DescentBB

America had the wool pooled over its eyes with claims by our government about WMDs (well, at least not all of us

After the recent bombing in London, it had me wondering if all attacks attributed to al qaeda are actually them. I mean any attacker could claim they are linked and we'd all believe it instantly... how do we really know this is al qaeda?

I see 'al qaeda' potentially just becoming the name for any terrorist resistance against the US. Things may look more organized than they are--a random person could pull a suicide bomb, and leave a note near the attack claiming 'al qaeda' and we'd all think it was some type of grandly organized effort.

That's exactly what Al Qaeda is... a loosely organized coalition of people who want to hurt us. There isn't a whole lot of central control -- just lots of groups that call themselves AQ and work pretty much independant of each other.

Birdseye wrote:America had the wool pooled over its eyes with claims by our government about WMDs (well, at least not all of us

After the recent bombing in London, it had me wondering if all attacks attributed to al qaeda are actually them. I mean any attacker could claim they are linked and we'd all believe it instantly... how do we really know this is al qaeda?

I see 'al qaeda' potentially just becoming the name for any terrorist resistance against the US. Things may look more organized than they are--a random person could pull a suicide bomb, and leave a note near the attack claiming 'al qaeda' and we'd all think it was some type of grandly organized effort.

Truth is, the goverment very clearly lies to us on a day to day basis so it wouldnt surprise me if they have something to do with these "terrorist" activities, but hey its just my 2 cents.

The various groups of militants and terrorists have very little in common beyond a love for Islam and a hatred for the West. Of course they're climbing on each other's shoulders to look bigger, meaner and more organized. As such I think it's acceptable to use the blanket term Al Qaeda for them as if they were a single organization even though their interaction might be close to non-existant. It makes it so much easier than trying to memorize all the various shifting subgroups.

A good example is Zarqawi's group in Iraq. Initially it was in competition with bin Laden's goons but then joined forces and Zarqawi adopted *Al Qaeda in Iraq* as it's new name.

Either way, I think it's stretching to think the government is trying to fool people into thinking it's one monolithic syndicate. At a certain point I believe the government expects us to pay attention to what's going on.

In the beginning the various groups tended to have their geneology explained but once their goals were established as virtually identical to other groups, they got lumped together to make things easier for the common folk to perceive the threat in the simplest terms.

That said, there are some *peak* groups that put out terrorist *how-to* manuals under Al Qaeda letterhead. Hence the sort of *fingerprint* investigators find which indicates AQ involvement when in fact folks like bin Laden or Zarqawi may have had no prior knowledge of something like today's attacks in London.

At this point, when two guys are coming at you with the intent to kill for pretty much the same reason, stopping to puzzle about what makes them unique from each other is a pointless exercise in splitting hairs. For those tracking them, perhaps not, but for your average spectator in this GWoT it's of little relevance, imo.

Suggested reading:

"Crimes against Logic"
"Why people believe weird things".

if you guys want to label all terrorists as Al-Qaeda.
why don't i just label all rednecks as Republicans.

oh... it's because generalisations are stupid.

---------

birdseye you are just thinking of this now?
every bomb that goes off i wonder if it's just a CIA counter-inteliegence war-self-purpetuation exercise.
dangling that terrorist carrot in front of american guns.

every bomb that goes off is used as further excuse to 'up the anti', as more of your freedoms disappear. there are people who wish this war will just go on & on & on. they do have the means, and the logicistics of pulling it off would be so simple as birdseye put forward.
so just keep your eyes open.

roid wrote:if you guys want to label all terrorists as Al-Qaeda....

Most of us on this side of the aisle are smart enough to know there are other terror groups... none of us would dare call someone from the IRA or the PLO or Hamas "Al Qaeda", for example. We wouldn't call the Ba'athist part of the Iraq insurgency AQ, either. (Strictly speaking, though, only the Ba'athists deserve to be called an "insurgency" -- the foreign fighters in Iraq, including AQ, should be called invaders.)

AQ is the label many of the terrorists involved in certain types of actions are claiming for themselves, now. I think it's mostly marketing on their part -- since AQ is a known name, they just use it instead of coming up with a new one.

This is a well-known phenomenon. People hear a term applied to people they want to be like, so they start using that term themselves. How many people call themselves "Buddhist" or "Christian" or "Wiccan", not because they actually follow the ways of Buddha, Christ, or Gerald Gardner, but because somebody they look up to uses that label? How many people call themselves "postmodernist" who don't have the slightest clue what it means? Why, then, would it be surprising that many people call themselves "Al Qaeda", not because they have some official affiliation with Osama, but because they like how they're treated when they claim the label?

interesting:
from the WIKI article on Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#I ... da_real.3F

Al-Qaeda has no clear structure, and this permits debate as to how many members make up the organisation, whether it is millions scattered across the globe, or whether it is even zero. According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. Still, the extent and nature of Al Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.

