Rant - Bin Laden film - is it him?

Mr-Bridger · Validated Poster Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 186

The origin of the Al-Qaeda myth

How it all started can be seen in the excellent documentary series of the BBC, The Power of Nightmares. Jason Burke, author of the book Al-Qaeda : The True Story of Radical Islam tells in part three of the series how in January 2001 a number of men were placed on trial in Manhattan for the attack on the American Embassy in Kenya in 1998. The Americans are stuck with a well-paid witness named Al Fadl, who is well paid by them, but up to then is not taken seriously by many countries. They decide to throw their influence onto the scale by having the witness describe a powerful organisation called Al Qaeda who would be responsible for the attack. That is necessary to comply with the existing American laws that really have been designed to tackle 'organized crime' like the Mafia. Burke: 'You have to have an organisation to get a prosecution. And you have al-Fadl and a number of other witnesses, a number of other sources, who are happy to feed into this. You’ve got material that, looked at in a certain way, can be seen to show this organisation’s existence. You put the two together and you get what is the first bin Laden myth—the first Al Qaeda myth. And because it’s one of the first, it’s extremely influential.' Bin Laden himself denies having ties with Al Fadl, which would be strange if the two would be responsible together for the attack in Kenya. In fact, every attacker is dying to claim his deed.
Voice Over: 'The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of Bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organised network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name: “Al Qaeda.” It was a dramatic and powerful picture of Bin Laden, but it bore little relationship to the truth.' Building on the quicksand of a weak witness, the false idea is constructed of a terrorist superpower, lead by the super terrorist Bin Laden.

There is no Al Qaeda organisation
The Voice Over in part three of The Power of Nightmares states further: 'There is also no evidence that Bin Laden used the term “Al Qaeda” to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans have given it. [...] In reality, Jamal al-Fadl was on the run from bin Laden, having stolen money from him. In return for his evidence, the Americans gave him witness protection in America and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believed that al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans the picture of a terrorist organisation that they needed to prosecute Bin Laden.'
Sam Schmidt was an attorney during the court case: 'I think he lied in a number of specific testimonies about a unified image of what this organisation was. It made Al Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists.' Jason Burke summarizes it clearly when he says: 'The idea—which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution—that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.'

Al Qaida is blamed for the attack in Kenya 2002
When three Israelis were killed in November 2002 in Kenya during an attack, Al Qaeda immediately got blamed by Israël and by Bush, even though it was not based on anything. The same day, the Jerusalem Post published a story in which the attack was claimed by the "Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, The Army of Palestine". Days later, a story appeared that Al Qaeda would have claimed the attack. 'Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and currently Sharon's special liaison for Iraq issues' said that the attack and a failed attack on airplanes the same day 'changes the national spirit and creates international dynamics which open before us new options that until now were unacceptable by international public opinion'. It is a gift, but also Israel's foreign minister Netanyahu saw the same sunny side of the situation and called the attack a 'golden opportunity' to strengthen the mutual ties between Israel and the U.S. Earlier, one day after the attacks of 11 September, 'Bibi' had been just as frank in his rosy pronouncements. The New York Times noted: 'Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy."'

Mossad tries to establish bogus Al Qaeda cell in Palestinian territory
So Israel recognises the power of an enemy like Al Qaeda. Only days after the attack in Kenya, Sharon states 'that Israeli intelligence had "hard evidence" of al-Qaeda operations in the Gaza Strip', writes the always well informed Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). The BBC cites the Washington Post who states that the American government totally agrees with the story and obtains the proof from a website: 'The website carried a statement purportedly from the new al-Qaeda branch - the Islamic al-Qaeda in Palestine - pledging allegiance to Osama Bin Laden.' The Council on Foreign Relations reacts immediately and calls it 'horrifying news'. Visions of a Palestinian link with Al Qeida also appear in other statements of Sharon, in which he included the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the famous war against terrorism. Would it not be nice if those visions about cooperation between Al Qaeda and the Palestinians could really be proven, Sharon must have thought. Time passes between dream and deed, thirteen months to be exact. The Mossad and other Israeli secret services worked for thirteen months to establish a bogus Al Qaeda cell in Palestinian territory to be able to use it as an excuse for attacks on the Palestinians, so paraphrases EIR 'Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Services in the Gaza Strip' who aired this during a press conference in December 2002.

