9 votes

Any one with a reference to support theory that Al Qaeda and CIA have an ongoing link?

Since we have assisted rebels in both Libya and Syria with ties to Al Qaeda, I have become more open to the notion that Al Qaeda is a CIA front. But is there detailed evidence for this?

I know that we helped to create it in the 80s, in our battle with the Soviets, but is there really direct evidence for an ongoing symbiotic relationship between our CIA and the supposedly greatest evil in the world?

Are the Al Qaeda real, but deluded patsies who are only dangerous if they get too close to you? As in cutting off a head or two? So many questions for such a mystery. Anyone?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Evil Polish Jew

Zbignew Brzezinski...

Here, read your brains out: http://www.bing.com/search?q=zbigniew+brzezinski+al+qaeda&qs...

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

lose the fear.

Good on you.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Not sure why...

I got a down-vote...Brzinski co-created al Quaeda, the Muzahadeen (sp.) in an effort to battle the Soviets (supposedly). He's been meddling in US politics for decades and always at the center of something evil and corrupt. He's from Poland. He's a Jew...what's the problem?

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

I didn't down vote you

But my guess is that someone didn't like the extra modifiers you put in your title. If someone is evil, it probably doesn't matter if he's an evil Jew or an evil Arab or an evil Eskimo. It tends to muddy the waters and cast blame on other members of those groups who are not evil. Just my two cents.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

wolfe's picture

Correct.

I was the one that gave him the downvote, and that is exactly why. Evil is evil, and racial qualifiers do not help in communication.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

So if

" Evil is evil, and racial qualifiers do not help in communication."

Utter nonsense

So if the overwhelming majority of Geopolitical criminals are "Martians" then who does it help to ignore the fact. The victims?

Time to be realistic.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

How does it help?

For your analogy to work (Jews=Martians), we would have to say that "the overwhelming majority of Geopolitical criminals are Jews". Even if this was true, we would then have ignore the fact that obviously the overwhelming majority of Jews are not "geopolitcal criminals". Just because some criminals are Jewish, doesn't mean they are criminal because they are Jewish. It is irrelevant at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.

Many of the worst dictators in history had their hair parted on the right. Should I talk about "Right-parted hitler" every time I refer to him in conversation? Obviously not. Stefan Molyneux discussed something similiar. He said it makes no sense to say "that person is a black rapist", because it muddies the issue. The "black" part is irrelevant. It is the rape that's bad.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

How does it help?

For starters by being truthful.

For example The Bolshevik revolution. By failing to accurately identify those wholly responsible for the deaths of millions, and there is a connection, has allowed them to drift into European and American society without any hindrance or repercussions.
With the gall to play the victim.
Read Gen Patton's memoirs.

As for the "Black rapist". Lets be truthful now.
If we look at Sweden were almost all rapes are committed by non European immigrants. How does it help the situation to not be truthful?

How does it "muddy the waters" by lumping all the innocent indigenous Swedish men into the group of potential rapists?

Fact is it doesn't.
http://cavatus.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/sweden-a-raped-country/

I'm incline to believe you're not entirely impartial and Stefan Molyneux is an idiot.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Al CIAda

I think you have spelled the name of that group incorrectly. It's not Al Queda....it's Al CIAda. Nah, I can't think of a connection between the CIA and Al CIAda....at least nothing I can see. I think you're just drumming up another conspiracy....I mean seriously...Al CIAda, CIA? They are like polar opposites of one another....Al CIAda...CIA....

baubaublacksheep

isolated events

There are known isolated events where US intelligence officers have supported Al Qaeda for "noble purposes" but the idea that Al Qaeda is managed by the CIA is not true and unrealistic.

Believe it or not, 99% of the CIA are patriotic Americans fighting Al Qaeda or at least believing they are. I'm not saying other groups or forces aren't manipulating things for politics or strategical reasons. But most of government is full of good people doing wrong things thinking they are right.

Michael Scheuer, who everyone here seems to respect, has been very clear that Al Qaeda is real. On one level, it's an organic and decentralized movement. And there are real threats out there, real enemies caused by our foreign policy, that are leaders of this movement.

wolfe's picture

Maybe not a front in the strictest definition...

