| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 10:39:57
because I don't want the other thread clouded and obscured by this.
quote:
The seeds of this grow in the schools of Cairo and Islamabad. How many of those seeds are growing up named Osama or Saddam? How many mosques are used as arms caches? Mullas as cell leaders? Islamic ambulances as attack vehicles? Islam must solve this at its roots or it will be solved for them, most likely by turning their own tactics against them.
So you blame the many for the acts of the few, this is ridiculous. There are a small group of people who are not representative of this religion, who are making the name for the rest of it.
It's not the problem of Islam it's the problem of everyone.
I can't imagine thinking like you erebus, I really can't |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 17:18:09
Preferably one Pole and two Kurds, please. Whey? No whey thanks!
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 15:34:20
Tom, tis merely local. I could get you a Pole and a Swede by tomorrow. Maybe two Swedes.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:34:43
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
Reading my earlier posts, I'd like to boast about how many different cultures I know that are happy to urinate and vomit in the street.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid
FINALLY I don't have to move for Paris for that. Where is this, Simon?
|
| floop |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:33:54
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I’m sure the Muslims that people meet in the market are decent and civil,
there was this one Musilm guy at Vons who seemed like a total dick
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 14:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
What's your point? one man sets out to get a reaction manages it and what? he speaks for the whole of Islam? Post articles, that's fine, but I'd be more interested in hearing what you think about it than what the Times thinks about it.
My point is that people need to think about this. The more I read about these "extremists" and their tittering audiences, the more I wonder about this "religion of peace", especially as it presents itself within western populations. I occasionally read about largescale marches in Islamic nations against the violence, but I hear little from American and European Islamic leaders and their congregations. Guys like Omar Brooks should be slapped down hard by other western Muslims. That's obvious. These extremists should be shunned much like the KKK is disdained in America. But instead we read over and over about the sympathetic audiences.
Take a look at this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saddamtrial8jul08,1,7473810.story
I’m sure the Muslims that people meet in the market are decent and civil, but what interests me most is what they don’t say. Where’s the outrage?
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 12:46:45
Reading my earlier posts, I'd like to boast about how many different cultures I know that are happy to urinate and vomit in the street.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 12:44:35
What's your point? one man sets out to get a reaction manages it and what? he speaks for the whole of Islam? Post articles, that's fine, but I'd be more interested in hearing what you think about it than what the Times thinks about it.
forum ebook: end of miles |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 12:30:56
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2261777,00.html
The Sunday Times [London]
July 09, 2006
Joking Muslim cleric mocks victims of London blasts
A SPEECH by an extremist Muslim cleric praising the London bombers and mocking victims of suicide attacks has been broadcast on the internet to coincide with the anniversary of the July 7 attacks.
The audience laughs as Omar Brooks, a British Muslim convert who also uses the name Abu Izzadeen, makes fun of non-Muslims as “animals” and “cowards”.
Brooks — who has previously described the London bombers as “completely praiseworthy” — identifies with the views of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the London attacks.
He contrasts the supposed bravery of Khan’s suicide to the “kuffar” (non-Muslims) who are characterised as debauched binge-drinkers who vomit and urinate in the street.
The speech is peppered with jokes that bring laughter from his audience at the Small Heath youth and community centre in Birmingham, where it was filmed last Sunday.
At one point he announces dramatically that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center “changed many people’s lives”. After a pause, he brings the house down by adding: “Especially those inside.” [snip]
Brooks is dismissive of calls for reconciliation. “I know as Friday approaches there will be many epitaphs and speeches and sermons, and maybe the archbishop of somewhere or other is going to come out and say, you know, we’ll call for peace around the world blah, blah, blah.
“But if we took the time to read Mohammad Sidique Khan’s will [the video confession broadcast after the attacks], we will see the answer for our problems.”
Khan, whose bomb killed six people on a Tube at Edgware Road, is held up as an example by Brooks because he didn’t fear death. “We’re talking about people who want to die the way you like to live,” he said.
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 08:38:32
I'm not sure about this, I don't think that Muslims tolerating others is really an issue. You get radical clerics (sometimes with novelty hooks) spouting about the evils of Western society, but on the other hand there's Mary Whitehouse and the Daily Mail espousing prejdices just as extreme.
I don't hear on a daily basis about the Muslim Council condemning this, or that. Without wanting to generalise, a large number of Muslims in this country are immigrants, and they know better than to come to a country as 'morally bankrupt' as this one and start complaining that it offends their sensibilities. Nobody would expect an American or Briton emigrating to Pakistan to insist that women take off their burquas because they are "symbols of misogynistic repression". If you move to another country, you expect to live by the laws of that land, and because the laws of this land protect freedom of expression and speech, then you have to abide by that.
