Return of Al-Qaida - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

INSIDIOUS · #46 02-09-2014, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Read it and come to your own conclusion based on having read it.

I C That is how it is with U Whatever da gubbament says is good, never mind that the guy himself, at risk of great bodily harm (death actually eventually) to himself, has issued a clarifying factual statement, the gubbament report preemptively refutes anything that might follow. Gotcha!! Sorta like if they declared bot was a bad guy? Amirite?

INSIDIOUS · #47 02-09-2014, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I wish you had written that in your native tongue.

When you are done licking scrotum pull your tongue out of your hinder and get real, chump.

Jim B. · #48 02-09-2014, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS

I C That is how it is with U Whatever da gubbament says is good, never mind that the guy himself, at risk of great bodily harm (death actually eventually) to himself, has issued a clarifying factual statement, the gubbament report preemptively refutes anything that might follow. Gotcha!! Sorta like if they declared bot was a bad guy? Amirite?

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS

When you are done licking scrotum pull your tongue out of your hinder and get real, chump.

In the coin of the realm.

Tick, tick, tick.

cmac2012 · #49 02-09-2014, 11:05 PM

There goes the neighborhood.

Obamalamadingdong · #50 02-09-2014, 11:16 PM

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 ?

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf

The presented premise is false, it never was as described. Al Qaeda is simply one of the more recent manifestations along a continuum of Islamo-Supremism a direct offspring of al-Banna and Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood, that can be traced directly back at least to the 1700's of Shah Waliullah and the school Darul Uloom Deoband of the late 1800's, but realistically extends all to way back to Islam's the 7th century founding.

All of which dominated Islamo-Supremist ideology for centuries before even the idea of modern Israel!

Diesel911 · #51 02-10-2014, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obamalamadingdong

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf

The presented premise is false, it never was as described. Al Qaeda is simply one of the more recent manifestations along a continuum of Islamo-Supremism a direct offspring of al-Banna and Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood, that can be traced directly back at least to the 1700's of Shah Waliullah and the school Darul Uloom Deoband of the late 1800's, but realistically extends all to way back to Islam's the 7th century founding.

All of which dominated Islamo-Supremist ideology for centuries before even the idea of modern Israel!

But, who or what does Al Qaeda think they are?
What are they doing?
And, what goal do they want to achieve?

You historical connection implys that what We refer to as Al Qaeda has been around for a long time but the below has that at the very least Al Qaeda was "born again" more recently;nder new mangement.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/734613/al-Qaeda

Diesel911 · #52 02-10-2014, 03:00 AM

"al-Qaeda, Arabic al-Qāʿidah (“the Base”), broad-based militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s.
Al-Qaeda began as a logistical network to support Muslims fighting against the Soviet Union during the Afghan War; members were recruited throughout the Islamic world. When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the organization dispersed but continued to oppose what its leaders considered corrupt Islamic regimes and foreign (i.e., U.S.) presence in Islamic lands. Based in Sudan for a period in the early 1990s, the group eventually reestablished its headquarters in Afghanistan (c. 1996) under the patronage of the Taliban militia."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/734613/al-Qaeda

The text in read answers why US Troops were and or still are in Afghanistan.
al-Qaeda is there and the Taliban who declared War on the USA are there.

Up untill I read that article I did not know al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Botnst · #53 02-10-2014, 08:00 AM

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Chapter 2, Page 48.

chilcutt · #54 02-10-2014, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Chapter 2, Page 48.

Thanks Bot-always appreciate your contributions.

chilcutt · #55 02-10-2014, 08:23 AM

Islam in the Eyes of Julius Evola | Open Revolt!

chilcutt · #56 02-10-2014, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

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.

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.

Good points Dude.

Check this> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-were-losing-the-war-on-terror

cmac2012 · #57 02-10-2014, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

But, who or what does Al Qaeda think they are?
What are they doing?
And, what goal do they want to achieve?

You historical connection implys that what We refer to as Al Qaeda has been around for a long time but the below has that at the very least Al Qaeda was "born again" more recently;nder new mangement.
al-Qaeda (Islamic militant organization) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The brain cells of the operating mind of AQ do not work well with each other. I gather that ol' #2 in Egypt is distancing himself and the truly dignified parts of AQ from the hotheads, firebrands, and bloodthirsty characters in Syria who have hung an AQ sign outside their door. Must be tough, dealing with crude upstarts trying hard to be initiated in the brotherhood.

INSIDIOUS · #58 02-11-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

In the coin of the realm.

Tick, tick, tick.

Not sure what your post means. But I probably shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry Bot, please forgive me

Now, regardless of what any report created by those who have agenda and need to cover their hinders supposes and hypotheses with all sorts of complexity, when the principle actor comes back with simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility. To justify the report being of superior truth over primary later testimony requires all sorts of special circumstance. Proof, not speculation. You have to realize UBL read the report and commented to it.

If we are not honest about the actual facts, solutions will be more difficult. Denial is not a good strategy. Suppose for the sake of argument it is only what UBL's followers believe. That in itself is their truth, and matters.

Or, feel free to rewrite history in any speculative manner that you like.

Obamalamadingdong · #59 02-11-2014, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS

Not sure what your post means. But I probably shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry Bot, please forgive me

Now, regardless of what any report created by those who have agenda and need to cover their hinders supposes and hypotheses with all sorts of complexity, when the principle actor comes back with simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility. To justify the report being of superior truth over primary later testimony requires all sorts of special circumstance. Proof, not speculation. You have to realize UBL read the report and commented to it.

If we are not honest about the actual facts, solutions will be more difficult. Denial is not a good strategy. Suppose for the sake of argument it is only what UBL's followers believe. That in itself is their truth, and matters.

Or, feel free to rewrite history in any speculative manner that you like.

So "simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility", represents the only undisputable true fact. It may be a fact it was a statement directly attributable to OBL, but what makes the substance of any statement a proven fact?

Because only dumb arses don't know that OBL could never tell a lie and never had any agenda?

Obviously, that's what separates the "smart ones" from the rest of the unwashed masses!

INSIDIOUS · #60 02-11-2014, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obamalamadingdong

So "simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility", represents the only undisputable true fact. It may be a fact it was a statement directly attributable to OBL, but what makes the substance of any statement a proven fact?

Because only dumb arses don't know that OBL could never tell a lie and never had any agenda?

Obviously, that's what separates the "smart ones" from the rest of the unwashed masses!

I see that you are well skilled in speculation.