Who Is Al Qaida Really?

[Sihouette]

This news article grabbed my attention today and I think it's a discussion that's been pending a long while...

**

"Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport a day after a string of seemingly coordinated bombings across the Iraqi capital killed 37 people. On Tuesday, a car bomb killed nine people and wounded 20 in the Shi'ite Kadhimiya district of northwest Baghdad, police said.

The attacks underscored security challenges as the U.S. military prepares to implement Obama's order to withdraw all combat troops by August 2010
Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUKN07443426."

**

Hmmm... I'm confused. First of all the location of Obama was supposed to be kept secret until the last moment, right? Only top level CIA and Secret Service would be privy to that info... Ok, check..

And yet suddenly there was a string of bombings just before he lands..seeming to underscore need to keep troops in the area...OK,...check.

Presumably these attacks were done by "terrorists", probably Al Qaida...OK, check.

So we should assume there was an intelligence leak right? yes, that might explain those incidents...Ok, check...


hmm....wait a minute...

Isn't Al Qaida the group that wants the US out of the region? yes, Check.

So why would they do something so foolish as to spur the US to continue to occupy instead of leave?

***

Conclusion: either Al Qaida is lead by totally stupid mindless idiots or something else is going on here...

 

[Sihouette]

So I'm thinking more about this...

First one's reaction would be to suppose that yes, Al Qaida was inanely stupid and utterly blind so blatantly pissing off the one prayer they had at getting our troops out of the region they want us out of..namely rolling out the red carpet and making things look peaceful enough there for Obama to justify withdrawel...

Then the question begs, if they're so bloody stupid to rile Obama instead, ensuring the US stays instead of leaves, then how did they infiltrate our nation's top security and know, in-advance, when and where Obama was due to visit?

On the one hand they appear as dumb as dirt, on the other hand as clever as they come. Or is it that our security is dumb as dirt and even the stupidest beings on earth can infiltrate them? Or is is that our security is a bit leaky? Or is it that our security somehow is linked to Al Qaida?

I'd ask Dick Cheney about this but he's too busy campaigning public sentiment against Obama for wanting to step-down troop occupation in the oil-rich Middle East..

Hey, wait a minute...

I think I just solved the mystery?

 

[The Scotsman]

On the one hand they appear as dumb as dirt, on the other hand as clever as they come. Or is it that our security is dumb as dirt and even the stupidest beings on earth can infiltrate them? Or is is that our security is a bit leaky? Or is it that our security somehow is linked to Al Qaida?

...........or a combination of all of the above......

 

[Andy]

You have simply formulated a reality around your preconceived notions of what is true. I'm amazed that every time I dare to un-ignore you, to see what you have to say, you haven't changed one bit from your delusions.

First, you assume, without any evidence that the bombings, which have been going on for some time now, in this specific case, must be related to Obama's visit, and be a message specifically to him for some reason.

Second, you assume, without any evidence, that the perpetrators of the bombing must be related to Al Qaeda. This may or may not be the case, nevertheless you assume it is for no reason.

Third, you assume, based only on your prior assumptions, that this therefor means there is a security leak. Which again, may or may not be true, but you assume so for no reason.

Finely, you make an incorrect assumption that the bombings would induce Obama to continue in Iraq. Although the Iraqi people are in favor of this stabilizing factor, that is not what Obama wants. Obama cares nothing for the people of Iraq, but rather for his re-election.

Since most liberals are idiotic peaceniks that have no problem with other people dying, as long as it's not us, Obama will likely turn and run from the conflict in Iraq. Just like how war in Vietnam hindered and screwed over by LBJ, just like how Clinton ran from Mogadishu, undoubtedly Obama will turn tail and run if things become difficult in Iraq, even if it means the Iraqis will die needlessly.

Then to top it off, you use all your prior assumptions, and assumptions based on your assumptions, to assume that Dick Cheney is campaigning anywhere, let alone, trying to prevent us from leaving the middle east, when Obama himself is in favor of us staying in Afghanistan.

The only reason Cheney doesn't want us to cut and run, is that betraying our new allies, severely discredits the U.S., and could cost millions of lives, not to mention turn to rubbish the sacrifice we gave to free those people.