A useful distinction can be made between al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorists. Islamists generally operate nationally within one country, whereas al-Qaeda is mostly involved in international terrorism, but also has links to national terrorism. The vast majority of the people arrested appear to be Islamists, not al Qaeda. Even the al Qaeda name itself does not seem to have been used by bin Laden himself to apply to his organisation until after the September 11 attacks. Previous attacks attributed to bin Laden and al-Qaeda were, at the time, claimed by organisations under a variety of names. Bin Laden himself has since attributed the al Qaeda name to the MAK base in Pakistan, dating from the Afghan war days. Daniel Benjamin in "The Age of Sacred Terror" cites an incident in the early 1990s where a document titled "The Foundation", Arabic "Al Qa'eda", was found on an associate of Ramzi Youssef. [4]

also from earlier in the article, a note introducting the "incidents Al-Qaeda is thought to be responsible for" section:

Note: Al-Qaeda does not have a habit of taking credit for actions, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity over how many attacks the group has actually conducted. In addition following the U.S. declaration of the War on Terrorism in 2001, the U.S. government has made a great effort to connect as many groups and actions as possible to al-Qaeda, which might result in erroneous attributions.

I'm not even bringing this up as an issue governments are seen as 'conspiritorial' for perpetuating, though it does tend to help them.

It's more just stopping and thinking -- is anyone really paying attention?

how do we know so quickly it was al qaeda? I haven't seen any great proof. I guess anyone can claim they are ALQ at this point, but I think it's misleading to report its ALQ vs. a group claiming to be affiliated with ALQ

roid, that second quote. WTF? Al Qaeda has been claiming authorship of everything so that entire line is bogus. We're not demonizing anyone that's not already demonizing themselves.

LOL. Off topic, but I love this line of thought: "This appears to vindicate and/or support the government. That makes me suspicious--I wonder if they caused it and/or are redirecting blame for it." I know, I know--logical conclusions of opposing assumptions and all that. Still... you've got to admit, preferring the idea of a secret and nefarious government bombing/framing/what have you to the idea that there really is a dangerous association of terrorists that needs to be fought... is (to steal Birdseye's terminology) one heck of an ego-defense.

bash when read in context of the article (i tried to do this with the quote i quoted before it) you can see how attributing an act to Al-Qaeda can be difficult, as Al-Qaeda is itself difficult to define.

according to that article Al-Qaeda has NOT been claiming authorship of everything. the entire line is bogus why? because you say so?

i included the 2nd quote because it was directly on topic to the thread.

Drakonia wrote:a secret and nefarious government bombing/framing/what have you"

vs

"there really is a dangerous association of terrorists that needs to be fought"

no-one is suggesting there are no terrorists drakonia, just that it's simple to fake a bombing and there is ample motive. so why not be open to the possability?

your country's history of morally objectionable counter-intelligence campaigns are well documented. i have all the reason in the world to remain suspicous of your government's motives.

al Queda is not an "orginazation" in the traditional sense, is like Rock&Roll, there are lots of bands, they all know what they like, they all try to play as loud as they can and rock as many people as they can but they rarely collaborate.
We can't kill Rock&Roll but we can severely cripple the promoters,record companies, concert halls, clubs etc.
We can make it very hard to get a gig or gather an audience.

So it really doesn't matter so much if these are old school al Queda, or some kids who just moved out of their garage into the limelight waving the al Queda banner what matters is we keep the pressure on the places and entities that support and protect these kind of punks.
That's why it's called the 'War on Terror' and not the War on al Queda.

al Queda was at the right place at the right time in the history of the arab world to gain strength, we need to make them an unviable solution to the problems that arabs face. The best way to do that would be to give the arab world a new starting point instead of trying to mediate a bunch of centuries old tribal struggles.
Give them something to fight for instead of just someone to fight against.

This is certainly ironic.

Our own government frequently uses terrorist tactics.

Intelligent posters here sure can tell the difference. Perhaps my point should be more about the public - they probably aren't.

I understand the points by Bash, Will, and Lothar, but why aren't they called Islamic terrorists then? That's the name we've always used. ALQ is a specific organization. It just doesn't make sense. In fact, it is particularly misleading, IMO.

This is certainly ironic.

Yes, it certainly is...

