Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

by **johnny nemo** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:11 pm

There's no such thing as al Qaeda, or al Qaida, or however you want to spell it. It's a fraud perpetrated on the American people by our own government to scare us into submission. This is a clip from the excellent three-part BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". <a href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/al_qaeda_doesnt_exist.htm">www.infowars.com/articles..._exist.htm</a>

by **Pirx** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:21 pm

The whole thing is available at <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares">archive.org</a>

by **Qutb** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:36 pm

I quite like Mr Curtis, but he was definitely wrong on that one. For a more informed opinion, I recommend Marc Sageman's recent "Understanding Terror Networks".

by **Corvidaerex** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:10 pm

... as in "the database," according to Robin Cook. (Nicely enough, Cook was dead a few days after he revealed this in a newspaper op-ed.) The database was a CIA database of "foreign fighters" in Afghanistan who were on the payroll in the 1980s. They certainly existed! Is Al Qaeda anything more than a name attached to any "terror event" these days? I don't know & there are probably a few answers that are equally true.

by **johnny nemo** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:18 pm

Marc Sageman's former CIA and works for a right wing think tank the Foreign Policy Research Institute. I don't trust him or them.

by **Qutb** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:37 pm

True, but his book is also very well researched and his knowledge on the subject is undeniable (a bit more extensive, it might be added, than Robin Cook's). He actually worked with the Mujahedin in the 80s, and his work as a forensic psychiatrist gives him a unique perspective. Now, if he, with his background, had been posing as a leftist or espousing certain conpiracy theories, that would have been red flags. Other books to consult: Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars", Loretta Napoleoni's "Terror, Inc", Richard Clarke's "Against all Enemies".

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Marc Sageman's former CIA and works for a right wing think tank the Foreign Policy Research Institute.<hr></blockquote> Good catch, Johnny Nemo. It's so funny, I must be psychic or something, but the minute Qutb recommended him, I had this weird intuition that he would turn out to be one of them. That's so cool, I feel all shivery inside. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **greencrow0** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:08 pm

the dysinfo is reaching a crescendo. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o">

by **robertdreed** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:21 am

There are a lot more people than Marc Sageman who are of a mind that yes, there is an Al Qaeda. Journalists and professional investigators- Peter Bergen, Suzanne Murdico, John O'Neill, Richard Clarke... To insist that there's no such thing as Al Qaeda is to say that all of them, and many more, are consciously working a cover-up, involved in the gross deception of building and sustaining a "legend"- in service of their hidden masters in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration. Or the Illuminati, or whoever... That's too much for me to swallow. The nucleus of Al Qaeda was "Arab mujahideen"- non-Afghans from the Arab nations who volunteered to comprise a Foreign Legion to fight the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. This is beyond dispute. Whether every "terror atttack", or "planned terror attack", since Sept. 11, 2001 is the work of a Unified Field Theory leading to "Al Qaeda" is a quite different question. To understate my sentiments, I'm dubious about that. And it's always been true that any organization involved in the sort of actions that Islamic jihadists (yes, they also exist) applaud is able to call itself "Al Qaeda", and it's unlikely that they will be corrected by their compatriots. But as the result of reading several books on the subject, by people who actually interviewed the leaders, soldiers, collaborators, defectors, and hunters of Al Qaeda, I'm satisfied that the terror group Al Qaeda, a militant organization with a central directorate capable of planning and pulling off coordinated paramilitary-type attacks, exists as a historical fact- although at this point, their leadership may have been largely replaced, and the organization may have taken on a quite different character, due largely to its transformation into a militant force fighting the foreign occupiers of Afghanistan and Iraq. Full circle, as it were- back to their origins, fighting the infidel foreign occupation forces of a superpower. More than enough motivation to keep the organization going, even if most or even all of the original leadership has been killed or apprehended. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/16/06 10:29 pm

