Who Is Al Qaida Really?

[Sihouette]

Mind you, I don't have anything against the CIA per se. I think their function is necessary. The oversight that lacks in that organization is a little prone for corruption. What is it, one little group in Congress, probably all peeing their pants from fear of what will happen if they don't go along with the show?

I saw an interview last night on Olbermann's show where a guy was talking about how the CIA handles each new administration with excitement of revealing crucial secrets in briefings and firm coercive language geared at "getting the new man in line".

One wonders (well I don't but other people do) who really is running this country? I think maybe it's time to get a special team together to scour through the back halls of this far-too-entrenched clandestine operation and set up a new protocol. That would be: if you want your jobs to remain, you'd better knock it the *$&# off.

Anyone found still loyal to Cheneyco should be summariliy dismissed. Give them a nice "retirement" package, so it won't hurt and send them packing. It's time the People actually do rule from the ballot box instead of just having a sham government run By the CIA, Of The CIA and For the CIA..

 

[Sihouette]

People are starting to notice and keep track of terrorist actions that seem coreographed to spur public sentiments pro-Cheneyco. Especially when they seem to fly in the face of what Al Qaida has been chanting all along.

And when Osama Bin Laden popped up to whip up pro-Israeli sentiments when they were attacking Hamas last Christmas, again, I nearly fell off my chair laughing. How perfectly convenient! I have to assume Osama isn't stupid, that he knows his backing "x" will make everyone choose "y". So is Osama in favor then of the Israeli's attacking?

I mean, c'mon. These are real people, as unseemly as they are. They have brain cells and the ability at least to reason as to their own cause. To think they would make such a crucial error to sway the tide against themselves and for their enemy...


I and the viewing public are just tired of being taken for fools. We really are. I've got an idea, why not just play fair, pay the arabs what they want for their oil, let them make their own sovereign profit of their "luck" (being born in oil rich countries) and we find luck in our own corners and trade accordingly?

How about our vast riches in agriculture? Think about this: not everyone needs to burn oil, but every single one of the near seven billion people on earth need to eat every single day! We trade food to the Middle East at equal value for oil. They profit, we profit. Simple as that.

This whole thing got out of hand when a cloister of rich cowboys from Texas thought they'd hatch a scheme with some arab cohorts to sheist Middle Eastern countries out of their sovereignty over their resource. In corporate terms it's called a "hostile takeover". In this case to keep and preserve a monopoly for profiteering.

They've been playing this game long enough. And the entire world has been brought to its knees and on the brink of a global crises all, literally, because a handful of greedy bastards..

 

[Andy]

People are starting to notice and keep track of terrorist actions that seem coreographed to spur public sentiments pro-Cheneyco.

I figured this is the most accurate response to Sihouette.

 

[Sihouette]

No, actually you figured it would be the most denigrating response to a real phenomenon...

If you can't rebut it, ridicule it. Isn't that the protocol?

 

[Andy]

No, actually you figured it would be the most denigrating response to a real phenomenon...

If you can't rebut it, ridicule it. Isn't that the protocol?

Apparently "real" in your world is whatever your imagination conjures up to fit whatever news article you find.

Until you have some real proof that Cheney, who doesn't have access to the information you claim, gives information about the where and when Obama will be in Iraq, to supposed terrorist elements that would then ignore that information and attack a different location at a different time, all so that we can stay in Iraq and not get the oil that we haven't gotten, so we can prevent them from giving oil contracts to China, which they have already done....

Then this is your theme...

 

[Sihouette]

Apparently "real" in your world is whatever your imagination conjures up to fit whatever news article you find.

The title of this thread is an open question, not a final statement. I am entitled to notice glaring incongruities in real events and not be ad hominemed for them. Methinks you're treading on thin ice.

Unless you have a lucid rebuttal as to why Al Qaida would benefit pissing off Obama with a "string of seemingly related bombings" [Rueters paraphrased] upon his arrival there...Obama is the one ace-in-the-hole they have in getting us out of there like they've been blowing themselves up in fervor to acheive for years now.. Why bring the heat back on yourself right when you're going to get what you're after?? Why give Obama impetus to rethink withdrawel?

Add that to Cheney's criticisms of Obama and his pleas to american public to pressure him to keep troops there...what, just days before those "seemingly related string of bombings"? What do you get, some crazy pretzel scheme that somehow exonerates Cheney?

These are all real truthful and actual factors in the ultimate equation that a simpleton could cipher. Occam's Razor suggests the simplest explanation. And that simplest explanation for the glaring incongruity in those bombings and their timing is *drum roll*

Something is rotten in Bahgdad..and it stinks like Dick...

 

[Andy]

The title of this thread is an open question, not a final statement. I am entitled to notice glaring incongruities in real events and not be ad hominemed for them. Methinks you're treading on thin ice.

Unless you have a lucid rebuttal as to why Al Qaida would benefit pissing off Obama with a "string of seemingly related bombings" [Rueters paraphrased] upon his arrival there...Obama is the one ace-in-the-hole they have in getting us out of there like they've been blowing themselves up in fervor to acheive for years now.. Why bring the heat back on yourself right when you're going to get what you're after?? Why give Obama impetus to rethink withdrawel?

Add that to Cheney's criticisms of Obama and his pleas to american public to pressure him to keep troops there...what, just days before those "seemingly related string of bombings"? What do you get, some crazy pretzel scheme that somehow exonerates Cheney?

These are all real truthful and actual factors in the ultimate equation that a simpleton could cipher. Occam's Razor suggests the simplest explanation. And that simplest explanation for the glaring incongruity in those bombings and their timing is *drum roll*

Something is rotten in Bahgdad..and it stinks like Dick...

Once again, you ignore the fact the bombings were going on even before Obama got in office.

You still haven't shown any evidence it was Al Qaeda yet. Even if you did show, you still can't make a connection between Obama's visit and the bombings.

Your entire theory is like a patchwork puzzle of random thoughts. I have honestly wondered if you are like John Forbes Nash. Because it seems clear you are intelligent, but like Nash, you seem to have a paranoid schizophrenia going on. Specifically you remind me of Nash as portrayed in the movie, A beautiful mind. In the flick, he picks out of the newspaper, words, letters, numbers and dates, and patch them together into a completely imagined code, and forms the whole thing into a screwy reality that he really just made up. This is exactly what you do here.

I could use the same logic to claim that Democrats in 2005 or 2006, helped the Chinese to supply weapons to terrorist groups in Iraq, in order to cause the violence of 2007 to support their claims Bush was screwing up in Iraq. Clearly China wanted the oil contracts, and Democrats wanted a political football to beat Bush over. Of course terrorist groups are happy just killing the infidels. It all makes perfect sense. China was whining about the no bid contracts. Democrats were pissed that Bush had huge favor with the public over the success in Iraq at the time. Of course we all read about how the democrats pressured Iraq to not sign the no-bid contracts. Which obviously made China happy. So what did they do to return the favor to the Democrats? Maybe support the terrorist factions which flared up in 2007?

Yes yes, of course! It all makes sense now!

 

[Sihouette]

I'm going to bring your ad hominems up to the moderators here if it doesn't stop.

You are allowed to address my points, not me as a person.

Clear?

Once again, you ignore the fact the bombings were going on even before Obama got in office

No, no I'm not. I'm paying attention to this line from Reuter's:

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 ~ Link page 1

Apparently the day before he touched down in Baghdad, a string of "seemingly coordinated bombings" happened.

Not my words, the words of Reuters... And as I said, I tend to believe them given the command-performance of Osama Bin Laden when Cheneyco wanted sympathy for Israel's assault on Hamas last Christmas.

Bin Laden isn't a drooling *****. He had to know coming out for Hamas would spur public sentiments pro-Israel and therefore make life worse for Palestinian arabs especially in that just before he came out, american public sentiments were becoming critical of Israel..! (a funny coincidence with many "terrorist" strikes) So I conclude that his coming out at that juncture was either:

1. Because he actually supports Israel and/or hates Hamas or

2. Because he is an actor in a play written by others in support of Israel (or rather, what Israel represents strategically..).
(or both 1 and 2)

Do the math. Others have..

