Thread: The War on US

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1 The War on US 
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24,849
    Part I.

    The "War on Terror" was always just a brand.

    Terror is a feeling. It is the horrendous fear that comes from an outside threat of some kind. As children, we have terror of thunder and lightning, the vicious dog next door, the thought of losing our parents. As adults, we have other terrors, usually related to dangerous things we cannot control: an enemy nation's nuclear stockpile, a recreational drug with deadly consequences for our children, violent crime out of control, natural disasters.

    What can we do with terror? We can try to calm it by preparing in advance, controlling what we can control. We can talk with our chlldren about deadly drugs and watch for the first signs of drug use. We can vote for politicians who promise to keep streets safe from crime and who will avoid an all-out nuclear confrontation. We can stock up on food, water, medical supplies, (among other things) in case of a hurricane or earthquake. We can build storm cellars against tornadoes, put seaside homes on pilings or stilts, and. as they did during the Cold War, construct personal fallout shelters in our backyards (which we now know would probably not have worked).

    But a war on terror? That never made any sense. How do you wage a war on terror except metaphorically?

    Now a war on terrorism would have made sense. But that was never the name of the project. The question is, "Why not?" Why not say we are going to war against terrorists and their acts of terrorism? Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. are all organizations that produce terror. Why not say "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terrorists" ? A nation can fight a cold, hot or protracted asymmetrical war against specific people or specific organizations. A nation can fund intelligence operations, weapons, and military personnel in an effort to uproot terrorist organizations, target specific cells and terrorist groups, and destroy them. But no intelligence officer or Army Ranger with a gun can do any of these kinds of things to a feeling.

    So why not say "War on Terrorism" or "War on Terrorists"?

    One good answer to this is that the terrorist group credited with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was Al Qaeda, a group created and funded by the US government. Yes, that is correct. The origins of Al Qaeda go back to Zbigniew Brzezinski in the late 1970s during the Carter administration. (Yes, that Brzezinski whose daughter is now a major anchor for MSNBC.) Brzezinski wanted to pull the Soviets into a war on their then southwestern border with Afghanistan. For this project, Brzezinski brought in a group of Arabs that we later knew as the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen trained the Afghans and the US government supplied the weapons. Remember the guys on horseback with the Stinger missiles? That was our tax dollars at work. And, no, the Soviets did not attack first: Brzezinski admitted that in an article in the French newspaper Le Figaro. The Soviets came in to Afghanistan because they were already being attacked by a pre-existing Mujahideen operation.

    But how did the Mujahideen become Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda, we were told, meant "the base", whatever that was supposed to signify. But Al Qaeda was a term actually applied to the database of Mujahideen. The "base" referred to in the term Al Qaeda was a DATAbase. In 2005, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote about the origins of Al Qaeda in the Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/...y7.development

    ..Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity....

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
    Robin Cook wrote these words the day after Britain experienced the 7/7 attacks in 2005. Perhaps the ferocity of this attack dragged the truth out of him. Perhaps it was a fear of coming British technocratic totalitarianism. Whatever it was, it was too late for average Americans not "in the know". Too late to stop the war in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and the desired war in Iran. To late to stop the unPATRIOTic Act, which drastically eroded American rights. To late to stop the creation of an Orwellian "Department of Homeland Security" which further centralized the Federal bureaucracy of control (ICE, FEMA, etc.) but which has been remarkable absent in our current summer of 2020, as masses of protesters destroy buildings, topple American historical statues, and burn businesses and neighborhoods down. Where is DHS? Isn't this their job?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24,849
    Part II.

    On July 8, 2005, in The Guardian newspaper, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook identified the origins of "Al Qaeda" as well as what the term actually meant: the database of Brzezinski's Mujahideen. One month later, Cook was dead. On August 6, 2005, he suffered a severe heart attack while walking down the side of a mountain in Scotland with his wife and fell 8 feet into a ridge. A man (who has remained anonymous and was left alone by the British press) was on the scene and was said to have assisted Cook. An emergency call was made and a helicopter arrived 30 minutes later. Cook was alive at the time the helicopter arrived, but, oddly, his wife did not go with him. When the helicopter arrived at the hospital, Cook was dead. He was 59.

