|
Al Qaida: Stop spreading 911 conspiracy theories
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
I've always wondered what al qaida officials must think of the conspiracy theories. i'd be pretty pissed off if someone was trying to give credit for god's work over to the zionists and her american bedfellows.
| quote: |
CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
The comments reflected al-Qaida's No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri's increasing criticism of Iran. Al-Zawahri has accused Iran in recent messages of seeking to extend its power in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and through its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.
The authenticity of the two-hour audio recording posted on an Islamic Web site could not be independently confirmed. But the voice sounded like past audiotapes from the terror leader, and the posting where it was found bore the logo of Al-Sahab, al-Qaida's official media arm.
It was the second of two messages answering questions that were posted to Islamic militant Web sites earlier this year.
One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Al-Zawahri accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.
"The purpose of this lie is clear � (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.
"Iran's aim here is also clear � to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.
Iran cooperated with the United States in the 2001 U.S. assault on Afghanistan that toppled al-Qaida's allies, the Taliban.
Answering questions about Iraq in Tuesday's tape, al-Zawahri said the insurgent umbrella group led by al-Qaida, called the Islamic State of Iraq, is "the primary force opposing the Crusaders and challenging Iranian ambitions" in Iraq, he said, referring to the Americans.
As he often does in his messages, al-Zawahri denounced the "Crusader invasion" of Iraq, but in Tuesday's tape he paired it with a mention of "Iranian complicity" or "Iranian agents."
In the latest tape, al-Zawahri was also asked if the terror group had further plans to attack Western countries that participated in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent war.
"My answer is: Yes! We think that any country that has joined aggression on Muslims must be deterred," he replied.
In response to a question signed by the Japanese news agency Kyodo asking if Japan remains a target because it once had troops in Iraq, al-Zawahri said "Japan provided help under the banner of the crusader coalition ... therefore it participated in the Crusader campaign against the lands of Islam."
Japan deployed non-combat troops to southern Iraq in 2003 to carry out reconstruction work. It withdrew its troops from Iraq in 2006 and now conducts airlifts to help supply U.S.-led forces in that country.
Al-Zawahri spoke on a wide range of issues, even global warming, which he said reflected "how criminal, brutal and greedy the Western Crusader world is, with America at the top."
He predicted that global warming would "make the world more sympathetic to and understanding of the Muslims' jihad against the aggressor America."
Asked if there are any women in al-Qaida, the terror leader answered simply: "No." In a follow-up answer, he said: "There are no women in al-Qaida jihadi group, but the women of the mujahedeen are playing a heroic role in taking care of their houses and sons."
In several parts of Tuesday's audio message, Al-Zawahri claimed that the Taliban took over 95 percent of Afghanistan and is sweeping Pakistan as well.
"The Crusaders and their agents in Pakistan and Afghanistan are starting to fall," he said.
In another answer Tuesday, al-Zawahri said it was against Islamic religious law for any Muslim to live permanently in a Western country because in doing so they would "have permanent stay there under the laws of the infidels."
Al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, announced in December that al-Zawahri would take questions from the public posted on Islamic militant Web sites and would respond "as soon as possible." Queries were submitted on the main Islamist Web site until the cutoff date of Jan. 16.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422...aida_al_zawahri
i spose we'll just file this away under "Fake US disinfo" though :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I've always wondered what al qaida officials must think of the conspiracy theories. i'd be pretty pissed off if someone was trying to give credit for god's work over to the zionists and her american bedfellows.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422...aida_al_zawahri
i spose we'll just file this away under "Fake US disinfo" though :rolleyes: |
I don't think you've heard. Al-Qaida is an instrument of America. Remember what the "official" scapegoat is...Al-Qaida...Of course they are a part of the Zionist plot. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I find this article interesting since it relates to the strategy I 'created' for combating terrorism.
Basically, I proposed reacting to terrorism with a multi-pronged disinformation campaign designed to prevent terrorism from having the wide-scale psychological impact intended.
The strategy rests on the realization that the real targets of terrorism are not those who are actually killed or harmed -- rather, the targets are the (more numerous) individuals in which the act of terrorism will inspire "terror" or a similar feeling, which may then serve to facilitate a particular objective, or undermine an objective of the enemy. At its core, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare; rarely is the damage done significant from a strictly material standpoint.
The idea, then, is to deny terrorism its intended effect on those "actual" targets (i.e. the population in whom fear is indended to be inspired.) To this end, I propose simply deceiving the vast majority of the members of that population as to the cause of the destruction.