However, if you watch The Power Of Nightmares, it very clearly shows that AQ in all of it's incarnations has been a pure government fiction pieced together from morsels. Morsels, mostly created by and inspired by our government for it's own gain.

That is a fact. So controlled by our government? No. How can you control something that never existed anywhere but in the fantasy you personally created?

So, our government responsible for the myth, and the use of it? Absolutely.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

too simple

I agree, they are misrepresenting and falsifying the threat, all while increasing the real threat by aggressive foreign policy.

But the purpose of the Mujahideen was noble in the eyes of Zbigniew etc but misguided. It did grow into a real organization. Ramzi Yousef and KSM are real people, and very dangerous, but there are a lot of questions about who they actually are and who they were working for (or trained by).

wolfe's picture

I think you would really enjoy the documentary link...

that I posted.

It basically has that exact premise with sourced information from multiple sources.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I have seen it.

I have seen it.

wolfe's picture

It's not theory. It's fact.

Credible BBC documentary on the subject covers the connections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

The first part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ

You can find the rest of the links easily enough on your own on the right hand side after going to that one.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

John Loftus gives credible best examples

of the link between the intelligence agencies and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He had the clearance to know these things and a lot more.

Its in one of these 3 videos (Highly recommended)

America`s Nazi Secret 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfD0TfjhMQU

America's Nazi Secret Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXwojS_PQ08

America's Nazi Secret Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hKLUpLNLD0

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

very respected guy

Loftus is a good guy. He is a famous former US intelligence officer and former US prosecutor. And he's written several books on real history etc.

He also founded the Intelligence Summit with a few former Directors of CIA. It is an international conference for intel agencies around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Summit

wolfe's picture

That may be interesting...

But one man talking about his theories and beliefs isn't a credible source. Meaning, the information must be verifiable for it to be credible.

So I would caution against using this type of video/presentation to educate.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

A former US government prosecutor and former Army intelligence

..officer, who's written multiple books, including ones that were censored by the FBI isn't credible ?

What are you smoking today ?

Buy the book if you want the sources.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

wolfe's picture

No...

One guy, without verifiable information is not credible, regardless of who he is.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

He's an establishment guy

Who speaks the truth.

According to the Intelligence Summit's website, the meetings are run by organizers (Robert Katz and John Loftus) and an Advisory Council, which includes or included in the past "two former heads of CIA, the head of British Joint Intelligence, senior officials of the Mossad, the former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, the former director of the Indian Counter Intelligence Service, generals of the US Army and Air Force intelligence services, and academic experts".

wolfe's picture

Once again...

That is an "argument from authority" and is irrelevant when searching for the truth.

Verifiable information is what matters. Not "stories".

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

what?

"Appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy. And, what I posted is not a fallacious appeal to authority.

It's a form of inductive reasoning based on credibility and fact, and it happens to be true. I've met the guy, he's well respected, extremely credible and thus is qualified to write about these topics.

wolfe's picture

Saying...

"He knows what he is talking about and is credible because X" is an argument from authority. Saying that he knows X because Y, is a valid argument, but Y must be backed up by evidence and additional sources to be credible.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I'm sorry, you are mistaken.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. You imply there is some sort of logical fallacy here and there is not.

wolfe's picture

So.

Because someone is an "expert" that means that we don't need any further supporting evidence and should trust everything he says? Is that your statement? I never said what he said was wrong, I said it was interesting but a youtube by one man, is not a credible resource on it's own.

Because my argument is that regardless of how much you "trust him", there needs to be verifiable information and sources.

I'm on the right side of this argument, but perhaps we just talked past each other.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

P.A.

wolfe is correct on this.

In other words, if Loftus can back up what he's saying with documentation rather than just his background, reputation, etc., then it can be considered credible. If Loftus has really done his homework and published the results, it shouldn't be hard for you to dig up such documentation.

theory !!!!!

and you're surfin the web- Theory !!!!!

huh? I am just looking for

huh? I am just looking for more info.