Honestly, I don't think that the article hits anywhere close to the 'problem', whatever that may be. Also, did you just call me an anti-western bigot? Just kidding!
How's that for a slice of fried gold? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 08:11:11
Shortly after my last post I came upon this at
http://instapundit.com/ , which, by the way, is an excellent site for insight into political thought of libertarian America.
And, so, as my one thousandth post (spreading joy for two and a half years), begin excerpt:
JOSEPH BRAUDE writes on the importance of pluralism as a means of defeating terror. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=UjbyrvS409244Zdg%2BgwarS%3D%3D
There's something to this notion, of course, but there's also a big difference between pluralism and multiculturalism, of the sort practiced in England. Perry de Havilland has a post that makes clear what the difference is. Excerpt:
“If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just "throw the wogs out!" but rather "You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree."
“But how does one define what that 'degree' is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style "cricket test" but rather a willingness to tolerate 'otherness'. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.
“If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say "Sod this for a game of soldiers!" and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression... and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then... but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.
“For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour 'identity politics' better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views. And now we are paying the price for that. We will not be able to defend ourselves physically or preserve our liberal society unless we stop tolerating intolerance, and that includes not just fundamentalist Islam but also the anti-western bigotry of the multiculturalists.”
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 07:32:02
Cheeseman, you definitely make good points. I should modify my position by saying that multiculturalism has a much better chance where the diversity is that extreme. Problems are more likely where there are fewer groups present but one or a few are present in significantly larger percentages. Extreme diversity such as you describe could teach a stable culture of tolerance. Perhaps the problems with Moslems over there, and potentially from Hispanics over here, arise from the density and speed of the cultural change. America has successfully assimilated many groups but never has it experienced anything like the Hispanic explosion in certain areas. Time will tell. Thank you for the thoughful and knowledgeable reply. |
| Carl |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 06:35:15
I could'nt live with that guy, Cheeseman! |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 04:35:43
Thanks - I live in North London. I don't have figures for my own borough, but the neighbouring borough of Harringey (where I spend almost more time than I do at home) is the most ethnically diverse area in Europe, and potentially the world. There are 192 languages spoken in a borough of about half a million. On a typical day in Tottenham, in the borough, you would meet people from all parts of Africa, all over the West Indies, the Indian subcontinent, all over the Middle East and Far East, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Latin American... In London, 1 in 7 people are Muslim (so I'm told by the papers).
And you know what? There's no more problems than there would be if it was just the English there. I'm pretty convinced of this.
True, you get gang wars between the Turkish and the Kurdish, but if it didn't happen in London, it would be going on back in Turkey. You might accurately say that the worst criminal gangs are Albanian, but you look back at London's criminal history, it's not exactly littered with gentlemen thieves and the like, more often incredibly cruel English gangs.
I hope I'm not trying to push anything on you, because I'm not. I think I'm a little prejudiced against the people who say multiculturalism is a bad thing - I may have mentioned my housemate here before. He's from South Wales, not a notably diverse population, and he's as openly racist as anyone I've ever met. If he had the opportunity, he would have voted for a party which courts have said we are legitimately allowed to call Nazi in their policies.
But I don't think multiculturalism is bad, I don't think you can provide any evidence of it leading to terrorism any more than hundreds of other factors. People forget London has been a terrorist target for years from the IRA. I honestly think London would be a significantly poorer place were it not for the diverse ethnic community. Bad apples can spring up anywhere, people look for something to blame and 'multiculturalism' or somesuch buzzword is an easier target than themselves.
How's that for a slice of fried gold? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 04:02:24
Cheeseman, no I don't mind at all. I live in Reno, Nevada, USA. Definitely not the most multicultural, certainly compared to much larger western American cities. But there is a significant and growing Latino population. However, I spent much of my youth in Texas, which of course has a large Mexican population, to include graduating from high school in San Antonio and subsequently living for six years in Austin. I also did a hitch in the Army, which is ethnically diverse. And I work at a medium size public university, with its highly diverse community disproportionately populated by asians and middle easterners, many of whom I consider my friends. I respect and like a wide range of individuals, and find much to value in a community consisting of same. It would be great if the conditions permitting that were permanant. It's just that they are not, and then push will come to shove. Fair question. |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/23/2005 : 03:08:46
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
Erebus, can't you seperate Islam and Muslims from 'terrorism' and 'terrorists'? Or is it all the same to you?
