani ISI soldiers arrived in Mumbai (Bombay) by sea on the CIA-ISI registered MV Alpha and proceeded on military style speedboats to the Indian shore and immediately traveled to the command and control headquarters for the paramilitary operation at the Jewish Center Nariman House. Three days of food awaited the terrorists along with sophisticated military style Blackberries, grenades and other sophisticated explosive devices to be used in the attacks.
Aiding and abetting the paramilitary team was a high tech television monitoring device in the Nariman House that allowed the terrorist group to monitor the movement of Indian Police and the Indian Anti-Terrorist Task Force that had used the Nariman House in the past for anti-terrorist surveillance inside Mumbai.


Full story here:
http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel

[Jonnyclueless]

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You are serious aren't you? What's your diet? Fox news?

But seeing as you are so clued up. Can you tell us this structure and who is who in the chain of command? I won't hold my breath.

Al-Qaeda is a movement dude. Stop listening to the propaganda. There is no structured organisation or chain of command. It's the name given to a collection of many extremist/terrorist groups that act as a movement.

Thank you for further proving my point that your goal is simply to try and denounce legitimate news outlets because the conspiracy tabloids which pass nothing but fact-less propaganda are not taken seriously. And another stereotypical CTers who doesn't understand the difference between pundits and the news saying the real news is propaganda while educating himself on youtube videos and reading crackpot tabloids.

Chain of command? Well you have Bin Laden at the top. After that you have groups of cells, each with their own chain of command. And as the cells move down the pyramid the lesser control they have until you have the bottom cells who carry out tasks. But in the upper chain of cells you have commanders such as Arkan Khalaf Khudayyir. Ayman al-Zawahiri was one of the top commanders of Al Qeada who wored along side Bin Laden. Then you have another tier down with guys like Ramzi Yousef , Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali. When you get to the bottom cells you get commanders like Mohammad Atta who led the cell that carried out 9/11 for instance.

I highly recommend you educate yourself. Stop watching youtube videos made by HS kids and stop reading propaganda tabloid web sites who make crap up to make money on their banner ads and prey on people who aren't smart enough to understand world events.

[lionking]

The plot thickens!

It can now be reported that on Wednesday, November 26th, a paramilitary team of seventy (70) Pakistani ISI soldiers arrived in Mumbai (Bombay) by sea on the CIA-ISI registered MV Alpha and proceeded on military style speedboats to the Indian shore and immediately traveled to the command and control headquarters for the paramilitary operation at the Jewish Center Nariman House. Three days of food awaited the terrorists along with sophisticated military style Blackberries, grenades and other sophisticated explosive devices to be used in the attacks.
Aiding and abetting the paramilitary team was a high tech television monitoring device in the Nariman House that allowed the terrorist group to monitor the movement of Indian Police and the Indian Anti-Terrorist Task Force that had used the Nariman House in the past for anti-terrorist surveillance inside Mumbai.


Full story here:
http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel
You know I thought you put this link up as a parody, but I have looked back through some of your recent posts and it seems you are serious. Sad and pathetic.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You know I thought you put this link up as a parody, but I have looked back through some of your recent posts and it seems you are serious. Sad and pathetic.

I posted it so people would know a CT that has been presented. That's the topic, right? When you say "it seems you are serious," do you mean you think I believe what Heneghan has written? All of it?

Just trying to help debunkers out by giving them something to debunk.

"Sad and pathetic" doesn't work as a debunk.

[dudalb]

"Sad and pathetic" doesn't work as a debunk

Maybe, but is a pretty good description of the attempts of the Conspiracy Theorist to prove their theories.

[dudalb]

You know I thought you put this link up as a parody, but I have looked back through some of your recent posts and it seems you are serious. Sad and pathetic.

Agreed. I would not the ISI for minute, but I doubt they would do anything quite so freaking obvious as in that post. I could see some elements of the ISI giving a little covert aid to the kind of terrorist groups that carried out the attacks, but I doubt they would do anything as blatent as in that wack post. I think that is called "An Act Of War", and I would not put my money on Pakistan coming out ahead in an out and out war with India, considering how India basically kicked the butts of the Pakistani military in 1965 and 1971, and most analyists agree that the Pakistanis military has not improved much since then.

[JihadJane]

Agreed. I would not the ISI for minute, but I doubt they would do anything quite so freaking obvious as in that post. I could see some elements of the ISI giving a little covert aid to the kind of terrorist groups that carried out the attacks, but I doubt they would do anything as blatent as in that wack post. I think that is called "An Act Of War", and I would not put my money on Pakistan coming out ahead in an out and out war with India, considering how India basically kicked the butts of the Pakistani military in 1965 and 1971, and most analyists agree that the Pakistanis military has not improved much since then.

Perhaps it was Russia declaring war on the US?!

[geni]

Hell,if you are a professional chemist it is not that hard to make. The ingrediants are so commonly used in industry that they are very easy to get,and you can get the necessary equipment at any lab supply house. And it won't cost you that much.

The problem is makeing it on any scale. The kit you could get at any lab suppier will let you make it in gram amounts. To get reasonable production going you need somewhere secure.

[Jonnyclueless]

I am glad it ended up being a failure as the captured terrorist said they intended to kill 5000 people.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Thank you for further proving my point that your goal is simply to try and denounce legitimate news outlets because the conspiracy tabloids which pass nothing but fact-less propaganda are not taken seriously. And another stereotypical CTers who doesn't understand the difference between pundits and the news saying the real news is propaganda while educating himself on youtube videos and reading crackpot tabloids.

