Return of Al-Qaida - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

chilcutt · #16 02-09-2014, 07:07 AM

'Counter-terrorism and war propaganda are intertwined.
The propaganda apparatus feeds information into the news chain.
The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine".
The objective is to present the terror groups as enemies of America.'

More here> Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism” | Global Research

Jim B. · #17 02-09-2014, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

^Spot on.

How can al-Qaida be all over the Mideast, North Africa, and now much of black Africa ? This is after the US spent over $1 Trillion trying to stamp out al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The answer is simple.

As an organization and threat al-Qaida is barely visable. But as a name, al-Qaida and 'Terrorism' have become the West's handy universal term for armed groups fighting Western influence,corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

Al-Qaida is nowhere-but everywhere.

Russia, France, Belgium, Indonesia, India, Australia, Denmark, England come quickly to mind also.

And I have no idea what is happening in Dearborn, Michigan, USA.

Or to anybody, anywhere who has been perceived as a "blasphemer", ie "insults" the Prophet.

And as for armed groups fighting Western influence, corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

the daily endless car bombings and tit-for-tat killings of Muslim v Shiia groups by car bombings, over WHO is the "real" muslims, those I fail to see any cause or correlation between all that and the innocent men women and children that suffer daily injury and death who live among them.

chilcutt · #18 02-09-2014, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Russia, France, Belgium, Indonesia, India, Australia, Denmark, England come quickly to mind also.

And I have no idea what is happening in Dearborn, Michigan, USA.

Or to anybody, anywhere who has been perceived as a "blasphemer", ie "insults" the Prophet.

And as for armed groups fighting Western influence, corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

the daily endless car bombings and tit-for-tat killings of Muslim v Shiia groups by car bombings, over WHO is the "real" muslims, those I fail to see any cause or correlation between all that and the innocent men women and children that suffer daily injury and death who live among them.

This may help you> www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/12/abridged-koran.html

Dudesky · #19 02-09-2014, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

^Spot on.

How can al-Qaida be all over the Mideast, North Africa, and now much of black Africa ? This is after the US spent over $1 Trillion trying to stamp out al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The answer is simple.

As an organization and threat al-Qaida is barely visable. But as a name, al-Qaida and 'Terrorism' have become the West's handy universal term for armed groups fighting Western influence,corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

Al-Qaida is nowhere-but everywhere.

According to PBS Frontline, they have been opening up friendly neighborhood offices back and forth between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Sudan......most likely due to extreme heat in those areas at times.

Quote:

Al Qaeda functioned both on its own and through some of the terrorist organizations that operated under its umbrella, including: Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and at times, the Islamic Group (also known as "el Gamaa Islamia" or simply "Gamaa't"), and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and the Kashmiri region of India and the Chechnyan region of Russia. Al Qaeda also maintained cells and personnel in a number of countries to facilitate its activities, including in Kenya, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Malaysia, and the United States.
Al Qaeda - Background - Al Qaeda | Inside The Terror Network | FRONTLINE | PBS

Most, if not all recent terror events have links to some type training camps in these listed countries.
I think Al Qaeda appears to be a little more widespread and organized than a generic term on the nightly news.

whunter · #20 02-09-2014, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

How did al-Qaida, a tiny anti-communist group in Afghanistan that had no more than 200 members in 2001 become a supposed worldwide threat ?

A little research would have answered the question.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/the-nature-of-the-threat/al-qaidas-history.html

Al-Qaeda | Infoplease.com

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al Qaeda 'disowns' affiliate, blaming it for disaster in Syria - CNN.com

Manning's WikiLeaks breach helped al Qaeda recruiting, prosecution witness says - NBC News

Al Qaeda claims responsibility for
https://www.google.com/search?q=al+qaeda+claims+responsibility+for&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

.

Diesel911 · #21 02-09-2014, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

^Spot on.

How can al-Qaida be all over the Mideast, North Africa, and now much of black Africa ? This is after the US spent over $1 Trillion trying to stamp out al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The answer is simple.

As an organization and threat al-Qaida is barely visable. But as a name, al-Qaida and 'Terrorism' have become the West's handy universal term for armed groups fighting Western influence,corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

Al-Qaida is nowhere-but everywhere.

A Rose by any other name.....and so on.

So the West also uses propaganda. Is that unexpected?

