I think that tis is very significant and needs to be seen . . .
It seems, unfortunately, that the Iraq/AQ excuse is still being perpetuated by the powers that be . . . . except that the seams are showing again!!!!
We are being lied to, RIGHT NOW . . . not just to get the war started . . . . 'al qued' the phrase in the video, DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as Al Queda!!!!!
yet our translation SAYS AL QUEDA!!! so that is a blatant lie through deliberate mistranslation!!
THe Zarqwi thing might be as well though it did seem to say that he was representing Zarqawi . . and wasn't himself Zarqawi . . . but, nonetheless, the spin wants us to think it is him . . . when it isn't.
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
I have to wonder if you are even reading the same thread that I am. Or maybe you're just reading the words differently...kind of like how a colorblind person sees red things as green?
Look at the posts above...they are full of evidence that lies are being told by the military and the CIA (big fucking surprise that) in order to promote a particular agenda (link Iraq and al Qaeda by any means possible). We're discussing what is going on, and so far the most we have conjectured is that something weird is up.
(I've decided not to watch the video, incidentally, because I understand it's a film of a man getting his head chopped off.)
More hacked than chopped. But the effect is essentially the same. Only with extra screaming.
Edit: thinking about it again, the screaming is probably the worst thing about it. You just keep thinking 'that poor guy.'
I expect there are worse things to see, but I understand why the video is really bothering some of the people who have watched it. It is genuinely upsetting.
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
I am not saying that it is Bush's doing . . . leave that to other posters on this thread . . . I think it is overboard: I believe some local faction of wannabe Religious fundamentalist radicals that wanted to be associated with the 'greater cause' of AQ and Zarqawi probably did this.
I think, though, the spin on mistranslating 'al qued' which DOES NOT MEAN Al Queda into 'Al Queda' is deliberate and very clearly serves the purposes of this administration in bolstering their proven-false claim that AQ was in operation in Iraq and therefor justfied the invasion . . . (read that again and get it into your head before you respond please)
I also think that I have posted numerous alternatives to ways to fight the WOT in other threads . . . it is simply that you ignore them: particularly because you equate the invasion of Iraq with the WOT . . . . it is not: that is merely the cover story for a long held ambition . . . it in fact, has proven to be, as many here new it would be, the worst possible course of action, after the good, IMO, Afghanistan invasion.
I am going to stick my head on the line, and say that I believe there is a good chance that this whole video was staged as a desperate PR attempt to divert attention from our own misdoings in the Iraqi prisons, and focus our minds back on why we supposedly are there. I have yet to think of many good reasons why Al-Q would do this, but I can think of many reasons why such an evil, brutal video would benefit the coalittion.
I think it is highly unlikely US was involved in the killing (mistranslation essentially seals that part of it), but pinning it on "al-qaeda" and/or Zarqawi is extremely suspect, for a long string of reasons.
I can't tell whether this is a case of military losing control of information or if it is an information offensive. Likely the 1st. But then again, who's pinning it on zarqawi if it wasn't him? Who's involved in what groups? Is zarqawi in competition with osama or working with him. Are zarqawi and/or osama even still alive?
I think, though, the spin on mistranslating 'al qued' which DOES NOT MEAN Al Queda into 'Al Queda' is deliberate and very clearly serves the purposes of this administration in bolstering their proven-false claim that AQ was in operation in Iraq and therefor justfied the invasion . . .
Another related point is that there were claims from the Bush admin, pre-invasion, that Zarqawi was Bin Laden's agent in Iraq...but there was contention that Zarqawi's group was akin to being a competitor to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi and Bin Laden considered each other to be rivals.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!! [/B]
Show us some sensible evidence that supports the Bush Administration's own theories. So far, their whole line is flawed and full of holes. And no, I am not saying that someone in the Bush administration deliberatedly sacrificed this man's life as 'damage control', using a most horrific and grisly video to drum up emotional support, provide a convenient distraction, and provide a perfect opportunity to compare cultures: ie...they behead people, we just abuse them. But to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't put anything past them these days: there has been so much conniving dishonesty and fabrications that they have used up more than their 9 credibility lives. In the "wacko explanation" stakes regarding this episode, the official line wins hands down.
In a free society, like the United States, we need to question the government all the time, and be perpetually on their case: they are our elected officials and they must be accountable at all times. We deserve plausible, sensible explanations that don't fall down at every turn. The "put up and shut up" attitude is supremely anti-American and anti-democratic in principle, and that is exactly the fear tactic exploited since 9-11 this administration has been relying on. Put up and shup up....its my way of the highway. You sound as if you would go far in a Saddam Hussein style government.