Palestinian Authority prevents attacks on Israel by Mossad
Yasser Abed Rabbo, information minister of the Palestinian authority (PA) was cited by EIR when he summarizes: '"There are certain elements who were instructed by the Mossad to form a cell under the name of al-Qaeda in the Gaza Strip in order to justify the assault and the military campaigns of the Israeli occupation army against Gaza."' At a later press conference it appears that the PA encountered eight cases in nine months of Israelis who pretended to be Al Qaeda members to recruit Palestinians, 'asking them to operate as an "al-Qaeda" group'. The story becomes more intriguing when at the next press conference one Ibrahim is presented. He is a Palestinian who was contacted by one Youssef to become part of an Al Qaeda cell. Youssef later proved to be an employee of Israel's secret service Mossad who pretended to be a member of Al Qaeda. Ibrahim felt intuitively that something was wrong and soon informed the Palestinian Authority who told him to continue so that they could monitor the whole process step by step. 'Ibrahim stressed that the man [...] (the Mossad officer) "had the capability to carry out major bombing operations inside Israel, but that the al-Qaeda group in Gaza should claim responsibility for the attack and no other group." While the (so-called) Al Qaeda agent would execute the attacks ('mega military operations'), Ibrahim and his friends were to claim them in the name of Al Qaeda from the Palestinian territory. 'This would mean that as soon as he gets the signal after a major terrorist act against Israeli civilian targets, Ibrahim and his group would send a communiqué to the press or a videotape, similar to the ones sent by bin Laden to Al-Jazeera, claiming responsibility for the attack.' In the end it did not come get far because the Palestinian Authority arrested Youssed and some of his Mossad colleagues The motto of the Mossad: By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Experts: Israel supported Hamas to sabotage peace process
Not totally unique is Israel's strategy to create enemies. Richard Sale, 'Terrorism Correspondent' of United Press International writes: '[...] according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.' There was another reason: '"To help identify and channel Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists toward Israeli agents."'
'"The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishments was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.'

Attack in Madrid was not Al Qaeda
Adam Dolnik of the Monterey Institute of International Studies: 'In a world where one email sent to a news agency translates into a headline stating that al-Qaeda was behind even the blackouts in Italy and the U.S.A., anyone can claim to be al-Qaeda - not only groups but also individuals'. 'Al Qaeda Claims Credit for Madrid Blasts', headlines FoxNews one day after the attack in Madrid. It feeds the myth that super power Al Qaeda has spread its tentacles everwhere. '"The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to have advanced their cause"', says Attorney General Ashcroft in another FoxNews-article. The world shudders, but the day before yesterday in the documentary 11-M, Historia de un Atentado in the Belgian tv-program Panorama , Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda, says about the attack in Madrid: 'It was not an Al Qaeda attack. It was an attack by a group of Moroccans, marginalized in Spain, and had informal ties to Al Qaeda, ideological ties, not operational ties.'

Bin Laden is dead
If it is maintained that Al Qaeda is a myth, then the question is also justifiable if Bin Laden is not more than an inflated image. Stronger, is Bin Laden still alive? The website WhatReallyHappened has lined up a number of statements that sketch an eerie picture for Western leaders and radical moslim fighters: Bin Laden is no more. Even the Bush administration thinks he is dead. In a reaction to a video message of Bin Laden The Daily Telegraph notes in December 2001: 'The recording was dismissed by the Bush administration yesterday as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead.' An ally of the U.S. in the training of Bin Laden during the fight against the Russians was Pakistan. 'Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease', writes CNN in connection with an interview with president Musharraf in 2002. The medical correspondent of CNN continues: '[...] renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.' Also the Afghan president Karzai thinks that Laden probably is dead, as he tells CNN in 2002. A few weeks later CNN writes that it is posession of Bin Laden's will, but the authenticity of the document cannot be proven. There even is an article that describes Bin Laden's funeral. Bush, who earlier stated that Bin Laden was no serious danger for the U.S., said last Friday that stopping Bin Laden is his biggest challenge.

http://www.daanspeak.com/AlQaeda01Eng.html

pepik · Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:10 am Post subject:

ZUCO · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:26 am Post subject:

Ignatz · Moderate Poster Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 918

pepik · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:32 am Post subject:

ZUCO · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject:

Pepik I'll reply to you when you've responded to ALL of my points like I continually ask you to. Notice when I reply to you that I copy ALL of your text and I don't cherry pick whatever I want and omit the rest.

