What's new

Al Qaeda denies killing civilians in Pakistan - Blames Blackwater/CIA/RAW/ISI

pretty good history you remember.

what i remember is, Taliban ask for proofs against Osma Bin Laden Not "Al Qaida". US handed over the proofs to Musharaf not taliban, but not to taliban. Then Taliban said ok we told "Osama bin laden to leave the country". & same day "USA increase the demand from 1 person to 20 persons" & attackked same night.

I am not sure where is Al-Qaida in whole scene
Why did they ask for proof against Osama and not AQ, when Osama and his deputies are admitted members of AQ?

You're missing the point of the argument. It's not about what proof US provided or not. It's about the Taliban's response to even the idea of expelling Osama and his organization (no matter what name you call it) from Afghanistan. They did not want to do that and even today AQ is a guest of Taliban in Afghanistan.
 
.
So now you're saying that Mullah Omar doesn't exist and next you'll say that Taliban also don't exist? Does Siraj Haqqani exist? No one has seen him right? Is there even a war on Afghanistan?

Seriously, I think you need to wake up and not get sucked into this fantasy land you have created. There is no point for me to debate with you since you have already close your mind to everything else, including the most basic facts.

Sir, with all due respect where did I say that MU doesn't exist? Think out of the box and then speak. I have only referred to your perception based on media told stories. What else do you know about him apart from what the media told you?

A humble request to your goodself is to get out of these intellectual fantasies which leads to arrogance and ignorance only. There should be no secrete keepers of the truth and only the willingly ignorant and profaned should remain ignorant and profane. The truth belongs to every mind capable of comprehending it. Because these truths have been withheld from us, not out of mercy for our sanity but to prevail over us and rule in our place.

Warmest Regards and i'll leave you on a pleasant journey in the matrix with the video below...

How Wartime Disinformation Campaigns Work
 
Last edited:
.
Let's call it 30, who is counting!

Just how often has the U.S. and NATO killed the Taliban in groups of 30 during 2009? The answer may surprise you:


Adnkronos, 12/07/2009: “Up to 30 suspected militants were killed in a NATO airstrike on a Taliban hideout in eastern Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border on Monday. The airstrike targeted the village of Sangar Dara in the mountainous Watapur district of Kunar province , the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said.”

SF Chronicle, 12/04/2009: “Air strikes in two areas of the Mohmand border region killed 30 suspected militants, a military statement said. It said the strikes were “highly successful” but provided no further details, including whether any civilians were hurt.”

Xinhua, 11/04/2009: “The military said that the troops have killed 30 more militants during the last 24 hours, bringing the total fatalities to 400, as the operation in the country’s tribal area steadily progressed towards the Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan.”

Xinhua, 08/31/2009:
“At least 30 bodies of suspected Taliban fighters were recovered in northwest Pakistan’s insurgency-hit Swat valley on Monday, witnesses said. The Pakistani army said they were killed in fighting with the security forces.”

Calgary Times, 07/04/2009: “The attack included an attempted suicide truck bombing of the base in the Zirok district of southeastern Paktika province, local officials said. As many as 30 Taliban insurgents might have been killed when troops called in air strikes, they said.”

Khaleej Times, 06/24/2009: “Thirty Taliban militants were killed in clashes with NATO and Afghan forces in separate incidents in southern Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday.”

Straits Times, 06/15/2009: “Security officials in the region said that about 30 militants were killed in Mohmand agency, close to the provincial capital Peshawar.”

Monsters and Critics, 05/28/2009: “In another incident, the Afghan Defence Ministry said Thursday that its troops, backed by international forces, killed 30 suspected militants in neighbouring Khost province Wednesday after the militants attacked their joint base.”

Monsters and Critics, 05/14/2009: “At least 30 Taliban fighters were killed Thursday when government artillery fire destroyed their hideout in north-west Pakistan, residents and officials said, as concerns about the fate of thousands of refugees in the region grew amid an escalating humanitarian crisis. Up to 30 suspected militants were in the compound when it was hit, and the Taliban have moved the dead and injured to an undisclosed location, he said.”

Reuters, 01 April 2009: “U.S. and Afghan forces have killed 30 Taliban fighters, including a local commander, in an operation in Afghanistan’s southern province of Helmand, the Interior Ministry said on Wednesday.”

IRNA, 02/17/2009: “Suspected US drone fired missiles on a training camp of Taliban militants in a Pakistani tribal region on Monday, killing around 30 people, witnesses and official sources said.”