According the BushCorp: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it has to be an albatross.
Another related point is that there were claims from the Bush admin, pre-invasion, that Zarqawi was Bin Laden's agent in Iraq...but there was contention that Zarqawi's group was akin to being a competitor to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi and Bin Laden considered each other to be rivals.
Something else interesting in that BBC article is that it states that Zarqawi lost a leg from a missile strike in 2001. I don't know much about current leg prosthetics but the person in the video who did the beheading seemed to move around quite well. Maybe I'm off base on this one tho... I watched the video once and I'm not going to watch it again to check.
More hacked than chopped. But the effect is essentially the same. Only with extra screaming.
Edit: thinking about it again, the screaming is probably the worst thing about it. You just keep thinking 'that poor guy.'
I expect there are worse things to see, but I understand why the video is really bothering some of the people who have watched it. It is genuinely upsetting.
After watching it a few times I got the feeling that the guy doing the 'chopping' was a first-timer. About half way through the murder all the guys stop yelling and pretty much stare at the chopper in disbelief that it was taking so long. Beheading, as I've stated before, should be quick. This was not so quick...but I'd rather witness a 30 second beheading than a 3 hour skinning alive. War is hell.
This Berg story is getting even more interesting. There's now a link between Berg and Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.. The FBI says it was a coincidental encounter, but it is veeery interesting now isn't it?
Quote:
According to Berg, his son was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport. He described how on one particular day, his son met "some terrorist people -- who no one knew were terrorists at the time."
At one point during the bus ride, Berg said, the man sitting next to his son asked if he could use Nick's laptop computer.
"It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son's e-mail, amongst many other people's e-mail who he did the same thing to," Berg said.
Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.
The sources said the man who used Berg's e-mail knew Moussaoui, now awaiting trial on federal charges that could bring a death sentence. But the sources would not disclose details of how the men were connected.
[B]This Berg story is getting even more interesting.
Then there is this little oddity, which just adds to the unlikeliness of the 'al qaeda' theory:
from an ABC report:
Quote:
A close examination of the tape shows none of the five masked men is wearing gloves, so federal officials are trying to determine if there are any tell-tale tattoos on their hands. One of the clues the FBI and CIA is studying is the large gold ring Zarqawi is wearing on his right hand, giving off a glare several times during the six-minute tape.
The wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam. Especially to rabid fundamentalists, of which al qaeda supposedly comprises. Reminds one of 9-11: fundamentalist Muslims do not tend to hang out drinking alcohol in Miami strip bars, and they have more respect for their sacred scriptures than to abandon copies of the Q'ran in rental cars.
The wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam. Especially to rabid fundamentalists, of which al qaeda supposedly comprises. Reminds one of 9-11: fundamentalist Muslims do not tend to hang out drinking alcohol in Miami strip bars, and they have more respect for their sacred scriptures than to abandon copies of the Q'ran in rental cars.
I've been troubled by this inconsistency, as well. I know some very religious Muslims (they are not fundamentalists by any stretch, but very devout) and they don't even touch empty beer bottles. They avert their eyes at Victoria's Secret commercials. They don't look at women when they're speaking to them and shift their weight from side to side with embarrassment when they are being spoken to by women. I can't reconcile the supposed behavior of the accused terrorists with what I know to be true of anyone who is a devout Muslim (hell, devout anything). But we'll never know.... And the gold ring thing: you're right. That and silk are strictly forbidden for men to wear. Even moderately religious Muslim men don't wear them.
ref earlier posts, I do not think that the US had murdered Nick Berg, but there is the possibility that his timely death, was used to good advantage by the US.
IF, the public was disgusted by our troops behaviour and withdrawl support of our occupation, we have the possibility that iraq will be the next vietnam, no purposeful end and no public backing. This will destroy Bush, Blair, the military and the US and UK internationally. IF you were Bush and co. the prison issue would have to be nullified quickly and decidedly by something even more disgusting and brutal. What would polarize public support more to your POV than the beheading of our own citizen? How many of us were disgusted by the prison abuse, only to flip 180 when Nick Berg was killed? Now think of the average IQ 100 middle American. Its worked beautifully perhaps.
Why would Al-Q do this? The obvious answer is that they are naturally evil bastards. But I think its well established that they are also smart as well.
Is it in their interests to confirm that they are active in Iraq? No, because this legitimises the occupation and Bushes convictions for the last 3 years.
Are they likely to gain support of the Iraqi's for doing a revenge killing? In the majority no, but I expect the radical iraqi's loved it.
Are they likely to gain ME support for removing the US from the holy lands? I think there is proof that there is widespread ME disgust aswell.
I dont think we need to elaborate on world opinion of the action.
Are they likely to hand Bush and co such a PR advantage? Bush and co are really in the shit at the moment, they just handed them a letoff gift wrapped on a silver plate. it would be more to their advantage if they dressed up as US soldiers and beheaded a few iraqis.
and so on. Perhaps someone can find a valid reason on how this event has helped Al-Q at any level. At best, they're only preaching to the converted. Everything else was just a stupid own goal.
Something sucks big-time about this whole affair. The fact that Al-Qued has been (intentionally?) mistranslated, almost proves beyond doubt that Al-Q were not behind this.
Im not pro-terrorist apologetic, but Im not pro-believe-the-lies-deceit-spin-of-the-US-UK-governemts-without-thinking-for-myself either.
Is it in their interests to confirm that they are active in Iraq? No, because this legitimises the occupation and Bushes convictions for the last 3 years.
What's interesting about the belief that al-qaeda is focused on Iraq is that it assumes gross strategic ignorance on the part of these terrorist groups. The belief that Iraq is a magnet for foreign terrorists just isn't very realistic and it certainly isn't shaping up that way. Many of the people that make up these groups are obviously not completely stupid. I truly hope our governments recognize this and all of this deception is strategic. Of course, their track record isn't too hot.
Comments
Originally posted by 7E7
Perhaps proof that great minds DON'T think alike?
Who are these 'great minds' and what did they disagree on?
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that tis is very significant and needs to be seen . . .
It seems, unfortunately, that the Iraq/AQ excuse is still being perpetuated by the powers that be . . . . except that the seams are showing again!!!!
We are being lied to, RIGHT NOW . . . not just to get the war started . . . . 'al qued' the phrase in the video, DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as Al Queda!!!!!
yet our translation SAYS AL QUEDA!!! so that is a blatant lie through deliberate mistranslation!!
THe Zarqwi thing might be as well though it did seem to say that he was representing Zarqawi . . and wasn't himself Zarqawi . . . but, nonetheless, the spin wants us to think it is him . . . when it isn't.
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
Originally posted by 7E7
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
I have to wonder if you are even reading the same thread that I am. Or maybe you're just reading the words differently...kind of like how a colorblind person sees red things as green?
Look at the posts above...they are full of evidence that lies are being told by the military and the CIA (big fucking surprise that) in order to promote a particular agenda (link Iraq and al Qaeda by any means possible). We're discussing what is going on, and so far the most we have conjectured is that something weird is up.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
(I've decided not to watch the video, incidentally, because I understand it's a film of a man getting his head chopped off.)
More hacked than chopped. But the effect is essentially the same. Only with extra screaming.
Edit: thinking about it again, the screaming is probably the worst thing about it. You just keep thinking 'that poor guy.'
I expect there are worse things to see, but I understand why the video is really bothering some of the people who have watched it. It is genuinely upsetting.
Originally posted by 7E7
(and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently)
who cares? we are not the government and can't do anything about it
Originally posted by 7E7
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst! What I find very amusing about all of you anti-war liberals at AO (and you are because you have never presented any workable solutions about how you would go after the terrorist threat we face differently) is this: you can make all the accusations you want with absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever - not even the slightest shread of circumstantial evidence. Yet when there are very strong signs that Islamic fundamentalists are behind this brutal act you totally dismiss them out of hand.
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!!
I am not saying that it is Bush's doing . . . leave that to other posters on this thread . . . I think it is overboard: I believe some local faction of wannabe Religious fundamentalist radicals that wanted to be associated with the 'greater cause' of AQ and Zarqawi probably did this.