The majority of Germans were not members of the NAZI Party but that did not stop the NAZIs from starting a War; and not being a NAZI Party Member did not keep the non-NAZIs safe from death and destruction.

Idle · #22 02-09-2014, 12:24 PM

[QUOTE=Dudesky;3284124]Good point. Hillary claimed President Obama attended one.

Obama did attend one. That is the Arabic word for 'School'. Any kind of school. It is like saying he attended a school school.

Diesel911 · #23 02-09-2014, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

^Spot on.

How can al-Qaida be all over the Mideast, North Africa, and now much of black Africa ? This is after the US spent over $1 Trillion trying to stamp out al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The answer is simple.

As an organization and threat al-Qaida is barely visable. But as a name, al-Qaida and 'Terrorism' have become the West's handy universal term for armed groups fighting Western influence,corruption or repression in Asia and Africa.

Al-Qaida is nowhere-but everywhere.

Other ways of interpreting the statement in red:
Al-Qaida has gone more underground because they are afraid of attacks.
What the USA and Allies are doing is working.

Think of Al-Qaida as if they were one of the Gangs in a City.
The Law Enforcement cannot just barge in and start killing the Gang Members.

So even if it is expensive and a never ending job.

The result is that while the Gang is never eradicated but Law Enforcement does effect a retardation of the Gangs ability to operate.

So If I followed Your logic I would say since Law Enforcement cannot defeat the Gangs Money and other resources are wasted and We should leave the Gang alone.

I think logic like that would just allow the Gang to grow exponentially.

Idle · #24 02-09-2014, 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=Dudesky;3284200]According to PBS Frontline, they have been opening up friendly neighborhood offices back and forth between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Sudan......most likely due to extreme heat in those areas at times.

If you study what Mao did in China you will see they are following in his footsteps. Mao saw a people that were suffering under the combination of warlords and whatever was passing for a government in China and jumped into the middle of it. If he was going to take over he had to have the people behind him first and he was not that concerned about their support. He just didn't want them to oppose him.

China did not have any history of regular elections, so when Mao took over he was just another warlord in the east trying to run a bunch of small fiefdoms, or so everyone in the fiefdoms thought.

Some in Al-Queta knows it has to do the same. It is easier to get the population to follow you if they love you than if they see you as someone who is constantly making their lives worse. Those that decide to roll in and take over through force have found the population, no matter where they have tried this, to be quite resistant to the savage behavior a lot of those in Al-Queta seem to think is the pathway to a better life.

Idle · #25 02-09-2014, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

Other ways of interpreting the statement in red:
Al-Qaida has gone more underground because they are afraid of attacks.
What the USA and Allies are doing is working.

Think of Al-Qaida as if they were one of the Gangs in a City.
The Law Enforcement cannot just barge in and start killing the Gang Members.

So even if it is expensive and a never ending job.

The result is that while the Gang is never eradicated but Law Enforcement does effect a retardation of the Gangs ability to operate.

So If I followed Your logic I would say since Law Enforcement cannot defeat the Gangs Money and other resources are wasted and We should leave the Gang alone.

I think logic like that would just allow the Gang to grow exponentially.

A good example would be Chicago in the 20's. Al Capone and those like him took care of the Police and the Police looked the other way. Everything was great unless you were a small businessman Capone was shaking down for 10% of your profits as 'insurance' money each week.

(And Anas asked the Messenger, "And how does one help an oppressor?" And the Messenger replied, "By hindering him from doing wrong.")

barry12345 · #26 02-09-2014, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

'Counter-terrorism and war propaganda are intertwined.
The propaganda apparatus feeds information into the news chain.
The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine".
The objective is to present the terror groups as enemies of America.'

More here> Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism” | Global Research

I did not read your refferance article. In some ways your descriptions are right. I have always hoped the report that they wanted peace negotiations that where turned down by the USA was false. If true the military industrial complex or whatever has far too much influence. To me it was an opportunity also missed to cool down Pakistan a little as well.

The resulting costs since that period with so called homeland security and military actions etc have been astronomical. The only change in spending so much money in a military way is just probably delaying the inevitable at best. When forces are pulled out of areas they will just take over in those areas is my opinion. Possibly just by local popular demand.

North American behavours may actually be somehow responsible for their actual growth. Once they rule a sovereign state may produce a more valid platform for them. A lot of effort with propaganda has been expended to label them a religious mania type of organization.

