BBC now admits al qaeda never existed - Page 5

Dave Rogers · 20th July 2012, 07:14 AM

In terms of internal consistency, Clayton's claim that he has prior military service because he was involved in the shooting of a war movie seems pretty much in line with the usual level of distinction conspiracy theorists are able to draw between reality and fiction.

Dave

ElMondoHummus · 20th July 2012, 07:33 AM

You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it.

jaydeehess · 20th July 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Will we be getting back to the OP, and the fact that the BBC has NOT claimed that AQ never existed, and the fact that the doc producer never claimed that AQ did NOT exist, and the fact that all that CM illustrated here was that GWB et al exaggerated?

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it.

Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement.

ElMondoHummus · 20th July 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement.

Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot?

). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one.

No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows?

jaydeehess · 20th July 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot?

). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one.

No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows?

Its like he never tires, perhaps even feeds off of, having his original claims proven wrong so that he can have a forum to make tangentially related claims.
Its hard to comprehend such a psyche. of

TSR · 20th July 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it.

But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it.

In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable.

Robrob · 20th July 2012, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by TSR

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims.

This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it.

But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it.

In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable.

Yes, it's not his experience/lack of which matters one way or the other. It's his use of a blatantly ludicrous "argument from authority" to support his patently false claim.

Not to mention it's funny to watch him dance around the subject rather than simply answering the question one way or the other. Why would someone do that?

poblob14 · 23rd July 2012, 01:41 PM

Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.

Chaos · 23rd July 2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by poblob14

. . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it?

I am beginning to suspect that masochism is a major factor here.

Nick Terry · 23rd July 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by poblob14

Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.

It's sort of like the Japanese game show Endurance, but without any prizes at the end.

jaydeehess · 26th July 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

.......You stated that the BBC has stated that AQ does not exist.
They have not done this so that's strike 1

The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2

In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3

What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated.

Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas?

It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).

TSR · 26th July 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).

It's explicable, all right -- but doing so would get me dinged

jaydeehess · 26th July 2012, 12:47 PM

inexplicable by logic would be my intention in the use of the term of course

Robrob · 26th July 2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton.

I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so.
I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect
or
that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).

He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic.

Straw Man · 26th July 2012, 06:55 PM

To be fair to the movie producer, he did rock up in his 'ALEC Exposed thread' to point out he actually used a real publication in his defence.

000063 · 27th July 2012, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Robrob

He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic.

???

Clayton Moore · 27th July 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Garrison

You think dealing with urban terrorists is somehow the magic key to locating a bunch of people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan? Martin McGuinness wouldn't have lasted five minutes in the Tora Bora mountains

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1

So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in?

twinstead · 27th July 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1

So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in?

I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations.

Clayton Moore · 27th July 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations.

Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread.

Border Reiver · 27th July 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread.

Ironic that the person who initiated the thread cannot make any such contribution.

twinstead · 27th July 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread.

And I still await yours

KingMerv00 · 27th July 2012, 11:10 AM

"Al Qaeda Never Existed" = ("Dewey Defeats Truman")x10⁵⁶

I don't think so.

CORed · 27th July 2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by TSR

It's explicable, all right -- but doing so would get me dinged

Well, I'm just going to say that after reading Clayton's posts and seeing his chosen avatar, I can only conclude that Clayton spends a significant amount of time looking in the mirror.

Simon666 · 27th July 2012, 03:25 PM

Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by the US for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that.

This document is part of a longer letter which was not released to the CTC. It is not clear who authored the letter or to whom it was addressed. It discusses the potential need to change the name of “Qa`idat al-Jihad.” The author is of the view that the abridging of the name “al-Qa`ida” has “lessened Muslims’ feelings that we belong to them.” The author is further concerned that since the name “al-Qa`ida” lacks religious connotations, it has allowed the United States to launch a war on “al-Qa`ida” without offending Muslims. The author proposed a list of new names that capture Islamic theological themes: Ta’ifat al-tawhid wa-al-jihad (Monotheism and Jihad Group), Jama`at wahdat al-Muslimin (Muslim Unity Group), Hizb tawhid al-Umma al-Islamiyya (Islamic Nation Unification Party) and Jama`at tahrir al-aqsa (Al-Aqsa Liberation Group).
I don't have 15 posts so Google the link for yourself

Garrison · 27th July 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1

So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in?

