1 vote

Al-Qaeda originally a computer program by the CIA

http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/robin_cook_the_.html

Robin Cook, the Database and Secrets

On the day after the July 7th, 2005 bombings on London transport, former foreign secretary Robin Cook MP wrote what turned out to be his penultimate newspaper column for the Guardian. In it he revealed something about al-Qaeda that perhaps he shouldn't have.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

As far as I know, this was the first time publicly, in the anglophone world, that the al-Qaeda name had been explained as referring to a computer database.

In the francophone world, a colourful former French military intelligence officer, Pierre-Henri Bunel, had had a book published in 2004, "Proche-Orient, une guerre mondiale?", extracts of which appeared [in French] on a French conspiracy website. The extract went into some detail of how al-Qaeda originally referred to a computer database of Islamist fighters. But, AFAIK, it was not until after Robin Cook had revealed the same in the Guardian, and after his death a month later, that an English translation of Bunel's words appeared on the web. It's a rough translation, which doesn't read well. But the basic outline of his account accords with what Cook had revealed.

Here's my suspicion: that Robin Cook knew nothing about P-H Bunel's book or article, and that his knowledge of the origin of the Qaeda name stemmed solelyfrom his time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In other words, that both men had, independently of each other, revealed that, as they understood it, the designation 'al-Qaeda' had originally referred to a computer database. And, according to Bunel, that that name had been operative at least by the mid-'80s.

But yesterday MI5 the government published its 'narrative' of the July 7th bombings [.pdf]. Annex 3 of the whitewash was a chronology of the development of modern jihadism. Extract:

c1984 Radical preacher Abdullah Azzam set up an organisation called Maktab al-Khidmat (MAK) "Bureau of Services" to disseminate propaganda about jihad in Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden (UbL) joins.

1989 Withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. UbL returns to Saudi Arabia. Decision by MAK to continue to support jihadist causes. Thinking around "the base" or "foundation" (translation: Al Qaida) for further operations articulated.

1988-89 UbL disagreement over focus of the cause and starts to form Al Qaida. [...]

So, MI5's version of the aetiology of the 'Qaeda' name makes no mention of computer databases, or its use by western intelligence agencies before 1989, and it repeats previous explanations as to its origins. So, either Cook and Bunel were wrong, or they were right but wrong to reveal it. And while Bunel is a peripheral figure lacking credibility, Robin Cook was neither.

When I first read Cook's July 8th article, and the zinger about 'al-Qaeda' as a database, I wondered about what secret he might reveal to us next. But now I wonder about what, say, MI6 thought about the possibility of the former foreign secretary, who had signed the Official Secrets Act for life, revealing other things that he shouldn't (if, that is, the database story were true). Then, it would have become a matter of national security. How could they prevent him from repeating his mistake? Could they have had him arrested and charged under the OSA? Did they try to speak to him, between July 8th and August 6th, 2005, to warn him as to his future conduct?

If Robin Cook was starting to spill secrets, his sudden death one month later would have saved the defence, intelligence and security services from having to confront a difficult problem, one which would have had no obvious, certain solution.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

OBL explains where the name Al-Qaeda came from

"Q: Media organizations as well as intelligence information says that you run a big network in some 40 to 50 countries. There is information that al Qaeda is very influential and powerful and it is behind attacks and Islamic foundations and terrorist organizations. How much is al Qaeda dependent on Osama Bin Laden?

BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

Those men who sacrificed themselves in New York and Washington, they are the spokesmen of the nation's conscience. They are the nation's conscience that saw they have to avenge against the oppression.

Not all terrorism is cursed; some terrorism is blessed. A thief, a criminal, for example feels terrorized by the police. So, do we say to the policeman, "You are a terrorist"? No. Police terrorism against criminals is a blessed terrorism because it will prevent the criminal from repeating his deed. America and Israel exercise the condemned terrorism. We practice the good terrorism which stops them from killing our children in Palestine and elsewhere."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binla...

I'm glad someone finally posted news from Fox

Checking out the opinion below mine I'm really glad someone put up a bunch of corporate media sources including Fox News. I'm so happy to get an unbiased source of information to debunk an independent researcher. I'm sure it's completely accurate and not, in any way, controlled like the rest of the corporate media opinion. (End sarcasm)

You could try to read through the BS below this post-but what's the point? it has no facts, it's not based on anything but spin and propaganda.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

jshowell is a blind zealot and his post above shows it.