by **stickdog99** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:32 am

Israel quite obviously deals with a large number of hardline Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks on a weekly (or, at best, monthly) basis: <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html">www.jewishvirtuallibrary....ctims.html</a> The webpage linked above lists over 350 separate fatal incidents resulting in well over 1000 Israeli fatalities since September, 2000. But I haven't yet located a single incident out of these 350+ in which more than 30 Israelis died. Nor have I found a single example of a well-coordinated, multiple-attack terrorist strike (defined as three or more separate fatal acts of terrorism executed within a span of three hours). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could direct me to these entries? Now, it seems to me that the more sophisticated and spectacular an act of terrorism is -- the more, shall we say, made-for-TV -- the greater chance that this dramatically successful act of terrorism was state sponsored to achieve some political end. This is purely a function of the far greater MEANS and OPPORTUNITY of state sponsored mil/intel organizations when compared with those of the typical Jihadist terrorists they are tasked with foiling. Surely, we would all agree that this exact pattern (of highly dramatic and potent terrorist acts correlating with covert state sponsored activities) is quite typical in the historical records of many perhaps less "politically enlightened" regions -- such as Indonesia, South Africa, Russia and Latin America, for example. Unlike Israel (which deals with far more numerous but typically far less potent Jihadist attacks), the USA & Great Britain appear to deal almost exclusively with spectacularly successful, well-coordinated, highly sophisticated MADE-FOR-TV Goldfinger/Dr. No-type terrorists. The Jihadist terrorists attacking Israel don't typically choose highly symbolic strike dates (like 9/11 or 7.7 -- with years of inactivity between) to launch singular and discrete but highly memorable, extremely fatal and very well-coordinated multi-strikes. In contrast, real terrorist organizations almost invariably attempt to highlight the desperate straits of their causes by aggressively claiming full responsibility for their violent acts using previously known and recognized channels and spokesmen. Furthermore, these real Jihadist terrorist organizations do not put a premium on huge and horrifically fatal MADE-FOR-TV terror muscle-flexing but instead foster a continual atmosphere of perilousness by striking whenever, wherever and however they can. IMHO, the term "al Qaeda" has now come to simply signify any anonymous act of terror that might otherwise appear sophisticated enough to implicate state-sponsored mil/intel. I realize that this is a generalization at best, but please understand the context in which I'm daring to utter such blasphemous thoughtcrime. Our entire corporate media apparatus and political hierarchy have already convicted Islamic fundamentalists of today's crimes with nary a shred of backing evidence. In contrast, I'm not trying to convince anyone to jump to any hasty conclusions -- just to duly consider all logically probable alternatives.