Nobody claimed Cheney was right, just pointed out that you were utterly wrong about the claim in the title of the thread.

dafydd · 27th July 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations.

Not answering questions is Clayton's forte. He employs this technique in all of his threads.

000063 · 27th July 2012, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

not answering questions is clayton's forte. He employs this technique in all

threads he posts in.

ftfy.

jaydeehess · 28th July 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1

So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in?

Asked, responded to, and answered, several times in this very thread Clayton.

Do try to keep up.

Robrob · 28th July 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

Originally Posted by Robrob

He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic.

???

That he abandoned his OP when proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Simon666

Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by theUS for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that.

Wrong.

Quote:

This document is part of a longer letter which was not released to the CTC. It is not clear who authored the letter or to whom it was addressed.

So you evidence for the US inventing the name is an anonymous letter sent to an anonymous person that discusses what al Qaeda wants to call itself?

garethdjb · 29th July 2012, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Simon666

Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by the US for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that.

Here's Bin Laden explaining the origin of the name 'Al Qaeda' in an interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni:

Quote:

That particular name is very old. It was born without any intention from us. Brother Abu Ubaida (rahimahullah) al-Banshiri (Panjshiri) [6] created a military base to train the young men to fight against the vicious, arrogant, brutal, terrorizing soviet empire, which was a truth to all observers [al-baghi, al-ghaashim, al-mulhid, al-irhaabi haqiqatan lil mu'aamilin]. So this place was called "The Base" ["Al-Qai`dah"],

Transcript

One of Bin Laden's mentors from the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, wrote an article for 'Jihad' magazine in 1988 titled 'Al Qaeda al Sulbah' (the solid base). Azzam's idea was for a solid core of activists and fighters to act as a vanguard for the establishment of Islamic states throughout the muslim world. Azzam's ideas inspired Bin Laden, it's possible that the name of Bin Laden's own organisation came from this reference and Bin Laden's later explanation in the Al-Jazeera interview is an attempt to portray the organisation as his idea alone. Bin Laden's organisation was conceived more as a kind of 'international brigade' of trained fighters that would assist the overthrow of 'un-islamic' rulers.

Documentary mention of Al Qaeda as an actual organisation occur in the minutes of a meeting held at Bin Laden's house in August 1988, 4 months after the article by Azzam. The document can be found in Peter Bergen's book 'The Osama Bin Laden I know,'

Clayton Moore · 29th July 2012, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by poblob14

Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.

You gotta love the anti Christian slurs. Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF.

Nick Terry · 29th July 2012, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You gotta love the anti Christian slurs. Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF.

You are aware how many denominations of Christianity there are? Most of them are not Young Earth Creationists. The Catholic Church is undoubtedly the biggest Christian denomination and it doesn't preach YEC nonsense. So how is attacking a theological doctrine rejected by the majority of Christians worldwide being 'anti-Christian'?

Unless you're now saying that the Pope is anti-Christian?

Simon666 · 29th July 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Robrob

Wrong.

Why? Because you say so? Give me a reference. I think I could give you one for MY assertion, probably it is in the 9/11 commission report but I would have to look into that.

Originally Posted by Robrob

So you evidence for the US inventing the name is an anonymous letter sent to an anonymous person that discusses what al Qaeda wants to call itself?

Strawman. Plus using an excerpt only of what I said. I also said you can check all videos of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Not ONCE do they refer to themselves as Al Qaeda, but ALWAYS as Qaeda Al Jihad, without being clear whether this is the name of an organization of some sorts or the abstract concept of the "base of the jihad".