Yes, I can and do regardly them as separate. The cartoon is mostly meant to mock multiculturalist apologists, not to assert that the issue is so simple. Like most/all political cartoons, that one goes to extremes to make a point. But I do think the problem is Islam's to solve. They're in the best position to do it, and if they don't somebody else is going to try and that would be ugly. Having said that, I do find the multiculturalists to be naive. Different cultures and ethnicities can live together fine when there are relatively few stressors, but when resources are tight or somebody flies planes into buildings, the stress will tear at the fabric of the multicultural society. Frankly, I don't think such societies have much of a chance of success, especially when there is too little assimilation and intermarriage. You've got to have a common first language and to some extent similar religious values. Yes, there are many counter-examples, to include parts of Europe, but my guess is that these are exceptions that actually "prove the rule". Ethnic conflict is the rule, and there are sound reasons for that, reasons that good will most likely will not overcome. I know this can sound cruel, but it's meant to be "cruel to be kind".
Erebus, do you mind if I ask whereabouts you live? Is it a particularly multicultural area?
How's that for a slice of fried gold? |
| Carl |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 16:55:38
It's always the extremists-religious fundamentalists, 'hate groups' etc. who will try and break up what harmony exists between communities of different ethnic origins. That said, I we're not living in an ideal world. I wish people could be more accepting of diffent cultures, a lot of predudice and fear is deeply ingrained and inherited from previous generations. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 16:42:16
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
Erebus, can't you seperate Islam and Muslims from 'terrorism' and 'terrorists'? Or is it all the same to you?
Yes, I can and do regardly them as separate. The cartoon is mostly meant to mock multiculturalist apologists, not to assert that the issue is so simple. Like most/all political cartoons, that one goes to extremes to make a point. But I do think the problem is Islam's to solve. They're in the best position to do it, and if they don't somebody else is going to try and that would be ugly. Having said that, I do find the multiculturalists to be naive. Different cultures and ethnicities can live together fine when there are relatively few stressors, but when resources are tight or somebody flies planes into buildings, the stress will tear at the fabric of the multicultural society. Frankly, I don't think such societies have much of a chance of success, especially when there is too little assimilation and intermarriage. You've got to have a common first language and to some extent similar religious values. Yes, there are many counter-examples, to include parts of Europe, but my guess is that these are exceptions that actually "prove the rule". Ethnic conflict is the rule, and there are sound reasons for that, reasons that good will most likely will not overcome. I know this can sound cruel, but it's meant to be "cruel to be kind". |
| Carl |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 16:10:46
Erebus, can't you seperate Islam and Muslims from 'terrorism' and 'terrorists'? Or is it all the same to you? |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 10:32:11
It's not any less stupid in this thread than the other.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 10:31:23
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Toynbee
Be sure to read the text below the image at this link.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000627.html
 |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/22/2005 : 02:26:20
Sasquatch, I did spin the Qu'ran, this was my point when you question a religion you look at all sides of it, the Qu'ran talks about defending religion against infedels yet it also states that it's wrong to take a human life. My argument lies here, in that it is the minority who take the part about slaying and subduing the idolators and non believers to heart and dismiss the part about taking human life being an offence to Allah. On the page you have linked (which oh so neatly lists all of the nasty parts of the Qu'ran) I see one quote that directly states muslims should take action
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)
and as ever the rest are open to interpretation. Most suggest that non believers will burn in hell for not acknowledging Allah, that hell and in his hands is where there punishment lies. Those quotes that suggest people 'fight' is not necesarily condoning violent action.
Jihad is a word that is used more and more often with little emphasis on it's meaning. There are two types of Jihad, greater and lesser. Greater Jihad is the internal war, the battle within oneself for betterment and improvement. Most moderm Islamic theologians place great emphasis on the greater Jihad as being the main meaning for the word, it's not called greater for nothing. Lesser Jihad is the right to defend ones religion, and again that does not necesarily mean being an aggressor.
The historic holy wars taint the current climate because people look to this and see that explanation and stick it onto the acts of terrorism, even though a good number of leading muslims have said that this is an un-Islamic act. In the London bombings a muslim girl was killed.
And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement
So whilst the Qu'ran "explicitly states that Islam has enemies, and what muslims should do about it" it also explicitly states it is wrong to take a human life. It is wrong to kill a believer, it is wrong to kill anyone. Yet you must "slay the idolators" it's all in the in the way it is read. Which is why I think it is good to question a religion but never to decide your answers apply to everyone of that religion.
And because wars have been fought in the name of God does not mean there would not have been the same wars under a different name if religion did not exist. People find an excuse and can justify anything, religion seems to be an easy fall guy.
I started this because two women I know have already been given grief for being muslim, because I don't agree with the way Islam in general is being viewed as wrong when it is a few fundamentalists who have warped the religion to suit their violent cause.