Roid while you did point to a true story of the nazis, and while there is evidence the US may have done the same in the past, I don't see any evidence or even a rational basis as to what Britain might be trying to gain by causing such a thing.

Birdseye wrote:why aren't they called Islamic terrorists then?

Because as soon as you say "Islamic" there's going to be a huge backlash and a public outcry. It's not politically correct to mention the Religion of Peace (TM) in conjunction with terrorism.

Birdseye wrote:Skyalmian while you did point to a true story of the nazis, and while there is evidence the US may have done the same in the past, I don't see any evidence or even a rational basis as to what Britain might be trying to gain by causing such a thing.

I don't, either. Britain is already a closet fascist state in a lot of ways. I simply explained why an entity would want to do such a thing.

Lothar wrote:

Birdseye wrote:why aren't they called Islamic terrorists then?

Because as soon as you say "Islamic" there's going to be a huge backlash and a public outcry. It's not politically correct to mention the Religion of Peace (TM) in conjunction with terrorism.

Absolutely, in fact it's quite funny how they still consider their religion one of peace when they are beheading people and bombing innocent civilians, But they're still justified by many people for what reason i cant think of?, and if they're not justified then why havent we finished dealing with them?

Absolutely, in fact it's quite funny how they still consider their religion one of peace when they are beheading people and bombing innocent civilians,

Christians have done the same, most followers of religion rarely actually follow the religion.

Birdseye wrote:

Absolutely, in fact it's quite funny how they still consider their religion one of peace when they are beheading people and bombing innocent civilians,

Christians have done the same, most followers of religion rarely actually follow the religion.

1. Prove where Christians have "beheaded" people and "bombed innocent civilians".

2. Prove that you actually know that most followers rarely actually follow a religion, in particular Christianity which you have called out. As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.

Drakona wrote:preferring the idea of a secret and nefarious government bombing/framing/what have you to the idea that there really is a dangerous association of terrorists that needs to be fought... is (to steal Birdseye's terminology) one heck of an ego-defense.

Yes, but...

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

Top Wop wrote:As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.

I think that was his point.

1. Prove where Christians have "beheaded" people and "bombed innocent civilians".

1a. Crusades
1b. Iraq war (President Bush is a devout christian)

2. Prove that you actually know that most followers rarely actually follow a religion, in particular Christianity which you have called out. As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.

I'm not calling out Christianity. You sound woefully uneducated. Pick up a history book. There are probably more deaths attributed 'in the name of religion' than any other reason. This is hypocritical. I'm not blaming Christianity but rather human nature.

Most religions have few devout followers. How many Christians have actually read every word in the new and old testament? How many buddhists don't meditate? The truth about religion is that there are usually few educated devout practitioners. The rest maintain their religion as a socially ascribed status.

Top Wop wrote:
As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.


I think that was his point.

Yeah, it was, but I think this is projected anger part 2 from being slighted in another thread

Birdseye wrote:Most religions have few devout followers. How many Christians have actually read every word in the new and old testament? How many buddhists don't meditate?

Lothar wrote:People hear a term applied to people they want to be like, so they start using that term themselves. How many people call themselves "Buddhist" or "Christian" or "Wiccan", not because they actually follow the ways of Buddha, Christ, or Gerald Gardner, but because somebody they look up to uses that label? How many people call themselves "postmodernist" who don't have the slightest clue what it means?

Yeah... exactly.

ha, i missed the funniest part of the thread until you provided us with that second read:

How many people call themselves "postmodernist" who don't have the slightest clue what it means?

Birdseye wrote:

1. Prove where Christians have "beheaded" people and "bombed innocent civilians".

1a. Crusades
1b. Iraq war (President Bush is a devout christian)

2. Prove that you actually know that most followers rarely actually follow a religion, in particular Christianity which you have called out. As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.

I'm not calling out Christianity. You sound woefully uneducated. Pick up a history book. There are probably more deaths attributed 'in the name of religion' than any other reason. This is hypocritical. I'm not blaming Christianity but rather human nature.

Most religions have few devout followers. How many Christians have actually read every word in the new and old testament? How many buddhists don't meditate? The truth about religion is that there are usually few educated devout practitioners. The rest maintain their religion as a socially ascribed status.

Top Wop wrote:
As far as I know, someone who does not completely follow the teachings of Christ is called a hypocrite.


I think that was his point.

Yeah, it was, but I think this is projected anger part 2 from being slighted in another thread

1a. The crusades was carried out by members of catholocism NOT christianity
1b. We have already found that george w. bush jr., was part of an occultic group at yale university called the skull and crossbones so, he CAN'T be all that "devout" of a christian while he was in an occultic group now can he?