Simon666 · 29th July 2012, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by garethdjb

Here's Bin Laden explaining the origin of the name 'Al Qaeda' in an interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni:

That interview was never aired on Al Jazeera to my knowledge, but an unverifiable transcript was first released by CNN in 2001 or 2002. I am surprised to see it now available on YouTube, it seems to have been first released in 2011 for some reason? Tayseer Allouni also spent some years in a Spanish jail, probably for the sole reason of having interviewed Bin Laden. He was released only this year. From the transcript I have of that interview:

"...this matter isn't about any specific person and...is not about the al-Qai`dah Organization. We are the children of an Islamic Nation, with Prophet Muhammad as its leader, our Lord is one...and all the true believers [mu'mineen] are brothers. So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name (such as "al-Qai`dah") and so on. That particular name is very old. It was born without any intention from us. Brother Abu Ubaida... created a military base to train the young men to fight against the vicious, arrogant, brutal, terrorizing Soviet empire... So this place was called "The Base" ["Al-Qai`dah"], as in a training base, so this name grew and became. We aren't separated from this nation. We are the children of a nation, and we are an inseparable part of it, and from those public demonstrations which spread from the far east, from the Philippines, to Indonesia, to Malaysia, to India, to Pakistan, reaching Mauritania... and so we discuss the conscience of this nation.

When not at work, I'll watch the interview with sound on and check whether he mentions Al Qaeda, (Al) Qaeda Al Jihad or Al Qaeda al Sulbah. In any case, you have from the horse's mouth that there is not such an "organization" with a specific name.

Originally Posted by garethdjb

One of Bin Laden's mentors from the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, wrote an article for 'Jihad' magazine in 1988 titled 'Al Qaeda al Sulbah' (the solid base). Azzam's idea was for a solid core of activists and fighters to act as a vanguard for the establishment of Islamic states throughout the muslim world. Azzam's ideas inspired Bin Laden, it's possible that the name of Bin Laden's own organisation came from this reference and Bin Laden's later explanation in the Al-Jazeera interview is an attempt to portray the organisation as his idea alone. Bin Laden's organisation was conceived more as a kind of 'international brigade' of trained fighters that would assist the overthrow of 'un-islamic' rulers.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by garethdjb

Documentary mention of Al Qaeda as an actual organisation occur in the minutes of a meeting held at Bin Laden's house in August 1988, 4 months after the article by Azzam. The document can be found in Peter Bergen's book 'The Osama Bin Laden I know,'

I have my issues with Bergen as a source of anything on Bin Laden.

garethdjb · 30th July 2012, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Simon666

I have my issues with Bergen as a source of anything on Bin Laden.

And do you have any issues with the document containing the minutes of the AQ meeting? If so, why?

Just for clarification, are you merely taking issue with the name 'Al-Qaeda,' or are you saying that there was no formal jihadist organisation 'led' by Bin Laden at all?

Simon666 · 30th July 2012, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by garethdjb

And do you have any issues with the document containing the minutes of the AQ meeting? If so, why?

I haven't seen it, so no. If it is in English, I would object it is possible translation is off. I've seen movies of Al Zawahiri where he clearly speaks of Qaeda al Jihad being put as Al Qaeda in transcript.

garethdjb · 30th July 2012, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Simon666

I haven't seen it, so no. If it is in English, I would object it is possible translation is off. I've seen movies of Al Zawahiri where he clearly speaks of Qaeda al Jihad being put as Al Qaeda in transcript.

So you accept that a group of people met at Bin Laden's house in 1988 to discuss founding a group born out of dissatisfaction with MAK? We can argue about what to call the organisation, or the various ways the term 'Al Qaeda' has been included in terminology throughout that organisation at various times, but you're not doubting the organisation actually existed?

Simon666 · 30th July 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by garethdjb

So you accept that a group of people met at Bin Laden's house in 1988 to discuss founding a group born out of dissatisfaction with MAK?

I haven't read his book, so I don't know what it claims exactly.

Originally Posted by garethdjb

We can argue about what to call the organisation, or the various ways the term 'Al Qaeda' has been included in terminology throughout that organisation at various times, but you're not doubting the organisation actually existed?

