Is Al-Queda A Myth?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-01-20 05:19pm

A year or so ago I read an article that claimed Al-Queda was a creation of the USA Government as a way to galvanise the populace against what is really a loose affiliation of terrorists.

And today is I saw that Admiral Valdemar claimed the same thing in another thread.

Is their any definitive proof for this claims, or is it just crackpot beliefs. And no I don't believe Admiral Valdemar is a crackpot.

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-01-20 05:37pm

I think al-Quaeda is real, but the amount of their control and organization is exaggerated. They are supposed to be little more than a coordination and information clearing house for terrorist organizations that already existed and would have done things anyway.

From what I understand of the "9-11 Report" it is mostly made up of guys who were Afghan vets together against the Soviets and kept in touch when they went back to their respective countries/organizations. So it's a big terrorist "Old Boys Network" with a checkbook.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-20 06:14pm

Coyote wrote:I think al-Quaeda is real, but the amount of their control and organization is exaggerated. They are supposed to be little more than a coordination and information clearing house for terrorist organizations that already existed and would have done things anyway.

From what I understand of the "9-11 Report" it is mostly made up of guys who were Afghan vets together against the Soviets and kept in touch when they went back to their respective countries/organizations. So it's a big terrorist "Old Boys Network" with a checkbook.

Mostly agreed, the media and even the US goverment is too willing to be 'awed' at simple feats. I remember the Washington sniper and how the media were soooooo impressed with the ability to shoot someone with an AR 15 at the staggering range of ~150 meters.

When reports on AQ come, the media hem's and haw's over the 'sophisticated' attacks. Usually when multiple bombs go off at the same time.

I do not want to underestimate these jack offs, but I think the media and thus the people of the US overestimates these jackoffs.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-20 06:29pm

Knife wrote:I do not want to underestimate these jack offs, but I think the media and thus the people of the US overestimates these jackoffs.

Sensationalism pays big dividends, after all.

It helps that the subject at hand is a foreign culture with an alien religion that does espouse suicidal tendencies in warfare.

And of course we have the uber-terrorist threat of the week to devote sensational special reports to... anthrax, smallpox, dirty bombs, the list goes on.

Are they dangerous? Sure. But they're not a global menace on the scale of the USSR, by any stretch. They hit the jackpot on one operation in the states and have been getting hammered ever since.

I wouldn't characterize Al Quaeda as a myth... the organization exists. They just aren't the overwhelming threat they've been painted to be.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-20 06:33pm

Petrosjko wrote:
Sensationalism pays big dividends, after all.

It helps that the subject at hand is a foreign culture with an alien religion that does espouse suicidal tendencies in warfare.

And of course we have the uber-terrorist threat of the week to devote sensational special reports to... anthrax, smallpox, dirty bombs, the list goes on.

Are they dangerous? Sure. But they're not a global menace on the scale of the USSR, by any stretch. They hit the jackpot on one operation in the states and have been getting hammered ever since.

I wouldn't characterize Al Quaeda as a myth... the organization exists. They just aren't the overwhelming threat they've been painted to be.

Oh, I believe they're a threat, just not the Bond villian the media paints them to be sometimes.

I believe that Bush actually has one thing right, in which if you go after the countries funding and aiding these asshats, then you'll kick the shit out of em. With out big bucks and national assets, they're little more than wack job militias, not that much different from morons here.

The question on terrorism is did we choose the right countries to bitch slap?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-01-20 06:44pm

Knife wrote:
The question on terrorism is did we choose the right countries to bitch slap?

Afghanistan was an intelligent target, after all thats where the "masterminds" where, although they failed to deliver on their promise to get Bin Laden.

Iraq: that war had nothing to do with terrorism, but it is definetly breeding it.

I think a better choice for war#2, if there had to be one would be Syria or Iran, both state supporters of terrorists.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-20 06:49pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Knife wrote:
The question on terrorism is did we choose the right countries to bitch slap?
Afghanistan was an intelligent target, after all thats where the "masterminds" where, although they failed to deliver on their promise to get Bin Laden.

Iraq: that war had nothing to do with terrorism, but it is definetly breeding it.

I think a better choice for war#2, if there had to be one would be Syria or Iran, both state supporters of terrorists.

True, but Iraq, IMO, was done for other reasons. The administration has selling point (terrorism and WMD's) but I really think Iraq was just wrapping up a decade of bull shit with them. Like I said, I agree with Chardok, in that it was a wrong time for that war, it should have been a decade ago.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-01-20 06:56pm

Knife wrote: When reports on AQ come, the media hem's and haw's over the 'sophisticated' attacks. Usually when multiple bombs go off at the same time.