Oh, and while you've got the calculator out, don't forget to multiply the sum by the "Bush has financial ties to the Bin Laden's" factor..

 

[Sihouette]

I've been thinking more about the poor CIA employees who have been caught up in this travesty, this breech of human decency, this ugly black scar on the soul of this nation..not to mention their own souls..

The winds are beginning to blow against them and the witch hunt is coming in spite of everything they're trying now to do to fend it off.. someone's going to be held responsible. If Reuters is dropping cliffhangers like this, it won't be long before the right and brave mass-media outlet really pulls the wool off. Unless they shut down the entire internet, things are going south at exponential speed.

If I was one of them I would be trying to figure out a way to exonerate myself. I'd really only have one avenue left: the truth...a thing possibly so familiar to them on the one hand but so distant on the other that it causes a mental breech so deep that all the tylenol PM in the world can keep them from tossing in their sleep. "The truth shall set you free". It's their one chance to save themselves and by extension, our nation.. The erstwhile protocol was to keep the truth from the masses "for their own good"..isn't that right? But now that the internet has turned that tide and it is found that most people can now accept the truth as it is, a new protocol may apply: telling it.

Feeling afraid of losing one's job or of even worse fates for coming clean may have been an effective deterrant for outing those truly responsible for this mess. I respect the agents and the work they do and understand that blackmailing may have kept them mute and at the service of their dank overlords. It's my hope that people will see the same thing. Now that the cat's out of the bag about these men (and women, eh Condelezza?), it's time to rethink, to restrategize. To save the ship before it sinks with all onboard. Just the captains. That is the tradition. Why sacrafice where sacrafice doesn't have to be anymore?

 

[Andy]

I'm going to bring your ad hominems up to the moderators here if it doesn't stop.

You are allowed to address my points, not me as a person.

Clear?

I promise this is the very last post to you.

As far as I'm concerned, I did respond to your points. They were nuts, insane, illogical, and based on unsupportable hearsay and presuppositions. Really, you didn't actually make a point. A point is something logical based on facts. Not a farcical imaginative theory, that anyone with a drug addictions could come up with.

When you boil down the theory to it's roots, you end up with "Why did the terrorists bomb places, when we are pulling out?". BigRob already answered this, yet you ignore it, and continue with the illogical theory. The answer is because terrorist groups always step up attacks when a foreign power is pulling out, in order to make it look as though they are causing it to happen. Now given this is widely known and very obvious, to ignore it and continue on the conspiracy insanity path, makes me question the person making the 'points', as it were.

It seems as though we are expected to give insanity due respect. But insanity is never to be respected. I tried to illustrate this by inventing my own fantasy theory.

Clearly China wanted the oil contracts in Iraq. Moreover, it's clear the Democrats wanted to use the war to beat up on Bush, thus it was in their best interest for the war to go badly. It's also pretty clear the terrorist elements in Iraq were getting support from somewhere, but who?

Hmmmm... I know, perhaps the Chinese supported the terrorist. This would makes sense given the Chinese wanted the oil contracts, and Democrats wanted the war. So Chinese supported the terrorists, whose actions supported the democrats, who pressured the Iraqi government to cancel US oil contracts, and ended up signing Chinese contracts instead. Of course setting this up wouldn't be hard given the connections the Clinton's had to the Chinese military from the Chinagate scandal. And we already know China has connections to terrorist groups, since we routinely find Chinese AK-47s.

Of course this is insane hearsay, but it's based on the same logic as the other theory.

No, no I'm not. I'm paying attention to this line from Reuter's:
Apparently the day before he touched down in Baghdad, a string of "seemingly coordinated bombings" happened.