What does Bin Laden himself say again?

So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name (such as "al-Qai`dah") and so on.

I believe there is a group of people maybe working for a common cause, without a specific leadership necessarily. This is also how Al Qaeda is used today in all reports about sunni muslim terrorists, they are all "linked to Al Qaeda", without necessarily being clear what the link is other than being sunni muslim terrorist. I am not sure an actual organization existed, let alone under the name Al Qaeda. The evidence is more thin than many people believe.

DC · 30th July 2012, 04:47 AM

Quote:

What does Bin Laden himself say again?

nothing anymore.

DC · 30th July 2012, 04:49 AM

many of those that do not believe Al-queda exists, believe that the Illuminaten exist

20th July 2012, 07:14 AM	#161
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	In terms of internal consistency, Clayton's claim that he has prior military service because he was involved in the shooting of a war movie seems pretty much in line with the usual level of distinction conspiracy theorists are able to draw between reality and fiction. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

20th July 2012, 07:33 AM	#162
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,945	You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims. This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

20th July 2012, 11:41 AM	#164
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,945	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement. Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot? ). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one. No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

20th July 2012, 03:43 PM	#166
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims. This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it. In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable.
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

20th July 2012, 09:20 PM	#167
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by TSR Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims. This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. But since there is little to no chance of actually getting cm to admit that he was wrong, it's simply amuzing to rub his nose in some of his other more ludicrous statements made when he didn't even realize he'd be called on in it. In rather the same way that others rub their dog's noses into messes they make when they are caught at it -- with the major difference that a dog eventually learns that such messes are not acceptable. Yes, it's not his experience/lack of which matters one way or the other. It's his use of a blatantly ludicrous "argument from authority" to support his patently false claim. Not to mention it's funny to watch him dance around the subject rather than simply answering the question one way or the other. Why would someone do that?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

20th July 2012, 10:18 AM	#163
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,821	Originally Posted by jaydeehess Will we be getting back to the OP, and the fact that the BBC has NOT claimed that AQ never existed, and the fact that the doc producer never claimed that AQ did NOT exist, and the fact that all that CM illustrated here was that GWB et al exaggerated? Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus You know, folks... while the whole question of CM's experience is illuminating as far as his character goes, it's ultimately unimporant. His claims are demonstrably wrong on their own merits, nevermind the experience he employs or claims to employ in the construction of them. Even if it turns out he has relevant military experience, and even if it turns out nothing is a lie or exaggerated, he's still wrong. The evidence demonstrates this. No one doubts Jesse Ventura's experience, for example, but it doesn't change the fact that he advocates for demonstrably incorrect claims. This statement is not meant to shut down the discussion, though. It's merely to remind us all of the proper perspective. By all means, feel free to continue it. Thank you, for a while there I was becoming convinced that CM only mentions all this about the movie so that no one will notice the 400 pound gorilla in his room, that his claim that the "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed " has been demonstrated incorrect and that neither has the docuementary producer at the supposed center of his arguement.

20th July 2012, 03:17 PM	#165
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,821	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Well, quite obviously he's dodging it now. But that's an element of the slower Gish Gallop (The Gish Canter? The Gish Trot? ). Make the claim, and only slowly turn to other claims. All the while ignoring the refutations for the base or initial one. No matter how it's characterized, it's still avoidance. I'd guess it's a defense against the onset of cognitive dissonance, but I honestly don't know; it could be that many conspiracy peddlers' cognition is so broken that they could hold deliberately refuted beliefs as true without their minds exploding. Who knows? Its like he never tires, perhaps even feeds off of, having his original claims proven wrong so that he can have a forum to make tangentially related claims. Its hard to comprehend such a psyche. of

23rd July 2012, 01:41 PM	#168
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 225	Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists.
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 225

23rd July 2012, 03:26 PM	#169
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by poblob14 . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? I am beginning to suspect that masochism is a major factor here.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