He cannot give one reason why my post below is incorrect other than going off on some tangent about corporate media which has nothing to do with information contained in my post. It appears jshowell did not even read my post. He also dodges the debunking of his Robin Cook claim. Address the debunking of your Robin Cook claim. Don't dismiss and run, like so many truthers do.

Read the quote from Fox News in the context of the topic being discussed. jshowell wants dismiss the post entirely just because a quote or two are provided by corporate media. It shows how truthers clipped a quote by Ian Blair to suit their purposes. Truthers have a track record of doing this.

"One collection of quotes you’ll often find popping up in forums does suggest scepticism of the existence of Al Qaeda, but you need to read these carefully, too. An example:

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, London, United Kingdom

Commenting on the possible role of Al Qaeda, Blair said, "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."
http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15576

This reads to us like Jason Burke’s comments, above: he’s saying that there is no big central organisation that you can join, but not that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist at all. And if whoever prepared the above quote hadn’t snipped out the very next line, then that might have been clearer to everyone:

"Al Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here," Blair said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html"

Try again JSHowell, already debunked

"The story...

Al Qaeda doesn't exist. They're an invention of the US Government designed to keep the population frightened, and ensure they accept higher military spending. They're all just US puppets.

Our take...

One quote sometimes used to support some of these ideas comes from former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. Or at least that’s what you might be told.

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

Robin Cook wasn’t known for denying Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as far as we can recall, and searching at Hansard (a record of everything that goes on in Parliament) produced no matches even remotely matching the above claim. The best match we found was this, from a Guardian article:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00...

No suggestion whatsoever that “al Qaeda is not a terrorist group”, quite the opposite. In the absence of any supporting evidence, it looks like the original quote has been twisted to suit one side of the story: so much for finding 911 truth.

Some people have also misrepresented the UK documentary “The Power of Nightmares” to come to the same conclusion. They start with quotes like this...

Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0111-31.htm

Typically the first line will be quoted, or they’d suggest this means there is no terrorist threat. However, this isn’t what the documentary said. The Power of Nightmares specifically states that bin Ladin is at the centre of a group of terrorists, who carried out 9/11, and may carry out other attacks in the future. Its particular claim, as the quote makes clear, is that they are not “vast” and “well-organised”, with agents in every country. Not the same as saying they don’t exist. Here’s an example in a quote by journalist Jason Burke:

The idea which is critical to the FBI¹s prosecution that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.
http://www.durodie.net/pdf/PowerOfNightmares3.pdf

However, even here there is reason to believe they underplay the reality of the situation. Search the above file, for instance, and you won’t see any mention of the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Why not? Wasn’t that a part of why America were saying they were a danger? Seems relevant to us, yet The Power of Nightmares chose not to discuss this with their viewers.

Further, you need to be careful about how much you read into quotes like the above, as The Nation pointed out:

in his 2003 book, Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Burke is less dismissive of the idea that Al Qaeda was an organization than this soundbite suggests. Burke wrote that while the "al-Qaeda hardcore" consisted of relatively few people, "by late 2001, bin Laden and the men around him had access to huge resources, both symbolic and material, which they could use to project their power and influence internationally"--that sounds suspiciously like a "coherent organization" to me.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/bergen

And in fact if you read beyond the “Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?” title of our first article, a more accurate summary appears later.

Of course, the documentary does not doubt that an embittered, well-connected and wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Ladin helped finance various affinity groups of Islamist fanatics that have engaged in terror, including the 9/11 attacks. Nor does it challenge the notion that a terrifying version of fundamentalist Islam has led to gruesome spates of violence throughout the world. But the film, both more sober and more deeply provocative than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer11jan111,0,5...

Of course some still argue that this is incorrect, or if al Qaeda exist, they’re just a US puppet. But if there were any substance to this, then where is the criticism for bin Ladin’s “collaboration” in the Middle East? Why are we not seeing marches where the people condemn al Qaeda leaders for being nothing more than a tool of Bush?