    If you read the article at the link , Secretary Cook was arguing for a vastly different approach to terrorism which he wanted discussed at the G-8. He was serious enough about it to "out" the origins of the Al Qaeda operation to the general public, though in a milder form. Cook presents a "blowback" argument: that Al Qaeda was a American operation whose operatives got out of control after the original mission due to a ("a monumental miscalculation") by the American government. "Blowback" is a CIA term used when an operation has unintended consequences or repercussions. If Cook's assertion in The Guardian is correct and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda got out of control, that makes 9/11 the biggest blowback event ever in American history. (Of course, that wasn't the conclusion reached by the American media or the 9/11 report.)

    Cook's approach to Al Qaeda was less mild when speaking to the House of Commons that same summer:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qae...tabase-2/24738
    Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
    In other words, there is no Al Qaeda, the terrorist group. It simply does not exist. The term Al Qaeda simply and only refers to a database, which contains "go-betweens"--middlemen who got arms, money and fighters to certain locations desired by the CIA and Saudis. Al Qaeda is basically a database of a delivery system.

    Another source for Al Qaeda as database comes from Pierre-Henri Bunel, who wrote a peer-reviewed article for World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues about the source of Al Qaeda. Bunel was a French intelligence agent and his article "The Origins of Al-Qaida" appears in World Affairs Vol. 8, No. 2 (APRIL-JUNE 2004), pp. 53-59. The PDF can be downloaded from JSTOR at the following link: https://www-jstor-org.nuls.idm.oclc....off&group=none, but one must have a subscription to JSTOR. I have a PDF of the complete article, but an important excerpt may be found here:

    In this excerpt, Bunel makes it clear that the term "Q eidat" was routinely used to refer to computer databases in the mid-eighties when he was attending a course in Jordan.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qae...tabase-2/24738

    “For example, when one of us was late at the bus stop to leave the Staff College, the two officers used to tell us: ‘You’ll be noted in ‘Q eidat il-Maaloomaat’ which meant ‘You’ll be logged in the information database.’ Meaning ‘You will receive a warning . . .’ If the case was more severe, they would used to talk about ‘Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.’ Meaning ‘the decision database.’ It meant ‘you will be punished.’ For the worst cases they used to speak of logging in ‘Al Qaida.’

    ...Q eida means “a base” and “Al Qaida” means “the base.”
    If you look at this carefully, Q eida meant "a database" and Al Qaida meant "the database." So what was Al Qaida/Qaeda the database?

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qae...tabase-2/24738

    “In the early 1980s the Islamic Bank for Development, which is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, like the Permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Conference Organization, bought a new computerized system to cope with its accounting and communication requirements. At the time the system was more sophisticated than necessary for their actual needs.

    “It was decided to use a part of the system’s memory to host the Islamic Conference’s database. It was possible for the countries attending to access the database by telephone: an Intranet, in modern language. The governments of the member-countries as well as some of their embassies in the world were connected to that network.

    “[According to a Pakistani major] the database was divided into two parts, the information file where the participants in the meetings could pick up and send information they needed, and the decision file where the decisions made during the previous sessions were recorded and stored. In Arabic, the files were called, ‘Q eidat il-Maaloomaat’ and ‘Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.’ Those two files were kept in one file called in Arabic ‘Q eidat ilmu’ti’aat’ which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word Al Qaida which is the Arabic word for “base.” The military air base of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is called ‘q eidat ‘riyadh al ‘askariya.’ Q eida means “a base” and “Al Qaida” means “the base.”

    In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference’s secretariat.
    So who is the Islamic Conference?

    https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/org...mic-conference
    Comprised of fifty-seven nations spread over four continents, the forty-year-old* Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest international body after the UN, and is aimed at protecting Muslim interests worldwide.

    *Note: this article was written in 2010.
    The Islamic Conference changed its name in 2011 to The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its member nations are listed in Wikipedia. Its official website is found here. Originally started to protect Islamic monuments from destruction after deliberate arson at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969, its goals were originally related to the preservation of Islamic culture. The new program goals read more like the typical New World Order fare:

    https://www.oic-oci.org/page/?p_id=52&p_ref=26&lan=en

    The new programme OIC-2025 is anchored in the provisions of the OIC Charter and focuses on 18 priority areas with 107 goals. The priority areas include issues of Peace and Security, Palestine and Al-Quds, Poverty Alleviation, Counter-terrorism, Investment and Finance, Food Security, Science and Technology, Climate Change and Sustainability, Moderation, Culture and Interfaith Harmony, Empowerment of Women, Joint Islamic Humanitarian Action, Human Rights and Good Governance, among others.
    One can understand how such a large, important organization might call its database "The" database--Al Qaida (Quaeda). So how did Al Qaida (Qaeda), the database of the Islamic Conference secretariat, become a database of arms smugglers and mujaheddin?

    Brunel explains the following:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qae...tabase-2/24738

    “Al Qaida remained the data base of the Islamic Conference. Not all member countries of the Islamic Conference are ‘rogue states’ and many Islamic groups could pick up information from the databases. It was but natural for Osama Bin Laden to be connected to this network. He is a member of an important family in the banking and business world.

    “Because of the presence of ‘rogue states,’ it became easy for terrorist groups to use the email of the database. Hence, the email of Al Qaida was used, with some interface system, providing secrecy, for the families of the mujaheddin to keep links with their children undergoing training in Afghanistan, or in Libya or in the Beqaa valley, Lebanon. Or in action anywhere in the battlefields where the extremists sponsored by all the ‘rogue states’ used to fight. And the ‘rogue states’ included Saudi Arabia. When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.
    In the aftermath of 9/11, it was easy to forget that Osama Bin Laden (the alleged mastermind of 9/11) was in fact the son of Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, the founder of the . The Bin Laden family's net worth was recently estimated at 7 billion US dollars. In other words, Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire. When his father died in 1967, Osama himself inherited $25–30 million, the equivalent of $195-234 miiiion today.

    One might pause here and compare the "terrorist" Osama with the "SDS/Weatherman" Bill Ayers. Both men were from incredibly wealthy, influential, and well-connected families and had significant amounts of money of their own. Both were involved in well-publicized acts of terror. This is not accidental, this is part of a pattern. Just bookmark this for now.

    So at this point, we have begun to see that there is no Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization. At the time of the 9/11 attacks there was also no Al Qaeda/Qaida, the terrorist organization. There was a simply a database named Al Qaeda (literally "the base") on which bad actors have stored names of middlemen who can run guns, money and fighters to different places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24,849
    But what of those actions by Al Qaeda, and all of those offshoots like ISIS? After all, there is real violence going on. People are being killed, buildings are being destroyed. Brunel explains it this way:

    https://www-jstor-org.nuls.idm.oclc....531752c9fe651c

    Al-Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property.

    Terrorists always act on behalf of local interests where it is very difficult to differenciate between common criminality and political activism. Claiming a major political purpose is only a way to invest crimes with some kind of legitimacy. In short there is no international terrorism, but groups that operate with no national references and that do not care about borders.

    Some people however benefit from the public belief in a “unified, common enemy”. Those are not only the terrorist groups but also the powers that be which make money by waging the war against “bin Laden’s army”.

