stevie Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Is this the same Al Qaeda that was formed by the US...? also known as "the database" which is what it means!The only way to move on is to arrest and charge the criminals, even if some are politicians nobody is above the law! Al Qaeda means 'base' not 'database', as in foundation. Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 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 - Robin Cook. U.K Foreign Secretary 1997 - 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Chinahand - you appear to be an 'anti-conspiracy theorist'. What is the difference between that and a conspiracy-theorist? Are you truly using data in a more critical fashion? In regards to their WTC7 report, NIST is not an independant adjudicator, as any capable historian could point out. Their report was filed to address concerns that WTC7 fell in a manner that is widely identified to be caused by professional demolition and not fire etc. No terrorist would demolish a building in such a fashion, and this has logically laid suspicion on an internal power, so it was natural that it ought be addressed by a commission. Unfortunately, in spite of the dire need for an independant appraisal, the government made its own assessment with the NIST report you quote, which is NOT independent and relies heavily on computer models rather than real-world evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think this is the truth of what is behind 911s: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Chinahand - you appear to be an 'anti-conspiracy theorist'.What is the difference between that and a conspiracy-theorist? Are you truly using data in a more critical fashion? The difference is not filling up the gaps left by what is not known with a theory that the event was caused by some sort of conspiracy. Stevie: Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera (journalist) Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:“ 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. The only reference to 'the database' I can find is that single quote by Robin Cook, which appears to be under debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 The only reference to 'the database' I can find is that single quote by Robin Cook, which appears to be under debate. Interestingly, when Isaac Asimov's novel "Foundation" was first translated into arabic, it was entitled 'Al Qaida'. For those who are not familiar with the story it centres around The Foundation, an organisation set up to protect humankind from a dark age which its leader, Hari Seldon, predicts will follow the collapse of the decadent galactic empire. Article on the parallels between "Al Qaida" and "Foundation" The Empire portrayed in Asimov's novels is in turmoil - he cited Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as an influence. Beset by overconsumption, corruption and inefficiency, "it had been falling for centuries before one man really became aware of that fall. That man was Hari Seldon, the man who represented the one spark of creative effort left among the gathering decay. He developed and brought to its highest pitch the science of psycho-history." Seldon is a scientist and prophet who predicts the Empire's fall. He sets up his Foundation in a remote corner of the galaxy, hoping to build a new civilisation from the ruins of the old. The Empire attacks the Foundation with all its military arsenal and tries to crush it. Seldon uses a religion (based on scientific illusionism) to further his aims. These are tracked by the novel and its sequels across a vast tract of time. For the most part, his predictions come true. Seldon, like Bin Laden, transmits videotaped messages for his followers, recorded in advance. There is also some similarity in geopolitical strategy. Seldon's vision seems oddly like the way Bin Laden has conceived his campaign. "Psycho-history" is the statistical treatment of the actions of large populations across epochal periods - the science of mobs as Asimov calls it. "Hari Seldon plotted the social and economic trends of the time, sighted along curves and foresaw the continuing and accelerating fall of civilisation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Chinahand - you appear to be an 'anti-conspiracy theorist'.What is the difference between that and a conspiracy-theorist? Are you truly using data in a more critical fashion? The difference is not filling up the gaps left by what is not known with a theory that the event was caused by some sort of conspiracy. Exactly, just because there are off coincidences and some unexplained events does not simply mean there has been some government plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 [The only reference to 'the database' I can find is that single quote by Robin Cook, which appears to be under debate. by who?? you??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 It does look like Cook did write it. Link I don't think its accurate, but its a nice turn of phrase which fits in with the US's murky actions in Afghanistan, but to pretend the US had a list of every single Mujahideen is laughable. The US wasn't the only actor in Afghanistan - Saudi, Pakistan, many volunteer brigades. Sure the US was involved in getting weapons to them etc, but the idea this made them all under the US control is a fantasy. As so often I'd love to know how any of this fits into "the conspiracy". Large parts of this thread have been spent attempting to say Al Qaeda didn't do it. As so often all I find is dubious, contested, often inaccurate sources picked out of context ending with a statement "there must be a conspiracy". I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 by who?? you??? No, by the fact that Cooke's account disagrees with the quote from Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 by who?? you??? No, by the fact that Cooke's account disagrees with the quote from Bin Laden. Which Bin Laden was this then? One of the umpteen fake Bin Ladens the US have shown us in the last few years maybe?? Or has Slim just misinterpreted something again????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Which Bin Laden was this then? One of the umpteen fake Bin Ladens the US have shown us in the last few years maybe??Or has Slim just misinterpreted something again????? What on earth are you on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Which Bin Laden was this then? One of the umpteen fake Bin Ladens the US have shown us in the last few years maybe??Or has Slim just misinterpreted something again????? What on earth are you on about? What don't you understand? Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake?? simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 What don't you understand?Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake?? simples. Ah, well, I don't subscribe to tin-hat fantasies, so you'll have to forgive me for not guessing which one you're currently subscribing to. Osama bin Laden described the origins of the name in an interview with Al Jazeera and translated by CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf...ript/index.html 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 [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake?? simples. "Simples" is it? Well which Bin Laden videos have been "proved to be fake"? Are we going to have more bollox about rings and such like - if you think that is proof you're niave beyond belief - oh we are in the 911 thread - says alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 What don't you understand?Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake?? simples. Ah, well, I don't subscribe to tin-hat fantasies, so you'll have to forgive me for not guessing which one you're currently subscribing to. what are you on about now Slim? more bollox?? i have never subscribed to anything called a "tin hat fantasy" either?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.