 

[Sihouette]

I quoted directly from the link Andy. I wasn't assuming anything.

Read the quote again. Follow the link, read the article..It's from Reuters so ? Here are the facts:

1. A string of bombings just before the President lands in Baghdad....seemingly timed.
2. How those bombings seem to diametrically oppose the "terrorists" professed agenda of getting the US to leave the Middle East by increasing Obama's alarm instead of lessening it at a crucial juncture.
3. Those string of bombings so closely linked beforehand to Obama's arrival reek of a security leak at best.

It smells very much the same as Osama Bin Laden's sudden appearance on "behalf" of Hamas when Israel was experiencing bad press for attacking them on the Sabbath, on the eve of Obama's inaugeration. It just stinks of a coreographed public-support whip..and not for Al Qaida either.. This is really looking like a concerted effort by Cheneyco to exert its policies from beyond the political grave...whatever it takes..

Scotsman, the combination-of-the-above defense is not going to work here. For too long playing the dumb angle either in the US-operatives or the "enemy" operatives is an angle not allowed for purposes of the discussion here in this thread.

You may have been trying to make a joke, and if the case I always appreciate levity but this thread is for dissection and finding the specific answers to these looming questions. And most importantly not obfuscating by scattering the breadcrumbs around, but instead following the trail before it is brushed away by more new releases that cause us to forget.

This news release appears benign...just another one in thousands linked to the Iraq occupation. But it is one of the most telling given recent movements by Dick Cheney.

Something stinks to high heaven on this one...

 

[Sihouette]

To put it simply, whoever did those bombings, unless their timing was some metaphysical coincidence, wanted incentive for US (the pro-withdrawel)Obama administration to order troops to stay in Iraq instead of leave. Now who does that sound like hmmm?

And, how bad does this look in light of what Cheney has been going around in the press doing lately. I'm thinking 2 + 2 = 4 on this one. Pardon me for having a brain.

I'll ask again: "Who is Al Qaida, really?"

 

[BigRob]

I quoted directly from the link Andy. I wasn't assuming anything.

No, you did not.

Read the quote again. Follow the link, read the article..It's from Reuters so ? Here are the facts:

1. A string of bombings just before the President lands in Baghdad....seemingly timed.

"Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport a day after a string of seemingly coordinated bombings across the Iraqi capital killed 37 people." That is what your link states. "Just before" is somewhat a stretch here.

2. How those bombings seem to diametrically oppose the "terrorists" professed agenda of getting the US to leave the Middle East by increasing Obama's alarm instead of lessening it at a crucial juncture.

You do not know much about terrorist tactics. Throughout history, in almost every case, when an occupying power is leaving, attacks will increase, to give the terror groups a PR campaign and images that they are "driving the infidel out", thus giving them more legitimacy. This notion is not in your link either.

3. Those string of bombings so closely linked beforehand to Obama's arrival reek of a security leak at best.

How is it a security leak when bombs go off the day before he arrives and do not go off anywhere near where the President is? Further, this is nowhere in your article as you claim.

It smells very much the same as Osama Bin Laden's sudden appearance on "behalf" of Hamas when Israel was experiencing bad press for attacking them on the Sabbath, on the eve of Obama's inaugeration. It just stinks of a coreographed public-support whip..and not for Al Qaida either.. This is really looking like a concerted effort by Cheneyco to exert its policies from beyond the political grave...whatever it takes..

Wait, you are blaming this on Dick Cheney?

This news release appears benign...just another one in thousands linked to the Iraq occupation. But it is one of the most telling given recent movements by Dick Cheney.

Something stinks to high heaven on this one...

Are you suggesting that Dick Cheney leaked security information (that he would not be privy to anymore, problem number 1) in order to have a few bombs go off before the President arrived? To what end?

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you suggesting that Dick Cheney leaked security information (that he would not be privy to anymore, problem number 1) in order to have a few bombs go off before the President arrived? To what end?

Rob,

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop,

 

[Sihouette]

You know BigRob, the point you made about the day before being not "just before" is about as weak as I've seen a point made here yet. That is what is called "reaching" in rebuttal.