New York Times, 01/01/2009: “On Wednesday, the Taliban came for revenge. A group of about 30 Taliban fighters swooped in on Mullah Salam’s house and opened fire. They killed at least 20 of his bodyguards, Afghan officials said. The Taliban claimed that they killed 32. Two of the attackers died.”

Alright, okay, you get the point. Just in case you thought this was limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Reuters, 02/03/2009: “[Yemeni President Ali Abdullah] Saleh urged the leaders not to give refuge to militants and help the state’s fight against al-Qaeda by turning them in. A security official told Reuters authorities had detained 30 suspected militants in a renewed campaign.”
Oh yes, it’s the same Yemen. But look, hopping onto Google News and typing “30 Taliban” or “30 suspected militants” brings up literally dozens of stories each year, stretching back at least to 2005. Indeed, thirty seems to be the magic number when it comes to arresting or killing off Taliban and other militant fighters in Afghanistan.

The Security Crank is not the first one to notice this: mad props for the idea go to Moon of Alabama.

But the much more important point remains: how could we possibly have any idea how the war is going, here or anywhere else, when the bad guys seem only to die in groups of 30? The sheer ubiquity of that number in fatality and casualty counts is astounding, to the point where I don’t even pay attention to a story anymore when they use that magic number 30. It is an indicator either of ignorance or deliberate spin… but no matter the case, whenever you see the number 30 used in reference to the Taliban, you should probably close the tab and move onto something else, because you just won’t get a good sense of what happened there.

Oh, and shame to all you news agencies — all of you, since you’re all guilty — for playing along with such an obvious bit of number fudging. And weren’t we supposed to stop doing body counts anyway? That took all of a minute to reverse.

http://securitycrank.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/winning-the-war-30-taliban-at-a-time/

:chilli:
 
Last edited:
.
Why did they ask for proof against Osama and not AQ, when Osama and his deputies are admitted members of AQ?

I think you pointing at the fake videos published after 9/11, you should be more concern what actually Osama Bin laden said.. read Hamid Mir's interviews

You're missing the point of the argument. It's not about what proof US provided or not. It's about the Taliban's response to even the idea of expelling Osama and his organization (no matter what name you call it) from Afghanistan. They did not want to do that and even today AQ is a guest of Taliban in Afghanistan.

what they wanted, & what they don't, we don't know, I am not a God (Nauzubillah) to make assumptions. what i see is "America blamed Osama Bin Laden for attacks". "Taliban asked for the proof (which was right, thing to do)", "America didn't give proofs", "Taliban given offer ok, we can put Osama bin laden into the court of Islamic country", "US Denies the offer, & ask for Osama Bin Laden", "Taliban said ok we have told Osama Bin Laden, to leave the country", "USA increase the demand to 30 people, rather then 1, and same night attacked Afghanistan, from Pakistan, so they can't reply".

Al-Qaida (so called) main members are not at Afghanistan but different countries according to CIA reports. some of those 30 members were claimed to be dead in drone attacks by US at Pakistan not Afghanistan. US captured Afghanistan, yet let Taliban to rule major part of Afghanistan. Even in 9 years USA couldn't capture Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omer.

Terrorism grow after USA capture Afghanistan & Iraq rather then lower, shows what was USA attentions.

Above arguments aren't assumptions like "they didn't want to or what" but truth.
 
.
To really understand wartime disinfo campaigns, and where wartime propaganda originated from, then research The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Sheer coincidence it's located at number 30).

:chilli:

f0a2b605e9c689baab40e9b384ffc6b1.jpg


The Institute was formerly Wellington House, and was given the responsibility to brainwash the public into going to WW1 and WW2 etc. And then to indoctrinate onto the masses any agenda the "Committee of 300" wished.

I highly recommend for you all to read the book by Dr. John Coleman entitled as The Tavistock Insitute of Human Relations.

b0c10476aef0096f64cab6e8d7cc9484.jpg


This book goes into detail about the nefarious activities of this institute and its impact on todays society; especially in terms of creating wars, and brainwashing people. I think the majority will find the following excerpt interesting from the book:

"The technique isn't working in Iraq and Iran, and by and large, Muslim countries seem less receptive to Tavistock mass population control methods than Western countries. There is no doubt that their strict adherence to the laws of the Koran and their Islamic faith is what foiled Tavistock's plans for the Middle East, at least, temporarily. Therefore, a concerted drive was mounted to wage war on the Muslim world."

Find the summary of the book from here.

The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations by John Coleman

Alternatively download the pdf from here.

www.the-savoisien.com/.../John Coleman - The Tavistock institute of human relations.pdf

Happy reading...
 
.
Back
Top Bottom