7 ms·

Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars? I mean, cle

by ds9 13y ago

Is there any way to be sure that "al quaeda" is anything more than an imaginary bogey-man trumped up by the State department as a pretext for wars? I mean, clearly there are various parties doing bombings, etc. in the middle east, and other things attributed to the supposed organization. But for the existence of such an organization as described - is there any evidence, or only corporate media parroting what they're told by the US government and its allies?

sliverstorm 13y ago
What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots? Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  Grassroots sounds plausible, given how Occupy occurred with hardly any planning or organization.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Occupy was simple. Go sit in a park and paint signs. That's easy to do grassroots.
- ds9 13y ago
  How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?
  - krapp 13y ago
    So basically they're as real or unreal as Anonymous.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      That is exactly what I suspect is going on. Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous". Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Entirely feasible, but of course at that point they pretty much are real, and not a bogey-man.
tylerkahn 13y ago
Is there any way to be sure that North Dakota exists?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Sure, people from North Dakota tend to carry ID cards identifying themselves as "members" of North Dakota, and tend to decorate their vehicles to signal their membership as well. You can search somebody and generally reasonably determine if they are a North Dakotan. Can you say the same of Al Queada? Are there literally "card carrying members" of Al Queada?
  - tylerkahn 13y ago
    So is your contention that no one identifies as a member of Al Qaida or that no groups of people identify themselves as belonging to an Al Qaida affiliated cell? If that is your contention then I may assume that you dismiss the plethora of government and media reports which state that this is the case on the basis that such reports are untrustworthy. Ok. But then why do you trust the government issued ID that indicates that someone is from North Dakota? And how do you know that these people that claim to be from North Dakota are not in fact government stooges that are meant to deceive you?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      My point, in this case, is that your analogy is shit. My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.
      - tylerkahn 13y ago
krapp 13y ago
If you choose to ignore the "various parties" calling themselves Al-Qaeda and doing things in the name of Al-Qaeda then what possible proof could convince you? Everything could just as well be ever more intricate layers of American fabrication.
- ds9 13y ago
  Group "A" snipes a soldier in Iraq. Group "B" fires a rocket in Afghanistan. Group "C" spreads anti-US propaganda in ME. Some of these claim to be "al quaeda", others are labeled as such by generals or news reporters. The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports. The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
  - krapp 13y ago
    The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?) Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.) The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda. I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.
jlgreco 13y ago
Having the common modern hobby of wasting my time watching random videos on the internet, I've naturally come across dozens of helmet cam videos taken and uploaded by American and British solders in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are usually pretty intense and I can't help but feel some respect for people that can keep their composure in those sort of situations, but one thing I always keep on noticing is that in the descriptions of the videos and in the dialog recorded in them, the opposing force is almost always described as "Al Quaeda". Now, ignoring the fact that "Al Quaeda" is hardly known for wearing uniforms, in many of the videos the opposing force cannot even be seen by the soldiers in the video. I certainly don't blame them for shooting back, there is nothing else you could or should do in that sort of situation, but what makes them so sure it is Al Quaeda? Couldn't it be "angry goat farmer who owns a rifle"? Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Does "Al Quaeda" mean anything more than "people who shoot at us"? Maybe they really do exist, but it seems clear to me that at the very least many of the actions attributed to it by the 'boots on the ground' are associated loosely at best.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Yes. It's like "Kleenex" for tissues. As with Kleenex, the fact that it's overused doesn't mean there isn't a genuine brand.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    There are probably some people with a legitimate claim to the brand, but I suspect that at this point most of them are dead and that "Al Quaeda" is more like "Aspirin" than "Kleenex". Yeah, anything called "aspirin" is still going to be acetylsalicylic acid, and anything called "Al Quaeda" is still shooting at us and needs to be shot, but do these names really signal any deeper sort of affiliation anymore?
    - greyfade 13y ago
      I rather thought Al Quaeda was the Bayer of aspirin. There are a lot of incompetent and not-really-a-credible-threat terrorist groups with ideologies similar to that of Al Quaeda, including them. A sort of brand recognition for something that really doesn't so much matter any more.

by ds9 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

What's your alternative explanation for the carefully-planned world-wide bombing etc attempts? Grassroots? Maybe it isn't called what we are told it is called, maybe it isn't led by who we are told it is led by, but I see no reason in particular to believe there isn't an underground organization here.

stephengillie 13y ago
Grassroots sounds plausible, given how Occupy occurred with hardly any planning or organization.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Occupy was simple. Go sit in a park and paint signs. That's easy to do grassroots.
ds9 13y ago
How about, various groups acting independently for their own various reasons, and some of them sometimes claiming the name, and others having it attributed to them?
- krapp 13y ago
  So basically they're as real or unreal as Anonymous.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    That is exactly what I suspect is going on. Feel like hacking something? Do it, then call yourself "Anonymous" to make sure you get attention for it. Have a new 'hacker group' and want something to give yourselves some credibility? Call yourself "Anonymous". Got hacked and need somebody to blame? Blame it on "Anonymous", who can prove it wasn't? Caught some 'hacker group' and want to make yourself seem impressive? Say you caught the head of "Anonymous". Basically everyone involved loves the idea of there being an "Anonymous" because that concept is so useful to everyone.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Entirely feasible, but of course at that point they pretty much are real, and not a bogey-man.

tylerkahn 13y ago

Is there any way to be sure that North Dakota exists?

jlgreco 13y ago
Sure, people from North Dakota tend to carry ID cards identifying themselves as "members" of North Dakota, and tend to decorate their vehicles to signal their membership as well. You can search somebody and generally reasonably determine if they are a North Dakotan. Can you say the same of Al Queada? Are there literally "card carrying members" of Al Queada?
- tylerkahn 13y ago
  So is your contention that no one identifies as a member of Al Qaida or that no groups of people identify themselves as belonging to an Al Qaida affiliated cell? If that is your contention then I may assume that you dismiss the plethora of government and media reports which state that this is the case on the basis that such reports are untrustworthy. Ok. But then why do you trust the government issued ID that indicates that someone is from North Dakota? And how do you know that these people that claim to be from North Dakota are not in fact government stooges that are meant to deceive you?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    My point, in this case, is that your analogy is shit. My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.
    - tylerkahn 13y ago

krapp 13y ago

If you choose to ignore the "various parties" calling themselves Al-Qaeda and doing things in the name of Al-Qaeda then what possible proof could convince you? Everything could just as well be ever more intricate layers of American fabrication.

ds9 13y ago
Group "A" snipes a soldier in Iraq. Group "B" fires a rocket in Afghanistan. Group "C" spreads anti-US propaganda in ME. Some of these claim to be "al quaeda", others are labeled as such by generals or news reporters. The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose - is this theory supported by the sort of facts noted above? Logically, it is not [1]. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?), then form the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the independent reports. The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest of the "al quaeda" claims (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just propaganda. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- krapp 13y ago
  The US implies they are all organized together, taking central commands, sharing information, coordinating activities, with a common purpose No it doesn't. The decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda and the potential threat of 'self-recruiting' actors like the Tsarnaevs is one of the justifications for the NSA's all-pervasive surveillance. First discard any reports originating with US officials (do they ever tell the truth about anything?) Why? You can't set up a framework for Occam's Razor on the premise that American officials are incapable of telling the truth, which is logically absurd (as is the premise by extension that sources other than American ones are by definition more trustworthy.) The simplest and more plausible hypothesis is that there are many independent parties resisting or retaliating for foreign (US, UK, euro) aggressions, and that the rest (building them up like 'super villains' in silly movies) is just elaborated as propaganda. I'm not aware that anyone in the media or the government has ever 'built them up like super villains in silly movies'. I believe the simpler and more plausible hypothesis is that, in fact, Al-Qaeda once existed as an organized group, but now mostly exists as a 'franchise', or even an 'ideal' which yes some groups may identify with and others might be identified with. I don't think that necessarily proves that Al Qaeda is a fabrication, however, much less a fiction invented to justify American aggression.

jlgreco 13y ago

Having the common modern hobby of wasting my time watching random videos on the internet, I've naturally come across dozens of helmet cam videos taken and uploaded by American and British solders in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are usually pretty intense and I can't help but feel some respect for people that can keep their composure in those sort of situations, but one thing I always keep on noticing is that in the descriptions of the videos and in the dialog recorded in them, the opposing force is almost always described as "Al Quaeda". Now, ignoring the fact that "Al Quaeda" is hardly known for wearing uniforms, in many of the videos the opposing force cannot even be seen by the soldiers in the video. I certainly don't blame them for shooting back, there is nothing else you could or should do in that sort of situation, but what makes them so sure it is Al Quaeda? Couldn't it be "angry goat farmer who owns a rifle"? Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Does "Al Quaeda" mean anything more than "people who shoot at us"? Maybe they really do exist, but it seems clear to me that at the very least many of the actions attributed to it by the 'boots on the ground' are associated loosely at best.

rayiner 13y ago
> Are angry goat farmers with rifles de-facto Al Quaeda? Yes. It's like "Kleenex" for tissues. As with Kleenex, the fact that it's overused doesn't mean there isn't a genuine brand.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  There are probably some people with a legitimate claim to the brand, but I suspect that at this point most of them are dead and that "Al Quaeda" is more like "Aspirin" than "Kleenex". Yeah, anything called "aspirin" is still going to be acetylsalicylic acid, and anything called "Al Quaeda" is still shooting at us and needs to be shot, but do these names really signal any deeper sort of affiliation anymore?
  - greyfade 13y ago
    I rather thought Al Quaeda was the Bayer of aspirin. There are a lot of incompetent and not-really-a-credible-threat terrorist groups with ideologies similar to that of Al Quaeda, including them. A sort of brand recognition for something that really doesn't so much matter any more.