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:49 pm

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html">www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...76,00.html</a> 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." <a href="http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20050815&hn=22982">www.zaman.com/?bl=nationa...5&hn=22982</a> Al-Qaeda, a Secret Service Operation? By Ercan Gun Sunday, August 14, 2005 A fire in a house near the docks in the southern Turkish city of Antalya has revealed that al-Qaeda was preparing an attack to target Israeli cruise ships. The security operations that followed this fortuitous incident made Turkish security the focus of security agencies all around the world. Countries facing the al-Qaeda threat are awaiting the intelligence Turkish security is to provide. Amid the smoke from the fortuitous fire emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an intelligence agency operation. Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda. Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept “fighting terror” is the background of the “low-intensity-warfare” conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as “al-Qaeda.” Sakra, the fifth most senior man in Osama bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda that has challenged the whole world from a base in the Afghan mountains, is in the hands of Turkish Justice. Sakra has been sought by the secret services since 2000. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogated him twice before. Following the interrogation CIA offered him employment. He also received a large sum of money by CIA. However the CIA eventually lost contact with him. <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm">www.spiked-online.com/Art...06DFED.htm</a> There is a 'rooted public perception of what al-Qaeda is', says Dolnik, who is currently carrying out research on the Terrorism and Political Violence Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore; but, he says, such perceptions are far from accurate. Dolnik argues that where many imagine that al-Qaeda is 'a super organisation of thousands of super-trained and super-secret members who can be activated any minute', in fact it is better understood as something like a 'global ideology that has not only attracted many smaller regional groups, but has also facilitated the boom of new organisations that embrace this sort of radical and violent thinking'. Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials. 'Bin Laden never used the term al-Qaeda prior to 9/11', Dolnik tells me. 'Nor am I aware of the name being used by operatives on trial.The closest they came were in statements such as, "Yes, I am a member of what you call al-Qaeda". The only name used by al-Qaeda themselves was the World Islamic Front for the Struggle Against Jews and Crusaders - but I guess that's too long to really stick.' So where did 'al-Qaeda' come from? Dolink says there are a number of theories - that the term was first used by bin Laden's spiritual mentor Abdullah Azzam, who wrote of al Qaeda al Sulbah, meaning the 'solid base', in 1988; or that it derives from a bin Laden-sponsored safehouse in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when he was part of the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion, again referring to a physical 'base' rather than to a distinct organisation. But in terms of 'al-Qaeda' then being used to define a group of operatives around bin Laden - that, says Dolnik, originated in the West. 'The US intelligence community used the term "al-Qaeda" for the first time only after the 1998 embassy bombings', he says, when suspected bin Laden followers detonated bombs at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people. Dolnik says al-Qaeda was used as a 'convenient label for a group that had no formal name'. Prior to the 1998 bombings, US officials were concerned about Osama bin Laden and the financial backing he appeared to provide to Islamic terror groups - but they rarely, if ever, mentioned anything called 'al-Qaeda'. According to British journalist Jason Burke, in his authoritative Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, 'Al-Qaeda is a messy and rough designation, often applied carelessly in the absence of a more useful term' . Burke points out that while many think al-Qaeda is 'a terrorist organisation founded more than a decade ago by a hugely wealthy Saudi Arabian religious fanatic', in fact the term 'al-Qaeda' has only entered political and mainstream discussion fairly recently: 'American intelligence reports in the early 1990s talk about "Middle Eastern extremists…working together to further the cause of radical Islam", but do not use the term "al-Qaeda". After the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, FBI investigators were aware of bin Laden but only "as one name among thousands". In the summer of 1995, during the trials of Islamic terrorists who had tried to blow up a series of targets in New York two years earlier, "Osam ben Laden" (sic) was mentioned by prosecutors once; "al-Qaeda" was not.' Like Dolnik, Burke points out that the name al-Qaeda entered the popular imagination only after US officials used it to describe those who attacked the embassies in Africa. 'In the immediate aftermath of the double bombings, President Clinton merely described a "network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama (sic) bin Laden"', writes Burke. 'Clinton talks of "the bin Laden network", not of "al-Qaeda". In fact, it is only during the FBI-led investigation into those bombings that the term first starts to be used to describe a traditionally structured terrorist organisation' . According to some experts, it was this naming of al-Qaeda by US officials that kickstarted the public's misunderstanding of Islamic terror groups. Dolnik points out that, while US officials talked up a structured group, this so-called al-Qaeda did not even have 'any sort of insignia - a phenomenon quite rare in the realm of terrorism'. <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2005/210305alqaedamyth.htm">www.propagandamatrix.com/...damyth.htm</a> Russian Intelligence Chief Says Al-Qaeda a Myth MosNews | March 21 2005 On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States is trying to establish control over the world’s richest oil reserves, Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper. Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their “democratic order” on the Greater Middle East, Shebarshin said. “The U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat,” Shebarshin said. Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al-Qaeda expert at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the U.S., Shebarshin said: “We have agreed that [al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion.” “The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich Muslim regions,” Shebarshin emphasized. With military bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Shebarshin said, the United States has already established control over the Caspian region — one of the world’s largest oil reservoirs. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 9/18/06 2:56 pm

by **greencrow0** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:12 pm

<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/">edition.cnn.com/</a> al queda mad about the pope's controversial speech. ha ha Now we know it was a put up job. AQ is a CIA psy-ops. and this is chapter two of this latest divertissimo...from the real events that they don't want us to see or talk about... like the Mexican Revolution. gc

by **robertdreed** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:11 pm

I think the promulgation of "Al Qaeda" as a "notion" is even more perilous than the actual existence of the terror group dubbed with that name by Western observers back in the 1990s. As an "umbrella term", it has the "memetic value" of unifying a huge array of disparate groups into a coalition- drawing up the world into two sides, which is exactly what the militarists and extremists need in order to justify a continued escalation of tensions leading to a massive showdown on the order of a global war. The paramilitary terror group "Al Qaeda"- which I insist does exist, and did not have its origins as a creation of the West- was a relatively minor paramilitary organization, something to be pursued through "police action"- a term not to be confused with the misnomer associated with the Korean War, I'm here referring to the international law enforcement pursuit of a criminal conspiracy. But that isn't what the Bush administration did- instead of seeking to excise the tumor, their approved "treatment of choice" seems to have led to improving the conditions for its metastasis- Al Qaeda the "notion", instead of the encapsulated "terror plot." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/18/06 7:13 pm