Chain of command? Well you have Bin Laden at the top. After that you have groups of cells, each with their own chain of command. And as the cells move down the pyramid the lesser control they have until you have the bottom cells who carry out tasks. But in the upper chain of cells you have commanders such as Arkan Khalaf Khudayyir. Ayman al-Zawahiri was one of the top commanders of Al Qeada who wored along side Bin Laden. Then you have another tier down with guys like Ramzi Yousef , Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali. When you get to the bottom cells you get commanders like Mohammad Atta who led the cell that carried out 9/11 for instance.

I highly recommend you educate yourself. Stop watching youtube videos made by HS kids and stop reading propaganda tabloid web sites who make crap up to make money on their banner ads and prey on people who aren't smart enough to understand world events.


The irony of telling me to educate myself is telling. I often find those without much education trot out the tired old "stop watching youtube/CT Sites/yadda yadda yadda

I can only assume your patronising personal attacks are the result of not reaching a level of self-fulfillment.


Chain of command? Well you have Bin Laden at the top. After that you have groups of cells, each with their own chain of command. And as the cells move down the pyramid the lesser control they have until you have the bottom cells who carry out tasks.

Ya don't say! Are you being serious? :D :D


And can you explain what you mean by a legitimate news outlet? And do you trust such outlets?

[Jonnyclueless]

The answer to your question would require you to read the posts you replied to. news is news. Either the facts check out or they don't. There is no reliable or unreliable news source. The issue is a misunderstanding of what news is. Some thing that conspiracy tabloids who make up fictional conspiracy stories is news. Some think that pundits are news. Any outlet that presents actual news is a legitimate news outlet. Any outlet that presents fictional stories and is not held accountable for fact checking is not reliable.

For example prisonplanet is not a legitimate news source as they don't use factual information. A legitimate news agency has a legal obligation to fact check as well as a monetary one. Should a legitimate news agency misreport, it will be pointed out by everyone else (as happens from time to time) and that news agency loses credibility, viewers, money, and could face legal issues.

Tabloids on the other hand such as Prison Planet have no such obligation and can print anything they want regardless of there being any truth to it. And I am just using that as one example.

And it seems you are unclear as to how Al Qeada is an organization. How they do recruite people and have members and have a chain of command, and have training, and cells, etc. So yers I am serious. Anyone who doesn't get this is clearly not serious. Anyone who has to ask if I am being serious clearly does not understand how Al Qeada works.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The answer to your question would require you to read the posts you replied to. news is news. Either the facts check out or they don't. There is no reliable or unreliable news source. The issue is a misunderstanding of what news is. Some thing that conspiracy tabloids who make up fictional conspiracy stories is news. Some think that pundits are news. Any outlet that presents actual news is a legitimate news outlet. Any outlet that presents fictional stories and is not held accountable for fact checking is not reliable.

For example prisonplanet is not a legitimate news source as they don't use factual information. A legitimate news agency has a legal obligation to fact check as well as a monetary one. Should a legitimate news agency misreport, it will be pointed out by everyone else (as happens from time to time) and that news agency loses credibility, viewers, money, and could face legal issues.

Tabloids on the other hand such as Prison Planet have no such obligation and can print anything they want regardless of there being any truth to it. And I am just using that as one example.



You really oughta quit citing prisonplanet, infowars and other similar sites as illegitimate news sources. They are not news sources at all they are political viewpoints.

And if you think a legitame news source always prints the truth you are more naive than I thought.

Do you understand the concept of biased reporting by only presenting one side of the story? It's a way of propaganda by partial truth.


And it seems you are unclear as to how Al Qeada is an organization. How they do recruite people and have members and have a chain of command, and have training, and cells, etc. So yers I am serious. Anyone who doesn't get this is clearly not serious. Anyone who has to ask if I am being serious clearly does not understand how Al Qeada works.


Went way over your head didn't it?

I know what Al-Qaeda is, or rather isn't. Al-Qaeda is a movement dude. A few people like Bin laden and his cronies being the stars of the western media does not make a worldwide structured organisation. don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the propaganda.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

And it seems you are unclear as to how Al Qeada is an organization. How they do recruite people and have members and have a chain of command, and have training, and cells, etc. So yers I am serious. Anyone who doesn't get this is clearly not serious. Anyone who has to ask if I am being serious clearly does not understand how Al Qeada works.

The only way you could truley know how Al Qaeda "works" is if you were a member. In fact, their leader. Is that you Tim?

[Pardalis]

Funny how TFT doesn't answer posts which shows him what AQ actually is.

Repeating to yourself that it's just a movement doesn't make it true, but if it makes you feel better go right ahead... :rolleyes:

[Foolmewunz]

"Sad and pathetic" doesn't work as a debunk.


So, how's it working out as a lifestyle choice, then?

[Dr Adequate]

The irony of telling me to educate myself is telling. I often find those without much education trot out the tired old "stop watching youtube/CT Sites/yadda yadda yadda However, the converse is not true, since well-educated people also think that you should stop filling your head with worthless crap.

