• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Al-Qaida does not exist

DTD

TRIBE Member
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-25-assad_x.htm
5/25/2003

Quote:
Assad doubts existence of al-Qaeda
KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview published Sunday that he doubts the existence of al-Qaeda, the terror group blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks and recent strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

"Is there really an entity called al-Qaeda? Was it in Afghanistan? Does it exist now?" Assad asked, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba.


Such speculation is popular among some in the Arab world who say Washington has manufactured or exaggerated the threat posed by al-Qaeda in order to paint Muslims as dangerous.

___________________________________________________________
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, London, United Kingdom

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html
Quote:

July 15, 2005

Commenting on the possible role of Al Qaeda, Blair said, " Al Qaeda is not an organization . Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."


Talibans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2897137.stm
Quote:
According to Dadullah, al-Qaeda did
not exist in Afghanistan and he said he did not know
the fate or whereabouts of Osama bin-Laden.

_________________________________________________________
Norwegian professor Johan Galtung

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article396241.ece
Quote:
- Al-Qaida er en amerikansk fiksjon

Terrororganisasjonen Al-Qaida er noe USA har
funnet på, mener den omstridte fredsforskeren
Johan Galtung.

- Etter min vurdering er al-Qaida noe Washington
har funnet på, en typisk Pentagon-projeksjon,
sier Galtung.

På spørsmål fra Spiegel Online om han virkelig mener
at al-Qaida ikke eksisterer, svarer Galtung at Vestens
forestilling om organisasjonen er gal.

- Men det finnes en stor kraft, som stort sett er
organisert i celler, som i Hamburg, og som holdes
sammen gjennom troen, sier han.
______________________________________________________
Indonesian Bashir

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=3054299
Quote:
Bashir selv skylder på CIA og USA for å
stå bak angrepet mot Bali.
Han benekter også at gruppene Jemaah
Islamiyah og al-Qaida eksisterer.


http://www.gsmpro.com/article/articledt.asp?hArticleId=39
Quote:
Bashir on Friday accused the United States of inventing both al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah to portray Muslims as terrorists.
__________________________________________________
Qazi Hussain, member of Parliament in Pakistan
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article844875.ece
Quote:
«Qazi Hussain har kritisert den pakistanske regjerings samarbeid med USA i kampen mot Taliban-regimet i Afghanistan. Han har snakket pent om Taliban-ledelsen og Osama bin Laden og benektet eksistensen av terrornettverket Al-Qaida.»

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/qazi021013.html
Quote:
Qazi Hussain Ahmed :
«I've never been sure whether the so-called Al-Qaeda has ever even existed. »

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20050815&hn=22982
August 14, 2005
Quote:

«Countries facing the al-Qaeda threat are awaiting the intelligence Turkish security is to provide. Amid the smoke from the fortuitous fire emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an intelligence agency operation.

Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda.

Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept “fighting terror” is the background of the “low-intensity-warfare” conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as “al-Qaeda.” »


http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1604
2005-08-01
Quote:
There is no Terrorist Organization Called Al Qaida

…Nese Düzel from Radikal (a Turkish newspaper) asked this question and more on Al Qaida to Mahir Kaynak, a former academic and a former intelligence officer. He has suggested different and debateful views, which will be summarized in this article.


Further more he argued that there is no Al Qaida. According to Kaynak, Al Qaida is the name of the operation carried out by an intelligence service, which is CIA…With this operation an anti-Islam front among the peoples of the world is tried to be created.

Television program:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
Friday October 15, 2004
Quote:
The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network.

It does not have members or a leader.
It does not have "sleeper cells".
It does not have an overall strategy.
In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.


Newspaper article:
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/13821_AlQaeda.html
08/19/2004
Quote:

«Al Qaeda does not exist and never has»

«The basic truth is that Al Qaeda does not exist and never has. Al Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration (NWO) in order to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world"s oil resources.»


This link needs registration to be followed:
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/103002...021030082.shtml
October 29, 2002
Quote:
''Al-Qaida is not an organization anymore, it is
a concept,'' said Jordanian political analyst Labib Kamhawi.
''There is a lot of appeal for the concept itself.''»

«''On balance, I would be surprised if there wasn't any
foreign participation,'' he said. ''Al-Qaida does not have
membership cards, and as such, linkages can occur
on many different levels.''

Translation of the three norwegian quotes:

1.
Al-Qaida is an american fiction.

The terrororganisation Al-Qaida is something USA has invented, means the debated peace professor Johan Galtung.

-After my opinion Al-Qaida is something Washington has invented, a typhical Pentagon-projection, says Galtung.

On question from Spiegel Online if he really means that Al-Qaida does not exist, Galtung answers that the Wests impression of the organisation is wrong.

