TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Benazir Bhutto assassinated
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Or al-Qaeda.

Well, aren't we all jumping to conclusions?!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, please name me another group in the Kashmir that has carried out suicide attacks.

Lashkar-e-Toiba (click)

quote:

Though the Pakistani authorities are concerned over the impact of the organisation on Pakistani youth which could, in the long run, lead to the Talibanisation of Pakistan with a Pakistani version of the Taliban possibly getting its finger on the nuclear button, they continue to use the Markaz and its Lashkar in their proxy war against India. http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessl...es/040555ra.htm

And for the record, nobody is blaming anyone. We are simply giving you information that means you cannot rule out Pakistani governmental involvement just because the attack used a suicide bomber. The ISI are involved in a number of Kashmiri terrorist groups (and other Islamist groups) and altho following 9/11 the ISI was supposed to sever its links with these groups, the ISI has been discribed as a state within a state and there are many rogue elements who have maintained the links (and considering these group's advantages to Pakistan in their conflict with India over Kashmir then the maintanance of these links may stretch a little further than rogue elements)

Anyway - facts are facts - and it is a fact that the Pakistani authorities have contact and influence over militant groups who use suicide bombers, and therefore, the fact a suicide bomber was involved in the attack on Bhutto does NOT rule out involvement by Pakistani authorities (as you are trying to suggest)

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, aren't we all jumping to conclusions?!

No, actually. I think most people are trying to explore all avenues about who might have committed this act. You on the other hand are trying to tell us you know for a fact that al-Qaida did this and no authorities could be involved as a suicide bomber was involved.

I mean even if it was an Islamist group, that in no way means al-Qaida did this considering the amount of Islamist groups opperating in Pakistan (and Afghanistan and Kashmir)

LOL. WTF?!?! People still think "Al-Qaeda" actually exists? You guys do realize there's no "interconnected network" of "terrorists" that actually form any kind of organized group or structure? Are you also familiar with who coined the term "Al-Qaeda" for this imaginary group to begin with? Human stupidity and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand I suppose, but it never ceases to amaze me. Fucking retards.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL. WTF?!?! People still think "Al-Qaeda" actually exists? You guys do realize there's no "interconnected network" of "terrorists" that actually form any kind of organized group or structure? Are you also familiar with who coined the term "Al-Qaeda" for this imaginary group to begin with? Human stupidity and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand I suppose, but it never ceases to amaze me. Fucking retards.

You're half right...

The first time the term 'al-Qaida' was used was by the Amercians who needed the name of an organisation in order to prosecute Osama Bin Laden over the 1998 Embassy bombings. However, Osama Bin Laden's group has since adopted the name and also claim they made it up.

Either way, "al-Qaida" does exist, just not in the way the Americans (and most people on here) try to make out. Osama Bin Laden (or probably more acuratly Zawahiri) brought together a number of terrorist groups in Afghanistan to train them up to fight the Russians. But these groups were not his to order, merely to help them along their way to fighting the Russians. Osama Bin Laden does however have a core group but this is about as relevant as any other Islamist group operating in the region. He certainly does not control these other groups but since 9/11 Osama Bin Laden has risen to fame as the "greatest" Islamist (especially to those with a global Jihadist vision, rather than the more common localised concerns). This has led to numerous unconnected groups claiming to carry out attacks in the name of "al-Qaida". This is a wet dream for the Americans who want to convince the world al-Qaida is global when its not

So al-Qaida, in the way the Americans want us to think, does not exist. There is, however, a famous Islamist group going by that name, and there is also the al-Qaida ideology that many groups adhere to

Well, you're right about that. More strategic planning to manufacture enemies, you know, in order to justify their foreign policy to the stupid masses while simultaneously serving as a mechanism to keep them in fear. It's analagous to "terrorists" and "al-Qaeda" in Iraq. We all know who to thank for both of those. I hope you don't think the Bush Amin and the NeoCons' imagination just coincidently happens to manifest on some level in reality. That's just a bit too convenient. Bush may appear to be daft, perhaps he's nothing more than a useful idiot, but the people who surround him are not.

EDIT: Here's a good example:

Straight from the horses mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL. WTF?!?! People still think "Al-Qaeda" actually exists? You guys do realize there's no "interconnected network" of "terrorists" that actually form any kind of organized group or structure? Are you also familiar with who coined the term "Al-Qaeda" for this imaginary group to begin with? Human stupidity and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand I suppose, but it never ceases to amaze me. Fucking retards.