[Old Bob]

We watch these nasty things happen then try to make some sense as to why. My guess would be that the USA needs a diversion and don't want the oil pipe line to be finished. This is a stir up between Paki and India which the Zionist over rulers want. The OWO needs a drop in population and a nuke exchange will do that. Plus Bush has been screaming. It's Ben whats his name who has been dead for years. Who do you believe.?

[Mashuna]

We watch these nasty things happen then try to make some sense as to why. My guess would be that the USA needs a diversion and don't want the oil pipe line to be finished. This is a stir up between Paki and India which the Zionist over rulers want. The OWO needs a drop in population and a nuke exchange will do that. Plus Bush has been screaming. It's Ben whats his name who has been dead for years. Who do you believe.?

I believe everything you say, Old Bob!

[Alex Libman]

There have been government-orchestrated "false flag" operations in the past, therefore it is rational to contemplate this possibility for any terrorist event that takes place.

[Foolmewunz]

There have been government-orchestrated "false flag" operations in the past, therefore it is rational to contemplate this possibility for any terrorist event that takes place.

Alex, shouldn't it worry you that although you're attempting to sound rational, you have absolutely no evidence for that statement, and minus the frothing, you're saying exactly what Old Bob is saying above?

I know it would worry me if I found myself in such august company.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Any outlet that presents actual news is a legitimate news outlet. Any outlet that presents fictional stories and is not held accountable for fact checking is not reliable.

Should a legitimate news agency misreport, it will be pointed out by everyone else (as happens from time to time) and that news agency loses credibility, viewers, money, and could face legal issues.

Tabloids on the other hand such as Prison Planet have no such obligation and can print anything they want regardless of there being any truth to it. And I am just using that as one example.



"legitimate" news organizations routinely "misreport," or just plain fail to report. A couple glaring examples are the Bush/Hinckley family connections, and the Margie Schoedinger lawsuits and suicide. Just to name two.

[Pardalis]

"legitimate" news organizations routinely "misreport," or just plain fail to report. A couple glaring examples are the Bush/Hinckley family connections, and the Margie Schoedinger lawsuits and suicide. Just to name two.

Does their influence encompass Canada, France and the UK as well?

[dudalb]

There have been government-orchestrated "false flag" operations in the past, therefore it is rational to contemplate this possibility for any terrorist event that takes place.


Government is the source of all evil, eh, Alex?

[dudalb]

Alex, shouldn't it worry you that although you're attempting to sound rational, you have absolutely no evidence for that statement, and minus the frothing, you're saying exactly what Old Bob is saying above?

I know it would worry me if I found myself in such august company.

Providing evidence is not Alex's style. Making broad generlizations that amount to "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS! ANARCHY RULES!" is.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Does their influence encompass Canada, France and the UK as well?

Dunno, but the Canadian, French and UK news agencies probably concentrate more on news out of Canada, France and the UK.

[PhantomWolf]

Dunno, but the Canadian, French and UK news agencies probably concentrate more on news out of Canada, France and the UK.

You'd be surprised. Of all the world's western media, the US and Australia's are the most inward looking, the rest tend to take a lot of notice about what is happening outside their own country.

[gtc]

You'd be surprised. Of all the world's western media, the US and Australia's are the most inward looking, the rest tend to take a lot of notice about what is happening outside their own country.

Can you back that statement up?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Funny how TFT doesn't answer posts which shows him what AQ actually is.


I did reply to his post. I showed that simply describing a generic pyramid organisational structure and a few names he's heard of in the media isn't showing the chain of command of 'Al-Qaeda'.



Repeating to yourself that it's just a movement doesn't make it true, but if it makes you feel better go right ahead... :rolleyes:

Well learned people in the British Government and elsewhere think it's a movement so are they all wrong then?

If you can show us otherwise then please do.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Maybe, but is a pretty good description of the attempts of the Conspiracy Theorist to prove their theories.

And what is a good description of someone who starts a thread making a serious accusation that Alex Jones is a Racist and then after 7 pages still fails to provide link to evidence of such?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

There have been government-orchestrated "false flag" operations in the past, therefore it is rational to contemplate this possibility for any terrorist event that takes place.

Providing evidence is not Alex's style. Making broad generlizations that amount to "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS! ANARCHY RULES!" is.

And it isn't your style either by the looks of your accusations against Alex Jones dudalb. You've been caught out making fraudulent accusations big style there. :)

But on topic, you've made a pretty big leap from Alex's post to shouting "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS! ANARCHY RULES!"

Can you explain how you made this leap? Alex didn't say "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS! ANARCHY RULES!" he said that that it's rational to question whether any terrorist action is a false flag.

And I agree with him. I don't personally believe the Mumbai attacks were a false flag but I would think it awfully naive to believe that False Flags never happen as that would be a prejudicial and rather immature mindset.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

However, the converse is not true, since well-educated people also think that you should stop filling your head with worthless crap.

I've yet to see any evidence of them. However I have witnessed a few people with differing views taking a contentious stance. Some off them seem decent and respectful and want to debate to try and make a step forward. Others seem to have obsessions with taking an opposing and even insultive stance to anything that questions the official view and seem more interested in boosting their lack of self esteem by proclaining superiority.

My head is far from full worthless crap. I take a skeptical view on everything.

[PhantomWolf]

Can you back that statement up?

