The U.S. Government Created Al Queda?

Link on Brzezinski admitting that the US began funding the Mujahideen BEFORE the soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Additional Link Here - Brzezinski Interview - CIA created Mujahideen

Link - BCCI used to funnel money to the Mujahideen by the CIA

The US intelligence agencies used BCCI to funnel drug money to Afghan Mujahideen in their fight against Soviet invasion and to insurgents such as Nicaraguan Contras.

So, it's pretty clear that Operation Cyclone funded Pakistani Insurgency. US government sanctioned aid through the Reagan Doctrine.

While the CIA covertly funded the Afghan Mujahideen through the BCCI. Using drug money no less. Then again, CIA = biggest drug dealers/smugglers on the planet.

reply to post by Antonio1


globalresearch.ca...

We know these higher ups like symbolism. al queda means database. I heard that they used the term litterally. That back in 20th century when they were selling firearms across seas to forgein countries they created a weapons database to catalog all weapons sold and to whom. You cant deny the US government or CIA or whoever in america has their hands in the gun sales jar. All I know is that I know nothing, but its a conspiracy theory none the less.

Originally posted by mike dangerously

United States government created Al Qaeda and yet in some countries is still fighting them while in others is supporting them.

Old news. U.S. gov creates all its enemies, and funds them, gives them weapons etc.."Love your enemy", has many interpretations and applications. The enemy gives you a reason to take actions that you could not take otherwise.

Israel also secretly funds Hezbollah. The resistance against Israeli occupations give the Israeli gov the justification to seize more land, displace more people, and build up the state of Israel, all under the pretext of creating "buffer zones" and protecting the Jewish state. What these governments can't fight is "peace". If the opposition stops fighting, then the Israeli's hands would be "tied" behind their backs. They couldn't keep on extending borders, seizing land, and taking away the property of the Palestinians. They would have no excuse to use. And world opinion would come down hard on them. So, there is a benefit in having an enemy. Especially, one that you control, with funding and weapons. Because you know what their capabilities are, since you provided them with it. The U.S., for example, knew Saddam had chemical weapons, because the U.S. sold those weapons to Iraq in the days when they were pals, and Saddam used them on his own people and against Iran etc..The only smart guy out there was Mahatma Gandhi, remember this guy,



He alone, understood how to combat the forces, by "non-violence".

By practicing non-violence Gandhi forced the British to see themselves as evil monsters, an image that they could not accept of themselves, so they had to quit India. What do you know, Indians got back all their land, by not lifting a finger against the oppressor.

That's the way to do it. But, the Muslims and the Palestinians are not that smart. India is an old civilization, they have seen everything come and go, so within that nation there is the solution to every problem somewhere in some previously discovered system. Gandhi was able to draw on the antient toolbox of the vast Indian experience. He picked the right tool, non-violence, and accomplished what every oppressed peoples only dream about: liberation.

I thought they taught you in school that Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA. I mean they taught that to me in my 9th grade history class . If my memory serves me right, they were a band of Islamist students who were recruited, trained, and given weapons in order to fight the Soviets on the Northern border of Afghanistan. The Soviets were fought off and Al-Qaeda was forgotten by the US. Eventually Osama bin Laden had plans of his own, and using his wealth in the area he lived, used the leftover Al-Qaeda fighters to attack the West. I think that's how the story goes, I can't remember for sure, but it's something like that.

Originally posted by Antonio1
reply to post by mike dangerously

 

The U.S. government did not create Al-Qaeda. It was an organization that was created from the start with an anti-western agenda as well as an anti-Soviet one. This totally bogus rumor comes from the fact that several U.S. supported Afghan commanders during the Soviet occupation joined the Taliban. Although it was in hindsight a mistake to support those leaders (such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar), its also worth noting that most of the Afghan leaders we supported remained pro-U.S. to this day, a good example being Ahmed Shah Massoud. During the Soviet occupation of Ahganistan, the organization that would become Al-Qeada refused U.S. funding multiple times, and according to some of OBL's closest associates, had an anti-U.S. agenda as early as 1985. As for the U.S. also allegedly supporting branches of Al-Qaeda, that is also false. Just because the U.S. supports some Sunni rebel groups, does not mean that we are supporting Al-Qaeda. Not every sunni muslim rebel group is Al-Qaeda related.

Here is what irks me...No one on this site, for the most part, really knows. The only way that one could know for certain is if they were a member of either AQ or an agency that may have supported them, which is usually the CIA's SAD/SOG, who are the paramilitary branch who sometimes train foreign fighters, among other activities. I mean the CIA drives around these areas in vehicles full of US currency, holding millions of dollars at a time. They could establish a terrorist group quite easily, even an anti-American or pro-American one, given their need.