Oh, I don't know. Whether or not it is organized with any discernible command structure is debatable, but the fact that there is a transnational organization is not. Putting the Middle East aside for a moment, a new melding of several national and regional terrorist and separatist organizations in northern Africa under the common banner of al-Qaeda was organized much to the surprise of Western intelligence services. Many of these groups which posed little threat to Western interests are now receiving more attention as there appears to be significantly more resources pouring into their funding and more coordination between formerly disparate groups. To top it off, Zarqawi is alleged to have released a statement declaring the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb to be the newest al-Qaeda subsidiary, and went so far as to claim a "blessed union" between the two groups. But we are seeing the movement operate in a wide swath of countries from desert states like Mali, Algeria, Niger, and Mauritania to, more significantly, Nigeria, Senegal, and the political void that is Chad.

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Oh, I don't know. Whether or not it is organized with any discernible command structure is debatable, but the fact that there is a transnational organization is not. Putting the Middle East aside for a moment, a new melding of several national and regional terrorist and separatist organizations in northern Africa under the common banner of al-Qaeda was organized much to the surprise of Western intelligence services. Many of these groups which posed little threat to Western interests are now receiving more attention as there appears to be significantly more resources pouring into their funding and more coordination between formerly disparate groups. To top it off, Zarqawi is alleged to have released a statement declaring the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb to be the newest al-Qaeda subsidiary, and went so far as to claim a "blessed union" between the two groups. But we are seeing the movement operate in a wide swath of countries from desert states like Mali, Algeria, Niger, and Mauritania to, more significantly, Nigeria, Senegal, and the political void that is Chad.

[edit: My bad, I thought you were being a prick for no reason and I thought I clicked on the Ron Paul thread. I haven't slept yet.] You're posting in the wrong thread asshole. That was the other one [Bhutto]. I've already posted a response to it there.[/edit] Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question. I'm sure you're one of those retards who believes the pancake theory. Militant groups are nothing new and existed pre-9-11 before the Al-Qaeda myth was propogated or contrived. What's your point? I recall acknowleding the one you made in this thead.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You're posting in the wrong thread asshole. That was the other one [Bhutto]. I've already posted a response to it there. Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question. I'm sure you're one of those retards who believes the pancake theory. Militant groups are nothing new and existed pre-9-11 before the Al-Qaeda myth was propogated or contrived. What's your point? I recall acknowleding the one you made in this thead.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit [in the previous post].

EDIT: Apparently you posted in the RP thread too, I thought I clicked on that but I didn't. So it confused me in to thinking that you were reactively defending Q for some weird reason and I kind of snaped in response to it. I apologize once again. Hopefully you'll get a chuckle out of it though .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit.

Haha, I thought I was going crazy.

In any case, I don't buy into the demonification of al-Qaeda by the West as a fully functional, fully operational global jihad movement, but I do think there are elements of transnational cooperation between a variety of quasi-independent groups united under one banner in order to gain legitimation at the local level. Whether or not Zarqawi has any control over these organizations is debatable, but whether or not they use the al-Qaeda mantra themselves is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Oh, I don't know. Whether or not it is organized with any discernible command structure is debatable, but the fact that there is a transnational organization is not. Putting the Middle East aside for a moment, a new melding of several national and regional terrorist and separatist organizations in northern Africa under the common banner of al-Qaeda was organized much to the surprise of Western intelligence services. Many of these groups which posed little threat to Western interests are now receiving more attention as there appears to be significantly more resources pouring into their funding and more coordination between formerly disparate groups. To top it off, Zarqawi is alleged to have released a statement declaring the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb to be the newest al-Qaeda subsidiary, and went so far as to claim a "blessed union" between the two groups. But we are seeing the movement operate in a wide swath of countries from desert states like Mali, Algeria, Niger, and Mauritania to, more significantly, Nigeria, Senegal, and the political void that is Chad.

Not sure about that. There is a hell of a difference between groups under the command of al-Qaida to groups "linked" to al-Qaida.

Bin Laden's primary role in the grand scheme of things was to provide means and facitlities for other groups to receive military/geurrilla training. They were never under Bin Laden's command. The aim was that these groups would receive training to go back to their own country's and take over from the governments there and eventually lead to the reestablishment of the Caliphate. But the recent Afghan war changed that as it's no longer possible to realistically maintai the camps to the same extent as before 2001 due to the NATO occupation. It would be almost impossible for Bin Laden to provide military training to groups or to help them carry out attacks.

Instead, Bin Laden's role has changed. Now he is seen as the spiritual leader of the extreme Islamist Jihadi groups who share his beliefs and aims (as opposed to the more common localised Islamist groups such as Hamas or Hizballah). Bin Laden can encourage attacks and call for attacks, and those groups sharing his view are more than happy to say "we are al-Qaida", but this is in ideological terms, not physically belonging to Osama Bin Laden's group.