I think, though, the spin on mistranslating 'al qued' which DOES NOT MEAN Al Queda into 'Al Queda' is deliberate and very clearly serves the purposes of this administration in bolstering their proven-false claim that AQ was in operation in Iraq and therefor justfied the invasion . . . (read that again and get it into your head before you respond please)
I also think that I have posted numerous alternatives to ways to fight the WOT in other threads . . . it is simply that you ignore them: particularly because you equate the invasion of Iraq with the WOT . . . . it is not: that is merely the cover story for a long held ambition . . . it in fact, has proven to be, as many here new it would be, the worst possible course of action, after the good, IMO, Afghanistan invasion.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I am going to stick my head on the line, and say that I believe there is a good chance that this whole video was staged as a desperate PR attempt to divert attention from our own misdoings in the Iraqi prisons, and focus our minds back on why we supposedly are there. I have yet to think of many good reasons why Al-Q would do this, but I can think of many reasons why such an evil, brutal video would benefit the coalittion.
I think it is highly unlikely US was involved in the killing (mistranslation essentially seals that part of it), but pinning it on "al-qaeda" and/or Zarqawi is extremely suspect, for a long string of reasons.
I can't tell whether this is a case of military losing control of information or if it is an information offensive. Likely the 1st. But then again, who's pinning it on zarqawi if it wasn't him? Who's involved in what groups? Is zarqawi in competition with osama or working with him. Are zarqawi and/or osama even still alive?
Originally posted by pfflam
I think, though, the spin on mistranslating 'al qued' which DOES NOT MEAN Al Queda into 'Al Queda' is deliberate and very clearly serves the purposes of this administration in bolstering their proven-false claim that AQ was in operation in Iraq and therefor justfied the invasion . . .
Another related point is that there were claims from the Bush admin, pre-invasion, that Zarqawi was Bin Laden's agent in Iraq...but there was contention that Zarqawi's group was akin to being a competitor to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi and Bin Laden considered each other to be rivals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Start providing proof for your conspiracy theories or shut the hell up!!!!! [/B]
Show us some sensible evidence that supports the Bush Administration's own theories. So far, their whole line is flawed and full of holes. And no, I am not saying that someone in the Bush administration deliberatedly sacrificed this man's life as 'damage control', using a most horrific and grisly video to drum up emotional support, provide a convenient distraction, and provide a perfect opportunity to compare cultures: ie...they behead people, we just abuse them. But to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't put anything past them these days: there has been so much conniving dishonesty and fabrications that they have used up more than their 9 credibility lives. In the "wacko explanation" stakes regarding this episode, the official line wins hands down.
In a free society, like the United States, we need to question the government all the time, and be perpetually on their case: they are our elected officials and they must be accountable at all times. We deserve plausible, sensible explanations that don't fall down at every turn. The "put up and shut up" attitude is supremely anti-American and anti-democratic in principle, and that is exactly the fear tactic exploited since 9-11 this administration has been relying on. Put up and shup up....its my way of the highway. You sound as if you would go far in a Saddam Hussein style government.
According the BushCorp: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it has to be an albatross.
Originally posted by segovius
http://www.al-ansar.biz/
But it's offline now.
hmmm.
Originally posted by 7E7
I cannot believe you guys? You are practically accusing the Bush Administration for the murder of Nick Berg based on some CNN Middle East analyst!
I understand Arabic and the analyst's translation was more accurate.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Another related point is that there were claims from the Bush admin, pre-invasion, that Zarqawi was Bin Laden's agent in Iraq...but there was contention that Zarqawi's group was akin to being a competitor to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi and Bin Laden considered each other to be rivals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Something else interesting in that BBC article is that it states that Zarqawi lost a leg from a missile strike in 2001. I don't know much about current leg prosthetics but the person in the video who did the beheading seemed to move around quite well. Maybe I'm off base on this one tho... I watched the video once and I'm not going to watch it again to check.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
More hacked than chopped. But the effect is essentially the same. Only with extra screaming.
Edit: thinking about it again, the screaming is probably the worst thing about it. You just keep thinking 'that poor guy.'
I expect there are worse things to see, but I understand why the video is really bothering some of the people who have watched it. It is genuinely upsetting.
After watching it a few times I got the feeling that the guy doing the 'chopping' was a first-timer. About half way through the murder all the guys stop yelling and pretty much stare at the chopper in disbelief that it was taking so long. Beheading, as I've stated before, should be quick. This was not so quick...but I'd rather witness a 30 second beheading than a 3 hour skinning alive. War is hell.
According to Berg, his son was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport. He described how on one particular day, his son met "some terrorist people -- who no one knew were terrorists at the time."
At one point during the bus ride, Berg said, the man sitting next to his son asked if he could use Nick's laptop computer.
"It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son's e-mail, amongst many other people's e-mail who he did the same thing to," Berg said.
Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.
The sources said the man who used Berg's e-mail knew Moussaoui, now awaiting trial on federal charges that could bring a death sentence. But the sources would not disclose details of how the men were connected.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast...erg.encounter/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119896,00.html
Originally posted by Akumulator
[B]This Berg story is getting even more interesting.
Then there is this little oddity, which just adds to the unlikeliness of the 'al qaeda' theory:
from an ABC report:
A close examination of the tape shows none of the five masked men is wearing gloves, so federal officials are trying to determine if there are any tell-tale tattoos on their hands. One of the clues the FBI and CIA is studying is the large gold ring Zarqawi is wearing on his right hand, giving off a glare several times during the six-minute tape.
The wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam. Especially to rabid fundamentalists, of which al qaeda supposedly comprises. Reminds one of 9-11: fundamentalist Muslims do not tend to hang out drinking alcohol in Miami strip bars, and they have more respect for their sacred scriptures than to abandon copies of the Q'ran in rental cars.
I would just give up.
Too many terrorist sympathizers around here.
Originally posted by sammi jo
According the BushCorp: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it has to be an albatross.
And if you keep saying "albatross" over and over and over again, then polls will show that 68% of the public believe that duck was an albatross.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam. Especially to rabid fundamentalists, of which al qaeda supposedly comprises. Reminds one of 9-11: fundamentalist Muslims do not tend to hang out drinking alcohol in Miami strip bars, and they have more respect for their sacred scriptures than to abandon copies of the Q'ran in rental cars.
I've been troubled by this inconsistency, as well. I know some very religious Muslims (they are not fundamentalists by any stretch, but very devout) and they don't even touch empty beer bottles. They avert their eyes at Victoria's Secret commercials. They don't look at women when they're speaking to them and shift their weight from side to side with embarrassment when they are being spoken to by women. I can't reconcile the supposed behavior of the accused terrorists with what I know to be true of anyone who is a devout Muslim (hell, devout anything). But we'll never know.... And the gold ring thing: you're right. That and silk are strictly forbidden for men to wear. Even moderately religious Muslim men don't wear them.
IF, the public was disgusted by our troops behaviour and withdrawl support of our occupation, we have the possibility that iraq will be the next vietnam, no purposeful end and no public backing. This will destroy Bush, Blair, the military and the US and UK internationally. IF you were Bush and co. the prison issue would have to be nullified quickly and decidedly by something even more disgusting and brutal. What would polarize public support more to your POV than the beheading of our own citizen? How many of us were disgusted by the prison abuse, only to flip 180 when Nick Berg was killed? Now think of the average IQ 100 middle American. Its worked beautifully perhaps.
Why would Al-Q do this? The obvious answer is that they are naturally evil bastards. But I think its well established that they are also smart as well.
Is it in their interests to confirm that they are active in Iraq? No, because this legitimises the occupation and Bushes convictions for the last 3 years.
Are they likely to gain support of the Iraqi's for doing a revenge killing? In the majority no, but I expect the radical iraqi's loved it.
Are they likely to gain ME support for removing the US from the holy lands? I think there is proof that there is widespread ME disgust aswell.
I dont think we need to elaborate on world opinion of the action.
Are they likely to hand Bush and co such a PR advantage? Bush and co are really in the shit at the moment, they just handed them a letoff gift wrapped on a silver plate. it would be more to their advantage if they dressed up as US soldiers and beheaded a few iraqis.
and so on. Perhaps someone can find a valid reason on how this event has helped Al-Q at any level. At best, they're only preaching to the converted. Everything else was just a stupid own goal.
Something sucks big-time about this whole affair. The fact that Al-Qued has been (intentionally?) mistranslated, almost proves beyond doubt that Al-Q were not behind this.
Im not pro-terrorist apologetic, but Im not pro-believe-the-lies-deceit-spin-of-the-US-UK-governemts-without-thinking-for-myself either.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Is it in their interests to confirm that they are active in Iraq? No, because this legitimises the occupation and Bushes convictions for the last 3 years.
What's interesting about the belief that al-qaeda is focused on Iraq is that it assumes gross strategic ignorance on the part of these terrorist groups. The belief that Iraq is a magnet for foreign terrorists just isn't very realistic and it certainly isn't shaping up that way. Many of the people that make up these groups are obviously not completely stupid. I truly hope our governments recognize this and all of this deception is strategic. Of course, their track record isn't too hot.