Be that as it may, you may have points, and then again I may be right. What I am noticing is a disturbing trend when Dick Cheney wants a certain course of action and doesn't get what he's after, suddenly terrorist activity or appearances (as in the case with Osama and Hamas) suddenly manifest as if on cue to spur public sentiments in favor of what Cheney wants.

It's reminiscent of how Bush sent memos to his Sr. staff (Cheney) asking for permission to invade Iraq well in advance of 9-11. We all know what happened after 9-11, how facts were bent or simply cooked to pursuade Congress to approve the invasion both Bush and Cheney wanted. Their ties to BigOil and Iraq being unstable just enough to sieze for those resources... I mean if you were watching this unfold on a TV drama-series the only one who wouldn't come to at least the conclusion that something was fishy would be the half-wit in the corner.


True, this isn't TV but my point illustrates that the appearance of terrorists as if on cue has become such a convenient phenomenon that it takes work now to ignore it and write it off as unrelated. I've heard it said that if you're going to screw someone over, make the crime so huge, so big, so unbelievable that no one will believe it. Get it?

Under that guildline you wouldn't want to even know what has been pulled off right under the nose of the public. People will bend over backwards to not witness the horrible, the unspeakable. To imagine that young men and women not only of our military but of villages and towns in Iraq and elsewhere are being bloodily slaughtered day after day all for profit is positively so friggin' nightmarishly sadistic and amoral that good people will do anything to avoid facing it as a possibility, including embracing total lies that they instinctively know are being told to them..

 

[Andy]

You know BigRob, the point you made about the day before being not "just before" is about as weak as I've seen a point made here yet. That is what is called "reaching" in rebuttal.

So in your twilight zone world, terror groups leaked specific information about when and where the president of supposed occupying forces would be, would attack at different time and different place, than where and when the leaked information would say? Then why bother getting the information?

Be that as it may, you may have points, and then again I may be right. What I am noticing is a disturbing trend when Dick Cheney wants a certain course of action and doesn't get what he's after, suddenly terrorist activity or appearances (as in the case with Osama and Hamas) suddenly manifest as if on cue to spur public sentiments in favor of what Cheney wants.

Once again, terror attacks in Iraq have been going on for some time.

It's reminiscent of how Bush sent memos to his Sr. staff (Cheney) asking for permission to invade Iraq well in advance of 9-11. We all know what happened after 9-11, how facts were bent or simply cooked to pursuade Congress to approve the invasion both Bush and Cheney wanted. Their ties to BigOil and Iraq being unstable just enough to sieze for those resources... I mean if you were watching this unfold on a TV drama-series the only one who wouldn't come to at least the conclusion that something was fishy would be the half-wit in the corner.

The facts that were, according to the Rockefeller report, generally supported by intelligence data? Facts that were stated by a number of other government, including the prior administration? Perhaps you are claiming Cheney went all over the entire planet to plant false evidence, and those governments, both for and against the Iraq invasion, both agreed to pass along said false information? Once again, the Twilight Zone is a perfect theme for you.

True, this isn't TV but my point illustrates that the appearance of terrorists as if on cue has become such a convenient phenomenon that it takes work now to ignore it and write it off as unrelated. I've heard it said that if you're going to screw someone over, make the crime so huge, so big, so unbelievable that no one will believe it. Get it?

So in your world, "on cue" means happening consistently since even before the election. I suppose they all were "on cue" for Obama, even before he started running for office. Makes sense... if you are nutz.

Under that guildline you wouldn't want to even know what has been pulled off right under the nose of the public. People will bend over backwards to not witness the horrible, the unspeakable. To imagine that young men and women not only of our military but of villages and towns in Iraq and elsewhere are being bloodily slaughtered day after day all for profit is positively so friggin' nightmarishly sadistic and amoral that good people will do anything to avoid facing it as a possibility, including embracing total lies that they instinctively know are being told to them..

Ah there it is right there. You have now projected your assumed reality onto the situation. Without knowing anything specific about the people there, or what is happening, you have planted your assumed version onto what others are doing.

Thank you for making my whole point.

