1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

al-Qaeda enters the Twilight Zone

Discussion in 'Intelligence' started by Flanders, May 9, 2011.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it hard to buy into the stuff Hussein is selling:

    Obama, in his most revelatory comments about his thinking in the days before the raid, said he weighed the risks and judged that he should proceed with what was, by all accounts, the most promising opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden in nearly a decade. In doing so, he rejected the counsel of a substantial number of his national security advisers, who worried that the plan to send ground troops deep into Pakistan was too risky, he said.

    “I concluded it was worth it,” Obama said. “We have devoted enormous blood and treasure in fighting back against al-Qaeda, ever since 2001. And I said to myself that if we have a good chance of not completely defeating but badly disabling al-Qaeda, then it was worth both the political risks as well as the risks to our men, after a pursuit that cost billions of dollars and stretched for nearly a decade.”

    Obama’s national security team was sharply divided over Osama bin Laden raid
    By Joby Warrick and Karin Brulliard, Published: May 8

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-official-says/2011/05/08/AFxXpNSG_story.html

    I doubt that Hussein and his advisors were divided over the feasability of the raid. I believe the primary discussion at the highest level focused on whether to kill bin Laden or take him alive? The decision was a foregone conclusion. The last thing the Democrats wanted was bin Laden involving Muslim governments by telling the world that al-Qaeda is only one part of Islam’s military. Such an admission would shoot down the “terrorists are criminals not soldiers” crap Democrats have been pushing all along.

    A live bin Laden could have brought down the Democrat party’s entire house of cards. In fact, a talkative bin Laden would have drowned leading Democrats in their own war policy. No amount of intelligence about al-Qaeda’s operations would have justified his capture.

    Now that bin Laden sleeps with the fishes, Hussein & Company, along with the WaPo and just about every other media outlet, is on a quest to convince Americans that concern for military personnel was a factor before the SEALs went in. That fairy tale originates with the political party that was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American military people in Vietnam and Iraq. It makes no sense that those people would suddenly care about risking the lives of 40 or so SEALs.

    Irrespective of what Hussein says after the fact, he cared about the political fallout if the mission failed. He also weighed the tremendous benefits he and every Democrat would harvest if the mission was a success, but to say the lives of American military people was a concern rings hollow coming from any Democrat.

    Democrats today are the same people they were before bin Laden was killed. The success of the mission provided every one of them with a cloak of loyalty covering every traitorous act they engaged in throughout the Cold War, in Vietnam, in Latin America, In China, and in Iraq.

    Note that Biden who is one of the worst going all the way back to Vietnam is remarkably subdued about the military taking out bin Laden. Ditto John Kerry and the rest of them who have been in Washington for so long.

    And have you noticed that Democrats are stepping up the propaganda that says the war is against al-Qaeda? That’s like saying defeat the Mafia and the war against crime is over. Too bad Democrats did not think up the al-Qaeda scam during the Cold War. Defeat the KGB and you defeat communism?

    The war America is fighting is against Islam not al-Qaeda. That’s a straightforward proposition until you realize the relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda would make a great plot for a segment of the Twilight Zone:


    Obama a Great Benefactor to Al-Qaeda
    by Tara Servatius
    Posted 05/06/2011 ET

    No one on Earth has done more to help al-Qaeda in the last six weeks than Barack Obama. Don’t let the bin Laden assassination thing fool you. Even with the loss of bin Laden factored in, al-Qaeda’s prospects have improved dramatically in recent weeks, and the group has Obama to thank.

    Sure, bin Laden is gone, and that was a bit of a PR hit to the group. But Obama more than made up for that by setting up al-Qaeda financially for years to come. One of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invaded Libya in March was to help the radical Islamist led rebels capture the oil fields. Thanks to Obama, they will no longer need to depend on rich Saudi sheiks to fund jihad because they now control oil fields capable of generating $34 billion worth of black gold a year.

    Within a week of the takeover of the oil by the rebels, and while the White House was still promising to send the CIA to Libya to “figure out” who the rebels really were, the U.S. and NATO had brokered a sweet deal for them to control Libya’s oil and sell it to Qatar. The rebels sent the first shipment, worth about $100 million, by tanker in the beginning of April.

    It’s a windfall that the al-Qaeda infiltrated rebels, led by a former Gitmo detainee and two former jihadists fresh from battle in Afghanistan, couldn’t possibly have achieved without the help of US airpower in Libya . With billions they’ll eventually reap in profits from the oil each year, they could easily wage a multi-front jihad and have plenty of money left over for a bio weapon to wipe out the entire American East Coast. The thought of what these jihadist thugs could do inside our borders with the kind of money Obama and NATO helped secure for them ought to terrify Americans.

    There is little doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are behind the Libyan efforts. Regional leaders tried to warn us that the rebel movement in Libya was al Qaeda-backed and affiliated, but the American media largely brushed that off. This week, as the world sat glued to the TV, taking in the bin Laden assassination story, the Christian Science Monitor reported that al-Qaeda fighters are streaming into Libya to help the Obama-backed rebels. Despite this, the rebels say they are expecting to receive $2 to $3 billion in aid from the U.S., France, and Italy in the coming week.

    According to UPI, bin Laden himself was so ecstatic about these developments that he became almost sloppy in the weeks before his death, breaking cover and traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to “merge al-Qaeda's war against the West with the wave of uprisings across the Arab world.”

    The pattern by the Obama administration is almost eerie. First, al Qaeda-led rebels capture part of a country and declare it an Islamic emirate or caliphate. Then Obama backs the overthrow of that country’s embattled leader, declaring that he must go in the interest of democracy, even when that goes against U.S. interests in the War on Terror.

    That’s exactly what happened in Libya. It’s what happened again in Yemen. Within a week of al-Qaeda rebels seizing a province there earlier this year, Obama stunned foreign policy experts by suddenly calling for the ouster of Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh, a critical ally of ours in the war on terror.

    Many of the recent attempted attacks on America were planned in Yemen, which has become a base of operation for al-Qaeda. So it was baffling to many that Saleh was thrown under the jihadist bus by Obama even though his help has been critical to the U.S. in tracking and apprehending the al-Qaeda and jihadist plotters attempting to overthrow Yemen. This raises a question. If Obama isn’t for Saleh in Yemen, exactly who is he for? The options are pretty awful—unless you are partial to radical jihadist thugs.

    The whole pattern is similar to what Obama did in Egypt, where he backed a democracy movement that quickly proved to be a poorly disguised vehicle for those sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country.

    Which brings us back to bin Laden. His assassination is the one fact that doesn’t seem to fit Obama’s otherwise perfect pattern of aiding jihadist thugs in the overthrow of relatively stable countries. That’s because taking out bin Laden wasn’t about hurting al-Qaeda. It was about helping Obama get reelected. So far though, al-Qaeda seems to have come out way ahead in the deal.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43345
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah yes.. you doubt, you feeel, you find... you believe.
     
  3. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To Margot: Because I know.
     
  4. snapper46

    snapper46 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sir, 'Islamists' do control areas around the oil plants in Libya indeed - the majority of Libyans are Mohamedans but that does not make them followers of extremist sects a la M. BL... They are payed to protect the investments of the west. This analysis is fundamentaly flawed.
     
  5. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To snapper46: I posted the article as an appendage to my comments because I found it to be logical. However, you’ll be better off going to the source —— Tara Servatius —— for details on how she arrived at her analysis:

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43345
     
  6. sgtslaughter42

    sgtslaughter42 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with all of this. Obama is giving power to Al Qaeda. You have to ask yourself why.

    Don't think that Bush wasn't involved in the same thing as well.

    Just don't make it a left-right issue. The power elite want to empower Al Qaeda so there will be never-ending war. It has nothing to do with Obama (who is just a puppet).
     
  7. RoccoR

    RoccoR Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    sgtslaughter42, et al,

    Yes, we will, for some time into the future, be afraid of the monster under the bed. Like children being told ghost stories, al-Qaeda is hidden in the shadows, just waiting to spring upon us.

    (COMMENT)

    The original al-Qaeda, for some time, has not been the real monster. But it did spawn a series of independently operating cells and separately evolving affiliates that we call (properly) as "Salafis Jihadists."

    These affiliated/associated groups are known as Salafis Jihadist; and have come to be confused with al-Qaeda. Salafis Jihadist are not controlled, directed or sponsored by al-Qaeda; but many of the emerging leaders in the newer evolving Jihadist movements want to dedicated their most significant operations in remembrance and emulation of the legendary Sheikh (Osama bin Laden). It is true that al-Qaeda (proper) has encouraged these independent Jihadist to continue the struggle, the original al-Qaeda has not been a viable C3 for some number of years. Al-Qaeda (as a brand name) has become the monster under the bed, and we will call every Jihadist we come across by the monster's name; and tied to the events of 911.

    It is much like AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), originally the Jordanian terrorist group Jama‘at al-Tawhid wa-al Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group), established by the jihadist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.

    Similarly, "al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM) was originally the Algeria-based Sunni Muslim jihadist group called the "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat" (GSPC). It was formed in the late 1990's; but renamed just a few years ago.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  8. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't know squat.. Bin Laden is hated in most of the Arab world because he has killed so many Arabs and brought dishonor to the Arabs.

    Further.. Bin Laden is the antithesis of the goals of the Arab Spring.

    But rattle on....
     
  9. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Salafi Jihadist? Only by those who are listening to the insta pundits like Robert Baer or Emerson.. who don't know their butts from a hot rock.

    Bin Laden was a follower of Syed Qutb.. and the Wahabbis or Salafis have been fighting AQ and other terrorist for over a decade.. they have become a HUGE asset in the fight against terrorism.

     
  10. RoccoR

    RoccoR Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Margot, et al,

    My apology for getting back to this so late. I was out of town and off the grid.

    (COMMENT)

    I seldom criticize members of the establishment (Robert Baer and Steve Emerson included). As you are aware, al-Qaeda has, and continues to be, a constantly evolving entity.


    Reasonable research can trace the tendencies of most contemporary salafi-jihadi groups and make an ideological connection to that of of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (and especially to several of its key figures, including (but not only) Sayyid Qutb). I agree that Sayyid Qutb is no friend of American culture/society, by nearly any standard applied. But in the end, he was promoting Sharia Law, a common theme behind many of the Islamic Terrorists entities; suggesting and principles of Sharia Law should be the sole basis for governing a nation and the moral values of society. Sayyid Qutb believed that "physical power and Jihad" were the means and tools for change.

    I respectfully disagree that "Wahabbis or Salafis... ... ...have become a HUGE asset in the fight against terrorism." I would like an example of any (any!) official Salafis group that you believe has contributed, any demonstrable way, in the suppression of terrorism. While Salaif is not interchangeable with terrorism, the terrorist association is made clear when phrased with "Jihadist Salafis" - or when describing their participation in terrorist activity.

    The al-Qaeda terrorist network directly arose out of the radical Salafi Jihadist.

    Having said that, all movements evolve. Many knowledgeable experts suggest that the "use of violent jihad is not inherently associated with puritanical Islamic beliefs." The evolution of the has a start point and a current point in the time line.

    • The Start: Terrorism Concepts: Islamic Terrorism has been historically documented and acknowledged by the greater community for more than half a century. It is self evident.
    • The Current: Reform State: Some Salafis and Wahhabis believe that "violence should be a last resort and," which ultimately will lead to the establishment of a pure Islamic state.

    NOTE: While the reformers condemn acts of violence, they still do not rule it out as a means of achieving the ultimate goal.

    I recommend that you review the


    I grant you that the topic is controversial, and emotion. The generous and prevailing opinion of many, is that Islam is going through a phase in its evolution, in which competing forces from within (Pro-Jihad vs Anti-Jihad) are locked in a struggle over the intent conveyed by the ancient writings. However,the pro-Jihadists have the upper-hand. They control the image being projected. That image can only be changed by the Islamic Community through its deeds and actions; which define them.

    Just My Thought.

    Regards,
    R
     
  11. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think anyone is afraid of the al-hydra monster that hides under the bed of its brothers slayer (the USA) because it's wounded and weakened. Of course there are other heads to the hydra and they are all deadly. I am sure that there are some conspiracy theory nuts here at PC that feel radical Islam and or Alqueada had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Did Ben Laden really think the United States would not get him one day?

    I think he thought the US government and coalition forces government(s) would tire of chasing him and he just might get away with the slaughter and murder of thousands of innocent men women and children in one attack, and live to command another mass murder. That was not to be, he lived not to fight, but rather to scurry from one hole to another like the frightened rat he was. Did the current USA president benefit? Who cares, the wicked witch is dead. Now the terrorist hairball leaders that send children to their deaths will know that if they harm our people they will suffer the same fate as Mr Ben Laden and his lieutenants.

    Rev A
     
  12. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  13. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I am no fan of any type of government and that includes my own. My own countries forefathers warned about too big a federal government, which is why I wish the south would have won the USA's civil war, horrific slavery would have fallen away as it became unprofitable.I have and will feel the war was really fought for states rights and against a huge ever growing (in power etc) malignant federal government. Eisenhower a combat general and president who had intimate knowledge of the USAs power urged extreme caution of the military industrial complex. His urgings were prophetic, but I am digressing. Anyway the only question I have is why ole Ben is sleeping with the fishes. The official explanation was that no nation would accept his body. Hmmmm' ?

    That is near conspiracy nut land eh? At first I had some doubts that normal aircraft could cause the damage of 9/11. After research and later facts I have no cause to not suspect Islamic terrorists. Ben Laden did apparently confess to the attacks. ie ; " Osama DENIED having anything to do with 9/11 on several occasions immediately after the attacks. Months later a video of him admitting to the attacks suddenly" Of course some claim all tapes etc made after 2001 are faked. I just don't buy it.

    Ha ha I don't think so! Ten years is a long time, but I could hide for ten years with his money, I am sure of it! The point is that he was running and hiding for those ten years, any criminal on the lam will tell you its no fun to be hunted. Hunted he was with predator drones and CIA spooks even his own kind ratted him out. Did you see what he looked like? He was not a young man but he looked all of 80 years old in the last tape. Lastly he died violently as did some of his family. Ten years is a short period of time to have as a lifespan. I would like to say that I found no joy in hearing of his death especially of his family death. Actually I felt a kind of dreadful sadness. He died as one Nat Geographic special said in what he feared most, as an irrelevant old man with his movement dead. He reaped what he sowed. I am happy that I had no family member, a daughter, wife, or father, that jumped from a 40th floor of the world trade center, for if so I would have extreme joy in his death and of his families and friends deaths.

    Hitler was an old sick man as well, it did not diminish the largesse of the murderous monster that he was.

    Yes the forces did not want to drop a bunker buster on innocents. If we had of been as ruthless and as cruel as he and his group was I am sure he would have been liquidated in far less than ten years. There is a price to pay for compassion.

    I am sorry I feel that is hearsay and propaganda. If I were a hunted man I too would have faked my death etc.

    Well we must believe something and I feel that the way he died as explained on the tube was fairly accurate. They basically slaughtered him eh? If they were making a propaganda film I think the CIA/NSA producers would have him shooting at the Seals or ambushing them etc as well as family members making his death self defense. No, it was as it happened. No candy coating.

    Rev A
     
  14. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rev , Just one or two observations
    1 . Re the videos . have a look at them . Note the where the experts show the "errors" and the absurd body and facial differences , and make up your own mind .
    Most raised points seem to be beyond sensible disagreement , once you look at known genuine photos alongside .
    2.Interesting you cite Hitler , as this month saw the publication of a remarkable book which confirms beyond doubt that the remains of Adolf and Eva are most certainly not those hidden away by the Russians for so long . In fact "Hitler's "skull is actually the remains of a woman in her forties.
    It goes on to detail the conspiracy which allowed 30000 SS officers to escape mostly to Argentina in return for the fortune held by the Reich plus the transfer of key German Scientists which are the complete basis of the present US Empire --- Atomic Nuclear Bomb development missiles and supersonic flight being the more obvious areas.
    The most amazing part ( and the one which will be the most ridiculed by those passing judgement without reading the book ) details the move of Adolf and Eva to Argentina via Denmark and with full American co-operation . If you buy into the book , he lived until 1962 and had two children with Eva in Argentina .
    Worth reading , whatever conclusions you make .
    3. The scorned opportunities to take Osama out with drones concerned a small AQ group crossing the Tora Bora and no women or children were present .
    Reputable journalists were present and their testimonies are available
    4 There is also a Consultant and Surgeon who treated Osama in Pakistan . According to them and others there was no way he could have lived much longer than he did ( Jan 2002) and ten years (2011) are a miracle of all miracles . Testimony is on record .
    5 . Same type of comments from those at his funeral Jan 2002) . Written testimonies .

    I keep an open mind and whilst I don't imagine I have even a small part of the full story , I suspect the nub of matters probably lies in the History of Osama's family and tribe relationships with Bush specifically, the American Government in total , and key Neo -Cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld .
    Possibly the US did a deal with Osama giving all key Saudis complete safety providing he played the " fall guy" .
    He knew he was a dying man , and the US got the Bogey Man they needed to get permission from all good and hurt Americans to move into Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and " rid the world of terror".Al Qaeda had actually left a long time previously and Osama was only selling the Taliban to the US -- and by then relationships between the two groups was almost non existent .
    I have never formed any serious theory of complete 9/11 responsibility but it seems far more complex than the official version . Whoever was responsible used Nanothermite fire and explosive accelerants to bring down the three towers by controlled explosions . But who " they ' were , I do not know . Certainly not the same group who hijacked the planes .
    Never lose sight of the eighties when Osama and the US worked as one to undermine the Soviets in Afghanistan . Great bonds were forged . A lot of favours were stored on both sides and the complexities are incalculable and buried very deeply .
    Fascinating because the likes of us will never be privy to what really occurred .All imo .
     
