Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Okay, when did Al-Qauda start franchising....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 02:59 AM
Original message
Okay, when did Al-Qauda start franchising....
I mean we have AQ of IRaq, the Original AQ, AQ of Pakistan, AQ of Europe and coming soon, or so the marketing department would have us believe, AQ of New York City...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Uhh... you're seriously asking?
This started a long time ago. It was intended to become that way, if militants themselves are to be believed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. The CIA created Al-Qaeda...
Edited on Mon Feb-26-07 03:11 AM by PhilipShore
9/11 was the result of an intelligence operation failure (blowback).

_______________________________________________



http://www.answers.com/topic/blowback-intelligence

Blowback (intelligence)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blowback is a term now broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears as a surprise, apparently random and without cause, because the public generally is unaware of secret operations that caused it.

In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informational only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations. The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the shrapnel that often flies back when shooting an automatic firearm.

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while overt support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenZoneLT Donating Member (805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's bullcrap
It's Western-supremacist BS to think that Arabs can't create their own societal dysfunction. The CIA funded the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviets, not the Arab foreign fighters, who mutually disliked and distrusted many of the Afghans we were backing (and definitely weren't playing ball with the CIA). That continued in the split between the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance and the Taliban, who were funded by Wahabbist fanatics like Bin Laden, not us.

Al Qaeda is often inadvertently aided by stupid U.S. policies like invading Iraq, but there are no direct ties now nor were there in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Cook: Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies
Edited on Mon Feb-26-07 03:51 AM by PhilipShore
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html

The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

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. 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.

___________________________________________

Robin Cook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Finlayson Cook, known as Robin Cook, (February 28, 1946 – August 6, 2005), was a politician in the British Labour Party. He was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2001. He resigned from his post as Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council on March 17, 2003 in protest against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time of his death he was president of the Foreign Policy Centre and a vice-president of the America All Party Parliamentary Group and the Global Security and Non-Proliferation All Party Parliamentary Group.

_________________________________________

Reagan set roots for al-Qaeda
07/06/2004 12:46 - (SA)

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1538863,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Porcupine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-26-07 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. 9-11 was purely home grown.
Or do we just continue to insist it was a coincidince that the airline hijackings had their paths greased by DC interference with the FBI. Or how about those anthrax attacks timed to shut down congress just when questions should have been asked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC