• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

What?! Madrid attacks weren't by the big, bad, omnipresent Al Qaeda???

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Wait wait wait, you are telling me that Osama isn't the root cause of all the terrorism?

Well no? that's just crazy talk, there is hundreds of terrorist orgs and thousands of reasons for them

That means that hunting down Osama in Afghanistan, finding and killing him won't solve our problems?

No it won't, just revenge for 9/11

But but but, how come some 'people' say we should have put more troops in Afghanistan to hunt down Osama?

To get the man responsible for 9/11?


I don't get it, if terrorism is more than just Al qaeda, then what?

That's the billion dollar question, I guess that's why palehorse says it's going to be a 200 year war


What could be the reason why they are doing all of this?
Oh thats right, they chop off heads, they riot, they bomb all countries around the world because the US is nosy.

Chop off heads? you mean Nick Berg? That whole thing is one strange puppy. I guess if al-Zarqawi is Al-Qaida and he did it , then yes

riot? I don't think terrorists generally do any rioting

because the U.S. is nosy?

Haha I can't believe I spent 15 minutes typing out a response but I had a good laugh :)

You don't see sarcasm? :/
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Text


Whether he is alive or not I'm not really sure is that relevant. Personally, I hope they got the bastard although I believe he is still on the run.
How is that proof that Zarqawi wrote that statement? He talks of himself in the 3rd person? Interesting.

The CIA confirmed it was real, quit denying the truth, you sound like an imbecile.

Translator's Introduction: On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wal-Jihad organization issued an online statement pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda and its commander, Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda reprinted and acknowledged the statement, responding favorably to the new development in their online magazine Mu'askar al-Battar. The newly-affiliated group is known as Tanzim Qai'dat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), and has already claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, including the December 13 bombing at an entrance to Baghdad's Green Zone.

The bay'ah (oath of allegiance) has been deemed authentic by US military and intelligence analysts, and was further reaffirmed by al-Qaeda's public acknowledgement. For this reason, Jamestown has chosen to print a translated version of the segment from al-Battar, in the interest of providing its readership with primary material on key developments in global terror.

Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri have endorsed and praised Zarqawi and the Iraqi insurgency in the past, and Zarqawi has been happy to acknowledge these remarks, while carefully maintaining his subordinate role in the greater mission and demonstrating his willingness to show loyalty. Many conclusions can be drawn from the text: firstly, Zarqawi's oath challenges past perceptions of rivalry between his organization and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Secondly, it demonstrates his desire to establish himself as a key player in al-Qaeda's mission in Iraq. Finally, the text serves as a recruiting statement for the Iraqi insurgency, through the endorsement of al-Qaeda leadership.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The CIA? The same CIA that helped Saddam gain power? The same CIA that's been smuggling cocaine into the US for decades? The same CIA that helped produce false and misleading intelligence that Iraq had WMDs?

Excuse me while I laugh at you.

You still didn't answer my question. Zarqawi talks of himself in the third person? Is he a Seinfeld fan or something? "Jimmy al-Zarqawi likes Elaine."
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Is that the total and complete rebuttal? Where is that thoughtful, reasoned analysis now? "Put up or shut up, blind sheep, betrayal of your responsibility as an American citizen", ring any bells?

It should.
Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? Did I challenge you to think? The difference is I have on many occasions explained why I think the al Qaeda propaganda is way overblown, more a boogeyman to keep people like you cowering in line and voting Republican than a real, major threat to America. I have supported my views and defended them when challenged. You, on the other hand, have openly admitted you know squat about "PATRIOT" but support it just because Bush told you it is good. You've made zero effort to support your views. You've sacrificed your reasoning abilities for blind faith in the snake oil salesman who claims he can protect you from the boogeyman. It makes just as much sense for you to buy my magic, tiger-repelling rock. It must work because I've never been attacked by a tiger.
Ah I see you decided to break out the Po'baby talking points, doesn't require any "thoughtful analysis", but hey whatever floats your boat.
Reading is hard, hard work. Workin' hard.

I see dodging the point is quite easy for you, on the other hand. Run, Forrest, run. :laugh:
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The CIA? The same CIA that helped Saddam gain power? The same CIA that's been smuggling cocaine into the US for decades? The same CIA that helped produce false and misleading intelligence that Iraq had WMDs?

Excuse me while I laugh at you.

It's official, your IQ is lower than my dogs. READ THE ARTICLE POSTED. Al Qaeda acknowledges it, the CIA acknowledges it, Zarqawi acknowledges it. The only person denying it is YOU, the know it all liberal from Kentucky.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Is that the total and complete rebuttal? Where is that thoughtful, reasoned analysis now? "Put up or shut up, blind sheep, betrayal of your responsibility as an American citizen", ring any bells?

