BBC documentary: Al Qeada essentially faricated and doesn't exist - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

AshleyKennedy · #46 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

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

There in lies the crux of the matter. What the shrubs calls a spade is another sort of garden implement, a fork and hoe.

Si modo · #47 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

And, Al Queada did exist long before 9/11/2001. Get over it, BBC and others. I supposed BBC didn't recognize all their faults in their article from last year admitting to likely just the tip of an iceberg.

AshleyKennedy · #48 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

And, al Qe'ada did exist long before 9/11/2001. Get over it, BBC and others. I supposed BBC didn't recognize all their faults in their article from last year admitting to likely just the tip of an iceberg.

Get over the fact that al Qaida did not exist in the manner of the shrub description.

You see, the OP is not about the existence or not of al Qa'eda but about the nature of that existence.

Si modo · #49 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

Get over the fact that al Qaida did not exist in the manner of the shrub description.

You see, the OP is not about the existence or not of al Qa'eda but about the nature of that existence.

Guess what? I actually read and view every link. Guess what else? Few buy your interpretation of much of anything.

AshleyKennedy · #50 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Guess what? I actually read and view every link. Guess what else? Few buy your interpretation of much of anything.

Ah more fool them.

Steve · #51 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

You see, the OP is not about the existence or not of al Qa'eda but about the nature of that existence.

Yet, contained on the site that was lined to was the statement that Al Qaeda was a "complete and total fabrication".

Any intelligent person would read that to mean that it never existed in any form, not that it didn't exist as Bush described it.

Nonetheless, I think this thread has shown us that anything Danny posts should be immediately suspect. By his own admission, the link isn't credible.

Personally, I don't make a habit of knowingly linking to uncredible websites when I'm trying to make a point...

AshleyKennedy · #52 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Yet, contained on the site that was lined to was the statement that Al Qaeda was a "complete and total fabrication".

In the nature described by the neocons. We all Osama bin Laden exists and has a group named al Qaida. It is the extent of that group that is challenged.

The shrub with his GWoT is making al Qa'ida into something that is a figment of the shrubs imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Any intelligent person would read that to mean that it never existed in any form, not that it didn't exist as Bush described it.

I take it you didn't read the article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Nonetheless, I think this thread has shown us that anything Danny posts should be immediately suspect. By his own admission, the link isn't credible.

Personally, I don't make a habit of knowingly linking to uncredible websites when I'm trying to make a point...

So far you haven't shown any rebuttal to the OP.

AshleyKennedy · #53 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

The piece was about a BBC programme called "The Power of Nightmares"

Quote:

Should we be worried about the threat from organised terrorism or is it simply a phantom menace being used to stop society from falling apart?

Click here to send us your comments

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES
Three part series
Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
2320 GMT on BBC Two

I: Baby It's Cold Outside
II: The Phantom Victory
III: The Shadows In The Cave
At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.

Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world.

These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended.

Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful
Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network.

A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the politics of fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neo-conservative movement that dominates Washington.

Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together.

The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neo-conservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision.

They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see.

The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to "see the truth"'.

The Power of Nightmares will be broadcast over three nights from Tuesday 18 to Thursday, 20 January, 2005 at 2320 GMT on BBC Two. The final part has been updated in the wake of the Law Lords ruling in December that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial was illegal.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | The Power of Nightmares: Baby It's Cold Outside

That is where you should start from.

Quote:

The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares continues its assessment of whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. Part two, the Phantom Victory looks at how two groups, radical Islamists and neo-conservatives with seemingly opposing ideologies came together to defeat a common enemy.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | The Power of Nightmares: The Phantom Victory

Quote:

The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows In The Cave

The Power of Nightmares assesses whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows In The Cave

It is normal to got 1, 2 then 3 before jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
Wherever one looks for this al-Qaeda organisation, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the "sleeper cells" in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.
But the reason that no-one questions the illusion is because this nightmare enemy gives so many groups new power and influence in a cynical age - and not just politicians.

It is not about the existence of Osama Bin Laden but about the existence of a unique world wide organisation that some refer to as al Qa'ida. The organisation al qida exists but not as a world wide al Qa'ida. There in lies the difference. The group in Algeria have added the name al Qa'ida to theirs for greater notoriety but are they al Qa'ida? You appear to be of the global conspiracy theory ilk. And you make out as though you are credible??

Danny · #54 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

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...

Steve I never once mentioned the content on that website. All that was said was in relation to the video. I should have just linked directly to the google vid itself I suppose this I will concede.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

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 don't dispute anything you just wrote (except the bold part and the part of me being consistently wrong of course

). See explanation below. It seems we are in total agreement but I don't think your understanding what's being argued here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

And, Al Queada did exist long before 9/11/2001. Get over it, BBC and others. I supposed BBC didn't recognize all their faults in their article from last year admitting to likely just the tip of an iceberg.

The name "Al Qaeda" was given to Bin Laden and his group of thugs during a January 2001 trial for the 1998 Embassy bombings.

Jamal al-Fadl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Legal 'Creation' of Al-Qaeda

In January 2001 the trial began in New York of four men accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa . The U.S also wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). To be able to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organisation, which would then allow them to prosecute the leader, even if he could not be linked directly to the crime.

Jamal al-Fadl was taken on as a key prosecution witness, who along with a number of other sources claimed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a large international terrorist organisation which was called "al-Qaeda".