There could be groups all over the world that received training in one of Bin Laden's Afghan camps before 2001, and that might earn them the privilage of being a group "linked" to al-Qaida, or they may refer to themselves as being affiliated to "al-Qaida", but that does not mean they are under the command of Osama Bin Laden, which imo is a more worrying position to be in - a position not helped in the slightest by America hell bent on the idea that by taking out Bin Laden they take out all Islamist groups in the world - it won't, they all need addressing individually...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit [in the previous post]. EDIT: Apparently you posted in the RP thread too, I thought I clicked on that but I didn't. So it confused me in to thinking that you were reactively defending Q for some weird reason and I kind of snaped in response to it. I apologize once again. Hopefully you'll get a chuckle out of it though .

Sweet, you have a sense of humour and I didn't completely embarass myself or start an unecessary confrontation .

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Not sure about that. There is a hell of a difference between groups under the command of al-Qaida to groups "linked" to al-Qaida.

Right, I think is is actually what I was getting at - bin-Laden and al-Qaeda may act as figureheads that have united a lot of groups that would not otherwise have any need or inclination to cooperate with one another. Whether there is any control over these different groups, or coordination, is doubtful.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Sweet, you have a sense of humour and I didn't completely embarass myself or start an unecessary confrontation .

Eh, mistakes happen. No biggie.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Lashkar-e-Toiba (click)

Pakistan banned them in 2002...

quote:

The group was founded in the late 1980�s with the help of the Pakistani government (which also opposes the Indian presence in Kashmir) as the armed wing of the Markaz al-Dawa wa al-Irshad, an Islamic social welfare group. LET, which was also inspired by Osama bin Laden, continues to maintain close ties with Al Qaeda. Intelligence services have discovered that, before its camps were destroyed by the United States in 2001, Al Qaeda frequently hosted and trained LET operatives. Conversely, since the destruction of those camps, LET has hosted Al Qaeda trainees and other Islamic militants, including Shahzad Tanweer, one of the suicide bombers in the July 7, 2005 London Underground attack, according to British authorities. Additionally, senior Al Qaeda leaders, such as Abu Zubeida have been arrested at LET compounds.

They are also Al-Qaeda allied, which further supports my opinion that the Pakistani government does not currently and directly use suicide tactics, and I still don't believe they are responsible for the Bhutto assassination.

We'll let Scotland Yard do the investigative work, we'll see whose right!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Pakistan banned them in 2002...

And? Did all their members suddenly disappear into thin air?

quote:

They are also Al-Qaeda allied

Most of the Islamist militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan will have had a few work outs at "al-Qaida" training camps at some stage in their history, all of which had the support and assistance of the Pakistani government. So being trained up at "al-Qaida" training camps is as much proof they are "allied" to Pakistani authorities as it is proof they are allied to Osama Bin Laden

quote:

which further supports my opinion that the Pakistani government does not currently and directly use suicide tactics

For a start, that wasn't what your 'opinion' was, you were earlier trying to suggest that because a suicide bomber was used, that exonerates Pakistani authorities because only al-Qaida use suicide bombers. It has been pointed out to you, several times now, that the ISI have assisted and used terrorist groups, that use as a method suicide bombings, in their proxy war against India. Therefore, you cannot say that elements of the Pakistani authorities would not have access to suicide bombers if they wanted one

quote:

and I still don't believe they are responsible for the Bhutto assassination.

That is because you cannot comprehend the difference between Musharaf, the President of Pakistan, and "elements of the Pakistani authorities" (or government if you will). You seem to think that the Pakistani government is some kind of harmonious being like what we are used to in our own countries, but you need to get out of that trap because that is not how it works in other countries. You will find that across the Middle East and in Pakistan, there is a sharp contrast between the government (ie politicians etc) and the militray and the intelligence services. There is a hell of a lot of independence there and a lot of rivalry. The ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) has been described as a 'state within a state'. The ISI ran the Mujahadeen during the Afghan War and therefore have links and influence with pretty much every Islamist group that fought there. The ISI contained a great number of Islamist sympathisers and altho Musharaf purged most of them from their ranks following 9/11 (and their new found allegiance with America) many remained. Bhutto was hated by both the Islamists (for obvious reasons) and by the ISI who she accused of rigging elections and was about to produce evidence of such. IMVHO, I think elements of the ISI conspired with Islamists and jointly got rid of her (altho that is not to suggest al-Qaida, ie Bin Laden, had any involvement, because I doubt they did)