It should.
Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? Did I challenge you to think? The difference is I have on many occasions explained why I think the al Qaeda propaganda is way overblown, more a boogeyman to keep people like you cowering in line and voting Republican than a real, major threat to America. I have supported my views and defended them when challenged. You, on the other hand, have openly admitted you know squat about "PATRIOT" but support it just because Bush told you it is good. You've made zero effort to support your views. You've sacrificed your reasoning abilities for blind faith in the snake oil salesman who claims he can protect you from the boogeyman. It makes just as much sense for you to buy my magic, tiger-repelling rock. It must work because I've never been attacked by a tiger.
Ah I see you decided to break out the Po'baby talking points, doesn't require any "thoughtful analysis", but hey whatever floats your boat.
Reading is hard, hard work. Workin' hard.

I see dodging the point is quite easy for you, on the other hand. Run, Forrest, run. :laugh:

Dodging hell, how about a rebuttal of my points I brought up on OP. Heh, nowhere to be found. :D

Running, yea believe you are.

:laugh:

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Listen to yourself!! Good gawd, dude! You're falling for the propaganda hook, line, and sinker!


Gullible to the max. FOX News just LOVES people like you.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: sumyungai

You don't see sarcasm? :/

That's why I put the
Haha I can't believe I spent 15 minutes typing out a response but I had a good laugh :)

But really, there is alot of times here I think the person HAS to be joking, but they were quite serious. And besides

"Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong.

According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I've only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they've correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars

;)

 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
The CIA? The same CIA that helped Saddam gain power? The same CIA that's been smuggling cocaine into the US for decades? The same CIA that helped produce false and misleading intelligence that Iraq had WMDs?

Excuse me while I laugh at you.

It's official, your IQ is lower than my dogs. READ THE ARTICLE POSTED. Al Qaeda acknowledges it, the CIA acknowledges it, Zarqawi acknowledges it. The only person denying it is YOU, the know it all liberal from Kentucky.

Kentucky? Wasn't aware of that, what area? Spent most of my life in Western Kentucky until last year, Murray to be exact.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Listen to yourself!! Good gawd, dude! You're falling for the propaganda hook, line, and sinker!


Gullible to the max. FOX News just LOVES people like you.

They love people that never watch their channel? I doubt it. So what exactly is your theory? That the US controls Bin Laden and Zarqawi, that we had them put the statements out?

You still haven't answered any of my statements either. Everyone but you (and maybe dave, I'm not sure) agrees that Zarqawi is real and part of Al Qaeda.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Is that the total and complete rebuttal? Where is that thoughtful, reasoned analysis now? "Put up or shut up, blind sheep, betrayal of your responsibility as an American citizen", ring any bells?

It should.
Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? Did I challenge you to think? The difference is I have on many occasions explained why I think the al Qaeda propaganda is way overblown, more a boogeyman to keep people like you cowering in line and voting Republican than a real, major threat to America. I have supported my views and defended them when challenged. You, on the other hand, have openly admitted you know squat about "PATRIOT" but support it just because Bush told you it is good. You've made zero effort to support your views. You've sacrificed your reasoning abilities for blind faith in the snake oil salesman who claims he can protect you from the boogeyman. It makes just as much sense for you to buy my magic, tiger-repelling rock. It must work because I've never been attacked by a tiger.
Ah I see you decided to break out the Po'baby talking points, doesn't require any "thoughtful analysis", but hey whatever floats your boat.
Reading is hard, hard work. Workin' hard.

I see dodging the point is quite easy for you, on the other hand. Run, Forrest, run. :laugh:
Dodging hell, how about a rebuttal of my points I brought up on OP. Heh, nowhere to be found. :D
What more is there to rebut? You've parroted a bunch of BushCo propaganda points which you accept as unquestionable truth because Bush said so. You then proclaim al Qaeda to be the ultimate boogeyman which overrides all other considerations, e.g., civil liberties, again because Bush says so. You offer nothing to support your panic other than your blindly emotional faith in Saint George. Sorry, I don't share your unthinking trust in government. I think al Qaeda is a threat to America, but they are not the only threat, or even the most significant threat. They can kill people and destroy property. That is terrible. This administration, on the other hand, threatens America's core principles and freedoms. That's even worse. You're apparently willing to sacrifice America to save her. I'm not.



Running, yea believe you are.

:laugh:
ROFL. You must be new here. It will be a cold day when I run from the likes of you. BushDrones are a dime a dozen. What's rare here are intelligent and informed Bush supporters who are actually capable of posing cogent arguments supporting BushCo actions and policies. You proved many times (most dramatically in the "PATRIOT" thread) you're the former, not the latter.

Toodles.

 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
[Qq]Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Is that the total and complete rebuttal? Where is that thoughtful, reasoned analysis now? "Put up or shut up, blind sheep, betrayal of your responsibility as an American citizen", ring any bells?

It should.
Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? Did I challenge you to think? The difference is I have on many occasions explained why I think the al Qaeda propaganda is way overblown, more a boogeyman to keep people like you cowering in line and voting Republican than a real, major threat to America. I have supported my views and defended them when challenged. You, on the other hand, have openly admitted you know squat about "PATRIOT" but support it just because Bush told you it is good. You've made zero effort to support your views. You've sacrificed your reasoning abilities for blind faith in the snake oil salesman who claims he can protect you from the boogeyman. It makes just as much sense for you to buy my magic, tiger-repelling rock. It must work because I've never been attacked by a tiger.
Ah I see you decided to break out the Po'baby talking points, doesn't require any "thoughtful analysis", but hey whatever floats your boat.
Reading is hard, hard work. Workin' hard.

I see dodging the point is quite easy for you, on the other hand. Run, Forrest, run. :laugh:
Dodging hell, how about a rebuttal of my points I brought up on OP. Heh, nowhere to be found. :D
What more is there to rebut? You've parroted a bunch of which you accept as unquestionable truth because Bush said so. You then proclaim al Qaeda to be the ultimate boogeyman which overrides all other considerations, e.g., civil liberties, again because Bush says so. You offer nothing to support your panic other than your blindly emotional faith in Saint George. Sorry, I don't share your unthinking trust in government. I think al Qaeda is a threat to America, but they are not the only threat, or even the most significant threat. They can kill people and destroy property. That is terrible. This administration, on the other hand, threatens America's core principles and freedoms. That's even worse. You're apparently willing to sacrifice America to save her. I'm not.

Running, yea believe you are.

:laugh:
ROFL. You must be new here. It will be a cold day when I run from the likes of you . BushDrones are a dime a dozen. What's rare here are intelligent and informed Bush supporters who are actually capable of posing cogent arguments supporting BushCo actions and policies. You proved many times (most dramatically in the "PATRIOT" thread) you're the former, not the latter.

Toodles.

[/quote]

About as intelligent and cogent as they come are you, Bowfinger?

Read much? Divert much?

Trying to make up fantasy land BS remarks again I see, becoming your typical MO, of course that is fine if that if the best you can do, which up to this point you have proven that clearly.

You've parroted a bunch of BushCo propaganda points which you accept as unquestionable truth because Bush said so

Did I say that, no I did not. What I did say however, discussing a number of sources not because, "Bush said so";

Let's see I'm currently reading Jawbreaker, the author, is the guy on the ground for the CIA in Tanzania and Kenya investigations and he makes it pretty clear that they are responsible for those. Amman was claimed by them, the Cole admitted to or not they did it and 9/11, well there are the conspiracy theories but otherwise the 9/11 commission makes it pretty clear.

You then proclaim al Qaeda to be the ultimate boogeyman which overrides all other considerations, e.g., civil liberties, again because Bush says so.

Did I say that, no I did not. What I did say however, is this;

Nevertheless, this does not mean however that we should not focus on other fundamentalist organizations either.

Please, ?omg my civil liberties are trashed?, well if that is the case your side would have killed the ?PATRIOT? but yet that didn?t happen as well, save your weak arguments for those who care. Also if you have a problem with the "PATRIOT" I suggest you take that topic up in that thread instead of trying to divert your talking points from my post on the OP.

Once again you fail to even counter my underlying point of my post on the OP, have you figured it out yet, that being we should never turn our backs on Al Qaeda nor stop focusing on them as a real threat.

You going to counter that argument, we should turn our backs on Al Qaeda or stop focusing on them as real threat? I've yet to see it. Do you even have one point to counter my original argument?

No, you don't and to top it off I'm fairly certain either one, you did not read the entirety of what I posted because it is pretty evident you didn't even touch my underlying argument, two all you have is left wing talking points, always my favorites, "BushCo propaganda points and Bush told you it is good", ahh jeez that is original thought, lmao, or three you really are just as you say, a blind sheep.

But hey there is always a 3rd or 4th try for the intelligent and cogent argument.

Be my guest.