For instance, rather than characterizing a terrorist attack as such, an elaborate description of how it was a very unfortunate accident should be the "official" version of events. It is therefore more easy to convince the target population that the incident will not be repeated (and thus, that there is nothing to fear), since whatever circumstances led to the accident are apparently being addressed. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into the particulars of how this deception could or should be carried out for any particular target population, although it would certainly in many such cases be a large and difficult undertaking with significant obstacles to overcome, perhaps to the extent that it would be at times implausible. The point is that the terrorist attack would have a significantly diminished impact if the (false) view were to be widely accepted.
Suffice to say, in any target population of significant size, there would certainly be numerous skeptics of such a deception (rightfully so!) However, I think that we can inveigle most of them into a different but also sufficiently innocuous belief by creating seperate mythologies of what 'actually' happened that are tailored to the particular prejudices of groups of such people and then introducing them through channels that each group, respectively, would be most likely to be receptive to. Each of these seperate, targeted mythologies constitutes another prong of the strategy, and how many are necessary depends on the size and diversity of the target population, as well as the fault tolerance of the strategy as a whole.
If this strategy were successfully implemented, terrorism would be far less effective at achieving its psychological objectives. However, it is possible for terrorists to adapt their tactics so as to make their acts more difficult to attribute to some other source. Even so, I believe there could be a significant reduction in the effectiveness of terrorism generally through a strategy similar to the one briefly outlined here. As to whether that end would justify the means, I defer opinion. |
|
|
| Ishad |
| Everyone is Al-Qaida now.. like tommorrow if some Polar Bear kills a human in Artic Circle.. he becomes an Al Qaida. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I don't think you've heard. Al-Qaida is an instrument of America. Remember what the "official" scapegoat is...Al-Qaida...Of course they are a part of the Zionist plot. |
That would require being rational and thinking logically.
edit:
yes i'm taking the piss, i usually don't explain my humor, but for you guys it seems to be a necessity |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I find this article interesting since it relates to the strategy I 'created' for combating terrorism.
Basically, I proposed reacting to terrorism with a multi-pronged disinformation campaign designed to prevent terrorism from having the wide-scale psychological impact intended.
The strategy rests on the realization that the real targets of terrorism are not those who are actually killed or harmed -- rather, the targets are the (more numerous) individuals in which the act of terrorism will inspire "terror" or a similar feeling, which may then serve to facilitate a particular objective, or undermine an objective of the enemy. At its core, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare; rarely is the damage done significant from a strictly material standpoint.
The idea, then, is to deny terrorism its intended effect on those "actual" targets (i.e. the population in whom fear is indended to be inspired.) To this end, I propose simply deceiving the vast majority of the members of that population as to the cause of the destruction.
For instance, rather than characterizing a terrorist attack as such, an elaborate description of how it was a very unfortunate accident should be the "official" version of events. It is therefore more easy to convince the target population that the incident will not be repeated (and thus, that there is nothing to fear), since whatever circumstances led to the accident are apparently being addressed. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into the particulars of how this deception could or should be carried out for any particular target population, although it would certainly in many such cases be a large and difficult undertaking with significant obstacles to overcome, perhaps to the extent that it would be at times implausible. The point is that the terrorist attack would have a significantly diminished impact if the (false) view were to be widely accepted.
Suffice to say, in any target population of significant size, there would certainly be numerous skeptics of such a deception (rightfully so!) However, I think that we can inveigle most of them into a different but also sufficiently innocuous belief by creating seperate mythologies of what 'actually' happened that are tailored to the particular prejudices of groups of such people and then introducing them through channels that each group, respectively, would be most likely to be receptive to. Each of these seperate, targeted mythologies constitutes another prong of the strategy, and how many are necessary depends on the size and diversity of the target population, as well as the fault tolerance of the strategy as a whole.
If this strategy were successfully implemented, terrorism would be far less effective at achieving its psychological objectives. However, it is possible for terrorists to adapt their tactics so as to make their acts more difficult to attribute to some other source. Even so, I believe there could be a significant reduction in the effectiveness of terrorism generally through a strategy similar to the one briefly outlined here. As to whether that end would justify the means, I defer opinion. |
I agree with the premise, but the only thing that came to mind was V destroying the Old Bailey and the government of Britain calling it a "controlled demolition." |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
pkc ... just think about it ... how did Al Qaeda become so popular among the extremist-leaning Muslim radicals and such? Because of their alleged 9/11 attacks. So no matter if its true or not, they dont want to lose support by allowing the credit to be shifted to Israel for the attacks, because that will weaken its support and image in the world for what its known. It has to protect its brand, so any credit of evil that are given to Al Qaeda by the West are very beneficial for Al Qaeda fanbase and members ;) if you know what I mean. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
pkc ... just think about it ... how did Al Qaeda become so popular among the extremist-leaning Muslim radicals and such? Because of their alleged 9/11 attacks. So no matter if its true or not, they dont want to lose support by allowing the credit to be shifted to Israel for the attacks, because that will weaken its support and image in the world for what its known. It has to protect its brand, so any credit of evil that are given to Al Qaeda by the West are very beneficial for Al Qaeda fanbase and members ;) if you know what I mean. |
Bah, they could spin that.