Agreed. If we wanted, my friends and I could do the same thing. We just make some crude explosives, and agree to set them off at a certain time in certain places. No real effort or cohesion involved.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-20 07:25pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Knife wrote: When reports on AQ come, the media hem's and haw's over the 'sophisticated' attacks. Usually when multiple bombs go off at the same time.
Agreed. If we wanted, my friends and I could do the same thing. We just make some crude explosives, and agree to set them off at a certain time in certain places. No real effort or cohesion involved.

The clock, incredible development allowing many people to all know what time it is. Beware of anyone posessing one of these devices, they may be a terrorist, particularly those with small portable clocks meant to be used in the field, known colloquially as "watches".

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-20 07:27pm

Yes, it is a myth in the respect that before 9/11, there was no mention of al-Qaeda by any sources, especially Osama himself who only used it post-9/11.

It was created in order to have an organisation to prosecute for the Nairobi bombings of '98, much like how the Mafia was formed to get at those that lead the crimes but where no direct evidence or link existed.

Like the communist empire, the threat of a super powerful international terrorist agency which can strike anywhere and at anytime is simply a myth perpetuated by neo-cons and a society that has little else to "believe" after the Cold War ended, and so fear became the core principle.

I highly recommend The Power Of Nightmares documentary series that has just this minute finished showing again on the BBC after a massive audience tuned into it late last year.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-01-20 07:28pm

My opinion on this has changed within the past two days, which is odd for me as usually I never change my mind once I form an opinion.

I have been watching a programme called "The Power of Nightmares' by the BBC, and it was a good series which highlighted just how weak the 'Islamists' really are, particually after the Afghan war. There is no great terror network, no structure to it, no masses of sleeper cells waiting to strike us. Many of the weapons of terrorists such as dirty bombs were revealed to be nowhere near as powerful a direct weapon as I used to think.

It's quite eye-opening. I believe the series has a website, try typing in 'nightmares' over at bbc.co.uk and have a look.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2005-01-20 07:28pm

Damm you, getting in there a minute before me, AV.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-20 07:44pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Afghanistan was an intelligent target, after all thats where the "masterminds" where, although they failed to deliver on their promise to get Bin Laden.

Capturing or killing Bin Laden is more of a political and than operational necessity. Assuming he's still alive, he's quite likely still contained in the hills, bossing those in his immediate vicinity. The whole 'Target Bin Laden' schtick was part of the standard need to put a face out for a target, but the real key was as Knife mentioned, neutralizing their ability to organize and move money.

Propaganda requires villains, but that's a separate business from the actual winning of the conflict.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-01-20 08:14pm

Al Qaeda is pretty much mythological, I just finished watching the power of nightmares too, and it appears that it was a name coined by the US, not the extremists themselves. AQ just seem like any other fundie muslim group that's terrorised people in the past, only since the failure of attacking muslims in "corrupted" arabian and african lands they've started aiming at america.

The CNN video of Bin Laden walking with a big armed escort is apparently Bin Laden and a few people he hired to make it look like hee had more support, and hey, if you were bin laden, you wouldn't go correcting people that you're just another pissant fundie outfit working on a small scale, would you?

AQ, as it exists in reality, is not much more threatening than the IRA, certainly no more organised than them. Invasion of afghanistan severely fucked them over, and they're really not the global threat that the sensationalists (of all kinds) would have us believe. Of course they'll still try and blow shit up, but the same is probably true of basque seperatists and the IRA. Similar level of threat, if that. All those "sleeper cell" arrests we heard about were bullshit, the evidence was so tenuous it's clear the investigators were seeing what they wanted to see, rather than staying rational and evaluating the evidence. Seriously, they interpreted an email that said "I'm getting married soon so I won't see you as much" sent by one suspect "sleeper cell" guy to his supposed comrades as "I'm going on a suicide mission soon."

I don't remember hearing about those sleeper cells being debunked though, annoyingly, till this series.

Of course, this casts further ominous lengthening shadows of doubt about what's going on in guantanomo bay, iraq and the justification of it all.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2005-01-20 08:49pm

was the 9/11 attacks a culmination of Al-Qaeda pulling its eggs together and coming up with a spectacular attack and with frightening results.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-20 08:55pm

Dennis Toy wrote:was the 9/11 attacks a culmination of Al-Qaeda pulling its eggs together and coming up with a spectacular attack and with frightening results.