The media I have seen from Australia is pretty inwardly focused, it's not an accusation, merely something that happens to big countries. By the time they have dealt with what is happening in their own country and things their country is doing outside, there isn't time to deal with very much outside that doesn't involve them. The US is the worst at it, it's really hard to find out anything happening in the outside world via the main US Media over here, unless its really big, or directly affects the US and to some extent the UK. I tend to still rely on New Zealand media (TV3 does live streaming broadcasts of it's news) to keep in touch with what's happening in the world.

[gtc]

I know its just your personal perception, but I have to disagree. I do agree that Australia's 21 million people are going to generate more stories of national interest than NZ's 4 million people. I also agree that events in Australia are more likely to impact NZ than the other way around (likewise US and Canada).

However, once that is accounted for, I think our media do cover foreign news extensively. The Australian and the Financial Review are particularly strong but we also have access to the Financial Times on the same day and other news weeklys put out by the Economist and the major British papers.

SBS and the ABC have extensive coverage of international events. SBS in particular appears to be unrivalled in the English speaking world.

[dudalb]

My head is far from full worthless crap. I take a skeptical view on everything.

:dl:
I love the way people have provided tons of links to Alex Jones's blatently Anti Semitic statments, but Timmy still denies they are Anti Semitic.
And still another case of how "Skeptic' and "Skeptical" does not mean what a lot of woos thinks it means.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

:dl:
I love the way people have provided tons of links to Alex Jones's blatently Anti Semitic statments, but Timmy still denies they are Anti Semitic.
And still another case of how "Skeptic' and "Skeptical" does not mean what a lot of woos thinks it means.

Tons of links?

So where are they then? Just saying there are 'tons of links' doesn't magic them up you know.

You do realise you actually have to provide the links don't you? You can't try and attain some credibility in a debate by living in fantasy land. I've repeatedly asked for links and none have been forthcoming. I at least would have though that if there were 'tons of links' it would be easy to provide them?

But come on dudalb! Let's not take this thread OT. You're 'alec jones' thread is still there. I've just asked for links again on it. Surely it would take you 2 minutes at most to post some linsk to infowars where Alex Jones show hatred or dislike to people for being Jewish.

I notice you're shying away from that thread now, while still posting in this one. Why is that? Just post some links to Alex Jones racism. That's all you've got to do. You could then be the forum hero.

And posting animated gifs of dogs in howls of laughter won't hide your failure to provide evidence of his racism.

Come on buddy. Everyone's looking at you now. Don't let us down now, it's your thread, your accusation of racism, so post some links in the thread.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Tin Foil Timmy, I hear you. I could see them saying Rense is "anti-Semitic" (not because he is, but because much has been written on the web accusing him of being so). But Alex Jones? I don't think so. I even remember reading a site a couple years back that accused him of being pro-Israel. because he would not criticize Israel at all. Much less blame them for the evils in the world.

If there is blatant anti-Semitism from Alex Jones, I too would like to see it presented here.

[PhantomWolf]

Rense isn't an anti-semite, he's just your average garden variety loon.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Rense isn't an anti-semite, he's just your average garden variety loon.

Let it be noted that PhantomWolf has stated, in a public forum, that Rense is NOT an anti-semite. ;)

Anybody have those Alex Jones anti-semite links?

[gtc]

Anybody have those Alex Jones anti-semite links?

There is another thread about it in this section. That is, if you are going to ignore the evidence already presented in this thread.

But hey, why should believing that a secret cabal of Jews rules the world with near supernatural powers be considered racist.

Do you think Mossad were behind the Mumbai attacks?

[Alex Libman]

Government is the source of all evil, eh, Alex?

Most of it.

Amount of money stolen by government: trillions every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_ GDP). Amount stolen by petty thieves: meh...

Number of people killed by governments in 20th century alone: hundreds of millions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll#Man-made_famines), though the negative effect bad governments have on economic growth affects everyone's life expectancy, and definitely more than smoking. Amount killed by petty criminals: meh...

And if any group of petty criminals ever grows big enough, then they by definition come to be called "government". And I'm sure they'll find it in their best interest to run a dog-and-pony democracy show too: a happy slave is a productive slave.

I'm not saying it can be known for sure who the Mumbai terrorists were, they might just have been petty criminals fighting "the west" in their misguided little ways. All I'm saying is government involvement is a possibility. The CIA has done precisely this, many times and in many places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secret_government_programs). Why close your mind to this possibility now?

[sleeplessdwarf]

Tin Foil Timmy, I hear you. I could see them saying Rense is "anti-Semitic" (not because he is, but because much has been written on the web accusing him of being so). But Alex Jones? I don't think so. I even remember reading a site a couple years back that accused him of being pro-Israel. because he would not criticize Israel at all. Much less blame them for the evils in the world.

If there is blatant anti-Semitism from Alex Jones, I too would like to see it presented here.


He may not be as open about it as some, but he does have his moments. In fact after he received some of that criticism you mentioned, he made up for it. I don't have a link because it was during one of his 3 hour rants/shows. He also did not believe Obama was nwo and that Hilary/McCain was the designated winner. Webster Tarpley managed to convince him otherwise in just one episode.

[PhantomWolf]

Let it be noted that PhantomWolf has stated, in a public forum, that Rense is NOT an anti-semite. ;)

I do reserve the right to change my mind is there is evidence that supports it. Currently I have seen plenty of evidence that Rense is a nut, and I have seen plenty that he doesn't bother to screen what his website publishes for other people, but I haven't seen anything that would show him personally to be anti-jew.

[Dr Adequate]

Most of it.