  15. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My basset destroyed the Ethernet cable to HAL (my computer) so sorry, my reply is late. I will have a look at the vids. I rarely look at them for personal reasons. But I am after the truth, no matter how it plays out, and will respond soon.

    Rev A
     
  16. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now, listen to the video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniVeih8idc&feature=player_embedded
     
  17. RoccoR

    RoccoR Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Flanders, et al,

    First, the proper form of address is "The President;" or the short title: POTUS. The President may be referred to as the Command-in-Chief (CINC) in the Constitutional role as the executive commanding the armed forces.

    (COMMENT)

    Sean Hannity is a very vocal, syndicated commentator holding an exceptionally strong conservative agenda. He is not a fair broker on any political issue; but generally holds to the more "conservative values." And believe me when I say, that making an armed incursion into a sovereign nation is a political issue of the highest magnitude; both, domestically and internationally.

    It must be remembered that the Office of The President is, if anything, a political office reserved for politicians.

    My most favorite political line from any movie comes from:


    A politician is the character of The President. You will never know exactly how much The President, or any of the two-for-a-nickel advisors, worried about the actual service members undertaking the mission. But a being prepared for the political fallout of any potentially controversial action is poetically and quintessentially a basic characteristic of a politician. Sean Hannity, nor any of his contributors, can know what The President might have done, had the mission turned for the worst or failed. But history tells us that previous Presidents have taken the same track as did President Carter when the Hostage Rescue attempt failed in Iran.

    I also think it is reasonable to believe that The President had the very same concern for the team members, as he does for all members of the Armed Forces and Foreign Service that are sent in harms way. And each leader learns to deal with that in there own way. While I would never question his honor or integrity, I'm quite sure Sean Hannity, who never served a day under fire, or in foreign service --- much less as a leader that might have to send personnel into danger, is not an authority on the matter. So, it might be best if you look back on your experiences as a senior in command and compare your combat leadership decisions to what Hannity and his contributors describe - and determine whether or not you would want Hannity making judgements on your leadership characteristics. I'm rather doubtful if Hannity is qualified to lead a group of Girl Scouts across the park, let alone, critique the CINC on such personal matters and characteristics.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  18. RoccoR

    RoccoR Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    et al,

    Yeah! Interesting.

    (COMMENT)

    I wonder how viable the threat is to the US?

    I'm wondering if the new AQI actually has a chance to reconstitute itself in Iraq?

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,391
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Exactly, and this is really nothing new.

    A lot of people have amazingly already forgotten the PLO, and the slew of "Alphabet Soup" offshoots that the organization either founded, spun off, or left for their own reasons.

    The PLO begat one really serious terrorist organization, that known as Black September. And this was almost a disaster for the organization because of their one major strike. And when they afterwards largely turned away from such attacks, a lot of members left and formed their own organizations. This began the almost mind-numbing variants.

    PLFP
    PFPL
    DFLP
    PIJ
    PPSF
    ALF
    PAF
    PIJ

    And there were a great many more, but many of them in one way or another were founded from members that were once in the PLO, or still supported them. However as the PLO left behind the radicals and became more mainstream, you had other groups rise up to take it's place in the eyes of the Jihadists, like Hezbollah.

    al-Qaeda is not much different. A lot of groups that call themselves AQ really have no connection, but use the name as a recruiting tool or a way to get support. Others would like to be part of AQ, but for one reason or another have not been accepted by them. And others have actually been trying to gain control of the organization. But just like the alphabet soup of Palestinian Organizations from the 60's until the early 1990's, these will likely continue to be threats for decades to come no matter what.

    Because most of them will not be satisfied unless they get complete victory. And in this case it seems to be the destruction of the US and Israel, and conversion of most of the world to Sharia Islamic states.
     
  20. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To RoccoR: This informative article answers your questions:

    Normalization of Islam
    David Rushton Thursday, July 26, 2012

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48369
     

Share This Page