I'm spending too much time in Critic's Corner, I'm off to buy some disinfectant.

pepik · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject:

Actually you ignored some of the questions repeatedly.

I'm sorry if I didn't respond to your questions about whether Bush and Blair are terrorists, I didn't want to get sidetracked into a debate on foreign policy.

Let me summarise then:

You think Bin Laden was "onto something" in his vision for Afghanistan.

You think devout muslims can decapitate aid workers but not wear gold rings.

Bin Laden was a holy warrior even though he worked for the CIA.

Bin Laden was a CIA agent but when they died he had to be faked, but you can see that some grainy images from the coverted video look a bit off. His subsequent videos were are fakes too even though he looks right.

You have no explanation for why the other people in the video are playing along, or why they haven't since said anything. They might all be dead, or faked, or CIA agents, or in Guantanamo. Basically Al Queda is the CIA so it really makes no difference whether it was fake or not.

Karzai put millions of girls in school. The Taliban, who banned girls from school when they were in power, burn down those schools and kill the teachers. Nonetheless, you think there is no difference between Taliban Afghanistan and Karzai's Afghanistan from the perspective of the treatment of women.

If you edit one book of translations which contradicts everything you now claim, that makes you a top bin laden expert (and you are not relying on the praise of Kevin "Its a zionist big lie that the Germans hated the jews for no reason" Barret).

Osama planned 911 from a cave in Afghanistan. You can't show where the "official version" says this, but you definitely didn't learn it from repeating what you hear at conspiracy websites.

ZUCO · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject:

Double Post Embarassed

ZUCO · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject:

pepik · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject:

ZUCO · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject:

You wrote:

pepik · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:

Abandoned Ego · Moderate Poster Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 288

There's a truly excellent thread in the link below, which explains how the Bin Laden tape is probably genuine.

I must confess, I would agree with the critics here.

I would be interested in the thoughts of you peeps;

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=11150

Seems like this "confession tape" raises more questions than it answers.

ZUCO · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:07 am Post subject:

Your statement that Bush and Bliar are not terrorists is based on what exactly? Do you disagree that the war was illegal and that they exaggerated the very little threat thatexisted in order to gain a foothold in the middle east? If so, why? All of this becomes irrelevant of course when it is widely acknowledged that they were "voted" into office on the back of voting scandals. They shouldn't have been tere in the first place. Do you believe they were elected fairly?

How many times must I say that Osama and Karzai are as bad as each other in the way they treat women? How many times are you going to say that I "prefer Osama to Karzai"? when clearly stated several times that I prefer neither. Stop putting words in my mouth Pepik, for a seemingly well educated man/woman this is quite a childish way of trying to make me look bad.

You ignored my point really about gold rings and "holy wars" being incomparable and instead used a blatant lie about the "holy war" being against aid workers. have I ever said that? Has Al'Qaeda or anybody ever said that? I have only ever heard of the "jihad" being directed against the west in general, mainly soldiers illegally occupying Middle eastern territory.

You ignored my point about the firefighters being told to keep quiet about 9/11, why?

Sorry you were right, it wasn't Halliburton that won the NO-BID contract to build the pipeline...allow me to clarify...it was a Hallburton subsidiary.

You assume everything I say is what I take to be gospel truth, when in reality I've used words like "could be", "maybe" are you Ali Campbell's apprentice?

You're right they lost support in the house and senate, but they're still in office. It's not like the house and senate matter anyway, it's not like they are told to allow new draconian laws to pass without first being given the privilege of reading it is it? I wonder what Bush didn't want them to read?

You're right I wouldn't support Karzai over osama, I wouldn''t support any of them because they're both warlords, do you think Zarkai is a good man that allows women to do what they want? The fact is...if the soldiers pulled out, Karzai would revert Afghanistan to exactly the same way it was before, maybe that's why they put him in power, he certainly gives them a reason to stay.

