No we don't. Not in the manner as portrayed by the global conspiracy theorists.


Any person taking an organisation that pushed out false claims to take the US to war as a good credible witness needs their head examined.

Perfectly correct use of the present tense. There is however, no established link between the Algerian al Qa'ida and the Iraqi al Qa'ida. They both have been labelled as al Qa'ida but are they?

__________________
"You believe what you want
I'll believe what I know"

Kevin Spacey Midnight in the garden of good and evil

Et lucis æterne beatitudine perfrui.

Hm, if Al-Quaeda wasn't a global group, it sure managed to perpetrate global attacks. The U.S.S. Cole, the marine barracks bombing, various embassy bombings come to mind. There seemed to be enough evidence suggesting a link with all these attacks to OBL that Clinton attempted to attack him during his presidency. There was enough general knowledge of Al-Quaeda's existence that on the morning of the WTC attacks i was able to point out to my idiot liberal 8th grade social studies teacher that it was probably OBL and Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and not her half baked crackpot theory that it was disgruntled members of the airline pilot union. If Al-Quaeda WAS an invention it certainly wasn't invented after 9/11 and it certainly wasn't invented by president Bush.

I saw this documentary quite awhile ago and i never got the sense they were arguing that AQ did not exist as is being bandied about here due to a lazy OP.

My take on the documentary was that they were arguing that the US seized on the notion that AQ was/is some highly advanced organization prior to/post 9/11. But to the contrary, most of the documentary evidence shows that AQ (whoever named them and when is not really important) was a small dysfunctional group of extremists bent on attacking the US. But prior to and inclusive of 9/11 OBL has been taking credit for the attaks which are carried out by other militants who share his anger/blood lust/disillusionment.

The argument is not that AQ does not exist, the argument is that the US exaggerated and exaggerates the threat of one small group that historically takes credit for the violent deeds of others that are only loosely associated with OBL. I.e., OBL never defeated the Russians in Afghanistan, Afghanis did, and Osama took credit. I.e., OBL never had any significant part in 9/11, a bunch of other Saudis did and it is obvious the brains behind the operation was Atta not Osama. I.e, AQ in Iraq is simply a bunch of punks bent on violence who have taken up the name 'AQ' because its 'cool' to them. OBL has no direct role in the violence in Iraq. And so on.... there is no evidence that any attacks commonly attributed to OBL/AQ really involved OBL to any great degree. He is a man with a huge ego and he views himself as a prophet and inspiration to those who are willing to actually carry out such attacks. But there is no indication that these attacks would not occur regardless of OBL.

The problem is that these attacks against america and her allies and interests have a cause that is historical, cultural, and deeply seeded within the ME Muslim culture. OBL is a manifestation of these causes, he himself is not the cause. By focusing on AQ as some great and powerful super organization the US gov can justify all sorts of things under the rubric of security, surveillance, and military spending. But what they cannot do is fix the actual problem, because they refuse to acknowledge what the actual historical, religious, and cultural source of these attacks really are. They play the victim too much and refuse to see their own hand in history. America has a very narrow and naive view of its impact on the world, and its all good through the eyes of monsters like George Bush.

The Bush admin wanted a big organized menace like the old soviet empire, so they made AQ more than it actually is/was prior to 9/11. They did this so they could rally americans behind the war so as to pursue much larger geo-political goals. The tragedy here is that one of the main beneficiaries of the Iraq invasion (besides Iran and multi-nats) was OBL - the US gave so much truth to his claims about injustice by aggressively invading iraq, murdering and torturing its civilians, and generally refusing to leave.

That is what the documentary actually argues, more or less. And it is a valid argument.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

That too was my take on it.

The Algerian government claimed that GSPC had sworn allegiance to al Qa'ida in 2003/2004 then al-Zawahiri starts claiming a globalisation of al Qa'ida, the shrub went along with it.

I can't wait for the Chinese Government to start shoving it about that the Tibetan Buddhist monks have joined al Qa'ida. It makes as much sense as putting some of these disparate groups under the same heading.

Al-Qaeda's Far-Reaching New Partner - washingtonpost.com

It's like a lizard pumping up fronds up to make itself look bigger than it is.

__________________
"You believe what you want
I'll believe what I know"

Kevin Spacey Midnight in the garden of good and evil

Et lucis æterne beatitudine perfrui.

Just because you can handle a little bit of dishonesty doesn't make it honest.Well, you might be right. It's not totally dishonest (for things of greater dishonesty, look at Bush's Iraq war invasion & WMDs).That's a stupid idea. Terrorism is just a tactic, and one that is very difficult to concretely define. Besides, what moral authority does the US have to wage such a war? They have in the past supported terrorism and currently do so now, given present definitions of it.The dishonesty lies in calling 9/11 an act of al-Qaeda and then calling every terrorist in that region al-Qaeda. You are blaming a shit load of people for the actions of a few.

Nevermind the fact that OBL himself says he founded it in 1988, right?

So you consider OBL an unquestionable and totally reliable source when it comes to Al-Qaeda history?

Hate Club: Al-Qaeda's Web of Terror - TIME

Strategic Insights -- Al Qaeda Finances

7,000 men recently entered from Al Qaeda 'Watch' countries | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET.com

Osama bin Laden

Al-Qa'ida (the Base)

So, Al Qaeda isn't international, eh? Ain't it a bitch when google destroys your fantasy world?

Just to be fair, here is a site that says different

frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS

What laughable tripe this guy is trying to sell.

Is that a serious question?

Do you see something funny in it?

yeah, I damn sure do.

Well, seeing as he was there at the time, there probably aren't too many other sources on which to rely.

Besides, there'd be no reason to refute that, unless one were trying to argue the retarded position that Al Qaeda didn't exist prior to 2001...

I don't recall asking if it were the only source. Oh, that's right, I didn't. I asked about the reliability, not uniqueness.

Well, when your fits of laughter are over, perhaps you'll answer it.

What a wonderful way of arguing a point, by making the point disappear...disagree with the war, the wot on terror etc. just make it disappear, for the beeb, this is another low water mark.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."