The fact that he tries to hide what's inside that group further justifes your reasoing to want him impeached also.....

Last I checked, Catholics follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

also last i checked, GWB is still considered a christian.

Catholocism enjoys trying to leech its way in, in fact ive had someone actually tell me that jesus christ came from rome and that catholics started christianity itself! quite funny if you actually read the bible from where the actual gospels come from.
Also you can believe him if he says hes a christian or not, thats your agenda but the fact still remains if he is why was he doing occultic activities if hes such a christian?

Skyalmian wrote:Britain is already a closet fascist state in a lot of ways.

How so??

Behemoth wrote:Also you can believe him if he says hes a christian or not, thats your agenda but the fact still remains if he is why was he doing occultic activities if hes such a christian?

(1) I belive Skull and Bones is just another college "Secret Society". These organizations are basically the same thing as fraternities. It's highly unlikely they're doing anything in the least bit sinister or occultish.

(2) Isn't Bush a Christian of the "born again" variety? Meaning it doesn't matter how many women he knocked up and then foetus-aborted; he's got a clean slate and will go to heaven before a non-Christian who leads a more moral life.

Every religion starts out as a cult.

Personally, I find much of the bible to be a fascinating moral guide with many relationships to other established religions... it's called "universal knowledge" or "morality", thou shall not kill type of stuff.

When you get to the specifics it starts feeling like a Star Wars movie or a Curious George story.

Stop treating the bible as fact when you are addressing those who are not Christian. Itâ??s arrogant and leads to suffering.

TheCope wrote: Stop treating the bible as fact when you are addressing those who are not Christian. Itâ??s arrogant and leads to suffering.

What pretense did this lead too?

You know, when you bad-mouth President Bush for his "christian" views/convictions on the issue of the war, you might as well bad-mouth the founders of this nation for theirs. It's a deliberate stab at the christian faith to attemp to label this as a "holy war", and it's unquestionably skewing the truth of the matter. President Bush's motives smack more of patriotism, IMO.

*Addition*

Genghis wrote:Isn't Bush a Christian of the "born again" variety? Meaning it doesn't matter how many women he knocked up and then foetus-aborted; he's got a clean slate and will go to heaven before a non-Christian who leads a more moral life.

I take exception to you saying that kind of stuff.

And whoever said you'll go to heaven for leading a "moral life" hasn't been paying attention to the Bible that speaks of heaven in the first place.

Birdseye wrote:Last I checked, Catholics follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

also last i checked, GWB is still considered a christian.

So you are implying the war on terrorism is is a post modern christian crusade simply because Bush is a christian? Man, you are ingesting too many of your cookies.

As to the AQ idea, one has to find out who is supplying the money to fund these little operations such as 9/11, Madrid and now London. If the trail leads back to OBL then you can say AQ is behind it. If not then you have to label the group different. The Russian Checnian seperatist group is clearly not AQ though they may now be linked as they are muslum and have similar goals.

Behemoth wrote:

TheCope wrote: Stop treating the bible as fact when you are addressing those who are not Christian. Itâ??s arrogant and leads to suffering.

What pretense did this lead too?

Behemoth wrote:Catholocism enjoys trying to leech its way in, in fact ive had someone actually tell me that jesus christ came from rome and that catholics started christianity itself! quite funny if you actually read the bible from where the actual gospels come from.
Also you can believe him if he says hes a christian or not, thats your agenda but the fact still remains if he is why was he doing occultic activities if hes such a christian?

Wether someone calls themselves a Christian has no bearing on wether they really ARE Christian, just like I could say im a Republican but I vote for Democratic candidates.

That aside, the Crusades were about territorial disputes and agitated by poor treatment of Christian pilgrims. From the 7th century till' the 10th there was peace until one of the islamic leaders destroyed a church (Church of the Holy Sepulchre)and has since changed Europe's attitudes towards the Muslims who occupied the land which would lead to the Crusades.

Yeah, it was, but I think this is projected anger part 2 from being slighted in another thread

Again you pride yourself into thinking that somehow you "defeated" me on a silly internet forum. Get off your high horse and debate the issues or take it to e-mail.

Pugwash wrote:

Skyalmian wrote:Britain is already a closet fascist state in a lot of ways.

How so??

well?

Someone wrote:How so?

1. Police state.
2. Population disarmament.
3. Moving to the extreme right wing; totalitarianism/fascism.
4. Majority of population is racist/snobby/filled with hatred; can feel it if sensitive enough.

It will get a lot worse before it has a time of turmoil, after which it will fortunately get back to being nice.