23rd July 2012, 03:35 PM	#170
Nick Terry Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,304	Originally Posted by poblob14 Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists. It's sort of like the Japanese game show Endurance, but without any prizes at the end.
	__________________ Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. (biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available) Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

26th July 2012, 10:14 AM	#171
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,821	Originally Posted by jaydeehess .......You stated that the BBC has stated that AQ does not exist. They have not done this so that's strike 1 The creator of the doc shown on the BBC has not stated this either, strike 2 In fact you have produced no one, other than yourself, who does , and you have no demonstrable credibility, strike 3 What you have done is show that the clowns in the GWB admin exaggerrated. Congrats, next are you going to illustrate that water is wet or that bears defecate in wooded areas? It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton. I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so. I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect or that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably).

26th July 2012, 10:38 AM	#172
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by jaydeehess It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton. I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so. I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect or that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably). It's explicable, all right -- but doing so would get me dinged
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

26th July 2012, 12:47 PM	#173
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,821	inexplicable by logic would be my intention in the use of the term of course

26th July 2012, 06:53 PM	#174
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by jaydeehess It is now past two weeks since I posted this and nary a response from Clayton. I will no longer pester the forums with requests that he do so. I will however assume that CM either agrees that his thread title is incorrect or that he at least sees it as a 'no contest' situation in which he simply cannot illustrate or prove the point, while not abandoning the position (albeit inexplicably). He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic.
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

26th July 2012, 06:55 PM	#175
Straw Man Flammable Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: In your argument Posts: 8,188	To be fair to the movie producer, he did rock up in his 'ALEC Exposed thread' to point out he actually used a real publication in his defence.

27th July 2012, 06:58 AM	#176
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,736	Originally Posted by Robrob He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic. ???
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

27th July 2012, 09:46 AM	#177
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,195	Originally Posted by Garrison You think dealing with urban terrorists is somehow the magic key to locating a bunch of people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan? Martin McGuinness wouldn't have lasted five minutes in the Tora Bora mountains http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1 So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in?
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

27th July 2012, 10:16 AM	#178
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,575	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1 So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in? I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

27th July 2012, 10:34 AM	#179
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,195	Originally Posted by twinstead I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations. Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

27th July 2012, 11:03 AM	#180
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,187	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread. Ironic that the person who initiated the thread cannot make any such contribution.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

27th July 2012, 11:04 AM	#181
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,575	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Congratulations. Great first contribution to the thread. And I still await yours
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

27th July 2012, 11:10 AM	#182
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	"Al Qaeda Never Existed" = ("Dewey Defeats Truman")x10⁵⁶ I don't think so.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

27th July 2012, 11:49 AM	#183
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,291	Originally Posted by TSR It's explicable, all right -- but doing so would get me dinged Well, I'm just going to say that after reading Clayton's posts and seeing his chosen avatar, I can only conclude that Clayton spends a significant amount of time looking in the mirror.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,291

27th July 2012, 03:25 PM	#184
Simon666 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Gates of hell Posts: 1,739	Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by the US for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that. This document is part of a longer letter which was not released to the CTC. It is not clear who authored the letter or to whom it was addressed. It discusses the potential need to change the name of “Qa`idat al-Jihad.” The author is of the view that the abridging of the name “al-Qa`ida” has “lessened Muslims’ feelings that we belong to them.” The author is further concerned that since the name “al-Qa`ida” lacks religious connotations, it has allowed the United States to launch a war on “al-Qa`ida” without offending Muslims. The author proposed a list of new names that capture Islamic theological themes: Ta’ifat al-tawhid wa-al-jihad (Monotheism and Jihad Group), Jama`at wahdat al-Muslimin (Muslim Unity Group), Hizb tawhid al-Umma al-Islamiyya (Islamic Nation Unification Party) and Jama`at tahrir al-aqsa (Al-Aqsa Liberation Group). I don't have 15 posts so Google the link for yourself

27th July 2012, 03:44 PM	#185
Garrison Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Milton Keynes UK Posts: 1,439	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1 So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in? Nobody claimed Cheney was right, just pointed out that you were utterly wrong about the claim in the title of the thread.