-But there is a large power, which is mostly organised in cells, like in Hamburg, and which are being kept together through the faith, he says.

2.
Bashir himself blames on CIA and USA for being behind the attack against Bali. He also denies that the groups Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qaida exist.

3.
Qazi Hussein has criticized the pakistani governments cooperation with USA in the fight against the Taliban-regime in Afghanistan. He has talked nice about the Taliban-leaders and Osama bin Laden and denied the existence of the terror network Al-Qaida.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

2canplay

TRIBE Member
Oh, most definitely. Al-Qaeda ceased to exist in late 2001. No question.

It's just a 'catch-all' name now.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I saw a soldier talking on the news the other night.

"Well, by day these guys are farmers, by night they're al-qaeda".

lol. As opposed to farmers pissed off with the occupation of their land.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
The group we now call “al-Qaeda” had its origins as two organizations that merged into one. The first was the “Afghan Services Bureau,” headed by Osama Bin Laden’s first spiritual mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Its purpose was to recruit and support Muslim fighters (Mujahideen) for the “Jihad” against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The second was Ayman al-Zawahri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which assassinated Anwar Sadat and attempted to spread violent Islamic revolutions throughout the Middle East.

Azzam and Bin Laden imported tens of thousands of Arabs into Afghanistan, using money from Saudi Arabia and logistical support from many countries in the Middle East, especially Pakistan. Those countries released violent Islamic radicals from prison and hoped they would die fighting against the Red Army. To this end, Egypt released the most dangerous radicals in the region: Zawahri and his followers from al-Jihad. The CIA enthusiastically armed and trained these fighters, a core group of whom already possessed an extraordinary zeal for killing and dying in defence of Islam. American money and weapons poured into Afghanistan and “CIA agents trained the Mujahideen in the techniques of assassination and terror, including car bombing.”

However, the indoctrination of these fighters included the notion that politics, by definition, was un-Islamic. Sharia Law and the Qur’an, according to this view, represented the only truth and therefore Muslims did not require any kind of government, other than the literal word of the Qur’an. Zawahri’s interpretation of Jihad was even more radical than Abdallah Azzam’s. According to Zawahri’s worldview, Islam was under attack both from external and internal forces. American influence, he argued, was an all-corrupting force that caused Muslims to become selfish, materialistic and anti-Islamic. He demonised democracy as an American instrument for proliferating the consumer culture that it used to dominate other societies. Though radical, this brand of fundamentalism was only a marginal upgrade of Azzam’s already intense religious fervour directed against the Soviets. Ultimately, Zawahri convinced Osama Bin Laden that Azzam’s approach lacked sufficient moral clarity and strength of purpose. Furthermore, Zawahri wanted to wage Jihad against America, while Azzam wanted to focus on defeating Israel. Azzam was murdered, and Bin Laden united his network with Zawahri’s Islamic Jihad group.
So, while the CIA funded, trained and armed Islamic fighters to defeat the Soviet Union, it simultaneously helped promote an ideology that necessarily opposed American conceptions of international order. The CIA was too committed to the Afghan project to care that this extreme belief was sprouting among the thousands of fighters to which it was teaching the most sophisticated guerrilla tactics available to anyone.

American political leaders allowed—and probably encouraged—Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam to raise funds and recruit fighters within the US. They established their American headquarters in Brooklyn, from where Bin Laden raised money and recruited fighters. Two years after Azzam’s murder, his protégé in charge of the Brooklyn headquarters, Mustapha Shalabi, was also murdered. Bin Laden sent his own personal secretary to replaced Shalabi. Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, deputised Bin Laden as the government’s recruiter-in-chief. (Incidentally, Faisal and Bill Clinton were close friends. ) The CIA, as well as other national governments and intelligence services, fully supported these efforts. This earnest collusion coloured perceptions and blinded policy makers to the intense blowback caused by radicalising and then empowering Islamic extremists. Al-Qaeda’s operations in America did not concern the FBI, because the political climate there was staunchly supportive of the Afghan militants—president Reagan even dedicated a shuttle launch to them.

By not addressing the enthusiastic anti-Americanism of the fighters it was training, the CIA failed to acknowledge the threat they posed. For the United States, Afghanistan was a wildly successful Cold War operation that existed in isolation. Through the KGB, Soviet president Michael Gorbachev secretly warned the Reagan administration of the folly it was committing. He accurately predicted that if America allowed the Mujahedeen to take over, Afghanistan would fall into the hands of the most radical and violent Islamic extremists. The Taliban became the manifestation of that warning. The warning had no effect, and in 1995 the American government directly facilitated the Taliban’s brutally violent conquest of Afghanistan, in the hope of securing a lucrative pipeline contract for Unocal, a massive American oil company. After invading Afghanistan in 2001, the US appointed Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal consultant, as the new president.