One collection of quotes you’ll often find popping up in forums does suggest scepticism of the existence of Al Qaeda, but you need to read these carefully, too. An example:

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, London, United Kingdom

Commenting on the possible role of Al Qaeda, Blair said, "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach."
http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15576

This reads to us like Jason Burke’s comments, above: he’s saying that there is no big central organisation that you can join, but not that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist at all. And if whoever prepared the above quote hadn’t snipped out the very next line, then that might have been clearer to everyone:

"Al Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here," Blair said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html

Then they give us this quote:

According to Dadullah, al-Qaeda did not exist in Afghanistan and he said he did not know the fate or whereabouts of Osama bin-Laden.
http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15576

But unless you read the source link, you wouldn’t know that the story appeared in March 2003, long after the fall of the Taleban. He could simply be saying they didn’t exist in Afghanistan now, not that they hadn’t before. And in fact specifying a location (“al Qaeda did not exist in Afghanistan”) suggests he does believe they exist elsewhere, hardly supportive to the claims of this piece. Especially when later pieces tell a very different story, such as in these reports of an al Jazeera interview:

Dadullah implied that the Taliban and al-Qaida were working together, and said mujahedeen from various parts of the world, including Arabs, were fighting in Afghanistan. He said the foreigners made up about 10 percent of the fighters.

“Both Taliban and al-Qaida have the same objectives,” he said, warning that anyone supporting the Americans and the government “will be dealt with.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10608771/

Cooperation between us and Al Qaeda is very strong. Many of our Arab mujahideen brothers are fighting alongside of us to establish the religion of Allah. We will accompany Al Qaeda anywhere to fight the enemies of Allah
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers19%5Cpaper1805.html

There are reasons to question his earlier quote, then, and there are potential issues of trust with other quotees:

Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Member of Parliament in Pakistan:
"I've never been sure whether the so-called Al-Qaeda has ever even existed."
http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15576

But then there was surprise in Pakistan when Qazi Hussain Ahmad revealed how he’d repeatedly met with bin Ladin, which led a Pakistan online newspaper to wonder how close his party might have been to Al Qaeda:

Talking to the Sunday magazine of a national Urdu daily, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad revealed that he had repeatedly met Osama bin Laden and that the Al Qaeda leader had visited him at Mansoora, the Jamaat headquarters in Lahore...

When Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was finally caught it was at the house of a JI member. Did the Jamaat have no truck with Al Qaeda, as Qazi Sahib claims?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\03\20\story_20-3-2006_pg3_1

Other quotes of his don’t sit so well with the “Al Qaeda doesn’t exist” idea, either:

In an interesting contrast, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the hardliner Muttehida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) leader, hails al-Qaeda for its attempts on General Musharraf's life. In an interview with Weekly Ghazwa [June 2], Qazi said: "General Musharraf is a traitor. He used to be al-Qaeda' number one patron. But now he has cheated it at the US behest. Therefore, al-Qaeda is right if it attacks him. It will take him on sooner rather than later. The mayhem in Karachi is a reaction to Musharraf's policies against al-Qaeda in South Waziristan."
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/Archives/3_1.htm

The message here, once again, is not to necessarily believe quotes. Find the full version for yourself, read the context, look at what else an individual has said and decide if they can be trusted. Only then can you decide how accurate a particular article might be."

http://www.911myths.com/html/do_al_qaeda_exist.html

quoting corporate media

and cointelpro won't help your cause. I know they're paid liars and alot of others on this forum do as well.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

Then explain to everyone how the information I posted is

incorrect. I thought you were an "independent researcher". Do some research and prove the information I posted is wrong. You just dismiss it instead. That's the m.o. for "truthers".

Telepathy

Just posted a comment on the bin laden thread about this very thing -- excellent mindreading.

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook says:
The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US. Cook has previously written:

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Cook is merely confirming what others have said. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

Funny thing is

Robin Cook was dead a month after reporting about the link between the Al-Qaeda boogeyman and the CIA. Here's an examination of his suspicious death:
http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/questions_about.html

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

another great find

Thanks for posting this article.

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/statement-to-ron-pa...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139/sizes/l/

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I think everyone's got to realize

There is only MANUFACTURED war, not real war. There might be conflicts, but every world war and major war was manufactured for the benefit of a select few.
If we get into a new draft or widespread rioting in the U.S. then people need to know there are people (police, army, CIA, FBI, BATF, etc.) paid to provocateur violent events and round up peaceful protesters. That's what's happening in Greece and what probably what set off the Palestinian Air Strikes.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

Doesn't it remind you of 1984?

Constant war is necessary for economic gain, not for any other purpose.

War is Peace.

http://federalfallacy.com

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy

"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."

Yes

The beginning of the 30 year war. We're all in the war now. The war just doesn't use bullets-it uses false laws, false leaders, false patriotism, false education, and false media. The only remedy is the truth.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

And Bin Laden/Al Queda is

And Bin Laden/Al Queda is Goodstein.

Quite scary how accurate the book is when you think about it.

http://federalfallacy.com