"Look at how evil our enimies are! They are so crazy that they will kill thier own people. Come work for us and fight the deamons who douse thier own innocents in the fires of HELL!"
It worked for the US when building a case against Saddam. Who hasn't heard of the gas attacks he ordered ... ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!
I think the recruiting is pretty secure for Al-Q in the next decade or so. Rising food prices will probably drive even more people to the cause. It's amazing what people will do for food. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | | Perhaps Al-Qaeda can go on record to tell us that Obama is not a Muslim, and is in fact a Christian Crusader. That'll sure cause a few heads to explode.. |
|
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I find this article interesting since it relates to the strategy I 'created' for combating terrorism.
Basically, I proposed reacting to terrorism with a multi-pronged disinformation campaign designed to prevent terrorism from having the wide-scale psychological impact intended.
The strategy rests on the realization that the real targets of terrorism are not those who are actually killed or harmed -- rather, the targets are the (more numerous) individuals in which the act of terrorism will inspire "terror" or a similar feeling, which may then serve to facilitate a particular objective, or undermine an objective of the enemy. At its core, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare; rarely is the damage done significant from a strictly material standpoint.
The idea, then, is to deny terrorism its intended effect on those "actual" targets (i.e. the population in whom fear is indended to be inspired.) To this end, I propose simply deceiving the vast majority of the members of that population as to the cause of the destruction.
For instance, rather than characterizing a terrorist attack as such, an elaborate description of how it was a very unfortunate accident should be the "official" version of events. It is therefore more easy to convince the target population that the incident will not be repeated (and thus, that there is nothing to fear), since whatever circumstances led to the accident are apparently being addressed. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into the particulars of how this deception could or should be carried out for any particular target population, although it would certainly in many such cases be a large and difficult undertaking with significant obstacles to overcome, perhaps to the extent that it would be at times implausible. The point is that the terrorist attack would have a significantly diminished impact if the (false) view were to be widely accepted.
Suffice to say, in any target population of significant size, there would certainly be numerous skeptics of such a deception (rightfully so!) However, I think that we can inveigle most of them into a different but also sufficiently innocuous belief by creating seperate mythologies of what 'actually' happened that are tailored to the particular prejudices of groups of such people and then introducing them through channels that each group, respectively, would be most likely to be receptive to. Each of these seperate, targeted mythologies constitutes another prong of the strategy, and how many are necessary depends on the size and diversity of the target population, as well as the fault tolerance of the strategy as a whole.
If this strategy were successfully implemented, terrorism would be far less effective at achieving its psychological objectives. However, it is possible for terrorists to adapt their tactics so as to make their acts more difficult to attribute to some other source. Even so, I believe there could be a significant reduction in the effectiveness of terrorism generally through a strategy similar to the one briefly outlined here. As to whether that end would justify the means, I defer opinion. |
The best "strategy" for combating terror is not being a hypocritical armoral materialistic power lusting in the first place. That way you don't get any blow back, and it certainly isn't decribed by absurd terms like "terrorism" that only have any meaning to a population of weak demasculinized cowardly excuses for men. I think if people grew nuts and had some ing principles we'd be just fine, but that's just unreasonable now. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i spose we'll just file this away under "Fake US disinfo" though :rolleyes: |
That's only one of the reasons people like yourself think one possible conspiracy is infact the case where as another possible conpiracy is an absurd notion, because of oversimplified reasoning like this. Like Magnetonism has already stated, propagating the myth that they were responsible for 9-11 only helps the imaginary network (Al-Qaeda) strategically by first a) creating a mythical network and then b) boosting it's image and credibility amongsts it potential support base by asserting they were responsible for the attacks.
Edit: redundant typos |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's only one of the reasons people like yourself think one possible conspiracy is infact the case where as another possible conpiracy is an absurd notion, because of oversimplified reasoning like this. Like Magnetonism has already stated, propagating the myth that they were responsible for 9-11 only helps the imaginary network (Al-Qaeda) strategically by first a) creating a mythical network and then b) boosting it's image and credibility amongsts it potential support base by asserting they were responsible for the attacks.
Edit: redundant typos |
um, yes. which is why osama initially came out and said he had nothing to do with the attacks (at the behest of his taliban hosts no doubt) and then immediately began to take credit when he fled afghanistan.
if they lied to create their "mythical network" then why on sept 11 did i say "my money is on al qaida"? surely that mythical network already existed ;)
i dunno though, the asymmetrical way you guys approach this is amusing. if cheney or bush came out and admitted to planting thermite, then i'd have to accept that. but when al qaida has admitted on many occasions they were responsible its all part of the grand scheme. |
|
|
|
|