The Taliban’s ultra-fundamentalism made them perfect partners for Zawahri and Bin Laden, who offered their strategic and military services in exchange for a territorial base of operations. Al-Qaeda expert Rohan Gunaratna testified to the 9/11 Commission that “throughout the 1990s, Afghanistan became a terrorist Disney Land”. He describes how “Al-Qaeda built, with the assistance of the Taliban, a state of the art terrorist training and operational infrastructure in Afghanistan.”
 

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
al qaida was the name of a database, that contained many names of terrorists and potentials terrorists

thats all it ever was

its true name being "Maktab Al Khidamat"

with the western world dumbing it down once again into something trendy so that the average person could understand

the true name for this army if thats what youd like to call it is "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders "

and yes the terror group is just as strong as ever, anyone that ever followed bin ladens actions, knows well enough that this quiet time isnt really quiet time

911's origins came shortly after the first bombing of the world trade center back in 1993

yousef ramzi and his uncle kalid devised a plot called bojinka that eventually became 911
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
junglisthead said:
al qaida was the name of a database, that contained many names of terrorists and potentials terrorists

thats all it ever was

its true name being "Maktab Al Khidamat"

with the western world dumbing it down once again into something trendy so that the average person could understand

the true name for this army if thats what youd like to call it is "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders "

and yes the terror group is just as strong as ever, anyone that ever followed bin ladens actions, knows well enough that this quiet time isnt really quiet time

911's origins came shortly after the first bombing of the world trade center back in 1993

yousef ramzi and his uncle kalid devised a plot called bojinka that eventually became 911

Cockspank! You're on record as saying "Jihadists = made up lies". Now you're teaching us about their army?
 

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
the terms jihadists and al qaida, are made up western slang to make the average joe try to get a grasp the situation in a clouded vision

there are no official jihadists
 

DTD

TRIBE Member
maybe somebody from Toronto will speak up and then they can be added to the list of Al-Qaida de-bunkers.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
junglisthead said:
the terms jihadists and al qaida, are made up western slang to make the average joe try to get a grasp the situation in a clouded vision

there are no official jihadists

I don't understand. How can this be true is it is blatantly false?

There is something wrong with your logic.
 

DTD

TRIBE Member
Most people just read headlines not the actual story. There level of understanding is surface deep. This is how myths are perpetuated.
 

Vincent Vega

TRIBE Member
But they likely know when to use "their" versus "there."

Might have something to do with that education stuff.

EDIT: for our new friend DTD.....fighter of the good fight
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
junglisthead said:
there are no terms jihadists and al qaida

nor is there a thing called jihadists


western slander that is all it is

So then why do people use it if it doesn't exist.

Obviously if the term is in use, then the term exists. The term Jihadist exists by virtue of the fact that thousands of terrorism experts use this term. All the experts on Islamic militancy--historians, professors, intelligence analysts, schollars, etc--use this term. So what directly the fuck do you mean when you say the term doesn't exist.

How can it not exist, if it so obviously exists!?

Edit: turn off the internet and PICK UP A BOOK!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
junglisthead said:
however, there is a World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

and there are jihad soldiers

"Jihad Soldiers" I see.

Let's compare usage data shall we? Let's get all sciencey and shit

When you google the term "Jihadist"
1,320,000 hits

"Jihad Soldier"
700 hits.

Therefore...the term Jihadist most definitely exists.
 
Last edited:

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
like i have said many times it is called western media slander, by giving fancy names your also ignoring the importance of what is going on

al qaida sounds evil, watch out for AL QAIDA as they are the new boogeymen

whereas,

World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders - youd hate to post that in an article slated for the western civilization, as it might get people questioning and understanding what is truly going on

jihadists- evil monsters

jihad soldiers- wait a second here ? soldiers ? that cant be, they are monsters

freedom fighters- but but they are destroying our freedom ? that cant be possible
 

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
lets all bow down to google now as the important factor in all

that in itself just goes to show me how little you really have researched the middle east crisis

we also spell jehad wrong, but do you care ? obviously not, you also probably think jihad mean holy war

wrong again

Jehad not only means to fight against the enemy but also to make a struggle for the promotion and enforcement of Islamic teachings. Jehad also teaches individuals to keep their desires and wants under the order of God (Allah) and uttering words of truth before tyrant ruler.



Jehad is derived from the word “Jahad,” which means to make an effort and to work hard. In Islam Jehad is interpreted as sacrificing all of your powers including your wealth and life in the way of Allah: to devote your life for protection and promotion of Islam and even sacrificing the lives of your family, your relatives and your nation. To compete with Islam’s enemies, to make their tricks fail and to stop their attacks, for this a Muslim is ordered to enter into a battlefield if necessary.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Not that it fucking makes ANY DIFFERENCE!

