Terrorist attack - could this happen?

[sasguru]

Al Qaeda doesn't exist as GJ says. What we have are a bunch of disaffected Muslims who don't understand that their belief in Allah and the concomitant rejection of the scientific method are the reasons why their culture is so tulipe.
Twas not always thus.

[Ardesco]

It means "the base". It refers to the creation of a base for jihad. Afghanistan is currently the base, in one sense (and that is the Taliban's raison d'etre). In another sense, it is the organisation, or more correctly association, that bin Laden put together to manage jihad.

It is a loose association, not out of loose thinking but in order to make it resilient: there is no head or central organisation whose removal can kill the beast. So it is true that bin Laden himself is perhaps no longer necessary; certainly it was planned that way. But that doesn't mean that al Qaeda is only a way of thinking: it is a real organisation.

Looks like my facts are slightly out, as it means "the Base" and not "the Directory", however I disagree that it is a real organisation. It is a label placed on islamic terrorists by the US government to make it easy to identify them as an enemy that they can fight. Osama bin laden financed many different terrorist cells but didn't reall yprovide leadership, they drew up plans to maim and kill and he threw them some money to help them on thier way.

Almost all the information on the leadership sturcture was supplied by an alleged member of Al Qaeda who made a plea bargain with the US government and agreed to spew out a load of crap which even his defense lawyer says was probably mostly fantasy.

[AlfredJPruffock]

This is what I was trying to say. The term was quoted by Bin Laden or some such but, IIRC, simply means "the struggle".

From http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006...cook_the_.html


Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

As far as I know, this was the first time publicly, in the anglophone world, that the al-Qaeda name had been explained as referring to a computer database.

In the francophone world, a colourful former French military intelligence officer, Pierre-Henri Bunel, had had a book published in 2004, "Proche-Orient, une guerre mondiale?", extracts of which appeared [in French] on a French conspiracy website. The extract went into some detail of how al-Qaeda originally referred to a computer database of Islamist fighters. But, AFAIK, it was not until after Robin Cook had revealed the same in the Guardian, and after his death a month later, that an English translation of Bunel's words appeared on the web. It's a rough translation, which doesn't read well. But the basic outline of his account accords with what Cook had revealed.

Here's my suspicion: that Robin Cook knew nothing about P-H Bunel's book or article, and that his knowledge of the origin of the Qaeda name stemmed solelyfrom his time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In other words, that both men had, independently of each other, revealed that, as they understood it, the designation 'al-Qaeda' had originally referred to a computer database. And, according to Bunel, that that name had been operative at least by the mid-'80s.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Looks like my facts are slightly out, as it means "the Base" and not "the Directory", however I disagree that it is a real organisation. It is a label placed on islamic terrorists by the US government to make it easy to identify them as an enemy that they can fight. Osama bin laden financed many different terrorist cells but didn't reall yprovide leadership, they drew up plans to maim and kill and he threw them some money to help them on thier way.

My view is that with the ending of the Cold War - we were promised the peace dividend - this was really bad news for the Millitary Industrial complex.

Faced with the prospect of huge millitary budget cuts ie the Peace Dividend, as one of the US neocons stated before 9-11 - 'We need a new Pearl Harbour' - an enemy to identify in order to justify a massive arms budget - well if you look at the millitary spending by the US post 9-11 - its the biggest budget ever allocated - and all this to find a guy holed up in a cave ???

As for the term Islamic Terrorism - that in my book is a misnomer - akin to describing the IRA as Christian Terrorists.

[sasguru]

My view is that with the ending of the Cold War - we were promised the peace dividend - this was really bad news for the Millitary Industrial complex.

Faced with the prospect of huge millitary budget cuts ie the Peace Dividend, as one of the US neocons stated before 9-11 - 'We need a new Pearl Harbour' - an enemy to identify in order to justify a massive arms budget - well if you look at the millitary spending by the US post 9-11 - its the biggest budget ever allocated - and all this to find a guy holed up in a cave ???

As for the term Islamic Terrorism - that in my book is a misnomer - akin to describing the IRA as Christian Terrorists.

While you have a point about the MIC, I also think the threat of "Islamic" terrorism is real. As I'm sure my friend K----- knew during her last panic stricken moments in the WTC.

Oh and any conspiracy theorists about 9/11 please eff off - I can't be bothered to read your garbage.

[AlfredJPruffock]

While you have a point about the MIC, I also think the threat of "Islamic" terrorism is real. As I'm sure my friend K----- knew during her last panic stricken moments in the WTC.

Oh and any conspiracy theorists about 9/11 please eff off - I can't be bothered to read your garbage.

Im sorry to hear about your friend SG.

I think then perhaps the term Saudi Terrorists would be more appropraite - but we know we should kiss their feet as they buy so many weapons from us - which makes them good guys.

Well then lets say Iraqi Terrorists instead - after all 50 per cent of Americans still believe those planes on Sep 11 where manned with Iraqis.

Bad guys.

They deserve all they get - even if the WMDs was jsut a an offical conspriacy theory.

[sasguru]

Im sorry to hear about your friend SG.

I think then perhaps the term Saudi Terrorists would be more approrpaite - but we know we should kiss their feet as they buy so many weapons from us - which makes them good guys.

Well then lets say Iraqi Terrorists instead - after all 50 per cent of Americans still believe those planes on Sep 11 where manned with Iraqis.

Bad guys.

It happened to be Saudis for 9-11. But the real issue is that there are many Muslims (including British ones) who feel put upon for whatever reason.

[AlfredJPruffock]

It happened to be Saudis for 9-11. But the real issue is that there are many Muslims (including British ones) who feel put upon for whatever reason.

Perhaps that is because- rather - than punishing Saudi Arabias detestable regieme it was found expident to demonise Islam - a crusade if you like- for the interests of the millitary industrial complex and geo political interests in the Middle East.

For example many of the Jihadists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia - yet we continue to sell then a deadly arsenal of the latest weapons which will no doubt be used on US/UK forces in Iraq.

[sasguru]

Perhaps that is because- rather - than punishing Saudi Arabias detestable regieme it was found expident to demonise Islam - a crusade if you like- for the interests of the millitary industrial complex and geo political interests in the Middle East.

For example many of the Jihadists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia - yet we continue to sell then a deadly arsenal of the latest weapons which will no doubt be used on US/UK forces in Iraq.

I agree with your gist AJP. I don't think demonising Islam helps. But where I disagree is that I think Islamic fundamentalism is a real threat that predates all this Bush-inspired nonsense.

[AlfredJPruffock]

I agree with your gist AJP. I don't think demonising Islam helps. But where I disagree is that I think Islamic fundamentalism is a real threat that predates all this Bush-inspired nonsense.

Here we are on common ground - my objection was to the term Islamic Terrorism - not Islamic Fundamentalism which is as repellent as Christian Fundamentalism eg the Rapturists - who do have much influence on US foreign policy and are actively engineering Armagedeon in the Middle East to fulfill their warped beliefs/prophecies.

In fact I am Fundamentally against any form of Fundamentalism

Hating nothing but Hatred