I gave you one expert who wrote a book on Bin Laden and you say I'm making it sound like their is a consensus that the tape is fake. How did I imply that exactly? More spin on your behalf. You also accuse me of being in a cult. More lies. Would you like to ellaborate on that?

I'm not asking you to "say the entire official story to answer one question. " It was a reasonably simple question, which I'll ask again:

Why do you believe the FBI's claim that "evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable", without them actually showing you any evidence?

Why do you believe that statement and then dismiss this one?

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

You then go on to ask if I now agree that the official story makes sense. You're kidding right?

I haven't built any straw men which you claim. I stated that there is no link between Saddam and Al 'Qaeda, it's President Bush that told us there WAS. Do you think there is a link between Saddam and Al' Qaeda?

I don't know how many times they intercepted with their transponders off, I'm guessing none. Are you ignoring that they knew exactly where the Pentagon jet was because the guy kept coming and telling Cheney, "50 miles out Sir!", "30 miles out Sir!" This plane could have been shot down easily. This couldn't be allowed to happen because they needed to scare Americans into thinking, "Oh my God if they can attack the Pentagon they can attack us, let's surrender our rights uncondtionally"

To finish I haven't made any empty threats, I;m not childish enough to start legal action with somebody who calls me names and makes claims about things I've never said, interprets what I say to fit his agenda etc. I said that to make you realise that you're twisting everything I say and putting your own spin on it. You toe the official line at every available opportunity, you accuse me supporting bin Laden, you accuse me of supporting the Taliban and you imply that everything I say is straight from a CT website. The official story is a fraud. The facts are that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are illegal, the impending Iran war will be illegal. The taking away of Western people's rights is downright stupid and unlawful.

One final question: Al 'Qaeda hates western culture and all the rights we used to enjoy right? So aren't Bush and Bliar doing them a favour by taking away all of our rights? Isn't it stupid to take away people's liberty in order to "protect" them.

Ok more than one question but what the hell. Go crazy.

I'm bored now, it's gone three in the morning, I'm off to make tin foil hats for my "cult" members

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

Finally finished painting - I am not a fan of painting.

Just had some tea and thought I'd catch up on threads as I have not had a chance over the last few days.

Dunno about anyone else, but the whole 'open it up' to any old conspiracy thing has diluted the 911 focus considerably, all these different headings and subjects, 911 is just a side issue, one of many.

There is however one very poignant thing that stands out;

In the moon landings thread, Ignatz brought up the subject of OBL. I asked him a simple question about OBL but he categorically refused point blank to even consider it - instead we were off starting new threads. Yet here in the OBL thread we get;

Ignatz wrote;
Earlier I posted a diagram of the Van Allen belts.

So we are back to the moon landings now in the OBL thread! Iggy, you are a gold-plated (or is it just yellow metal?) double-standard wafflemeister of supreme proportions - you now lack even the slightest credibility after such reverse tactics. At least have the decency to stick to your own rules.

Any respect I had for you has evaporated. You are welcome to respond - I will not be reading any more of your threads/posts.

Leiff · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 509

TimmyG · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:10 am Post subject:

i've always had an uneasiness with the idea that the confession vid is definately a fake bin laden.

first off the gold ring thing needs to be ABANDONED! its one of the mistakes the loose change fellas made and is easily 'debunked'.. the real bin laden often wears fake gold

secondly if u stretch the video out it does look a lot more like other pictures of bin laden. us CTers who bought the Loose change analysis of the vid should swallow our pride and admit the similarities.

theres more important evidence to focus on. who knows who bin laden really is and who he works for? i dont. the confession vid could be real and he works for the CIA. the truth is probably not so simple.

theres not too much we can conclude from the vid. if it is real and the audio is authenticated by trustworthy experts (which it doesnt seem to be) then why do the FBI say they have no hard evidence connecting ubl to the attacks?

karlos · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:05 am Post subject:

whether the video is bin laden or not i think is irrelevant. He is and always way a CIA asset and he acts according to there script. The bin laden family are business partners of the bush family. Both are partners in Carlyle group.
The video looks like a fake but i do not think it makes a difference.

Bushwacker · Relentless Limpet Shill Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628

Leiff · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 509

Bushwacker · Relentless Limpet Shill Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628

Leiff · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 509

If the video was considered genuine by the FBI it would 'be' evidence!

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4