Al Qaeda was born in a New York courtroom in January 2001 under the pressure from the US who needed a label. AQ was all but destroyed after the US invaded Afghanistan. You guys should be happy. I'm actually giving Bush credit for winning the war on Al Qaeda. Its about the only thing he can be proud of during his administration.

I'm not saying there is no more threat of terrorism. There are guys like Richard Reid and people who carried out the 7/7 bombings in London but for the most part they operate individually of their own accord. There is no "global network" of sleeper cells. That is just fear mongering.

Why do so many of you refuse to believe rational arguments and side with the Bush admin?

Steve · #55 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Steve I never once mentioned the content on that website. All that was said was in relation to the video. I should have just linked directly to the google vid itself I suppose this I will concede.

Sorry, Danny, I ain't buyin' it. You provided a link to a website. As soon as that wesbite was shown to be the biased, left-leaning piece of shit it is, you say "Well, it's not credible". You then go on to insist that something contained on the website you, yourself, called uncredible is actually credible.

You're tap dancing, and you're dancing poorly...

Quote:

The name "Al Qaeda" was given to Bin Laden and his group of thugs during a January 2001 trial for the 1998 Embassy bombings.

Then how do we see it used prior to 2001?

And, if it was "given" to them, why has Bin Laden been quoted explaining the origin of the name?

The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

Source: Al-Qaeda

Danny, if the name was "given" to them, who do you say gave it to them?

Quote:

Al Qaeda was born in a New York courtroom in January 2001 under the pressure from the US who needed a label.

That's just absolutely false. How many instances do you need to be shown of its' existence prior to that before you're able to acknowledge that Al Qaeda had been around for quite some time prior to 2001?

Your continued refusal to accept that, and your continued position that the Bush administration is, somehow, responsible for "fabricating" Al Qaeda is absolutely laughable...

Quote:

There is no "global network" of sleeper cells. That is just fear mongering.

I'm sure if I was willing to accept everything on that uncredible website you wanted us all to read, I might believe that, too. Reality, of course, is likely very different.

How do you know there's no worldwide "network"?

Quote:

Why do so many of you refuse to believe rational arguments and side with the Bush admin?

If "rational" includes insisting that Al Qaeda didn't exist before 2001, as you continually do here, well, then color me irrational...

Steve · #56 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

So far you haven't shown any rebuttal to the OP.

Danny has taken the position that the name Al Qaeda was given to them in a courtroom in January 2001.

With something so ridiculously inaccurate presented as an argument, there's really no need. The OP, and Danny's subsequent posts, have solidified the belief that he has no idea what he's talking about. To parse through every post would be an excersize in futility, as Danny has already proven what we already know to be true: That he doesn't know what he's talking about...

AshleyKennedy · #57 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Danny has taken the position that the name Al Qaeda was given to them in a courtroom in January 2001.

With something so ridiculously inaccurate presented as an argument, there's really no need. The OP, and Danny's subsequent posts, have solidified the belief that he has no idea what he's talking about. To parse through every post would be an excersize in futility, as Danny has already proven what we already know to be true: That he doesn't know what he's talking about...

You still haven't grasped the fundamentals of the argument yet....

Al Qa'ida as a global conspiracy movement is indeed a fabrication of a delusion.

Rakkasan · #58 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

You still haven't grasped the fundamentals of the argument yet....

Al Qa'ida as a global conspiracy movement is indeed a fabrication of a delusion.

that is why there has been cells found all over the world ..........ya you and danny are on to something

Steve · #59 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

You still haven't grasped the fundamentals of the argument yet....

Al Qa'ida as a global conspiracy movement is indeed a fabrication of a delusion.

Speaking of not grasping "fundamentals".

Danny said the name "Al Qaeda" was given to them in a courtroom in January 2001.

There's really no way to converse intelligently with someone who's taken such a position. Furthermore, someone taking such a position should expect their opinions and arguments to be completely dismissed without consideration...

soot · #60 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

There in lies the crux of the matter. What the shrubs calls a spade is another sort of garden implement, a fork and hoe.

Personally I'm more a pragmatist than an idealist.

I can live with a little bluring of the lines if it focuses attention and gets the job done (or at least gets the job worked on).

Is grouping all radical Salifist Jihadi "brand" al Qa'ida 100% intellectually honest?

No, I don't think so. Not 100%.

Is it an outright lie?

No, I don't think that's the case either.

I do think the term "Islamofacist" is an outright lie, and I do think that many of the al Qa'ida-related scare tactics used by the government are a lie, and I do think that some lying went on in the run-up to OIF when the admin. was pushing some association between Saddam Hussein and al Qa'ida, and I do think the Bush admin lies a heck of a lot more than is good for it or America (no unlike most presidential administrations, but Bush isn't as good at it as most and gets caught a lot more than most).

But I'm okay with using al Qa'ida in the capacity that we're discussing here.

Because ultimately our fight isn't with "terrorism". We both know that. If this were a discussion about the "war on terrror" you and I would be agreeing that terror is a tactic, not an organization, and that waging war on a tactic is silly, etc...etc...etc...

Our fight (America's) primarially is with radical Salifist Jihadi terrorist groups and organizations and I think that al Qa'ida as an operative term describing that group is acceptable so far as public consumption is concrerned.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode