[Nurba]

The problem that a lot of conspiracy theorists have is that they end up doing the exact same thing that the people they criticize do -- they believe things at face value.

And that is YOUR ASSUMPTION since no where I (or anyone on this forum as far as I know) made any definitive statements as to the latest "news" from the WH.

As far as I KNOW, politicians and power elites are not to be believed without solid proofs of their "statements"; therefore OBL might've been killed in 2001, or died of kidney failier some 5 years ago, or was killed few days ago, or is still alive.

[Effopsytupt]

On the other hand, it is incumbent on you to explain to the rest of us precisely what "Al Qaeda" is if you want us to accept this news of what "Al Qaeda" allegedly said as being substantive.

I already explained, briefly and in response to Alma's first post in this thread, what I think al Qaida is.

Again, briefly, Qaida is a franchised brand.

If you'd like the supporting documentation upon which my opinion is predicated:

Cracks in the Foundation: Leadership Schisms in al-Qa’ida from 1989-2006

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/pdf/Harmony_3_Schism.pdf

Self-Inflicted Wounds: Debates and Divisions within al-Qa'ida and its Periphery

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Self-Inflicted%20Wounds.pdf

Understanding Terror Networks

Amazon.com: Understanding Terror Networks (9780812238082): Marc Sageman: Books

You'll have to do some reading, because as I said al Qaida isn't a single monolithic organization with a clear command structure, unitary objective, and coherent strategy. But if you're really interested this is how I've formed my opinion.

As far as the news article is concerned, al Jazeera is reporting that the news was initially released by a representative of al Qaida in Yemen the other day and was repeated today by a representative of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Can I prove that the folks making the statements are really al Qaida?

I'd have to be a fly on the wall to do so.

As far as I'm concerned though this is just independent verification of what we already know.

[VanDerSmok]

Well, since under "Taliban" come every person who fights an occupation in Afghanistan you are essentially asking how should you deal with the POPULATION of Afghanistan who fights you.

That's not how Taliban is defined.

Currently, the Taliban is rather fractured, but that's not the same as classifying all resistance as Taliban.

[Janarealiti]

And that is YOUR ASSUMPTION since no where I (or anyone on this forum as far as I know) made any definitive statements as to the latest "news" from the WH.

As far as I KNOW, politicians and power elites are not to be believed without solid proofs of their "statements"; therefore OBL might've been killed in 2001, or died of kidney failier some 5 years ago, or was killed few days ago, or is still alive.

And how most conspiracy theorists define proof is pretty much pointless.

If Obama showed the pictures, you'd claim they are fake.

When Al Quida vow revenge, you claim or imply that it's some fabrication or that Al Quida is some CIA group.

There's really no use in bothering with proof when communicating with certain people.

All I'm saying is, "Believe what you want." Just don't be surprised if the majority of our interactions involve bickering rather than any coherent debate, since there's really no proof I could posit that you would accept.

[aparneioninny]

If they had waited another week, Obama would have cast enough doubt on the whole incident that with a little creative editing on their part, they could have rendered their dear leader immortal in the hearts of the faithful.

Thankfully, they have slightly more dismal leadership than we do.

[PilotJargon]

That's not how Taliban is defined.

Currently, the Taliban is rather fractured, but that's not the same as classifying all resistance as Taliban.

Before telling me how "fractured" Taliban is, tell me what is "Taliban".
The reason I insist on it is because every time some uncle Jamal picks up his Kalashnikov because he is pissed off at you mistaking his daughter for Osama Bin Laden and blitzing his "compaund" it is presented as "Taliban attack".

[Jueqelyl]

And how most conspiracy theorists define proof is pretty much pointless.

If Obama showed the pictures, you'd claim they are fake.

.

After pictures of "dead Osama" of 2007?

If you are happy to swallow without questioning anything and everything your officialdom feeds you for fear of being branded "conspiracy theorist" it is up to you, but do not expect others to follow your suit.

[MaigicyuNinia]

Before telling me how "fractured" is Taliban, tell me what is "Taliban".
The reason I insist on it is because every time some uncle Jamal picks up his Kalashnikov because he is pissed off at you mistaking his daughter for Osama Bin Laden and blitzing his "compaund" it is presented as "Taliban attack".

"Taliban", from what I understand, is the top secret code name for a covert CIA strike force composed of former members of the Bush administration sent into the Middle East to foment unrest and provide an excuse for the West to wage war at will against the poor oppressed Ummah in order to feed wealth into the military-industrial complex.

Today they survive as soldiers of fortune.

If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the Taliban.

That work for you Alma?

Or is it just not far fetched enough?

Maybe I should have included something about their alien DNA or their connection to the Illuminati?

[8cyVn4RJ]

Before telling me how "fractured" is Taliban, tell me what is "Taliban".
The reason I insist on it is because every time some uncle Jamal picks up his Kalashnikov because he is pissed off at you mistaking his daughter for Osama Bin Laden and blitzing his "compaund" it is presented as "Taliban attack".

Alright, I can level with that.

Let me rephrase my previous argument. I would rather debate what to do about the various Afghanis that attack us than what the nature of Al Quida is.

I really don't care what label a given combatant has. All I care is that we eliminate them or minimize their presence if we're going to bother with nation building their hellhole of a country.

[vioppyskype]

Alright, I can level with that.

Let me rephrase my previous argument. I would rather debate what to do about the various Afghanis that attack us than what the nature of Al Quida is.

I really don't care what label a given combatant has. All I care is that we eliminate them or minimize their presence if we're going to bother with nation building their hellhole of a country.

WTF!

Nobody is attacking us.

That's all just a smoke screen staged by a three-letter-agency that I won't even name (out of fear of their swift and final retribution).

This agency was sent into Afghanistan to kill American servicemen and make it appear as though there's an insurgency so the U.S. and the Jooz can steal Iran's rare earth minerals.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Insurgents.



LOL

What a rube believing that snow job.

[xtrupoke]

I already explained, briefly and in response to Alma's first post in this thread, what I think al Qaida is.

Again, briefly, Qaida is a franchised brand.

If you'd like the supporting documentation upon which my opinion is predicated:

Cracks in the Foundation: Leadership Schisms in al-Qa’ida from 1989-2006

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/pdf/Harmony_3_Schism.pdf

Self-Inflicted Wounds: Debates and Divisions within al-Qa'ida and its Periphery

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Self-Inflicted%20Wounds.pdf

Understanding Terror Networks

Amazon.com: Understanding Terror Networks (9780812238082): Marc Sageman: Books

You'll have to do some reading, because as I said al Qaida isn't a single monolithic organization with a clear command structure, unitary objective, and coherent strategy. But if you're really interested this is how I've formed my opinion.

I agree with you: Al Qaeda is a brand and not a monolithic organization with a clear command structure. However, dishonest cocksuckers in the government and mainstream media DO portray Al Qaeda as a monolithic organization (the very news release that is the subject of this thread is but one example), as if it were merely an international fundamentalist Moslem version of the IRA or FARC.

Since you agree that Al Qaeda is a brand, how is this news story meaningful?

[majestictwelve]

I purchased a book shortly after 9-11 entitled "Osama Bin Laden- the man who declared war on America". It was published in 1999, and amazingly did not contain one reference to the name "al Qaeda" in all the discussions of radical Islamist groups Bin Laden was involved with. He really did have connections throughout the Muslim world to jihadists following specific fatwahs to kill Americans and their allies, issued by a few Muslim clerics in 1998. He considered the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia as a major affront to Islam.

[BalaGire]

I agree with you: Al Qaeda is a brand and not a monolithic organization with a clear command structure. However, dishonest cocksuckers in the government and mainstream media DO portray Al Qaeda as a monolithic organization (the very news release that is the subject of this thread is but one example), as if it were merely an international fundamentalist Moslem version of the IRA or FARC.

In my opinion it's more a matter of the ignorant trying to give the impression that they're "in the know" than willful dishonesty.

Not all the time, but most of the time.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I've been reading for a few days now how, "Special Forces Navy SEAL commandos from SEAL Team 6, yada, yada, yada"

Really?

SEAL Special Forces?