Now, please let us hear why you believe we should either A, turn our backs on Al Qaeda or B stop focusing on them as threat, which as it turns out was the reason behind my post, yes I know you can't seem to understand that last point, too assumed with those BushCo talking points.

Stop with the petty diversions and try to come up with one intelligent and cogent argument as to why we should turn our backs and stop focusing on Al Qaeda.

BOO is the best you could do...

Spin those propaganda points now.

:laugh: toodles :laugh:



 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Radical Islam is an ideology that does not restrict itself to such groups as al-Qaida or need a direct connection to some main organization to lead it.

From article:

While the plotters of the Madrid attack were likely motivated by bin Laden's October 2003 call for attacks on European countries that supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there is no evidence they were in contact with the al-Qaida leader's inner circle, the intelligence official said.

Most of the plotters were Moroccan and Syrian immigrants, many with criminal records in Spain for drug trafficking and other crimes. They paid for explosives used in the attack with hashish.

That is a far cry from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States ? allegedly planned by al-Qaida leaders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh and funded directly by the terror network through international wire transfers and Islamic banking schemes.

Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, said the model used in Madrid, and likely for the July 7 London transport bombings fits in well with al-Qaida's business plan.

"Al-Qaida is not and never was a topdown organization that did everything in terms of attacks around the world. They have a key role in ideological terms ... but they rely on local cells and those that are inspired to carry out these attacks," he said.

After the fact, bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri are happy to claim responsibility because they recognize the carnage as inspired by their movement.

Still, Wilkinson cautioned that just because no direct link has been established between the Madrid plotters and al-Qaida, it doesn't mean none exists. "If security officials knew everything that was going on, we would have caught Osama bin Laden by now," he said.

As long as the West approaches radical Islam like some well defined enemy that can be labeled and categorized like those in the past they will never be defeated and only grow.

How does one fight an ideology that uses the Wests own freedoms and liberties in order to destroy them while at the same time utterly rejecting Western freedoms and beliefs like this man did Sayyid Qutb?
One can start by rejecting an interventionist foreign policy that has installed pro-US leader after leader in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

As long as the people want their cheap oil for their products and automobiles while maintaining their lifestyle and liberties with a I don't want to know just get it done mentality foreign policy won't change.

And Sayiid Qutb rejected the western way of life before he was tortured in Egypt, since you made the thread about the neocons after you watched the bbc videos you should know that.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
But Qutb intensified his ideals after he was tortured (by CIA-trained captors).

And, cheap oil isn't going to happen. Oil has increased more than 200% since Jan. 2001. In fact it's nearly tripled and it's not going to go down any time soon. We'll see $100/bbl before we see $25.

People are eventually going to catch on that the US foreign policy is one giant-sized Mises Effect and has been for decades. I hope it doesn't retrench into a fully isolationist policy but I really don't see that happening.

But, as long as people like those in this administration are in power, the policy of selling fear to the masses will remain in place. The "need" for a boogeyman is fundamental to their ideology.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: conjur
But Qutb intensified his ideals after he was tortured (by CIA-trained captors).

And, cheap oil isn't going to happen. Oil has increased more than 200% since Jan. 2001. In fact it's nearly tripled and it's not going to go down any time soon. We'll see $100/bbl before we see $25.

People are eventually going to catch on that the US foreign policy is one giant-sized Mises Effect and has been for decades. I hope it doesn't retrench into a fully isolationist policy but I really don't see that happening.

But, as long as people like those in this administration are in power, the policy of selling fear to the masses will remain in place. The "need" for a boogeyman is fundamental to their ideology.


Even if you prune the top of the tree (current administration) and splice in a better branch (pick your favorite politician) its the roots (local governments and people) that sustain the tree and that is were the solution and problem both lie. Most politicians start out at the local level and learn their ways there before getting to Washington, they don't just magically turn from an Abraham Lincoln to a Tom Delay once they're elected to a federal office.

From the 70's through the 90's I have seen this country change from the mentality of what can I do for my country and neighbor to a mentality of what's in it for me and what have you done for me lately, the current politicians just represent that mentality and it offends us because we see a part of ourselves we would rather not see.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The CIA? The same CIA that helped Saddam gain power? The same CIA that's been smuggling cocaine into the US for decades? The same CIA that helped produce false and misleading intelligence that Iraq had WMDs?
Excuse me while I laugh at you.

You still didn't answer my question. Zarqawi talks of himself in the third person? Is he a Seinfeld fan or something? "Jimmy al-Zarqawi likes Elaine."

Ain't that the truth