Coordinated attacks, implies that the attacks were coordinated. Nothing more. It doesn't mean it was tied to Obama. Terrorist attacks are nearly always coordinated. 9/11 was a coordinated attack. That doesn't mean Al Gore was pissed at Bush for winning, and gave secret information to Al Qaeda to coordinate an attack on WTC when NORAD had most of the US air force in Canada doing a training exercise.

Not my words, the words of Reuters... And as I said, I tend to believe them given the command-performance of Osama Bin Laden when Cheneyco wanted sympathy for Israel's assault on Hamas last Christmas.

Bin Laden isn't a drooling *****. He had to know coming out for Hamas would spur public sentiments pro-Israel and therefore make life worse for Palestinian arabs especially in that just before he came out, american public sentiments were becoming critical of Israel..! (a funny coincidence with many "terrorist" strikes) So I conclude that his coming out at that juncture was either:

1. Because he actually supports Israel and/or hates Hamas or

2. Because he is an actor in a play written by others in support of Israel (or rather, what Israel represents strategically..).
(or both 1 and 2)

Do the math. Others have..

Oh, and while you've got the calculator out, don't forget to multiply the sum by the "Bush has financial ties to the Bin Laden's" factor..

So when he supported the 9/11 attacks, he really knew that coming out in favor of what happened would cause us to go to Afghanistan and flatten the Taliban, which he created. So since we know he isn't a drooling *****, then we must conclude that:

1. He actually hated the Taliban which he created, and wanted the US to wipe out the government he helped form.

2. He is actually a puppet who runs around spending his life creating things for the expressed purpose of causing others to destroy them, so he can create more things.

OOOOooooo... or maybe.... He's a terrorist who likes to kill the infidels, and supports any action to that end, and any group with that goal!

Good bye Sih. I had much amusement from this thread, but I'm finished. Who knows... maybe someday I'll take you off ignore again, and we can have another amusing discussion. You might want to consider for yourself, why your threads end up rather lonely most of the time. Is it possible there is a real reason people don't seriously debate any of your topics? Just a thought.

Be well, and best wishes!

 

[Sihouette]

Interesting Andy, so the preceding had to be your last post on the issue because you feel incapable of restraining yourself as to ad hominem insults?

Here's an Ode to Cheney to send you out the door, since you're leaving in a huff and all..

HANDLEBARS by the Flobots

I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars
I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars
Look at me, look at me
hands in the air like it's good to be
ALIVE
and I'm a famous rapper
even when the paths're all crookedy
I can show you how to do-si-do
I can show you how to scratch a record
I can take apart the remote control
And I can almost put it back together
I can tie a knot in a cherry stem
I can tell you about Leif Ericson
I know all the words to "De Colores"
And "I'm Proud to be an American"
Me and my friend saw a platypus
Me and my friend made a comic book
And guess how long it took
I can do anything that I want cuz, look:
I can keep rhythm with no metronome
No metronome
No metronome
And I can see your face on the telephone
On the telephone
On the telephone
Look at me
Look at me
Just called to say that it's good to be
Alive
In such a small world
I'm all curled up with a book to read
I can make money open up a thrift store
I can make a living off a magazine
I can design an engine sixty four
Miles to a gallon of gasoline
I can make new antibiotics
I can make computers survive aquatic conditions
I know how to run a business
I can make you wanna buy a product
Movers shakers and producers
Me and my friends understand the future
I see the strings that control the systems
I can do anything with no assistance
Cuz I can lead a nation with a microphone
With a microphone
With a microphone
And I can split the atom of a molecule
Of a molecule
Of a molecule
Look at me
Look at me
Driving and I won't stop
And it feels so good to be
Alive and on top
My reach is global
My tower secure
My cause is noble
My power is pure
I can hand out a million vaccinations
Or let'em all die in exasperation
Have'em all healed of their lacerations
Have'em all killed by assassination
I can make anybody go to prison
Just because I don't like'em and
I can do anything with no permission
I have it all under my command
Because I can guide a missile by satellite
By satellite
By satellite
And I can hit a target through a telescope
Through a telescope
Through a telescope
And I can end the planet in a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
In a holocaust
I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars
I can ride my bike with no handlebars
No handlebars
No handlebars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuK2A1ZqoWs&feature=related

I don't think I'm alone when I say that megalomania gone amok is more than a little dangerous..