Sad part is, if evidence does ever come out showing this, no one will believe or care about it because you have cried wolf so many times without any support, no one will believe you. Meanwhile you'll just complain that "good people will do anything to avoid facing it as a possibility, including embracing total lies" and blaw blaw blaw.

The fact is, nothing supports your nutty ideas. Plus you routinely invent evidence, and insert it into reports where it is not. No one will ever believe anything you say, unless they already are delusional and in your twilight zone to begin with.

 

[Andy]

You know BigRob, the point you made about the day before being not "just before" is about as weak as I've seen a point made here yet. That is what is called "reaching" in rebuttal.

So in your twilight zone world, terror groups leaked specific information about when and where the president of supposed occupying forces would be, would attack at different time and different place, than where and when the leaked information would say? Then why bother getting the information?

Be that as it may, you may have points, and then again I may be right. What I am noticing is a disturbing trend when Dick Cheney wants a certain course of action and doesn't get what he's after, suddenly terrorist activity or appearances (as in the case with Osama and Hamas) suddenly manifest as if on cue to spur public sentiments in favor of what Cheney wants.

Once again, terror attacks in Iraq have been going on for some time.

It's reminiscent of how Bush sent memos to his Sr. staff (Cheney) asking for permission to invade Iraq well in advance of 9-11. We all know what happened after 9-11, how facts were bent or simply cooked to pursuade Congress to approve the invasion both Bush and Cheney wanted. Their ties to BigOil and Iraq being unstable just enough to sieze for those resources... I mean if you were watching this unfold on a TV drama-series the only one who wouldn't come to at least the conclusion that something was fishy would be the half-wit in the corner.

The facts that were, according to the Rockefeller report, generally supported by intelligence data? Facts that were stated by a number of other government, including the prior administration? Perhaps you are claiming Cheney went all over the entire planet to plant false evidence, and those governments, both for and against the Iraq invasion, both agreed to pass along said false information? Once again, the Twilight Zone is a perfect theme for you.

True, this isn't TV but my point illustrates that the appearance of terrorists as if on cue has become such a convenient phenomenon that it takes work now to ignore it and write it off as unrelated. I've heard it said that if you're going to screw someone over, make the crime so huge, so big, so unbelievable that no one will believe it. Get it?

So in your world, "on cue" means happening consistently since even before the election. I suppose they all were "on cue" for Obama, even before he started running for office. Makes sense... if you are nutz.

Under that guildline you wouldn't want to even know what has been pulled off right under the nose of the public. People will bend over backwards to not witness the horrible, the unspeakable. To imagine that young men and women not only of our military but of villages and towns in Iraq and elsewhere are being bloodily slaughtered day after day all for profit is positively so friggin' nightmarishly sadistic and amoral that good people will do anything to avoid facing it as a possibility, including embracing total lies that they instinctively know are being told to them..

Ah there it is right there. You have now projected your assumed reality onto the situation. Without knowing anything specific about the people there, or what is happening, you have planted your assumed version onto what others are doing.

Thank you for making my whole point.

Sad part is, if evidence does ever come out showing this, no one will believe or care about it because you have cried wolf so many times without any support, no one will believe you. Meanwhile you'll just complain that "good people will do anything to avoid facing it as a possibility, including embracing total lies" and blaw blaw blaw.

The fact is, nothing supports your nutty ideas. Plus you routinely invent evidence, and insert it into reports where it is not. No one will ever believe anything you say, unless they already are delusional and in your twilight zone to begin with.

Here's another problem. If Cheney is working for BigOil, as you imply, and that this whole thing is about getting oil contracts....

Explain why we haven't put pressure on the supposed puppet government, to stop giving the contracts to China, and instead give them to our companies? Why would Cheney want our forces in Iraq to get oil, when we are not getting oil? That makes no sense.

BigOil Nut: "I want to stay in Iraq to keep...er... not getting the oil there!"
Notice how this sounds insane? It's remarkably similar to your theory, yes? <twilight zone music now>

 

[Sihouette]

To believe all of what you just said woud be to believe that we invaded Iraq for purposes soley of democracy and nothing whatever to do with the oil reserves there or the Haifa Pipeline. Which is of course by now common knowledge...


The deception for invading Iraq will continue to be unveiled in coming months.