SEAL Team 6?

The first doesn't exist and the second hasn't existed for years.

Once they start in with that kinda shit I figure anything thereafter is equally ignorat bullshit.

Since you agree that Al Qaeda is a brand, how is this news story meaningful? Even with a franchise'd brand you still have some kind of corporate "home office" overseeing things and running the business.

Joe Shmoe might own the McDonalds on the corner of 1st and Main, but he doens't own McDonalds and still has to conform to McDonalds' corporate policies, buy his supplies throught McDonalds central distribution (or whatever), carry the McDonalds brand, etc...

It's the same, kinda, with al Qaida.

Whether you're AQ, AQI, AQAP, etc... you're still part of al Qaida and have similar goals (though geographically differentiated).

You still funnel funding to the AQ-proper coffers and get your funding doled out by the same.

It also seems that the closer you get to the top of your AQ franchise, the closer you also get to the top of AQ Corporate. That is to say that Muhamed bin Nutsack in Iraq doesn't have an open line of communication to the top of AQ, but his boos, or his boss's boss probably does - in some capacity.

What I'm assuming, and this is really just an assumption, is that the AQ franchise leadership in Yemen and on the AP who put out the word that OBL is dead weren't just low-level nobodies running their suck.

AQ is a criminal organization, kinda, but not really, like the mafia.

If you're not in a position of authority or authorized to be putting out word in the name of AQ then I suspect putting out word in the name of AQ is gonna get you dead real quick.

Therefore I'm inclined to believe that the word coming out of AQ is official. Whether or not it's true is another matter entirely.

Again, I'm inclined to believe it is true.

For AQ, and for a lot of their Islamist supporters, this is like JFK just got shot.

OBL was THE man. He was their nominal leader and hero.

Now he's dead? And the Americans killed him?

They're angry, they're sad, they don't know where to go, what to do, what to think. The rank and file I mean.

Word went out to recognize the death of a great man, THE great man.

They need to mourn him.

And they need to acknowledge his passing because they've still got a mission and are gonna need some new leadership.

They can't fill that void until OBL's death becomes "real" to the faithful.

It's what I would do.

The alternative is that it's disinformation, but still official word (for the same "you don't cross the mafia" reasons that I gave above).

If this is the case it strikes me as inexplicable.

It doesn't make sense that the U.S. and AQ would be telling the same lie.

It might happen, but I really think that would be a stretch.

What kinda drives the nail for me is that the Yemeni AQ rep made his announcement four days ago.

If it took a couple days to come out (as with the AQAP announcement) I'd be sceptical.

But for the operation to go down and the next day someone in AQ is already making the announcement?

Why?

Was there already a plan in place to announce that OBL was dead in the (completely unlikely) event that the U.S. actually did invade the soverign space of Pakistan (after five years of his living there completly unmolested) and kill the dude?

And they'd leave it to a dude in Yemen to make that announcement?

Again, doesn't make sense to me.

Given all the details, especially that the U.S. and AQ are playing the same tune, I believe that the dude really is dead and really was killed the other night.

[endulundaSauh]

......

What do you think?

Another conspiracy theory?

Not rellly released by al Qaeda but by a CIA mole within that organization?

al Qaeda is actually part of the Grand Obama Reelection Conspiracy?



.....

The birthers said that Obama’s parents planted the newspaper announcement so that the then infant Barak could someday become president.

Now the deathers are saying that AQ was all a plot started 20 years ago just so that the not really born in Hawaii kid could get a second term.

Kinda stretches the bounds of credibility a little don’t you think?

Conspiracy theorist = tin foil hat brigade member

[Peter Hill]

Before answering that question one has to ask "What is Al-Q?"

Is it a ghost-creation of CIA?
Is it a catch-word for a number of Islamic radical movements?
Is it a one particular organisation with a defined command structure?

I just know street Arabic, and I admit that I can't read or write in Arabic script (except for numerals).

But in street Arabic slang, 'al qaeda' is what you sit on when you go take a shit. What we call a toilet, or a crapper, or a head, or a latrine etc. etc.

'Aina al qaeda?' roughly translated means "where's the restroom?"