Amount of money stolen by government: trillions every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_ GDP). Amount stolen by petty thieves: meh... I see that you're pretending that taxation is theft.

Why? Whom do you hope to deceive?

[Jonnyclueless]

You really oughta quit citing prisonplanet, infowars and other similar sites as illegitimate news sources. They are not news sources at all they are political viewpoints.

You ought to read my posts before responding. Otherwise you would see that neve did I ever ever cite those sites as legitimate news sources. And they are not political view points, They are tabloids. There is nothing political about them. They are trying to make a profit with fictional information that is loosely based on actual events. but you make a long continual record of not properly reading posts you respond to, so why stop now?


And if you think a legitame news source always prints the truth you are more naive than I thought.

And if you think that's what I said, you further prove my point about you not reading posts you respond to.

Do you understand the concept of biased reporting by only presenting one side of the story? It's a way of propaganda by partial truth.

Yes, and when it comes to pundits, that happens. But not the news. For propaganda you have to use spin. That's not news. Do you understand this?




Went way over your head didn't it?

I know what Al-Qaeda is, or rather isn't. Al-Qaeda is a movement dude. A few people like Bin laden and his cronies being the stars of the western media does not make a worldwide structured organisation. don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the propaganda.

I doubt you could even see my head at the rate you're going. And apparently you don't know what Al Qeada is or isn't. I suggest you educate yourself instead of spewing this propaganda of yours.

" Bin laden and his cronies being the stars of the western media "

THAT is rhetoric.

You not understanding what Al Qeada is is ignorance. You are fooled by your own ignorance and your own rhetoric. Learn world events, and stop reading tabloids and watching youtube videos "dude".

[Jonnyclueless]

I did reply to his post. I showed that simply describing a generic pyramid organisational structure and a few names he's heard of in the media isn't showing the chain of command of 'Al-Qaeda'.

No, you responded with the same response you keep using. "It's a movement dude", followed with more rhetoric.

And I gave you examples of their chain of command. I am not going to sit here an list every single member as there are hundreds and many divisions in different countriesd and they keep changing as members get killed. Hence the constant headlines of "2nd in command was killed" headlines all the time. This is because it's the most organized terrorist network and organization ever. They have a sophisticated chain of command in their network and are extremely organized and cooperate with other terrorist organizations.

You simply are ignorant of Al Qeada and want to sit in a fairy tale pretending they are just a myth conjured by the media. I have showed you hard evidence here and you respond with the same nonsense. Educate yourself.




Well learned people in the British Government and elsewhere think it's a movement so are they all wrong then?

If you can show us otherwise then please do.


And let's see them saying that Al Qeada is not an organization. And Again, I DID show you otherwise.

[Jonnyclueless]

Al Qeada is headed by Bin Laden. He is advised by the Shura council. Under them they have the military committee which deals with training, weapons, plans of attack. They have the Law committee which decides what actions comply with Islamic law, the Business committee which runs the business operations such as getting passports, airfare, the money making business/charities, and the Media committee which of course handles all the medias stuff and propaganda videos. They have different chapters for different countries. For example Iraq has its own Al Qeada chapter which has been responsible for much of the disruption in rebuilding Iraq. Once the US stumbled onto their plans, they were able to cut off Al Qeadas supplies and hence Al Qeada suffering such a defeat lately in Iraq.

It's not a movement of some random people who simply have a common goal. It's a terrorist organization. Can we stop this absurd nonsense now?

[SDC]

I hope I am not off topic. (Alex Jones? It says "Mumbai...")

Anyhow, here we have the public assertions that the "Hindu Zionists" and the actual Jews perped the Mumbai violence. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pak_TV_channel_says_2611_hatched_by_Hindu_Zionists/articleshow/3785654.cms

Sorry if I have derailed anything.

[gtc]

I hope I am not off topic. (Alex Jones? It says "Mumbai...")

Anyhow, here we have the public assertions that the "Hindu Zionists" and the actual Jews perped the Mumbai violence. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pak_TV_channel_says_2611_hatched_by_Hindu_Zionists/articleshow/3785654.cms

Sorry if I have derailed anything.

Thanks for the link and its not a derail.

He said that the attackers wore saffron Hindu Zionist bands,

I love the way the Hindu Zionists were so fiendishly clever at organising this so that all the evidence would point to Pakistani Muslim militants but then they forget to take off their 'saffron Hindu Zionist bands'.

This part of the CT mindset seems to transcend all cultures. The enemy is all powerful and all knowledgeable but also bound to leave obvious clues.



Alex Jones came up because he was one of the first to blame Mossad for this. The claim is that Alex Jones views aren't anti-semitic despite the fact that believing that a secret cabal of Jews (to which all other Jews owe secret loyalty) are secretly controling world events is clearly anti-semitic.

[dudalb]

Alex Jones came up because he was one of the first to blame Mossad for this. The claim is that Alex Jones views aren't anti-semitic despite the fact that believing that a secret cabal of Jews (to which all other Jews owe secret loyalty) are secretly controling world events is clearly anti-semitic

Or just plain stupid. The ability of Cters to ignore evidence that conflicts with their views is simply astounding.

[PhantomWolf]

Or just plain stupid. The ability of Cters to ignore evidence that conflicts with their views is simply astounding.