If I seemed defensive it is because you took a pop at my signature. Also yesterday, again, there was more flagrant racism in my university which affected a friend of mine and I find it both depressing and tiring. And it makes me mad.
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.
Crumbs I'm jumpy this morning.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
|
| danjersey |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 19:43:12
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
Dan, do you honestly believe religion is a cause and not an excuse?
History is history, and we live with it not in it, and if we're smart we learn from it.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
yes, i believe it's about beliefs, and my beliefs mutate everyday.
i'm a synic and i know it. i see teams and these teams want what they want but in this game there is no clock instead we are born into history and react till we are gone.
how we react is relative.
"now you understand the oriental passion for tea" |
| Visiting Sasquatch |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 17:31:18
May I use points in my response?
quote:
Who are the "infidels" as referred to by the Koran?
quote:
If we're quoting the Koran (Qu'ran I'm never sure which is proper) it is also said Whoever kills a human being then it is as though he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.
You didn't answer the question. Plus, your response is irrelevant. It's spinning the truth. You even point out how people are blinded by religious spin here:quote:
I doubt any holy book is free of contradiction and it's easy to take a source and find the reference or the section that applies and "validates" whatever cause one choses to follow. It's always easy in all situations to find those "facts" that support you and dismiss those "lies" that do not, in religion, in media, in life.
The question is meant to show that the Koran explicitly states that Islam has enemies, and what muslims should do about it. Which leads to my next point.
quote:
Any religion who practices intolerance (passive or violent) against any "non-believer" is the "cause", and you are only furthering their "cause" by not questioning these religions, whether you look like an "idiot" or not...
I have muslim, christian, jewish, and hindi friends, and I love them all for who they are as individuals, and not for the religious beliefs they subscribe to (or don't subscribe to).
quote:
And you seem to have paid little attention to mine. Your claim against my not questioning religion, no offense, is daft.
I question, what I don't do is ignorantly tar a people with the brush of the actions of the few. It's easy to say war is because of religion, or terrorism is because of religion, it's the easy answer. I don't think, however, it is the right one.
No offense taken. I thought I made it clear that I don't "ignorantly tar a people with the brush of the actions of the few" by pointing out that I have many friends with different faiths. It is the organised religion itself that must be questioned if it "practices intolerance (passive or violent) against any "non-believer"." This applies to any religion, not just Islam. And, historically, wars *have* been fought in the name of God, whether you agree with the people who started the wars or not. And today, like it or not, Jihad has been declared against the Jews and the infidels, even if by a (proportionately) few, in the name of Islam and Mohammed. I believe this is the "climate" Dan referred to when he posted. Islam has to take a stand against these radicals if they don't want to share the blame in everyone else's (the infidels?) minds.
I'm sorry if I sounded combatitive in my reply, I was sincerely trying to be civil in my response to your response to Dan. Even though I used second-person in my response, I meant the questions to be read in the plural, and not specifically you, starmekitten. Nothing personal. I do not *religiously* read these forums, so I must've missed your personal-evolution post... |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 16:25:02
indeed, that's what i meant to get across.
 Oh let it linger |
| kathryn |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 15:46:16
It is an Arabic word (signifying "recitation," like you are reciting holy words) and any English spelling is a transliteration.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 14:53:42
koran/qu'ran, it's either... seeing as it's not even a roman word anyway (i would assume)
Oh let it linger |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 12:24:35
And you seem to have paid little attention to mine. Your claim against my not questioning religion, no offense, is daft.
I question, what I don't do is ignorantly tar a people with the brush of the actions of the few. It's easy to say war is because of religion, or terrorism is because of religion, it's the easy answer. I don't think, however, it is the right one.
If we're quoting the Koran (Qu'ran I'm never sure which is proper) it is also said Whoever kills a human being then it is as though he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.
I doubt any holy book is free of contradiction and it's easy to take a source and find the reference or the section that applies and "validates" whatever cause one choses to follow. It's always easy in all situations to find those "facts" that support you and dismiss those "lies" that do not, in religion, in media, in life.
as for questioning religion:
http://forum.frankblack.net/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13380&SearchTerms=,personal,evolution
The whole point of my signature was it's a lyric I found quite funny because I study science.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
|
| Visiting Sasquatch |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 11:56:18
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
Dan, do you honestly believe religion is a cause and not an excuse?
History is history, and we live with it not in it, and if we're smart we learn from it.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
Who are the "infidels" as referred to by the Koran? Any religion who practices intolerance (passive or violent) against any "non-believer" is the "cause", and you are only furthering their "cause" by not questioning these religions, whether you look like an "idiot" or not.