It has always concerned me that the people involved in the execution of 9/11 where by and large qualified engineers. For educated persons they would have to have real reasons to engage in that. Allah would not cut it as a belief. No more than me say having Christianity as a background to do it. Logic alone would prevent me and them from that approach.

Instead I saw it as a message that we are here and you will now hopefully have to deal with us. They had no official channels to address real grievances otherwise. My feeling is the way it was and is being handled is not the answer. Addressing true justifieable grievances is both much cheaper and could disband their activities. Otherwise it just goes on and on. Time also is probably with them.

The most dangerous statement in modern times that was not evaluated properly in my opinion. Was when the president used the sentence you did not earn it. In a complex way it is true. Much of our wealth is a result of taking it from other countries and their people until they have virtually nothing. Or leaving the equivalent behind. Or the absolute refusal to share their wealth by us that is still going on. Being a worlds superpower will not carry this policy much longer. North America got cheap oil and still does to a lesser extent is a good example. Propaganda enabled a good coverup on the methology used. I am not anti north American but a wrong unethical approach by us is still a wrong unethical approach.

elchivito · #27 02-09-2014, 02:31 PM

I find militant Mohammedans tedious. They bore me with their blathering. I've decided to ignore them altogether.

Diesel911 · #28 02-09-2014, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle

A good example would be Chicago in the 20's. Al Capone and those like him took care of the Police and the Police looked the other way. Everything was great unless you were a small businessman Capone was shaking down for 10% of your profits as 'insurance' money each week.

(And Anas asked the Messenger, "And how does one help an oppressor?" And the Messenger replied, "By hindering him from doing wrong.")

I am not following what you said. In Your example the Police became part of the Gang and allowing it to grow. In My example the Policed are fighting the Gang attempting to get rid of the Gang.

Diesel911 · #29 02-09-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

I did not read your refferance article. In some ways your descriptions are right. I have always hoped the report that they wanted peace negotiations that where turned down by the USA was false. If true the military industrial complex or whatever has far too much influence. To me it was an opportunity also missed to cool down Pakistan a little as well.

The resulting costs since that period with so called homeland security and military actions etc have been astronomical. The only change in spending so much money in a military way is just probably delaying the inevitable at best. When forces are pulled out of areas they will just take over in those areas is my opinion. Possibly just by local popular demand.

North American behavours may actually be somehow responsible for their actual growth. Once they rule a sovereign state may produce a more valid platform for them. A lot of effort with propaganda has been expended to label them a religious mania type of organization.

It has always concerned me that the people involved in the execution of 9/11 where by and large qualified engineers. For educated persons they would have to have real reasons to engage in that. Allah would not cut it as a belief. No more than me say having Christianity as a background to do it. Logic alone would prevent me and them from that approach.

Instead I saw it as a message that we are here and you will now hopefully have to deal with us. They had no official channels to address real grievances otherwise. My feeling is the way it was and is being handled is not the answer. Addressing true justifieable grievances is both much cheaper and could disband their activities. Otherwise it just goes on and on. Time also is probably with them.

The most dangerous statement in modern times that was not evaluated properly in my opinion. Was when the president used the sentence you did not earn it. In a complex way it is true. Much of our wealth is a result of taking it from other countries and their people until they have virtually nothing. Or leaving the equivalent behind. Or the absolute refusal to share their wealth by us that is still going on. Being a worlds superpower will not carry this policy much longer. North America got cheap oil and still does to a lesser extent is a good example. Propaganda enabled a good coverup on the methology used. I am not anti north American but a wrong unethical approach by us is still a wrong unethical approach.

No matter what other issues surround the "War on Terrorism" the quesiton still is; what happens if the US does nothing at all?
I believe if the US did nothing the Terrorist would just become more powerful and that would lead to more attacks on the US.

Idle · #30 02-09-2014, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

I am not following what you said. In Your example the Police became part of the Gang and allowing it to grow. In My example the Policed are fighting the Gang attempting to get rid of the Gang.

I was trying to point out that you were expressing the correct view on the subject. It is easy to go with the flow and take the payoff. The problem for the police in such an example is that while the police may think the gangs are just going for a small piece of the pie in reality they want it all and the police are just dupes. By the time they figure this out it is too late. A few cities in Mexico are good examples of this.

But the police never become a part of the gang since they would just be in the way. If they just do nothing... That's what the gangs are paying for. The gangs don't need any help, they just need a free hand.