 

[Sihouette]

So now I see an article on "the terrible plight of women in Afghanistan" and how there have been a bunch of new laws "suddenly" enacted there to denigrate them further..

*drum roll*

spurring american support for invasion.

One blogger responded that in spite of how tempting the bait was, he in fact didn't see any improvements in life conditions for women while their country was embroiled in war...quite the contrary.

And women's conditions in some countries in Africa and Southeast Asia are absolutely horrific. Yet for some reason we don't feel compelled to invade those countries...odd?


The new public whip has flaws. How will public sentiment be whipped up for expensive wars when so many people can think for themselves now and see into the future. We've all been forced to look ahead budget-wise...the one way people can be depended on to have 20-20 vision. It's a real bugger it is..I don't envy the spindoctors. They've go their work cut out for them.

 

[BigRob]

So now I see an article on "the terrible plight of women in Afghanistan" and how there have been a bunch of new laws "suddenly" enacted there to denigrate them further..

*drum roll*

spurring american support for invasion.

One blogger responded that in spite of how tempting the bait was, he in fact didn't see any improvements in life conditions for women while their country was embroiled in war...quite the contrary.

And women's conditions in some countries in Africa and Southeast Asia are absolutely horrific. Yet for some reason we don't feel compelled to invade those countries...odd?


The new public whip has flaws. How will public sentiment be whipped up for expensive wars when so many people can think for themselves now and see into the future. We've all been forced to look ahead budget-wise...the one way people can be depended on to have 20-20 vision. It's a real bugger it is..I don't envy the spindoctors. They've go their work cut out for them.

When did anyone with credibility argue that the main reason to go into Afghanistan was to solve the "plight of the women?"

 

[Sihouette]

Nobody argued it. It was implied. Just like it's implied that when certain people blow up the twin towers in NY, the american public would get behind the gov in any knee-jerk retaliatory actions as long as the information they were fed in their period of blind rage seemed just remotely plausible. Weapons of mass destruction...you get the idea..

The perfect recipe.

Spark blind rage in women's issues: same result. It's implied. That's the beauty of the art.. The enemy may even be playing the american public by purposefully drawing us into areas we wouldn't otherwise go by doing the exact things they know would flip us out.

One thing's for sure. We're being played. By who and for what reason may shift around a little but we are most definitely not wholly innocent. Just ask Richard "Dick" Cheney..

 

[Sihouette]

It seems I'm not the only one who is seeing the choreographed nature of terrorist strikes..and the "non-state actors" who resort to violence to sway the political tide in their favor..by any means..

India is understood... the main features of the investigation into the Mumbai strikes which it is convinced were choreographed from Pakistani territory. “The Indian police is interviewing people. We also know there have been arrests in Pakistan... they [Pakistan] have a great deal to answer for..

...The British Prime Minister acknowledged that no country should go through what India experienced during the Mumbai attacks and felt the world community must focus on choking the funding of non-state actors who have resorted to repeated acts of violence on unarmed civilians...
Source: http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/15/stories/2008121557350100.htm

The main thing when terrorism seems choreographed is to look at who stood to gain what and who stood to lose what in the doing of those attacks. In the case of the "seemingly related string of bombings" [Reuters] in Baghdad the day before Obama landed there, it makes no sense whatsoever from Al Qaida's standpoint to smack Obama in the face on the eve of finally getting what they're after [troop withdrawel] from the very man who would give that to them. It does, however, make perfect sense that Dick Cheney's recent pleas to keep troops there and to make it seem like an imminent need, to suspect him first, via his still-existing ties to the CIA, as the main culprit behind those strikes. Further supporting that second theory is the fact that there was an obvious intelligence glitch that allowed the "terrorists" precognition of Obama's unannounced visit there.

It stinks to high heaven of Dick and not at all of Al Qaida...or maybe it does of both? That's why I titled this thread "Who is Al Qaida Really?"