It was a cell, but only a small one that had nothing really to do with Osama in the ways purported by the media and gov't. Given "al-Qaeda" didn't exist until after 9/11, it's hard to say they did it. Osama merely took that name up given it was assuming the role of a large terrorist network that would allow certain objectives to be met, namely the fear factor.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-01-20 09:09pm

Petrosjko wrote:
Capturing or killing Bin Laden is more of a political and than operational necessity. Assuming he's still alive, he's quite likely still contained in the hills, bossing those in his immediate vicinity. The whole 'Target Bin Laden' schtick was part of the standard need to put a face out for a target, but the real key was as Knife mentioned, neutralizing their ability to organize and move money.

Propaganda requires villains, but that's a separate business from the actual winning of the conflict.

I understand that he is merely the face of the enemy and killing/capturing him really doesn't accomplishe anything of note. I only brought that up because Bush said they would "get him".

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-20 09:19pm

I'm still skeptical. Richard Clarke never indicated anything like this and he was definitely in the know.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-01-20 11:46pm

Osama has had a network for a good long time. He offered its services to the Saudi government against the communist state in Yemen. After getting expelled from the kingdom a helluvalot of former Mujahadeen followed him to Sudan as well as following him to Afghanistan.

I don't think he has a globe spanning army of psycophants waiting to do the James Bond villian shot at destroying the world. I do think he has turned massive amounts of cash loose into flexible cellular network that overlaps with numerous groups around the world. As well as having trained a small cadre of experts who disseminate mundane tactical knowledge throughout the that loose web.

If he ran a tightly controlled network that was sophisticated and coordinated, he'd be dead.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-21 02:36am

Al Qaeda translate into "The Base," Or has I am told the database. It's a list of names of people who can be trusted, war buddies from the old days you could let's say.

Now Al Qaeda has also become the Nike of Terrorist, the trusted "brand name." It has no over arching Command and Control, unless you could internet speeches. Most of it's recruits are homesiok college boys who fall under the control of radical clerics.

Calling it a myth goes way over the top for me. Oversold? Overblown? Given to much credit? Yeah. Yeah you could say that.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-01-21 03:30am

Al Queda had always been overblown, especially in the bioterror portion. Geesh. It still strikes me as bizarre that the largest number of terrorist strikes on US home soil, as well as the first and most devastating biochemical terror strike on US soil was conducted by US right wing groups.

But then, there is a threat. Al Queda as a group "evolved" from the network headed by Osama during the Afghan war to finance and recruit soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. With the loss of Pakistan and Afghanistan as training camps, the arrest of their top leaders, the breaking of their links of command, Al Queda by all rights SHOULD had been eliminated.
Unfortunately, for some strange reason, they haven't. The IISS reports that the former linked groups of Al Queda had simply reformed seperate from Al Queda, somehow, they're still getting the coordination and finanicial support that Al Queda provided. On one hand, this shouldn't be surprising as they existed before Osama contacted them and enlisted them as allies, but on the other, its kinda depressing.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-01-21 03:49am

The IISS reports that the former linked groups of Al Queda had simply reformed seperate from Al Queda, somehow, they're still getting the coordination and finanicial support that Al Queda provided. On one hand, this shouldn't be surprising as they existed before Osama contacted them and enlisted them as allies, but on the other, its kinda depressing.

That's because they're idealougically moivated. "True believers" never give up the cause, espeically when they know that even in death they will find reward. The best tactic I think is to isolate them from their support and then smash them wholesell.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-22 01:16am

frigidmagi wrote:Al Qaeda translate into "The Base," Or has I am told the database. It's a list of names of people who can be trusted, war buddies from the old days you could let's say.

No, "al Queda" translates to "the base" as in the foundation of a building.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-01-23 12:25am

Dennis Toy wrote:was the 9/11 attacks a culmination of Al-Qaeda pulling its eggs together and coming up with a spectacular attack and with frightening results.

It was also out of desperation for a fading ideology that seemed to be losing ground all the time. Osama's & others in the hierarchy of al qaeda's strength isn't in the enormous supposed terrorist base, much more in their money. Sure there's a few that would go for suicide missions, but I'd imagine the mass of his force comes from mercenaries. Jihadis tend to get killed by one another for not being a pure enough muslim as time goes on, anyway.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-23 07:38am

Rye wrote:
It was also out of desperation for a fading ideology that seemed to be losing ground all the time. Osama's & others in the hierarchy of al qaeda's strength isn't in the enormous supposed terrorist base, much more in their money. Sure there's a few that would go for suicide missions, but I'd imagine the mass of his force comes from mercenaries. Jihadis tend to get killed by one another for not being a pure enough muslim as time goes on, anyway.

It is funny that the infighting is even worse than any other fundamentalist religion. After they thought they brought down the USSR (along with the Americans), they then set their sights on taking the US down, but failed miserably in that and got smited like the bugs they are.