But anything that conflicts with their views is obviously planted by part of the conspriacy and so can be discounted.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Al Qeada is headed by Bin Laden. He is advised by the Shura council. Under them they have the military committee which deals with training, weapons, plans of attack. They have the Law committee which decides what actions comply with Islamic law, the Business committee which runs the business operations such as getting passports, airfare, the money making business/charities, and the Media committee which of course handles all the medias stuff and propaganda videos. They have different chapters for different countries. For example Iraq has its own Al Qeada chapter which has been responsible for much of the disruption in rebuilding Iraq. Once the US stumbled onto their plans, they were able to cut off Al Qeadas supplies and hence Al Qeada suffering such a defeat lately in Iraq.

It's not a movement of some random people who simply have a common goal. It's a terrorist organization. Can we stop this absurd nonsense now?

Al-Qaeda is movement. A few people liek Osama, whome it is unclear whether he is still alive or not and a few others does not make for a big organisation worthy of a worldwide 'war on terror'

"Al Qeada chapter" - see even you expose yourself. There isn't an Iraq Al-Qaeda arm that is an organisational link. It's just a bunch of islamists that are part of the 'movement'

Stop listening to Silly CIA propaganda.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

He may not be as open about it as some, but he does have his moments. In fact after he received some of that criticism you mentioned, he made up for it. I don't have a link because it was during one of his 3 hour rants/shows. He also did not believe Obama was nwo and that Hilary/McCain was the designated winner. Webster Tarpley managed to convince him otherwise in just one episode.

Yeah , yeah. There's never a link is there? :rolleyes: dudalb procalimed that 'tons of links' were given for Alex Jones racism at the "Man, Alec Jones Is Not Even Hiding It" thread. Now I don't know how many you would consider tons, but I think most sane people would think 'tons' meant more than one. And this ONE link didnt' even show any racism.

[PhantomWolf]

Al-Qaeda is movement.

Keeping on insisting this doesn't make it true.

Stop listening to Silly CIA propaganda.

The CIA has never had anything to do with what Al Qaeda is or isn't. The Media may have created a large nebulous Al Qaeda that contains every Islamic group on the planet and that is fictional, but that doesn't make the real Al Qaeda any less real, or less dangerous and deluding yourself to that fact is merely putting your head in the sand.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Keeping on insisting this doesn't make it true.



The CIA has never had anything to do with what Al Qaeda is or isn't. The Media may have created a large nebulous Al Qaeda that contains every Islamic group on the planet and that is fictional, but that doesn't make the real Al Qaeda any less real, or less dangerous and deluding yourself to that fact is merely putting your head in the sand.

No of course they haven't. :rolleyes:

The CIA funded, armed and trained the Mujahideen including bin Laden and his little group in order to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for the help of the US through the CIA it's unlikely the post soviet afghanistan could have a zone wher the Taliban and Bin Laden's group could have inspired this movement.

Al-Qaeda (The base ) is the name given to this movement of people by the West, the FBI if I remember correctly ahd a list of them and had to create a terrorist group that they could place Bin Laden as head of in order to charge him as being part of some pre 911 attacks in the USA.

So stop believing the hyped up western propaganda of Al-Qaeda being this worldwide organised network with divisions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, lebanon and many other countries. I always laugh at the media term 'sleeper cells' - That's a good one. Where's that laughing Dog emoticon?

[Trojan_Jockey]

No of course they haven't. :rolleyes:

The CIA funded, armed and trained the Mujahideen including bin Laden and his little group in order to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for the help of the US through the CIA it's unlikely the post soviet afghanistan could have a zone wher the Taliban and Bin Laden's group could have inspired this movement.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the CIA had anything to do with, or even came in contact with Bin Laden, let alone trained or armed him during the Afghan war. This is simply one of those fabricated myths that CT's willingly swallow. Unfortunately TFT has me on ignore, but I'm sure other people can explain to him how wrong his is.

[parky76]

All the evidence points to the terrorists being from Pakistan and inspired, trained, and supplied by Pakistani groups. There is no evidence of anyone else being involved, including Middle Eastern terror groups, Iran, etc.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the CIA had anything to do with, or even came in contact with Bin Laden, let alone trained or armed him during the Afghan war. This is simply one of those fabricated myths that CT's willingly swallow. Unfortunately TFT has me on ignore, but I'm sure other people can explain to him how wrong his is.

A similar, yest significantly different history of Al Qaeda, can be found here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2966

Of course, only CTists will bother to read it. 'Skeptics' will see the link and cry "debunked!"

[parky76]

um..the historically accurate studies of Al Qaeda are all pretty much in agreemant.

[PhantomWolf]

No of course they haven't. :rolleyes:

The CIA funded, armed and trained the Mujahideen including bin Laden and his little group in order to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. If it wasn't for the help of the US through the CIA it's unlikely the post soviet afghanistan could have a zone wher the Taliban and Bin Laden's group could have inspired this movement.

I suggest you start getting your facts right, right here. The CIA never funded any of the Saudi or other Arabs that went to Afghanistan. The CIA funded the ISI who in turn funded Afghanistan fighters. It was the ISI's decision on who get the funding and equipment they were receiving from the CIA and their decision was to provide it solely to the Afghani Mujahideen.

