How much do you know about al-Qaeda?

Oh really?

 

Yes really, providing a link about grateful Afghans does not negate the fact that Americas past foreign policies have created the situation we are in.

 

Please elaborate on what situation the US is in and what policies created it.

 

Bhutto blames al Qaeda, Taliban for attack

Updated Fri. Oct. 19 2007 8:49 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto blamed al Qaeda and Taliban militants for Thursday's assassination attempt against her.

This is the 2nd attempt to assassinate her, the 1st was in'93. Both by the imaginary "al qaeda".

MANILA, Philippines -- A political, security, and military affairs analyst on Saturday tied the Glorietta bombing to an alleged attempt by local extremists to obtain recognition and funding from the al-Qaeda international terrorist group.



THE bombings in Pakistan that killed up to 126 people were likely to be the work of al-Qaeda, Prime Minister John Howard said today.



Seems he's not just a figment of the US Imperialist,
unless you believe the whole world is in on it.

Could you give us a link to the poll ?
Why does A-Q make front page news in almost every middle-east paper ?

 

Bhutto blames al-Qaeda for the attack? Yeah, so? What is that supposed to mean. Bhutto is also a puppet of the US government.

Howard is also a globalist stooge.

Who owns/controls the Middle East newspapers?

 

Even tho the majority of the planet acknowledges A-Q.

How does an attack on a former PM of Pakistan put fear into the western world?

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council,[12] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General,[13][14] the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union,[15] the United States Department of State,[16] the Australian Government,[17] Public Safety Canada,[18] the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[19] Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook,[20] South Korean Foreign Ministry,[21] the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,[22] the United Kingdom Home Office,[23] Russia,[24] Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,[25] and the Swiss Government.[26]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda

 

Rat, you told me once that you knew quite a bit about the Brotherhood. How does the Brotherhood fit in your idea that al Qaeda (Islamic Fundamentalists) is a manufactured threat?

 

Here's an article that sums it up well.

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=7202

RNN EXCLUSIVE: Western Intelligence and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood
Added: Aug 12th, 2007 10:35 AM

By Phillip D. Collins and Paul Collins

August 12, 2007 -- RaidersNewsNetwork.com -- Like it or not, radical Islam is on the rise. And the group spearheading this rise is Muslim Brotherhood. Wherever political Islam is gaining ground, one is almost guaranteed to find the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take the Gaza Strip, for instance. Most people know that in June of 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. What many people do not know is that Hamas is an offshoot of Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (El Ahl, no pagination). Gaza is the most publicized of the Brotherhood’s successes. However, the group has experienced other victories the media has said little about. In 2005, the Brotherhood made significant political gains in Egypt, increasing its number of independent parliamentarians from 15 to 88 (no pagination). In Jordan, the Brotherhood’s political wing, known as the Islamic Action Front, has become part of Jordan’s political establishment, possessing 17 out of 110 parliamentarians (no pagination). Without a doubt, the Brotherhood’s influence is starting to be felt.

To say the least, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political ascent is impressive. However, without the aid of some powerful forces, the Brotherhood may have never been more than a group of marginalized religious fanatics. The hidden hands of these powerful forces can be seen at work before World War Two with the British travel writer Freya Stark. Stark was not just a writer. She was also an agent of British intelligence. Stark was used by British intelligence to foster an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood (Dorril 622). Brotherhood collaboration with Western intelligence continued with an alliance between the Brotherhood and the CIA that began around 1955. According to former CIA agent Miles Copeland, it was around this time that America began looking for the Muslim equivalent of Billy Graham, hoping to use such a charismatic individual to influence the Arab world. When this failed, the Agency began forging ties with the CIA (Aburish 60-61). What was the motive for this marriage between Western intelligence and the Muslim Brotherhood? This alliance would help the Western power elite neutralize the challenge to their hegemony coming from the secular Arab nationalist movement. Said Aburish elaborates:

In the 1950s and later, the West opposed the secular Arab nationalist movement for two reasons: it challenged its regional hegemony and threatened the survival of its clients leaders and countries. Specifically, there was nothing to stop a secular movement from cooperating with the USSR; in fact, most of them were mildly socialist. Furthermore, most secular movements advocated various schemes of Arab unity, a union or a unified policy, which threatened and undermined the pro-West traditional regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other client states. The West saw it as a challenge that had to be met. (60)

Was the alliance between the CIA and the Brotherhood merely a continuation of the alliance between British intelligence and the Brotherhood? According to the authors of Dope, Inc., the OSS, which was the forerunner of the CIA, was merely a subsidiary of British intelligence (540). When the Office of Strategic Services was being organized, William Stephenson, Britain’s Special Operations Executive representative in the United States, was brought in for “technical assistance” (418). Stephenson’s involvement would lead to the creation of “a British SOE fifth column embedded deeply into the American official intelligence community” (454). When it came religious engineering to promote fanaticism within the Arab world, it could be that the British power elite passed the mantle to the American power elite.

The power elite officially endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood in May of 1979 at the Bilderberg meeting held in Austria (Engdahl 171). At this meeting, British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis suggested that endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood would allow the Western elite “to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines” (171). This balkanization process would result in the rise of various autonomous groups and the spreading of chaos in the Near East (171). In what Lewis termed an “Arc of crisis,” the chaos would eventually spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union (171). This would help the Western elites counter Soviet moves to become the world’s sole hegemon, thus preserving the Cold War dialectical rivalry that had been so advantageous to the Western oligarchs.