27th July 2012, 04:52 PM	#186
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,480	Originally Posted by twinstead I see you've neglected to answer any of the excellent questions posed to you recently on this thread. Congratulations. Not answering questions is Clayton's forte. He employs this technique in all of his threads.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

27th July 2012, 07:53 PM	#187
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,736	Originally Posted by dafydd not answering questions is clayton's forte. He employs this technique in all of his threads he posts in. ftfy.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

28th July 2012, 10:27 AM	#188
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,821	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...50&postcount=1 So where are the mountain fortresses Rumsfeld was yammering about at 6 minutes in? Asked, responded to, and answered, several times in this very thread Clayton. Do try to keep up.

28th July 2012, 06:06 PM	#189
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by 000063 Originally Posted by Robrob He did the same thing in his "Virus CT" topic. ??? That he abandoned his OP when proven wrong. Originally Posted by Simon666 Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by theUS for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that. Wrong. Quote: This document is part of a longer letter which was not released to the CTC. It is not clear who authored the letter or to whom it was addressed. So you evidence for the US inventing the name is an anonymous letter sent to an anonymous person that discusses what al Qaeda wants to call itself?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

29th July 2012, 03:30 AM	#190
garethdjb Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 639	Originally Posted by Simon666 Al Qaeda is if I remember correctly a name invented by the US for legal purposes of suing Bin Laden's "organization". If you check any and all videos of Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden, you will find they refer to [Al] Qaeda al Jihad, never as Al Qaeda only. This can also be found back in the (in)famous Letters from Abbottabad. There are rumors that "Al Qaeda" only can be slang in Arabic for "the potty" , but I've not been able to confirm that. Here's Bin Laden explaining the origin of the name 'Al Qaeda' in an interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni: Quote: That particular name is very old. It was born without any intention from us. Brother Abu Ubaida (rahimahullah) al-Banshiri (Panjshiri) [6] created a military base to train the young men to fight against the vicious, arrogant, brutal, terrorizing soviet empire, which was a truth to all observers [al-baghi, al-ghaashim, al-mulhid, al-irhaabi haqiqatan lil mu'aamilin]. So this place was called "The Base" ["Al-Qai`dah"], Transcript One of Bin Laden's mentors from the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, wrote an article for 'Jihad' magazine in 1988 titled 'Al Qaeda al Sulbah' (the solid base). Azzam's idea was for a solid core of activists and fighters to act as a vanguard for the establishment of Islamic states throughout the muslim world. Azzam's ideas inspired Bin Laden, it's possible that the name of Bin Laden's own organisation came from this reference and Bin Laden's later explanation in the Al-Jazeera interview is an attempt to portray the organisation as his idea alone. Bin Laden's organisation was conceived more as a kind of 'international brigade' of trained fighters that would assist the overthrow of 'un-islamic' rulers. Documentary mention of Al Qaeda as an actual organisation occur in the minutes of a meeting held at Bin Laden's house in August 1988, 4 months after the article by Azzam. The document can be found in Peter Bergen's book 'The Osama Bin Laden I know,'
garethdjb Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 639	__________________ " It's a cheerful philosophy and I've heard it from people before... they're all dead now though" - Sandy

29th July 2012, 05:34 AM	#191
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,195	Originally Posted by poblob14 Hey guys, I just wandered into the CT subfora out of abject boredom . . . and great suff'rin' Christ on a cracker, how do you people stand it? These guys are worse than the Young Earth Creationists. You gotta love the anti Christian slurs. Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

29th July 2012, 05:39 AM	#192
Nick Terry Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,304	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore You gotta love the anti Christian slurs. Christians seem to be the only fair game at JREF. You are aware how many denominations of Christianity there are? Most of them are not Young Earth Creationists. The Catholic Church is undoubtedly the biggest Christian denomination and it doesn't preach YEC nonsense. So how is attacking a theological doctrine rejected by the majority of Christians worldwide being 'anti-Christian'? Unless you're now saying that the Pope is anti-Christian?
	__________________ Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. (biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available) Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