I have muslim, christian, jewish, and hindi friends, and I love them all for who they are as individuals, and not for the religious beliefs they subscribe to (or don't subscribe to).
These are only my opinions. |
| Newo |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 04:01:34
quote:
And the only offshoot from this is I have seen so far with potential government benefits are the re-issue of the terrorism rules and new laws against extremism.
That´s not an offshoot Tre, that´s the point of the exercise. When agency pushes laws that allow for the possibility of a person going to jail for the rest of their lives without charge the last thing I´m going to buy is their version of the events that incited the creation of such laws. There have been drone planes flying over Iran for the past year, the unofficial invasion before the teevee event, and since Afghanistan got levelled for something 19 Saudis allegedly did (7 of whom were found alive afterwards, but that´s another story) the Muslims being Britishborn will hardly stop armies tromping off to whatever Muslim country leaders point at.
--
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to corner the fish market and marvel at the small acts of philanthropy he commits while depriving most of the world of fish. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 01:56:03
Dan, do you honestly believe religion is a cause and not an excuse?
History is history, and we live with it not in it, and if we're smart we learn from it.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
|
| Joey Joe Jo Jr. Chabadoo |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 01:49:05
WE DEFINITELY WANT YOU
BIG BROTHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**** |
| danjersey |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 21:30:50
Who are the bad guys? we all want the truth. Religion has set the climate, moderate or hard line it is all of the same mind.
War History. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 10:08:03
quote:
The London Bombing of 7/7/05 is evidently a set-up to implicate Iran as the patsy in order for the Neo-Cons to make the case for a new war on Iran.
It's not the case though is it? British born pakistani descendant muslim youths have been blamed, not Iran not anyone else, British born people. And the only offshoot from this is I have seen so far with potential government benefits are the re-issue of the terrorism rules and new laws against extremism.
Sorry Owen, I don't buy it.
and you're questioning the sciences
and questioning religion
you're looking like an idiot
and you no longer care.
|
| Newo |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 04:27:34
'Al Qaeda': How the Pentagon/ CIA Made an 'Enemy'
"Al-Qaida,(sic) 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," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)
In other words, the so-called Al Qaeda, which has been promoted by the Media Cartel as the cause of all bombings and terrorism since the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, is simply a database of CIA trained "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters," depending on your perspective) which has become a convenient Global Boogeyman for the 21st Century.
What does this mean? The entire planet has been fooled into believing that an Islamic "organization" exists to promote the destruction of Western society, when in fact this "organization" is just a list of Pentagon/ CIA trained assassins, who can be used and discarded as needed.
"It is noteworthy that Cook made his revelation about the 'Al Qaeda' computer file of mujaheddin volunteers one day before the Abu Hafs Al Masri Brigades became the second terrorist group to claim responsibility for the London blasts," writes Washington-based writer Wayne Madsen. (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/)
"Abu Hafs, an Egyptian citizen whose name appeared in the database and whose nom de guerre was al-Masri ('The Egyptian'), was an aide to Osama Bin Laden and helped to populate the database with mujaheddin volunteer fighters," Madsen continues. "Al-Masri was part of the group of Egyptian Jihadists that assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981."
Madsen also notes the fact that it is well-known that US funding for the Afghan mujaheddin, who were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, spawned both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as reported by BBC Teheran correspondent Frances Harrison.
The London Bombing of 7/7/05 is evidently a set-up to implicate Iran as the patsy in order for the Neo-Cons to make the case for a new war on Iran.
Madsen reports that "if it is discovered that RDX/C4 was used in the bombing, the Neo Cons will point to allegations that Iran possesses a disproportionate amount of RDX/C4. The Neo Con spin machine will then rapidly switch from Al Qaeda to Iran" in order to drum up public support for a War on Iran.
The Pentagon/ CIA/ MI6/ Mossad PsyOps (Psychological Operations) against the inhabitants of Planet Earth continues.
If the Pentagon/ CIA database called "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," the Global Boogeyman of the 21st Century is a complete fiction.
And the Mega-Corporate Media Cartel Propaganda which promotes this fiction is discredited once again.
Repeat after me -- There is NO al Qaeda. There is NO Al Qaeda. There is NO Al Qaeda.
The scam is over. Pass it on...
--
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to corner the fish market and marvel at the small acts of philanthropy he commits while depriving most of the world of fish. |
| Newo |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 10:45:07
If you´re really interested in knowing who committed these acts, just ask yourself who benefits the most. Look where the power gravitates and there ye shall find the culprits.
--
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to corner the fish market and marvel at the small acts of philanthropy he commits while depriving most of the world of fish. |
|
|