The power elite’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood had begun one year earlier, when Carter appointed Bilderberg attendee George Ball to head a White House Iran task force that fell under the authority of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (171). Ball recommended pulling support for Iran’s leader at the time, the Shah of Iran (171). He also suggested supporting the Shah’s opposition, the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini (171). The Muslim Brotherhood was the movement behind Khomeini (171). Again, Western intelligence groups lent the Brotherhood an assist. CIA case officer Robert Bowie ran covert operations against the Shah that allowed the coup to be successful (171). The CIA-led coup used economic pressures placed on Iran by London to create the pretext for religious discontent against the Shah (172). London refused to Iranian Oil production, “taking only 3 million or so barrels a day on an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day” (172). This move imposed revenue pressures on Iran, and agitators trained by U.S. intelligence went about blaming the Shah’s regime (172).

According to William Engdahl, the destabilization of the Shah’s regime was also aided by American’s working within Iran’s security establishment:

As Iran’s economic troubles grew, American “security” advisers to the Shah’s Savak secret police implemented a policy of even more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter Administration cynically began protesting abuses of “human rights” under the Shah. (172)

The action taken against the Shah was successful and the deposed Iranian leader fled the country in January of 1979 (172). Writing about his downfall, the Shah later stated:

I did not know it the-perhaps I did not want to know-but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted… What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to Abandon me and ultimately my country. (172)

Khomeini’s rise to power in Iran was a major victory for the Muslim Brotherhood that stood behind him, and Western intelligence had made no small contribution to that victory. Make no mistake, Western intelligence helped make the Muslim Brotherhood what it is today. When looking for someone to blame for the rise of radical Islam, the accusatory finger must be pointed at those in whom Americans have placed their trust.


Sources Cited

Aburish, Said. A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.

Dorril, Stephen. MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service. New York: Free Press, 2000.

Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Dope Inc. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992.

El Ahl, Amira, et. al. “Dancing With the Devil: Charting the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Spiegel Online 03 July 2007

Engdahl, F. William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004.

 

Looks like that article bounces around a little.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Intelligence_Muslim_Brotherhood.htm

Does not really answer the question I was asking. Do you believe that the Brotherhood is a manufactured threat as you believe al Qaeda is?

 

I believe it is manufactured to the extent that it poses a "threat." I have no doubt there are radical Muslim extremists, I just think their ability to do anything to harm the US (or any country) when it comes to spectacular 9/11-style terrorism is quite limited without signifacant aid and support from western governments. All evidence supports a western hand in the radicalization and funding of many of these Islamist groups.

 

an example being the Federal Government of the United States, correct?

 

Everything I've read points to the fact that she blames the Pakistani government (probably with CIA involvement(My inference on the subject.)). I am not sure where you get your news.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p99s01-duts.html

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

 

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."
Cato institute report on US foreign policy in the middle east. (See above link)

 

And now we view all who profess the Islamic faith as extremists and heathans worthy of annihilation. I for one am sick of the term Islamic Facist. It's empty and meaningless, it's simply a marketing term that incites violence. I can see the backroom marketers saying use the term Facist it will bring up all those warm fuzzy feelings from world war II. People will ignore the fact that Islam is a religion, one older than Christianity. The war on terrorism is just an open ticket to empirialize.

It's hard to take Al Qaeda seriously when our administration no longer considers Bin Laden worthy of capture, but allows his tapes and videos to be broadcast during every election cycle. Now our biggest fears center on Syria and Iran...who to believe?

 

How do you feel about the term Christian/Capital Empirialist?

 

Probably because you respond before you read anything, it was in my post.

The point is,

That the people in the middle-east do believe in A-Q.

You always make these "as a matter of fact" statements, but you have nothing more than "because gardener says so" to back it up.

 

Where has anybody in this thread or in the history of this forum ever proclaimed that? And who is "we"? I often wonder where you come up with these things. Are you on drugs or intoxicants when you post here?

 

Radical Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) ability to execute a 9/11-style terrorist act is quite limited without aid from western governments (the Federal Government of the United States).

Paraphrased: al Qaeda cannot execute a 9/11-style terrorist act without the aid of the US Government.

Federal express is a private entity and is not owned, operated, or controlled by the Federal Government of the United States.

Paraphrased: Federal Express has no affiliation with the US government.

Rat, according to your logic above, a 9/11-style terrorist act could not be executed without the aid of the US government, and Federal Express has no affiliation with the US government. Therefore, you are basically saying that the ability of Federal Express to execute a 9/11-style terrorist act is extremely limited.

In 1994, a Federal Express employee named Auburn Calloway attempted to hijack a DC-10 and use the aircraft for a kamikaze style attack on Fed Ex headquarters. Calloway attacked 3 crew members using a hammer and a speargun. The injured crew eventually succeeded in restraining Calloway and the jet was landed safely. His motive for this attack was that he was due to be fired for lying on his resume.

A single man, with no assistance from the US government, armed with a hammer and a spear, attempted to overthrow the crew of a fuel loaded jet and crash it into a building in a spectacular 9/11-style terrorist act.

Can you explain how it is impossible for 5 Islamic terrorists to overthrow a crew of 6, hijack an airplane, and crash it into a building in a declared act of martyrdom. But yet it is possible for a single man to nearly accomplish the same act?

 

I watched a documentary movie on this, hard to believe anyone lived.