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question

yeah, perhaps if you freeze one particular frame of the entire video, otherwise you're on crack.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That is because you cannot comprehend the difference between Musharaf, the President of Pakistan, and "elements of the Pakistani authorities" (or government if you will). You seem to think that the Pakistani government is some kind of harmonious being like what we are used to in our own countries, but you need to get out of that trap because that is not how it works in other countries. You will find that across the Middle East and in Pakistan, there is a sharp contrast between the government (ie politicians etc) and the militray and the intelligence services. There is a hell of a lot of independence there and a lot of rivalry. The ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) has been described as a 'state within a state'. The ISI ran the Mujahadeen during the Afghan War and therefore have links and influence with pretty much every Islamist group that fought there. The ISI contained a great number of Islamist sympathisers and altho Musharaf purged most of them from their ranks following 9/11 (and their new found allegiance with America) many remained. Bhutto was hated by both the Islamists (for obvious reasons) and by the ISI who she accused of rigging elections and was about to produce evidence of such. IMVHO, I think elements of the ISI conspired with Islamists and jointly got rid of her (altho that is not to suggest al-Qaida, ie Bin Laden, had any involvement, because I doubt they did)

nice info
you have just inspired me to learn more......
care to point me to a few articles??

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX nice info you have just inspired me to learn more...... care to point me to a few articles??

Well to be perfectly honest, if you want to find out more about the ISI then the best place to start is probably Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-...e#Controversies

That section deals with all the accusations (obviously go read the sources if you want more info!)

Kashmiri terrorism is not really my speciality (I did write an essay on the Kashmir conflict once upon a time but that focused on India and Pakistan and why the region was so important to each other, rather than go in depth in how the conflict is fought)

However, if you want to learn about the history of Islamist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir, then I cannot recommend a book called "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke. That really is the dog's bollocks of books on al-Qaida. It's basically the story of radical Islam, obviously centring around the background of al-Qaida from the Afghan war up until 9/11 (and beyond). It is absolutely excellent. One of my university tutors talked about it and completely missed the point as some people think he argues al-Qaida does not exist (like Shaolin_Z seems to be suggesting) but what he actually argues is that al-Qaida, the global, structured and far reaching terrorist group does not exist (as the Americans would have you believe), but that al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden's immediate group) exists more as an ideology that encourages other groups sharing the same visions. He argues that the threat from al-Qaida is therefore much much more dangerous than what we think we are dealing with (ie the theory that says cut of the head of the snake and the body will die - well that won't happen!)

Anyway, it's a great history of the Mujahadeen and offers an incite into how all these different groups relate to each other (and how "al-Qaida" is just one of many).

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley but what he actually argues is that al-Qaida, the global, structured and far reaching terrorist group does not exist (as the Americans would have you believe), but that al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden's immediate group) exists more as an ideology that encourages other groups sharing the same visions. He argues that the threat from al-Qaida is therefore much much more dangerous than what we think we are dealing with (ie the theory that says cut of the head of the snake and the body will die - well that won't happen!)

Thats a very good point. Like in Algeria with the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb.

There is probably a good number operatives working in sleeper cells too. Since their not receiving orders directly from Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, they'll operate separately but contribute towards the same goal.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan There is probably a good number operatives working in sleeper cells too. Since their not receiving orders directly from Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, they'll operate separately but contribute towards the same goal.

Mmmmmmm depends really. The vast majority of Islamist groups have as their aim the overthrow of the government of their own country. That is, after all, the primary objective of Political Islam. Attacking the West is not really a goal to most Islamists, and secondary at best - even for Bin Laden.

So even tho it might be true that "al-Qaida" sleeper cells are undercover in areas like Algeria, they aren't there as part of the global Jihad, they are there to overthrow the Algerian government. It wouldn't suprise me if they merely took the name "al-Qaida" because that name is like a Burberry scarf, its the latest fashion accessory to your modern Islamic terrorist! Al-Qaida might as well be redefined not to mean a specific terrorist group but a generic term for Islamist militant groups. And most Islamist groups took part in the campaign in Afghanistan against the Russians so most probably received training there, hence the catch-all "link to al-Qaida". I'd even go as far as saying that 9/11 and the July London bombs were not the brain child of al-Qaida (ie Bin Laden) but some random terrorist groups or individuals that wanted to commit those attacks and merely went to where they could find support and assistance (the money man Bin Laden).

Why does that mean we are in a more dangerous position? Well it means we have dozens and dozens of seperate terrorist groups around the world, pretty much working to their own agenda, while we are going after just one of those terrorist groups, thinking all the rest will fall away after Bin Laden has gone. Well they won't. There will still be all these terrorist groups operating in their home countries and there will still be groups and individuals that hatch plots to attack the West, and stopping Bin Laden, altho removing one source of support for these types, will not remove the threat at all because they'll still all be out there...

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Musharraf I've seen you misspell his name several times.

I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed

Yep you can spell it how you like s long as it sounds the same I guess. Like some muppets spell al-Qaida as 'al-Qaeda'!!

Even worse, Hizballah sometimes gets bastardised into 'Hezbollah'!!!

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed

yeah but the correct spelling is Musharraf. Masharraf is incorrect.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.