    The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult situation vis-à-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to “punish” Prime Minister Erdogan for being a “toot tepid” Islamic politician.
    What Brunel is saying here is that terrorist actions are typically local but that different parties at different times find it convenient to blame terrorist acts on a much larger international group. Al Qaeda is a convenient fiction for both governments and perpetrators at different times. The example Brunel gives is of the 2003 Istanbul Bombings in which truck bombs were detonated in front of two different synagogues, the British consulate and the HSBC headquarters, resulting in 59 deaths, including 4 suicide bombers. Al Qaeda was deemed responsible for these bombings (after an investigation by the Turkish government) but Brunel tells us here that local people planned and implemented the attacks. The government of Turkey, however, found it convenient to blame these attacks on an outside force, not an internal one.

    Not only do world leaders find it convenient, from time to time, to blame local events on the international "Al Qaeda", but so do local terrorist groups themselves. Brunel explains:

    https://www-jstor-org.nuls.idm.oclc....531752c9fe651c

    Meanwhile a deep dissatisfaction has taken root in the Third World towards the international trade organisations and the economic policy elaborated by the WTO. This dissatisfaction is used by the propagandists of the Islamic Revolution to muster popular support for the Armed Islamic Extremists (AIEs).

    Targeting American citizens or interests, or allies of the Americans, provides publicity to local terrorist groups and supports a general trend to attack “the capitalistic system”...

    In the world of today there is an acute confrontation between several economic concepts and opinions. Some of the opponents of Western-led globalisation are able to use military or terrorist actions to support their economic struggle.

    The third world feels supported by the so-called “rogue” elements of the Islamic Conference. And these elements are not states but lobbies. Exactly as in the liberal economic system. In the “liberal” countries of the WTO, lobbies control governments and lead them into military actions under defence pretexts, but really only to make money through warfare.

    In the third world the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact “rogue states”, specially the US and other NATO members.

    Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against “liberal” economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al-Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.
    In other words, the United States and NATO are actually being run by lobbies that want the global economic system represented by the WTO and the nations involved use their militaries against the "rogue" nations that disagree in pre-emptive wars. Many Third World nations do not want this WTO economic system. (Of course, neither did most Americans, which is why Donald Trump got elected by those "left behind" by the trade agreements.) At the time of this writing (2004) Brunel asserts that Islamic lobbies are conducting their own war against the imposition of the WTO through of use terrorist attacks which can be conveniently blamed on Al Qaeda.

    But of course, there is no Al Qaeda terrorist group.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qae...tabase-2/24738

    “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Tecate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    3,383
    Pretty much all of this isn’t new to me. Mika’s daddy invented Al Qaeda and wrote books like The Grand Chessboard while she lectures us on what we’re supposed to think. If you didn’t read what Elspeth posted, you really should. Body scanners were rolled out the day after the underwear bomber was allowed on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit without a passport on Christmas Day.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XVjgnbyyo
    It’s not a civil war until both sides show up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member old dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    the high desert
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Another source for Al Qaeda as database comes from Pierre-Henri Bunel, who wrote a peer-reviewed article for World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues about the source of Al Qaeda. Bunel was a French intelligence agent and his article "The Origins of Al-Qaida" appears in World Affairs Vol. 8, No. 2 (APRIL-JUNE 2004), pp. 53-59. The PDF can be downloaded from JSTOR at the following link: https://www-jstor-org.nuls.idm.oclc....off&group=none, but one must have a subscription to JSTOR.
    .
    You can read this article FREE (not downloadable but you can take screenshots and paste them into a PDF) at this JSTOR link:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48504792.pdf?seq=1

    It requires you to register but no CC required.

    PS Excellent summary, Elspeth.

    The United States Navy, fighting Moslem barbarians since 1801.

    *****************************************
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    ******************************************
    Democrat evolution: JFK PUT A MAN ON THE MOON AND OBAMA PUT A MAN IN THE LADIES BATHROOM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Tecate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    3,383
    Create a crisis, manage the reaction, and then offer your solution that you’ve had planned for decades.
    It’s not a civil war until both sides show up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •