Is Al Qaeda Real?

Here's something you won't hear on the western media; a discussion on Russia Today's Crosstalk about Al Qaeda and whether it is a real organisation or not.

If we are to believe the western mainstream media Al Qaeda is a huge, well-organised, global network of terrorism. Not according to some of the speakers here. The consensus on Crosstalk is that Al Qaeda is a generic term for a motley group of Islamists who oppose the militaristic policies of the US. In other words 'Al Qaeda' is a term of convenience which is used to describe an assortment of groups who are fighting the US.

And on the last, Robert Fisk is eloquent about why they are doing this.

Anglo-American Fascism

In Britain the police raids go on as do the arrests which without exception are being carried out under the Terror Act. The latest were on Thursday when six people were arrested in relation to demonstrations in support of Gaza last January.

This is the police state that Blair and now Brown are chiefly responsible for having created where literally anyone who speaks out or protests at government policy is deemed a potential terrorist.

"...Alex Jones has been covering some of this about a new leaked 'lexicon' government document that breaks down society into groups and individual 'terrorist' threats ... this lexicon document intended to be issued to police and law enforcement officers classifies everyone who's not serving government in some sort of state role or capacity as 'potential terrorists'. From people who are technophobes and don't understand new technology, to people who openly 'disagree' with government policy. "

In a Department of Homeland Security document "entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (PDF link) ... A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

"Controversy over the assessment was heightened earlier this week when another disturbing DHS security document emerged."

"Entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon”, it shockingly lists the “alternative media” with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists."

Though the DHS reports apply to the US they should be taken into consideration where UK police strategy is concerned. The UK 'War on Terror' is nothing more than a copycat version of what was first instigated by George W. Bush and immediately imitated by Tony Blair.

Although the UK has its own history of encroaching police powers which I have covered elsewhere on this blog and particularly in the article, Edward Thompson and the Growth of Britain's Police State, a pattern of events in the Blair/Brown administration over the last twelve years illustrates how a US-instigated phoney 'War on Terror' provided Blair and his successor Brown to attack British freedoms and to vastly accelerate their country's slide into a police state.

There was a time not long ago when people such as Bush, Blair and Brown would have been denounced and punished as traitors and criminals. Instead they are lauded by a corrupt establishment whose inherent criminal nature they served-out faithfully.

The increasingly oppressive character of the police on both sides of the Atlantic signals the true nature of an Anglo-American fascism masquerading as 'liberal democracy'.

How to tell I'm not a terrorist
We Muslims clearly need to help panicking police and border officials. Would a big tattoo help?

So it turns out that the 12 Muslims arrested two weeks ago – you know, the ones who, according to ­Gordon Brown, were planning a "very big terrorist plot" – were ­doing nothing of the sort. The ­arrests and subsequent release highlight how, in a time of heightened concern, anyone who is male and Muslim – and, even worse, happens to have ­Pakistani heritage – can get mistaken for a potential terrorist. It isn't just the police who have a problem telling the difference. The trouble is that it isn't obvious who is a benign, peace-loving Briton who happens to be Muslim, and who is a rage-filled Islamist intent on causing mayhem.

more...

More US Terrorism in Afghanistan
Night-time raid on home leaves five civilians dead - 10 Apr 09



Afghan ambassador to the US says, “This is a price that we have to pay if we want security and stability in Afghanistan, the region and the world” echoing his master’s voice that is clearly heard throughout the years and in place after place, such as when Madeleine Albright said that the death of so many children in Iraq due to sanctions was a heavy price but worth it.

Can you imagine civilian deaths in the US being spoken of like this by a US ambassador if someone was attacking the US in order to stop their deceitful and devastating wars of aggression and help return peace and stability to the lands the US has attacked? Wouldn’t such an ambassador be labeled a traitor? Or perhaps the citizens of the US would be happy to have someone from outside attacking them in order to effect a regime change (since elections change nothing of consequence) and help them fight their own “enemy within” which has only helped make the rich richer and the poor poorer and has even orchestrated terrorist attacks against the US’s own citizens such as on 9/11?

Don’t think so somehow.

Dictatorship Watch

Are no personal messages off-limits from Government spying?
Michael Meacher, 5/10/08

Deep Packet Inspection may not mean much, but it ought to bring to a head the simmering tension over privacy between personal liberties and fighting terrorism which the Government has been dragging far too far in the direction of State control.

Deep Packet Inspection refers to equipment which the Home Office is planning to embed with internet and mobile phone providers (such as BT and Vodafone) so as to monitor and store the calls and emails of everyone in Britain all the time. This is a staggering project in every sense - cost, complexity, and unprecedented intrusiveness in ordinary people's lives and their most intimate communications.

It goes even further than the Government's other massive programmes of prying on citizens via identity cards, car number plate recognition, and increasingly universal CCTV. The scope of the new plan is mind-numbing. Last year there were 57bn text messages sent, mobile calls made totalling 99bn, and a trillion emails sent.

The ostensible purpose of this ultimate Big Brother surveillance programme is to fight crime and terrorism which it is said are aimed at destroying the values of our society. But there comes a point when the totalitarian methods deployed to root out crime and terrorism can insidiously undermine the fundamental values and principles of British society even more than the evil they seek to eradicate. With this latest Orwellian monstrosity, there can be no doubt we are well past that point.

Interception of calls and emails is already occurring on a far greater scale than is generally understood. Very few people realise that there are over 650 bodies which can already legally have their communications intercepted by the authorities, or that last year this was exercised in over half a million cases. I have put down PQs asking, for each of the last 10 years, how many of these calculated intercepts actually yielded information material to trapping terrorists and criminals. What is now proposed is a totally indiscriminate monitoring of the unimaginably vast database of all calls and emails by everyone everywhere all the time in this country, and the hit rate for gathering relevant information must decline to utterly infinitesimal proportions.

There are several reasons for stopping this latest venture in its tracks. The expected cost is £12bn, which on past experience of vast Government IT projects is all too likely to escalate dramatically. On the basis of the same evidence it is all too likely not to work. Nor, from several recent notorious episodes, can the authorities be trusted to keep all this personal data secure from being lost, stolen or even corruptly sold on. Nor again can we be sure that official snooping on this scale will not be used for quite other purposes than fighting crime and terrorism - like spying on companies or political opponents, or fishing expeditions to see what is turned up. It would transform Britain from a (relatively) free society into a Stasi-penetrated nightmare.