by **Gouda** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Blair said, "Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working <hr></blockquote> Along the lines of what RDR is saying, I think that whatever it is or isn't, one can see a creeping redefinition of "terrorism" and "al Qaeda" over the last few years that aims to cover all forms of organized resistance to the beastly network of conjoining totalitarian systems spanning the globe in various forms. That is what the "long war" is about: sweeping it all up. The "radical extremist" bar has been lowered, and the net widened considerably. One can see how the corporate media and pundits are pushing a version of a decentralized al qaeda; an idea, a tactic, melting into shadowy crannies across the globe, linking jihadists to other groups or nations (see Venezuela) not aligned with the corporate one-world-market project, 'coincidentally' resembling loose networks of social and economic justice groups. Yes, real live jihadis, terrorists, fascists and other scum exist and are very useful. As the enemy was "communism", now it is "islamo-fascism." Or both: "Islamo-communism"? Check this out: "The New Bolsheviks - Understanding Al Qaeda" By Frederick W. Kagan (AEI) <a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23460,filter.all/pub_detail.asp">www.aei.org/publications/...detail.asp</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Victory in war, and particularly in counterinsurgency wars, requires knowing one’s enemy. This simple truth, first stated by Sun Tsu more than two millennia ago, is no less important in the war on terrorism today. It has become almost common wisdom, however, that America today faces an enemy of a new kind, using unprecedented techniques and pursuing incomprehensible goals. But this enemy is not novel. Once the peculiar rhetoric is stripped away, the enemy America faces is a familiar one indeed. The revolutionary vision that undergirds al Qaeda’s ideology, the strategy it is pursuing, and the strategic debates occurring within that organization are similar to those of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism at various periods. What’s more, the methods that led to the defeat of that ideology can be adapted and successfully used against this religious revival of it. Certain strands of Islamist ideology are so similar in structure to basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism that the comparison is unavoidable. The similarities are most apparent in the writings of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Islamist and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood executed in 1966. Qutb, who produced a pamphlet called Milestones that summarized much of his work, has powerfully influenced the modern jihadist movement, especially Ayman al-Zawahiri--Osama bin Laden’s deputy and the ideologue of al Qaeda--and Abdul Musab al-Zarqawi, “emir” of the al Qaeda organization in Iraq. ... This is not a war of the West against Islam, of wealthy nations against the poor, of the agents of globalization against their victims. It is an ideological struggle in which the heirs of Qutb are attempting to seize power so as to establish a forcible dictatorship that can impose their desired moral, political, economic, judicial, and social system upon a growing mass--and ultimately, the whole--of the human race. They are using the tried-and-true methods of the Bolsheviks, and the many revolutionaries who have followed in their wake, as they attempt to accomplish this mission. A small group of professional revolutionaries works simultaneously to expand its reach in the populace and to perfect its own organization. At the right historical moment, it strikes a weak state and seizes power. It then uses that state for two purposes. First, it builds a model, a showpiece of the excellence of its ideological program to encourage other groups to imitate it, creating similar states which it can then absorb. Second, it develops the resources of that state to place them at the disposal of the revolutionary movement, dramatically increasing its reach and capabilities... <hr></blockquote>

by **Byrne** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:14 am

'Al Qaeda' started as a WAR tool to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan & then became a PSYOPS tool. I also read recenly, some excerpts of an 'anti-islam US intelligence policy document', dated in 1996, but I can't find the link to the document. The doc basically stated that the next 'gameplan' objective included utilising the spread of 'Islamic fanaticism' (which the US itself had created). I also believe what (the late) Robin Cook said - 'Al Qaeda' was literally the database (file) of all the Mujahideen enlisted. Quetta And Surplus Jihadis By Dr Farrukh Saleem The News International (Pakistan) 15 July , 2003 On 25 December 1979, Leonid Brezhnev sent in troops to invade Afghanistan. Within two days the Red Army had secured Kabul. On 21 January 1980, US President James E Carter made his State of the Union Address. The Carter Administration had identified Pakistan as a "Front-line state" in America's global struggle against Communism. At the heart of America's struggle against Communism was the CIA plan to destabilise the Soviet Union through the spread of Islamic fanaticism across Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics. Between 1980 and 1989, CIA poured in some $6 billion (other estimates go as high as $20 billion) in arms, ammunition, recruiting, establishing an extensive madrassa network, training, feeding and arming of recruits. Saudi Arabia matched the US dollar-for-dollar. Wealthy Arabs poured in additional millions. Egypt and China also helped out. In 1980, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the then head of Istakhbarat, Saudi Arabia's secret service, handpicked Osama bin Laden to provide engineering and organisational help to the fighting Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Osama was provided hundreds of millions with which he bought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia destined for Afghanistan's guerrilla camps. Ronald Reagan took over the White House on 20 January 1981. The game-plan then revolved around the production of a hundred thousand religious fanatics to fight the 'godless Russians'. In 1979 an estimate on the total number of madrassas stood at around 1,000. Most of these madrassas concentrated on the formal instruction of Islamic theology. Between 1983 and 1988, CIA aid had helped establish an additional 1,891 madrassas. The new ones doubled as guerrilla training camps producing an average of at least fifty battle-ready alumni a year. That's roughly a hundred thousand Mujahideen a year. Osama bin Laden on his own is estimated to have recruited, financed and trained an additional 35,000 non-Afghans. By 1984, the University of Nebraska, through a $51 million USAID grant, joined the Mujahideen war against the Red Army. The University's Centre for Afghanistan Studies produced literature in Pashtu and Dari indoctrinating Afghan children with fanaticism and bigotry. According to The Washington Post of 23 March 2003, Afghan children were "taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines." In Qur'aanic lessons, Mujahideen were shown the path to heaven by killing a handful of 'godless Russians'. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio free Europe were set up to beam Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (in 1991, a US federal appeals court ruling against USAID ruled that taxpayers dollars cannot be used to supply materials that are religious). Between 1982 and 1989, a hundred thousand non-afghans -- including Egyptians, Algerians, Palestinians, and Saudis -- were indoctrinated and trained at Pakistani madrassas to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. At the peak of the Afghan war some 50,000 Muslim radicals from 43 countries were fighting the Russians. Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the Red Army out of Afghanistan. The last Soviet soldier walked out of Afghanistan on 15 February 1989. Interestingly, between 1982 and 1989, while the CIA was in league with the Mujahideen, Afghan opium production ballooned from 250 tons in 1982 to 2,000 tons in 1989. By 1992, the Najibullah Government had fallen and the Mujahideen had captured Kabul. With the Soviets gone there was an instant jihadi surplus of more than a couple of hundred thousand war hardened bullies who had brought the second most powerful nation on the face of the planet down to its knees. Ronald Reagan had taught Pakistani generals the fine art of jihad (The Washington Post, "From US, the ABC's of Jihad"; March 2002). The jihadi surplus was released away from Pakistan in the direction of Kashmir. Other destinations included Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, the Philippines and parts of the Middle East. The 'global village' feels that there is a link between Afghanistan-Pakistan combine and the persistent fighting in south-eastern Europe, south-western Russia, western Pacific Ocean and Central Asia. Srinagar has kept some of the jihadi surplus busy for the past 11 years. Engagements in Karakorum, Kargil and Xingjiang have also kept jihadis occupied. The number of madrassas, however, has kept on surging even after the capture of Kabul in 1992. In 1947, for instance, Pakistan had 245 madrassas. In 1989, the overall estimate was under 2,000. By the year 2000, our Ministry of Interior had enumerated 6,761 madrassas. In 2001, one hundred and nine more madrassas were added (while the total number of madrassas has not decreased since September 11 the number of foreign students at these madrassas has gone down sharply). Before Camp David, the Kashmir release valve was shut down. One 24 June 2003, we committed to keep the valve shut down for good. One that is not at peace with the world ought not expect peace within. On July 4, came the attack on the Quetta imambargah. Our jihadi surplus -- both in manpower and infrastructure -- exploded in our midst. Was it Dr Henry Frankenstein, the mad, obsessed scientist, who experimentally created a soulless monster? The monster somehow begins to terrorise the entire Bavarian countryside. The doctor tries to tame his own creation. Ultimately, the monster starts destroying everything that his creator loved. The doctor then tries to raze his own creation. <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/ipk-saleem150703.htm" target="top">source</a>

Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

Re: Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

Re: Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

it means "the base"

Smoke and Mirrors

Re: Marc Sageman

Re: Marc Sageman

Re: Marc Sageman

Re: Marc Sageman

Re: Al Quaeda DOESN'T Exist

Al Qaeda = The ULTIMATE Psyop ?

Re: Al Qaeda = The ULTIMATE Psyop ?

Re: Al Qaeda = The ULTIMATE Psyop ?

Re: Al Qaeda = The ULTIMATE Psyop ?

Re: Al Qaeda = The ULTIMATE Psyop ?

Who is online