You say "Jihad Soldier" and the rest of the world says "Jihadist"...

Jihad Soldier = Jihadist.

And at the end of the day, you're playing bullshit semantics because it's all you have to go on. You don't know shit about Jihad, Jihadism, Jihadists, Bin Laden or any of that shit. When you talk about the "World Front for Jihad" or whatever the fuck, you're parroting what certain individuals say when they claim terrorist attacks. What the fuck difference does it make if we're talking about the same poeple!?

Not to mention that those people are Al Aquaeda inspired and not even necessarily affiliated with them.

But whatever, I'm not going to change your mind, and sure and shit not visa-versa so...we'll agree to disagree. :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
its not bullshit

and dont worry sweetheart ive been following terrorism for quite some time, way before you could imagine

the rest of the world does not say jihadists, as there is no such thing, western media slander once again

if you ignore this than you have no clue to what is occuring, in order to understand the situation, you must clearly use all proper meanings, by not doing so you dillute the situation

you prove that your simply on one side of the situation, not grasping all the viewpoints available

were not talking about the same people, as i see a culture devasted over the years, retaliating for all the oppression that has occured to them

i see a culture with nothing to lose, doing whatever it takes to make a statement to show the world, they are just as important

whereas, your simply doing what everyone else is doing, and that is demonizing them

this is a war

america the great nuked two cities in japan killing many innocents

just remember that
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
If you guys are actually interested in a SALIENT argument for why--or how--AQ "does not exist", you should watch a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis.

BBC Synopsis said:
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.

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.

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"'.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Here's a little bit of history about the differences--or lack thereof--between Sunni and Shii manifestations of *militant* Islamic Fundamentalism. I use the term "militant" to distinguish it from its political counterpart that doesn't include the use of violence. We're talking about the specifically revolutionary violent kind here. This is from an essay about the exportation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

some paper I wrote said:
Sunni and Shii forms of militant Islam—defined by the use of violence to attain political power—are nearly identical. In terms of the high-octane Islamic fundamentalism that fuelled the Iranian Revolution, it was not discernable from emergent Sunni fundamentalist militancy. The uprising was more of an expression of popular Iranian Shii nationalism than of mass religious identification.58

Sunnis, in general, have accepted temporal authority and grant legitimacy to secular, nationalist governments that uphold Islamic law.59 This is evident in the structure of the Caliphate during the Ottoman Empire. However, during the late 19th or early 20th century, Sunni Arabs began experiencing the revival of a far more activist interpretation—or misinterpretation—of Islamic principles inspired by centuries old attempts to protect Islam from the forces of change over time.

This was based on Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahabb’s revival of Hambalism in Saudi Arabia. The Hambali school of Jurisprudence is the most fundamentalist school of Sunni Islam and was promoted by Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiya in the 14th century, as the only legitimate practice of Islam.60 In the twentieth century, his philosophies have become the doctrinal basis for the rise of militant Sunni Islamic fundamentalism.

Ibn Taymiya argued that political legitimacy originated exclusively from the Sharia. He reinterpreted the concept of jahiliya, which refers to pre-Islamic “ignorance”, to include any current Muslim ruler who disregarded God’s law.61 In addition, he claimed that it was the Muslim community’s obligation to fight against these illegitimate rulers—a novel revision of the traditional goals of jihad.

The emphasis on legitimating the violent aspects of jihad is identical, in spirit, to Khomeini’s use of the term. “In both cases, the implication for Muslims seeking to justify violent opposition to secular governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim states is obvious. In their eyes, it raised political violence in the defence of Islam to the religious obligation of jihad.”62

Despite their different theological origins, the ideological bases of radical Sunni and Shii fundamentalism are the same: delegitimation of all regimes that do not rule in accordance with God’s law, the use of ijtihad to interpret God’s law and the call for jihad as defined by the use of violence.63 For Sunnis, the Iranian Revolution did not present any original alternatives in terms of ideology

58 Long; ed. Esposito, p.114
59 Long; ed. Esposito, p.103
60 Benjamin, Simon, p.124-126
61 Long; ed. Esposito, p.103
62 Long; ed. Esposito, p.104
63 Benjamin, Simon, p.124

Works Cited:

Benjamin, Daniel, and Steven Simon. The Age of Sacred Terror. New York: Random House, 2002

Esposito, John L., ed. The Iranian Revolution: Its Global Impact. N.p.: University P of Florida, 1990.
 
Last edited:

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
how about using some muslim references instead of western references, perhaps then, you might gain a little more perspective
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
junglisthead said:
how about using some muslim references instead of western references, perhaps then, you might gain a little more perspective

You didn't read a single word I wrote. You're a fucking idiot.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top