I'm getting off track though. My point is that everyone needs to remember that they could in fact be incorrect in their assessment, because usually the only ones who know what really happened are in positions that the average ATS user, or citizen, doesn't have access to, and probably never will until decades after it occurs via the FOIA. IF the US created AQ, and they didn't want anyone to find out, they probably would succeed. I am not sure either way, but I understand that both are possibilities.

reply to post by mr10k


Haven't we learned that the history books are far from perfected. For instance, almost every holiday is based off of some sort of death or genocide. Thanksgiving = genocide. Valetines day = Romans making marriage illegal. So its very plausible that thats generated lies for programming so you don't question.

The damnedest thing on this topic is that I believe both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The CIA DID do things that helped support, train and prepare men who later went on to form 'The Base' with Bin Laden.

What isn't a major point in my mind is one side of the debate simply not thinking of how the above is literally true and the other side...well, I don't know where they are coming from and never really have. I've largely avoided this whole debate for that reason.

It's true enough the CIA supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan as a counter to the Soviets and a rather no-so-subtle message it's impossible to convey without profanities back at Moscow for Vietnam. Still VERY fresh in the minds of people who started their careers there, I'd imagine.

True...Mujahideen, some of them, went on to form The Base (Al Qaeda) with Bin Laden and his merry band of murdering Arabs. It's always been my understanding by reading accounts of that period, that the Arabs Bin Laden brought in were greeted with very mixed feelings by the Afghani Mujahideen and never were fully accepted by the people the CIA was actually there training. I've never heard any suggestion that the riders the CIA was trading empty stinger tubes for loaded ones with at the Pakistani border were from BIn Laden's crew.

I've also read more than one account of Bin Laden having said he'd merrily torture a Russian to death..but might just do the same to a CIA Agent if the opportunity presented itself. Not a nice guy....

The Mujahideen America trained were the foundation of the Northern Alliance, as I understand the politics of the whole thing to have gone.Then Bin Laden's ideology being the Taliban way and a home for those who didn't leave with Bin Laden for other pastures throughout the 90's.

I'd note though.... There were CIA Stations in the Embassy's that Al Qaeda blew to pieces in Africa. There were other attacks where CIA people were hurt or killed...and that doesn't count the 1993 WTC Bombing, Somalia (it came out later Bin Laden was gleefully helping the other side out where he could) and the Cole. More than one Star on that wall in Langley has Bin Laden's name on it, and I don't mean as the one being honored. ...before 9/11. AFTER 9/11, c'mon..... CIA Officers were were extra points and extra credit to get to paradise, I'm sure. They sure deliberately killed enough of them.

Kinda odd.....for a group the CIA is supposed to have actually been running all those years, isn't it? A new retirement plan or something?

Its a CIA creation and known for a long time, I don't understand how people continue to talk about it And the Brotherhood is a cia tool and connected to the Nazi's.

"If you fund a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you protect a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist. And if you do it, then we will treat you like a terrorist." - President George W. Bush

Can of worms?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Al-Qaeda does not mean the database, the correct name and English spelling for the group you call “Al-Qaeda” is actually Al-Qa’ida al-Jihad which translates as “the base of Holly War”

Wrong. This is not what their original name was. They didn't start calling themselves Al-Qa’ida al-Jihad until they merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or al-Jihad) in June 2001. So that name you refer to is a merger and not the origin of the name, which may or may not be "the database".

source

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

The question that comes to mind for me is why is the MSM exposing these truths now?

Given they are controlled, we have truths about the Federal Reserve, Libor, truth behind Al Qaeda, why would they be doing this now?

"That, Detective, is the right question."

reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek



And your point is……

I did say that the name of al-Qa’ida was Al-Qa’ida al-Jihad.

Al-Qa’ida does not mean the “database” the only time anyone with any credibility has ever said that was Robin Cook, who with all due respect to the man knew bugger all about Al-Qa’ida. Every Al-Qa’ida historian whose work I have read (and believe I have read most of them) is quite clear that “Al-Qa’ida” means the base, the foundation or some kind of variation of that word but never database.

even though it's probably true, isn't it dangerous to even suggest it?

reply to post by seeker1963

You speak like your very intelligent, however it appears all you are giving us are opinions without squat to back it up! Some folks here have actually attempted to put info to back up what they are saying, however, you sir are either just stating your knowledge, ie opinion, or you are in fact a disinfo agent! Please, which is it?

I think I should probably thank you for your complementary post.