So now that I've blown a hole in your argument the size of the Persian Gulf, let me reiterate> It is the timing of the "terrorist" strikes and the diametrically opposed result they elicit to their professed agenda that is noteworthy. Al Qaida professes to want the US out of Iraq and the Middle East in general and stands to regress in its mission by pissing off the current administration's standing wishes to withdraw troops! That is what we refer to down on the farm as one big-ass red flag. And what can I say, I notice big-ass red flags. So sue me.

I don't care if people accuse me of crying wolf, or if anyone takes me seriously. This is a website for posting things that we postulate or notice. You have a right to call me whatever you like but you cannot erase what I say by your own prejudice against what I'm saying or me as a person. Other people can weigh the situation for what they want. More importantly they can follow the links I provide, read the material for themselves and ponder, for themselves what the truth of the matter really is. That is the beauty of the internet. Would you seek to gag what I'm saying?

Maybe..

 

[Sihouette]

I forgot to answer the point about Cheney supposedly not having access to intelligence...

I don't buy it. Not for a minute. As many laws as Dick Cheney breached or broke in office and as much power as he had and blatantly siezed for himself, you'd have to be a stuffed dummy to believe that the minute he walked out of the vault he turned over the one and only key to his successors who he openly hates....lol....

I'd bet the bank that he didn't in fact. To strrrrrrrretch the mind (and I mean stretch the mind) to believe that the power-monger Dick Cheney somehow severed all ties with his insiders in the CIA and Secret Service and no longer has influence, connections or information from there is patently absurd given his demonstrated ability to wield power from stealthy cloisters.

If you really want to talk Twilight Zone, it would be more absurd to believe that Dick Cheney doesn't have current ties and information from the CIA than to believe the opposite, given the man's track record and demonstrated behavior to date.

I've said this before about the phenomenon of men named "Richard". When they choose the nickname "Dick" out of several other more benign choices, they are telling you something about themselves. Maybe it's time we pay attention to Mr. Cheney's subliminal message..

 

[Sihouette]

Remember this little blip when support for Israel's destruction of Gaza was waning...suddenly the man the CIA "just can't seem to find" [when they could find a mosquito on a anteater's butt in the amazon if they wanted to] comes up with a convenient video tape seemingly guaged to spur pro-Israeli sentiments..

Though he may have taken his time, arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden has made it clear where his allegiances lie. The New York Times website today features a report on a new audio tape by the al Qaeda leader urging his followers to battle Israel and to support Hamas. Not surprising, but noted.
Source: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2009/01/14/bin-laden-supports-hamas-against-israel/

Yeah, he "took his time" because before this his "whip" wasn't needed in that region at that time. Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist activities seem to coincide right at moments where US public support of [fill in the blank military or political action] is waning.

They have shock value. Their intent is to shock. The little bogey with this latest caper in Bahgdad though is that Al Qaida stood everything to lose and nothing to gain by bombing just before Obama arrived.. [and how was it again they knew when and where he would be? Anyone getting fired in the CIA or Secret Service? No? Why not?]

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This news article grabbed my attention today and I think it's a discussion that's been pending a long while...

**
**

Hmmm... I'm confused. First of all the location of Obama was supposed to be kept secret until the last moment, right? Only top level CIA and Secret Service would be privy to that info... Ok, check..

And yet suddenly there was a string of bombings just before he lands..seeming to underscore need to keep troops in the area...OK,...check.

Presumably these attacks were done by "terrorists", probably Al Qaida...OK, check.

So we should assume there was an intelligence leak right? yes, that might explain those incidents...Ok, check...


hmm....wait a minute...

Isn't Al Qaida the group that wants the US out of the region? yes, Check.

So why would they do something so foolish as to spur the US to continue to occupy instead of leave?

***

Conclusion: either Al Qaida is lead by totally stupid mindless idiots or something else is going on here...

how about a more logical idea....that they could have attacked anyway , as you noticed none of the attacks where on Obama ...and the only reason they got more press is that Obama was in fact there...if not for that, you would have not even known they happened practically. News flash, there is still a lot of violence in Iraq Daily, with or Without Obama being there...