Bin Laden was involved in the running of Maktab al-Khadamat which was the primary funder for the Arabs that came to Afghanistan. He was involved in getting that funding from the Saudi GID as well as rich Arabs and Muslium charities. While the MAK and the ISI did have a close working relationship, the ISI refused to give any of the CIA money or equipment to them, forcing them to rely on their own funds and sponsers.

eta: I should have pointed out that the Taliban has nothing to do with Al Qaeda roots. When the Taliban formed from the students of the Madrasses along the Afghan/Pakistan border, Al Qaeda was alive and well in Sudan.

Al-Qaeda (The base ) is the name given to this movement of people by the West, the FBI if I remember correctly ahd a list of them and had to create a terrorist group that they could place Bin Laden as head of in order to charge him as being part of some pre 911 attacks in the USA.

Again balony. On the later part of the Afghan war, Bin Laden wanted to turn the MAK into a more militant force, he was sick of just being a provider and wanted action. Because the leader of the MAK refused, he split with him and with Ayman al-Zawahiri set up his own group of fighters. After Abdullah Azzam's murder, Bin Laden was able to take over MAK and merge it with his small group, renaming it Al Qeada. The name Al Qaeda was a Bin Laden invention in 1989 and it wasn't until 1996 that the west even knew about it. The first they had heard of it was when a defector, Jamal al-Fadl, walked through the door of a US Embassy and told them all the details of what was going on.

After the ending of the Afghan War, Al Qaeda become little more than what the MAK had been, a source of funding, training, and recruitment for other groups. That wasn't what Bin Laden wanted. His idea was that his group would be a base to build a new Islamic Empire on (get it "The Base", it means both a thing to build on, and a place to set up shop.) He attempted to get that started in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but his actions and his verbal attacks on the Saudi Royals after they forced him to pull out of Southern Yemen and then refused to let him organise the freeing of Kuwait in 1991 instead turning to the US and its western allies, lead to his getting exiled and having his Saudi citizenshop revoked. In Sudan he was very rich and Al Qaeda bloosomed to around 1,000 operatives who were mostly Arab afghan war vets who had been denied a return to their own countries. When he was kicked out of Sudan he was left with nothing, Al Qaeda was all by ended as an organisation and down to a core of about 10 people, something he blamed the US for and swore that he'd force them out of the Middle East so that the corrupt anti-islam governments they were propping up would finally collapse and his dreamed of empire could be reborn.

It was this way for several years until the group managed to pull off the double eastern Africa Embassy bombings in 1998. That was when the media first learned about Al Qeada, because Clinton included it in his executive order after the bombing. The way he got the name was not by it being made up, but because Jamal al-Fadl had told them of the name just over a year earlier.

So stop believing the hyped up western propaganda of Al-Qaeda being this worldwide organised network with divisions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, lebanon and many other countries. I always laugh at the media term 'sleeper cells' - That's a good one. Where's that laughing Dog emoticon?

This part makes me wonder if you even bother reading what I write. I have made it quite clear that the Media's portrayal of an Al Qaeda web of cells all over the world is a nebuleous fiction, but so is the Al Qeada you portray with it being nothing but a mythical movement with no structure. Both hold a grain of truth, but both are wrong too. Al Qaeda is not web, and its not a big scarey spider, but neither is it just an idea and a rally call. Al Qaeda is a real organisation, though a small one, just like many other similar groups all over the world. The difference it has is that because of it's training camps they leadership of Al Qaeda know a lot of the people in other groups, and they tend to have good funding. That means other groups want to be linked to them, even when they aren't. By getting permission and/or funding from Al Qaeda they feel part of something bigger, and if they can use their name, with or without permission, even better. In a way that means it has become a type of movement and rally call, but that form of it is not Al Qaeda itself, merely an image that is used by other groups to make themselves part of something bigger than themselves. Nor does it diminish what Al Qeada really is, or what their small group is capable of. Again I suggest you get hold of Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower. He interviewed people that were involved in the whole thing as part of the research, you might learn something.

[parky76]

id love to see evidence that the CIA actually sent money and materials to Al Qaeda and Osama. ive seen none.

we did, assist Afghani Mujahadeen that fought the Soviet invasion. was that the right choice? at the time...perhaps.

[PhantomWolf]

id love to see evidence that the CIA actually sent money and materials to Al Qaeda and Osama. ive seen none.

There is none. The best that anyone seems to ever come up with is Robin Cook saying they did, but since he really wouldn't have know because he was never involved and likely just followed the crowd who though it true, and nor did he provide evidence for his statment, I treat it with about the same legitimacy as an Italian politician saying 9/11 was an inside job.

Both OBL and the CIA deny that the MAK was ever funded by the CIA through the ISI, and exhustive searches of the CIA's documents can't find any evidence that they even knew who OBL was previous to 1993 when they first encountered him in Sudan. The GID called OBL their man in Afghanistan right up until 1990 when he went rogue on them, and has admitted to their funding and supporting of both him and the MAK during the Afghani war. The evidence is formly in the court of no connection between the CIA and AQ, but hey why bother with evidence when its better to ignore it and invent things so your world view works better.

we did, assist Afghani Mujahadeen that fought the Soviet invasion. was that the right choice? at the time...perhaps.

Yes it was the right thing to do, not just at the time. The issue wasn't the funding, it was the cutting off the funding once the Soviets left. The US really did have a hand in the Taliban's rise and AQ finding a sercure place to plan and launch operations from, but not in that they paid for it, but rather they wouldn't pay to stop it. in 1989 the US was pumping about a billion dollars into Afghanistan, a figure matched by the Saudis, in 1990 they refused to give them a million dollars to help with the rebuilding of schools. They refused to get involved in trying to negotitate a peace between the factions and get the war finished and a stable government set up. What they are doing today is way more than was required in 1990, but they failed to do it, and even worse they clearly haven't learnt from the past because countries that pleadged to help pay money to get Afghanistan back up on its feet have reneged and now, 6 years later without the promised help, thimngs are returning back to the way they were after 1990.

