Al-Qaeda (also al-Qaida or al-Qa’ida or al-Qa’idah) (Arabic: القاعدة al-qāʕida, translation: The Base)
“Al Qaeda,” for instance, is not a name given to Muslim terrorists by their own hand. “The Base” can be roughly interpreted to be the “database” that the CIA had of Mujaheddin terrorists it had employed in Afghanistan in the Reagan Wars of the 1980’s. The CIA trained them, armed them, built their housing and facilities. When they were show-bombed during the later Clinton years, targets were easy to fix – since the CIA built the bases, it also knew the locations.
In fact, “Al Qaeda” is a western paramilitary force, and has been since its beginning. It wasn’t until the years up to and after 9/11 that the American agitprop system converted them into the dreadful pack of freaks that supposedly hijack airliners and blow up embassies.
Thierry Meyssan has an interesting piece up at Voltaire, Al-Qaeda, NATO’s Timeless Tool. One always has to wonder if these guys like Meyssan, who seem to have inside information are in fact insiders and their writing a “limited hangout*.” I tend to want to trust Meyssan since in the days right after 9/11 when he challenged the world to find the Boeing at Ground Zero, Pentagon. He knew right away what was up and jumped over everyone to point it out. And then again … he knew right away what was up … hmmmmm
As revealed by Turkish police,
We are learning that the Al-Qaeda banker, Yasin al-Qadi, who was designated as such and pursued by the United States since the attacks against embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), was a personal friend of both former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. We discover that this ” terrorist” led a lavish lifestyle, traveling by private plane and mocking UN sanctions against him. Thus, at least four times, he visited Erdoğan in 2012, arriving by the second Istanbul airport where, after disconnecting the cameras, he was welcomed by the head of the Prime Minister’s guard without going through customs.
This is no surprise – the real terrorists of our world travel freely, surrounded by security and immune from justice. Look up sometime the name “Orlando Bosch**” to see what the US does with real terrorists (harbors them). In Turkey, as with other “scandals” what we are seeing is an ongoing collaboration of intelligence agencies throughout the world. This one has links going back to Reagan years as well, when
…NATO already had accomplices in Tehran during the “Iran-Contra” operation in former President Rafsandaji’s inner circles, such as Sheikh Rohani, who has become the current president.
We are not seeing one more scandal in Turkey, but rather one more chapter in a very thick book, each linked to the other in some fashion, common names throughout. It is complicated, and we never know good guys or bad guys (or wonder sometimes if there are in fact any good guys left standing). It is good to see a rogue terrorist government like Erdoğan’s going down, but then one must wonder who is behind the exposure of his activities, and if in fact another force is behind the scenes making way for a new set of actors on the same stage.
The New York Times, itself loaded with CIA moles, knows just a thing or two about state-controlled news. It reports that In Scandal, Turkey’s Leaders May Be Losing Their Tight Grip on News Media. As bad as things might appear at times, there is always humor.
________________
*A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.
**Bosch, according to the US Justice Department, participated in at least 30 terrorists acts, including the bombing of a Cuban airliner with 73 civilians aboard. He was freed from justice abroad with the help of Jeb Bush and allowed to live out his live in peace and comfort in the US. He died in 2011.
Piece of Mindful 
What’s your opinion of the BBC?
LikeLike
Foreign media in general have fewer filters on American news than American news outlets. But BBC would be bad for news about Great Britain due to offical secrets laws.
What’s yours?
LikeLike
Totally corrupt and not worth much when discussing contentious issues. Here is but one example. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html#ixzz2qBlfEG9a
LikeLike
Aha! A trap. Honestly, who can have an opinion on global warming except that the place is warming up? Political solutions, economic schemes are suspicious. Big greens with huge budgets are as suspicious as anyone else.
I’ve come to think over time that if warming is human-caused and if there is a solution, they will just implement it. The public need not be consulted or kept informed, as public opinion only interferes in those matters. That is the way it is done, like it or not. So your BBC broadcast has politics or money schemes at its heart and is business as usual, here too.
LikeLike
I would delete your comment as non-responsive. You asked me a question regarding the BBC. I told you I believed they were corrupt. I gave you one example. There are many more. Now, I don’t see how you are so superficial on this but exhibit some air of arrogant superiority to declare how pitifully others are not to see deper. You mentioned the NYT and your assertions of CIA plants. OK, assume true don’t think it relevant to argue that nonsense. Now when the press are part of the government messaging apparatus and attempt to hide their connection, whatever the perceived nobility of the cause, we are left with head shaking cynicism. No one to trust to balance the govt message. The issue and “cause” hidden behind that corruption is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Good post, Mark. Which media outlet is worthy of your trust, Craig?
LikeLike
Craig, you are apparently spoiling for a fight. I made one simple assertion – that there is less filtering of American news in the BBC, not due to intent, but rather because the filtering apparatus is not as powerful there as here. It does not need to be, as most Americans do not get their news there.
Is BBC corrupt? They do not have first amendment and so suppression of news is legal there. It’s called “official secrets”‘ which I also mentioned. Here we rely on private corporations to voluntarily suppress news, but it is just as effective.
CIA moles were exposed in the late 70’s by the Church committee, at that time as many as 500 nationwide in various news agencies. That is documented, and expanded on in great depth by Carl Bernstein, of Woodward/Bernstein fame who wrote a 25,000 word article published in Rolling stone in 1977. It’s online.
I was trying to talk you down a little bit as you wanted to have a global warming argument too, and I don’t.
LikeLike
Mark, I wasn’t spoiling for a fight or a global warming argument. There was a reason that I didn’t mention it. I was talking about corruption in its most sinister form when the 4th Estate is nothing more than a mouthpiece for control freak elitists.
I thought you were rather unfair to Jeff on the other thread. That’s why I reacted.
LikeLike
Our news media is horribly corrupt, beyond redemption. What do you want me to say? That the BBC is not? All I said is that our news is heavily filtered so it is best to go abroad, and only for that reason. I read RT.com everyday.
Unfair to Jeff? He’s a big boy, knows how to use his words. I’m not worried about that.
LikeLike
Mark, I over reacted. I apologize for that. BTW, I read this book, I no longer have it as I gave it away. Perhaps you may find it enlightening. http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-Terrorism/dp/1936488604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373390744&sr=1-1&keywords=disinformation+pacepa
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip. Looks very interesting. You’ll find yourself in league with many lefties when you understand that it’s a very complicated world not easily reduced to east, west, communist, capitalist, right wing, conservative, liberal, etc. One of Ceausescu ‘s biggest detractors was Chomsky.
I experienced no negative feelings during our exchange. Far form it, I like it when people are forthright and combative. It’s always informative. No need to apologize at all. I’m a big boy, so are you.
LikeLike