29th July 2012, 11:05 PM	#193
Simon666 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Gates of hell Posts: 1,739	Originally Posted by Robrob Wrong. Why? Because you say so? Give me a reference. I think I could give you one for MY assertion, probably it is in the 9/11 commission report but I would have to look into that. Originally Posted by Robrob So you evidence for the US inventing the name is an anonymous letter sent to an anonymous person that discusses what al Qaeda wants to call itself? Strawman. Plus using an excerpt only of what I said. I also said you can check all videos of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Not ONCE do they refer to themselves as Al Qaeda, but ALWAYS as Qaeda Al Jihad, without being clear whether this is the name of an organization of some sorts or the abstract concept of the "base of the jihad".

29th July 2012, 11:38 PM	#194
Simon666 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Gates of hell Posts: 1,739	Originally Posted by garethdjb Here's Bin Laden explaining the origin of the name 'Al Qaeda' in an interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni: That interview was never aired on Al Jazeera to my knowledge, but an unverifiable transcript was first released by CNN in 2001 or 2002. I am surprised to see it now available on YouTube, it seems to have been first released in 2011 for some reason? Tayseer Allouni also spent some years in a Spanish jail, probably for the sole reason of having interviewed Bin Laden. He was released only this year. From the transcript I have of that interview: "...this matter isn't about any specific person and...is not about the al-Qai`dah Organization. We are the children of an Islamic Nation, with Prophet Muhammad as its leader, our Lord is one...and all the true believers [mu'mineen] are brothers. So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name (such as "al-Qai`dah") and so on. That particular name is very old. It was born without any intention from us. Brother Abu Ubaida... created a military base to train the young men to fight against the vicious, arrogant, brutal, terrorizing Soviet empire... So this place was called "The Base" ["Al-Qai`dah"], as in a training base, so this name grew and became. We aren't separated from this nation. We are the children of a nation, and we are an inseparable part of it, and from those public demonstrations which spread from the far east, from the Philippines, to Indonesia, to Malaysia, to India, to Pakistan, reaching Mauritania... and so we discuss the conscience of this nation. When not at work, I'll watch the interview with sound on and check whether he mentions Al Qaeda, (Al) Qaeda Al Jihad or Al Qaeda al Sulbah. In any case, you have from the horse's mouth that there is not such an "organization" with a specific name. Originally Posted by garethdjb One of Bin Laden's mentors from the Afghan Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, wrote an article for 'Jihad' magazine in 1988 titled 'Al Qaeda al Sulbah' (the solid base). Azzam's idea was for a solid core of activists and fighters to act as a vanguard for the establishment of Islamic states throughout the muslim world. Azzam's ideas inspired Bin Laden, it's possible that the name of Bin Laden's own organisation came from this reference and Bin Laden's later explanation in the Al-Jazeera interview is an attempt to portray the organisation as his idea alone. Bin Laden's organisation was conceived more as a kind of 'international brigade' of trained fighters that would assist the overthrow of 'un-islamic' rulers. Interesting. Originally Posted by garethdjb Documentary mention of Al Qaeda as an actual organisation occur in the minutes of a meeting held at Bin Laden's house in August 1988, 4 months after the article by Azzam. The document can be found in Peter Bergen's book 'The Osama Bin Laden I know,' I have my issues with Bergen as a source of anything on Bin Laden.
	Last edited by Simon666; 29th July 2012 at 11:45 PM.

30th July 2012, 01:54 AM	#195
garethdjb Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 639	Originally Posted by Simon666 I have my issues with Bergen as a source of anything on Bin Laden. And do you have any issues with the document containing the minutes of the AQ meeting? If so, why? Just for clarification, are you merely taking issue with the name 'Al-Qaeda,' or are you saying that there was no formal jihadist organisation 'led' by Bin Laden at all?
garethdjb Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 639	__________________ " It's a cheerful philosophy and I've heard it from people before... they're all dead now though" - Sandy Last edited by garethdjb; 30th July 2012 at 02:21 AM.