Metropol

johnnyboy wrote:


Al-Qeada, if it even exists (and am I the only one who thinks that the name of the group "responsible" for yesterday's outrages is a bit fishy?), is no Luftwaffe.


Attack on Iran by September anyone?

It's important that we Brits get some reality on this alleged threat - especially so the dunderheaded Yanks currently trying to bring "democracy" to the world (except for, of course, Uzbekistan, a particularly vicious regime Bush and his chickenhawks support because they've got a military base there).

> Al Qeada did not exist until a court case in New York in 2001 under RICO. No-one had ever heard of it until then - it did not exist.

>There were no terrorist training camps in Afghanistan - Bin Laden is and was a minor radical occasionally allowed to train potential "terrorists" by the Taliban. Bin Laden represented a form of radical Islam which was thoroughly and decisively crushed by Arab countries in the early 90s - he has no power, and hasn't had for years.

> Fox News and the other war pimps constantly change what Al Qeada is to suit whatever promotes their agenda. There are not 60,000 terrorists in sleeper cells around the world with a huge pool of finance to further their aims - if there really was, why the fuck are we and everyone else not being bombed every day?



[/rant over]

Al-Qaedas origins can be traced back to the 1979 invasion of Aghanistan by the former USSR.

Al-qaeda is the Arabic word for " the camp" or " the base". Which means the base or camp from which a worldwide Islamic revolution will be fought.

Osama Bin Laden was one of the many devout Muslims who helped repel the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He established himself as a patron of Jihad.

There are Terror camps in Libya, Sudan, Angola and Afghanistan. We know there were Terror camps in Aghanistan, because...
The C.I.A.financed, supplied and trained the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The weapons that were supplied to them by the U.S are the very same ones that were used against the Americans during the recent coalition conflict. We know this by the serial numbers found on the Rocket Propelled Grenades fired against their tanks.

miss hellfire wrote: Al-Qaedas origins can be traced back to the 1979 invasion of Aghanistan by the former USSR.

That's incorrect. The camps in Afghanistan were used to train the Mujahadeen which you correctly say were the defence force against the USSR. The Mujahadeen never had any connections with Al-Qaeda (although no-one seems to be able to convincingly or consistently describe this 'network')

After the Soviet withdrawal, they weren't really used that much until the Taliban assumed control of most of the country. From this point on, they were used to train Taliban to fight the various Northern Alliance 'warlords'.

Bin Laden was a minor player in an attempt to overthrow what he saw as the corrupt regimes in many Arab countries. This movement came to a head in the early 90s when it was crushed (and outlawed in many states).

miss hellfire wrote: Al-qaeda is the Arabic word for " the camp" or " the base". Which means the base or camp from which a worldwide Islamic revolution will be fought.

Of course, you're correct with the translation.

The common line is that Al-Qaeda has been established as a network for around 13 years now. It was supposedly behind the bombings of US embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole (although there has been no convincing evidence for this).

The term al-Qaeda was first used in an American courtroom in 2001 under a RICO case. RICO is the American law designed to stop racketeering and organised crime, and one of its requirements is that any organisation needs a name. Beforehand, it was never used by anyone. The name was first recorded and used by a man in whose interest it was to co-operate with authorities to gain clemency - not exactly reliable. (Source: The Power Of Nightmares, BBC 2004).

miss hellfire wrote: Osama Bin Laden was one of the many devout Muslims who helped repel the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He established himself as a patron of Jihad.

There are Terror camps in Libya, Sudan, Angola and Afghanistan. We know there were Terror camps in Aghanistan, because...
The C.I.A.financed, supplied and trained the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. The weapons that were supplied to them by the U.S are the very same ones that were used against the Americans during the recent coalition conflict. We know this by the serial numbers found on the Rocket Propelled Grenades fired against their tanks.

You're right - someone once said that all the Americans had to do to find out what the enemy was using against them was to check the invoices!

