Do you have a link?

Will these work?

Context of 'October 8, 1999: Al-Qaeda Declared Foreign Terrorist Organization'

Al Queda Iraq Connection

Bill Clinton's True Legacy to America... - Post-9/11 Era

You're not serious are you? I mean even by your standards that's just simply short sighted at best. Do you suffer from long term memory loss by any chance?

Incidently i've seen many different variations and all but never have i heard it reffered to as "Al Queda"....the way you spelt it, maybe it doesn't exist after all.

I remember reading about OBL and the threat he represented a LONG time before 9/11.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

Wow, possibly even more outrageous than the claims al waeda doesn't exist...nah on second thoughts the Al Qaeda claim you support is worse.

But seriously, do you have the faintest idea about the BBC? You think they're reputable, and about of all things, terrorism, Al Qaeda, 9/11 etc?

I don't know about your sources, but I have already located the text of the order and yes, there appears to be mention of the group.

the people who believe alqueda doesnt exsist are the same people who look for the conspiracy and chem trails in everything in the world

Forget the site as it is not credible. The video is and I'm telling you whats in it. I'm not denying (nor does the video) Al Qaeda ever existed. The video says Al Qaeda was never as was described the Bush admin and give compelling evidence to support that claim.

Bin Laden basically went with the characterization of him being "Al Qaeda" because it made him look bigger and stronger. This is why it always says "essentially" fabricated and not just fabricated.

Learn to properly read and analyze my posts. You'll find absolutely consistent and well suported positions on all issues.

OMG...you're unbelievable! Bin Laden formally declared war on us 5 years before Bush took office!

He consolidated AQ after the co-founder was blown up in his car in Pakistan and then found Al-Zawahiri to bolster it long before Bush.

You may well be consistant on the issues, consistantly wrong that is.

I didn't watch the video.

But if what the video claims follows what you've been claiming in this thread I'd be inclined to agree with it.

In a strict sense al Qa'ida proper was never comprised of anything more than a few hundred individuals under the direct leadership of bin Laden, and is much degraded today.

However if we consider al Qa'ida to be a "brand" which represents a particular Salifist Jihadi ideology that loosely connects disparate groups, cells, and organizations bound together by shared goal then I think President Bush's use of the name is essentially also acceptable.

It's easier to sell Coca-Cola than it is to sell "this fizzy, sweet, brown, caffinated, soft-drink". And it's easier to sell a global war against al Qa'ida than it is to sell a war against "a loosely affiliated, and somewhat interconnected but still somewhat shadowy and not necessarially homogeneous association of Salifist Jihadis".

It's really more of a 'you say tomato, I say tomaato' argument than an indictment of base and wholesale duplicitousness.

There you go, Danny.

Let your positions get ripped apart, so just change 'em.

So, now, the website you provided a link to isn't credible, but the video contained on it is? The website cites the "documentary". Is that not credible? Because you just said it is.

You change your position to whatever degree you need to to shuck and jive away from an opposing position, without ever acknowledging that, perhaps, your position could be flawed. In this case, it's been shown to be exactly that. But, instead of saying "Huh, you guys are right", you come across with some lame bullshit about the video being credible, but the website not being credible.

The fact of the matter is that the website is wildly partisan, and there's no reason, whatsoever, that they would host something that's not in lock-step with their retarded and skewed view of the world...

A matter of honesty, then?

More a matter of calling a spade a spade rather than describing a spade every time you speak about it.

What did he change? The title does say "essentially." It appears to be a BBC video, while the commentary is likely that of the website writers. Two different sources, or possibly differing credibilities, although you can view them on the same web page. What are you hinting at with "now?" Was his position contrary to that at any point during this discussion?Nice reasoning there, Stevo! I guess if any partisan site links to whitehouse.gov, that would make the US government (or at least that branch of it) wildly partisan, too, right?

Wouldn't "calling a spade a spade" be equivalent to calling "terrorists" "terrorists," rather than "al-Qaeda," when not all terrorists are part of that group?