[parky76]

yeah, i really doubt the CIA would actively fund a jihadist islamic fundamentalist group, who saw the West as the Great Satan.

though, we did sell missiles to Iran...

[skepticalcriticalguy]

He may not be as open about it as some, but he does have his moments. In fact after he received some of that criticism you mentioned, he made up for it. I don't have a link because it was during one of his 3 hour rants/shows. He also did not believe Obama was nwo and that Hilary/McCain was the designated winner. Webster Tarpley managed to convince him otherwise in just one episode.


I've never heard Tarpley use the term "NWO".

[skepticalcriticalguy]

yeah, i really doubt the CIA would actively fund a jihadist islamic fundamentalist group, who saw the West as the Great Satan.

though, we did sell missiles to Iran...

... and Iraq.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

um..the historically accurate studies of Al Qaeda are all pretty much in agreemant.

"historically accurate?" That's just funny.

[PhantomWolf]

... and Iraq.

Actually no. The Iraqi's got their missiles from the USSR, Germany, and China. The US was guilty of giving them satellite surveillance of the Iranian positions and there is evidence that US Companies sold agricultural chemicals that were used to create chemical weapons, though to be fair the belief was that they were actually wanting them for agriculture rather than gassing people.

[PhantomWolf]

"historically accurate?" That's just funny.

Would you perfer, the guys that actually got of their butts and went and interviewed old members of AQ and family members of those still in the group are all pretty much in agreement....

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Would you perfer, the guys that actually got of their butts and went and interviewed old members of AQ and family members of those still in the group are all pretty much in agreement....

And you believe them? They'd make credible witnesses in a court of law?

[gtc]

In a court of law, very few confessions are thrown out on the basis that the person confessing is an admitted criminal.

[PhantomWolf]

And you believe them? They'd make credible witnesses in a court of law?

Most of the people that were involved with AQ in the early 90's aren't anymore, including OBL's brother-in-law and even his first wife and his son. (family members of others that have left also were interviewed.) Yes I believe what they say about the group they were part, and I'm sure that if they were wittnesses to a crime they'd be considered credible witnesses by the police. A lot of them are devote musliums funnily enough and so lying under oath would be a sin to them.

[PhantomWolf]

In a court of law, very few confessions are thrown out on the basis that the person confessing is an admitted criminal.

Most of those intervewed weren't criminals. They departed AQ after OBL was kicked out of Sudan (which was before it started acting as a Terrorist group itself) or are family members of people in the group, thus not criminals either.

[gtc]

Most of those intervewed weren't criminals. They departed AQ after OBL was kicked out of Sudan (which was before it started acting as a Terrorist group itself) or are family members of people in the group, thus not criminals either.

Thanks. I was was using the metaphor already presented to comment on the suggestion that its wrong to accept what they say because, by their own admission, they are former AQ. I didn't want to imply that all the people interviewed were criminals.

[Mince]

So any predictions on how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?


How long will it be before the usual suspects start threads asking for predictions about how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?


How long will it be before the usual suspects make a post asking how long it will be before the usual suspects start threads asking for predictions about how long it will take the usual suspects to start claiming that the US, Israel, the Masons, etc, were behind the attacks in Mumbai?

[SDC]

Uhmm, Mince, could you put that in a diagram? I'm having trouble tracking it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Most of those intervewed weren't criminals. They departed AQ after OBL was kicked out of Sudan (which was before it started acting as a Terrorist group itself) or are family members of people in the group, thus not criminals either.

Do you believe that Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

If I were a 'former member' of a criminal enterprise, I might make some stuff up too. Besides, as a former member, I wouldn't be privvy to all the latest changes in the hierarchy and the membership manual.

[Trojan_Jockey]

I notice TFT disappeared from this thread sharpish when his claims over CIA involvement with Bin Laden were debunked. Way to go to defend your corner TFT!

[PhantomWolf]

Do you believe that Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I have no idea who that is.

If I were a 'former member' of a criminal enterprise, I might make some stuff up too.

Except that a) AQ wasn't a considered a criminal enterprise pre-1996 and b) when multiple people who don't know who else you have already spoken to or who else you will speak to are asked things and make up things it's highly unlikely they will create the same story. When multiple people who don't know who else you have already spoken to or who else you will speak to are asked things and say the same things, it's likely those things are true.

Besides, as a former member, I wouldn't be privvy to all the latest changes in the hierarchy and the membership manual.

However you would be privy to things that don't change, eg the name, if or not it really existed. Also some of the family members talked to have left more recently, for instance OBL's first wife and her children left him in around 2000, just a year or so before 9/11 and so were privvy to some of that information. True the structure, leadership and membership of AQ has likely changed dramatically since 2001, but that doesn't change what it is.

[Jonnyclueless]

I notice TFT disappeared from this thread sharpish when his claims over CIA involvement with Bin Laden were debunked. Way to go to defend your corner TFT!

Well, don't forget that his claims tha Al Qeada is not organized was also debunked, so he's been taking a lot of blows.