Again, I have to take exception to the word "terror camp" - sounds too media and propogandistic to me. Within all of those countries (with the possible exception of Libya), there have always been a competing number of factions for government, and they were most likely training camps for fighters within one particular warlord's territory.

You have a decidely sceptical eye when it comes to the War on Terror, miss hellfire - it's very refreshing to hear our numbers are not that small.

The one question I keep coming back to about this whole War on Terror crap is this - if there is a worldwide network of 60,000 'Muslims' determined to destroy us scattered in dozens of different countries, if they have near unlimited funding from wealthy Middle Eastern financiers, if these people are determined to die for their cause and disrupt what they consider to be 'decadent and godless' societies, why aren't there far more attacks?

Something is rotten with this whole thing. Very rotten.

The BBC, ITN and Sky are falling over themselves to tell us over and over and over again that the British Muslim community are "stunned", "shocked" and "horrified" by the fact the bombers were British Muslims living in normal households and communities.

We're seeing snippet after snippet from neighbours and families who say these were "normal, nice lads". Did not one family member find it a tad strange that these "normal lads" were having long holidays in Afghanistan and amassing arsenals of military grade explosives in their bedrooms? It is outrageous for the media to forcefeed us with these completely bogus "vox pops" around the streets of Leeds. But they are on a mission to make us swallow the most implausible nonsense, namely that all the families, friends and associates of these four men had absolutely no idea of what they were planning.

This is propaganda at its worst, fuelled by some kind of panic that the truth may be exposed. The truth is that large numbers of British Muslims are not remotely "stunned" or "shocked" at any of this, and nor will they condemn the attacks in London. It is a pure fantasy being peddled by the media that all mainstream British Muslims are opposed to Al Qaida. If any BBC camera crews want, I'll take them to areas of Stoke on Trent and Birmingham where photographs of Bin Laden are displayed in house windows.

Darcus Howe did a programme on Channel 4 last year in which he found huge gangs of Asian male teenagers on the streets of Britain who hero-worshipped Bin Laden and quite openly and publicly preached death to all Westerners. Have they all suddenly vanished?

Incredible, isn't it, that not one news network has found one single person who isn't in this state of fantastic disbelief at the fact the bombers were home grown. Or maybe they have found plenty of them, but have chosen not to mention it.

rdobbie wrote:The BBC, ITN and Sky are falling over themselves to tell us over and over and over again that the British Muslim community are "stunned", "shocked" and "horrified" by the fact the bombers were British Muslims living in normal households and communities.

<snip>

Incredible, isn't it, that not one news network has found one single person who isn't in this state of fantastic disbelief at the fact the bombers were home grown. Or maybe they have found plenty of them, but have chosen not to mention it.

i think the reason for this is purely political. i think there is a real fear of reprisal attacks - if it was the general perception that the majority of the followers of islam condoned the attacks, a number of mosques and other places of worship would be destroyed, along with random attacks on muslims or anybody of that general appearance.

i have been reading on forums that there seems to be a lot of hatred directed at muslims at the moment, i certainly can forsee a few punishment beatings and so on in the coming weeks

There are some fanatical Muslims, no doubt about it, but, gents, we do have to be careful here.

There is no evidence that the 4 that are said to have done it actually did it. On 9/11, at least 7 of the hijackers were never on the plane and are still alive. Yet, the world thinks they still did it.

I really hope there are no riots about this in the country.

Blaming all Muslims for this would be like blaming all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government - not fair. Not all Jews support Israel. It would also be like blaming all Christians for the actions of the US government - not fair.

Suddenly, for the actions of a few and the perceived (yet unproved-to-be) loyalties as seen through our eyes, it's alright to claim they all support terrorists. It's alright to abuse them on the streets. It's alright to throw racial slurs at them. It's alright to denigrate their religion. It's alright to say that are working against the best interests of the societies they live in.

The Muslims are the new Jews. Germany 1933-1945, anyone?

We've got to be very careful here as we're going down a path with the Muslims that could lead to disaster.