Most of what I am giving you is historical facts, if you want me to provide you with some kind of source for specific points then I can. I usually just write up most of my posts about this topic without going to reference everything because most of the information I have comes from books and a few journals and newspapers. Very little of it actually comes from the internet unless it is something that is prominent in the news. Although if I am writing a thread on ATS for example that requires some links I will provide them but only if they back up what I already know as I know many people can’t be bothered going out and picking up a book just to get more information on a point some random has made in a thread. I do admit that at times this attitude to posting can cause some minor errors and miss understandings but ATS is so full of errors why does that matter these days.

So you could say that I am simply “stating my knowledge” as you put it because I can assure you I am not a disinfo agent. Another reason for me just “Stating my knowledge” as you put it is because most on ATS don’t really like what I have to say because I don’t buy into many of their conspiracies and at times just debunk them. This leads many of my posts and threads to either be trashed or flat out ignored so in my view, what is the point in me going to the bother of finding links and re-reading old information for members only to have them take a massive dump all-over a thread or post.

Now when it comes to “stating my opinion”, I think most would agree that a opinion is only as good as the facts it is based on. I could say to you that in my opinion a Orange is bright pink and you would quite rightly tell me that it is in fact orange because that is what the evidence in front of your eyes is telling you. For me it’s the same thing when I tell you that Al-Qa’ida was not created by the CIA, I have read more than I care to recall on the nature of Al-Qa’ida both mainstream and form the alternative media and came to the opinion on the balance of the evidence that Al-Qa’ida is not a creation of the CIA. This is yes my opinion but it is based on actual historical facts and not some vague inconsistent alternative history that many conspiracy theorists subscribe to, as I once did actually as a matter of point.

Again if you want clarification on anything I will only be too happy to help.

reply to post by Antonio1


Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Antonio1


yeah guys,not every sunni, muslim, rebel, is part of al qaeda. I mean oh wait, no, your wrong Antonio. I think Al Qaeda and the Taliban are just loosely-termed umbrellas for middle-eastern people to fight under. any muslim idiot can grab an ak-47 for the weekend and now he is part of al qaeda or the taliban, no, he just hates when when people from another country, come, murder his wife, and blow his kid in half with artillery.

reply to post by Antonio1


p.s. your wrong, America funded middle-eastern anti-soviet groups, thats a fact.

If you investigate 911 a little everything points to Israel, they had the motive and the experience with this kind of operation. But Bush and Cheney did not want an investigation, only because of the pressure from 4 widows they put a comission together more than a year after the attacks.
They appointed Henry Kissinger as head of the commission, but Kissinger was too involved with the Bin Ladens, so they appointed Philip Zelikow, who were very much and inside man

When information surfaced that Zelikow had participated in Bush administration briefings prior to 9/11 on the threat al Qaeda posed, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee called for Zelikow to resign from the Commission. “It is clear that Zelikow should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures,” the committee wrote. “It is now apparent why there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We now can see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself.” The 9/11 families’ request for his resignation was not honored.

Newsweek wrote in 2009 “The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it… That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course

a new 911 whistleblower to me is Susan Lindauer who is finally able to speak after spending jail time for her whisleblowing.
Susan Lindauer exposes everything about 911 , and here she speaks about Al Quada in Libya

I think the problem here is that many people go like Afghani tribals/Taliban=Alqueda . That is of course not the case. The resistance against the Afghan government by Tribals and the Taliban is not funded by the west. I dont think there are really that many if any Afghans who are part of the alqueda outfit.

Originally posted by gopher mines
"If you fund a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you protect a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist. And if you do it, then we will treat you like a terrorist." - President George W. Bush

Can of worms?

I believe this quote pretty well sums up my idea that WE (the U.S.) are some of the worst terrorist in the world. We distributing our brand of "Democracy" to any and all willing or not, with the real face of terror being the C.I.A.

To get at the root of the topic, It was the C.I.A who mistakenly brought to power the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran during the 70's and thus the political Islamic state. Here is more on the Secret History of the C.I.A. Start at 1:02:00 for more on the Islamic state. In essence we did create al-Qaeda.

The world is nothing more than a giant chess board and not a political paradigm of right and wrong or good and bad. The C.I.A. is willing to lie, cheat, steal, assassinate, subvert, and align with our very "enemies" and use who ever they must to achieve it's end goal... World Domination and N.W.O.

Who knows what tactical/logistical purpose the C.I.A. has in it's twisted mind as justification for backing al-Qaeda in Libya and now Syria, but it is with a self-purpose and end goal.

Originally posted by gopher mines
"If you fund a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you protect a terrorist you are a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist you are a terrorist. And if you do it, then we will treat you like a terrorist." - President George W. Bush

Can of worms?

It was worse than that. Bush said, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorist."

Bush did not recognize anybody "sitting on the fence", or "having a third opinion".

The only people who disagreed with Bush, were the terrorists -- Law according to Bush.