|
Chaingang -> RE: Al-Qaeda: A Bogeyman for the U.S. Empire (8/8/2006 11:02:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estring
Oh yes, question authority, but blindly believe some dope with an agenda, or some horrible movie like V for Vendetta.
Not seeing it. And my comment about V was actually more nuanced than that. And I wasn't interested in the movie per se, just the advertising tagline which I think is in keeping with sentiments like these:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
Just gonna throw this one in because it repeats ideas of my own:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Onward...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estring
I wonder what terrorists were doing in Canada? Do you remember the ones who were caught a few months ago?
Cite please. What precisely are you talking about?
What's funny in these cases is how you read it on the front page and months later read a total retraction on the back pages once the fucking details get unpacked. The White House and media have been complicit in offering up bullshit story after bullshit story after bullshit story. None of it is adding up to a terrorist network capable of ordering the same lunch on the same day.
Jamal al-Fadl is the guy you want to know about. This is the disappearing case of what we have against Osama Bin Laden under U.S. Law:
---
In January 2001 a trial began in New York of four men accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa . The U.S also wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). To be able to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organisation, which would then allow them to prosecute the leader, even if he could not be linked directly to the crime.
Jamal al-Fadl was taken on as a key prosecution witness, who along with a number of other sources claimed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a large international terrorist organisation which was called "al-Qaeda"
However, there is no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of this 'group' until after the September 11 attacks when he realised that was the term the Americans had given it. Instead of a connected organisation with bin Laden at the head, there was infact a loose association of Islamist militants who planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance.
Jamal al-Fadl was on the run from bin Laden, having stolen money from him. In return for his testimony, the U.S gave him witness protection in America and hundereds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believed al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans a picture of a terrorist organisation they needed to prosecute bin Laden.
The September 11 attacks were the brainchild of Islamist militant Khalid Sheik Mohammed who had come to bin Laden for funding and help in finding volunteers. But he did not take orders from him.
The name "al-Qaeda" was first coined by the U.S. federal government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organisation as the al-Qaeda-al-Jihad ("the base of the jihad"). In neither Osama bin Laden's declaration of war, or the fatwa he issued in 1998, does he mention an organisation called "al-Qaeda."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl
---
"Defense Begins Closing Argument"
Al-Fadl's testimony "isn't worth a whit," Schmidt said. "He is a totally unreliable witness."
Al-Fadl was not in danger for stealing from bin Laden, he said, "he was in danger because he double-crossed his real employer and that was the National Islamic Front [NIF] of Sudan."
Schmidt said that Al-Fadl went to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Yemen, Egypt, and other countries -- and even considered going to Israel -- to get money to start an opposition party to the NIF, "not to save the world from bin Laden."
It was not likely the United States would give him money for an opposition party, he said, so Al-Fadl "knew that the only way to get what he wanted -- and that was out of [Sudan] and money -- was to tell the United States what they wanted."
Schmidt said that Al-Fadl lied to the Americans about knowing World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, that he was security chief for bin Laden, that he tried to acquire chemical weapons, and that he knew for a fact that El Hage was a member of al Qaeda.
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Defense_Begins_Closing_Argument.html
---
And this would be a huge digression for this thread BUT you might want to look into RICO/conspiracy type prosecutions and also investigate its history here and in other countries. You will not find a good record of clean and honorable prosecution - you will find the fascistic role of goverment as hammer against its own people. When all else fails, change the rules of the law!
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Gee, where were all these people who "QUESTION AUTHORITY" when Billy Bob Clinton was President?
A perfect example of change the subject type digressions. FWIW, I was extremely critical of Clinton the whole time he was president - but for meaningful reasons like the economy and his foreign policy and not because some intern was giving the guy some BJs (which is utter bullshit no one should rightfully care about). I always speak of Clinton as the Republican's best friend, seeing as how he accomplished for them many things they could not have accomplished for themselves until this administration. Next...!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Estring
And President Bush said he doesn't think of Osama, because in the big scheme, getting Osama wasn't as important as defeating Islamic terrorism. Taking things out of context doesn't help your cause.
I think rhetorically this is called a "moving target." So we aren't after public enemy number one Osama Bin Laden any longer? It's not even Al-Qaeda or its leadership? Now it's "Islamic terrorists" or the like? Gee, why not just say we all have monsters under the bed? Or are those just in *YOUR* head?
There is no coherent terrorist network that is the "enemy" in the "War on Terror." The War on Terror is more properly the "War of Terror" inasmuch as they want you to be so afraid that you will co-sign their endless fascistic bullshit.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Estring. Fear the great and terrible Oz...!
|
|
|
|
