A special relationship

[someoneisatthedoor]

The thread onto which I intended to post this is now locked, so I’ll post it here.

@stoned_kazak

‘It’ did not. The relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda, MI5/6 and Al Qaeda, the FSB and Al Qaeda remains. It isn’t just Afghanistan. It’s Algeria, Kosovo, Chechnya and other countries. I repeat: the relationship between Western Intelligence Services and Al Qaeda remain to this day.

i’d be inclined to think the same, however i have no conclusive evidence of this as i do not yet have the access to such information and intelligence sources

Read this:

It’s central thesis (not one I quite agree with) is that 9/11 (and similarly, the 1998 Embassy Bombings) were a blowback from a lengthy and complex relationship between militant Islamist groups and Western intelligence and security services. Ahmed centres the book around an agreement struck between the CIA and Ayman Zawahiri regarding operations in the Balkans, which involved a similar logic to the ‘covenant of security’. Under the former, as long as Zawahiri played the part the CIA desired in the Balkans conflict, they ignored his activities elsewhere. Under the latter, Britain granted asylum to and subsequently protected various ‘Al Qaeda’ luminaries, including Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Haroon Aswad (supposed mastermind behind the London Bombings in 2005) and Anas Al-Liby (who was apparently involved in the 1998 Embassy bombings).

Well worth the time of anyone looking for an alternative to military-industrial propaganda and conspiracy theories.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Chato

@stoned_kazak

‘It’ did not. The relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda, MI5/6 and Al Qaeda, the FSB and Al Qaeda remains. It isn’t just Afghanistan. It’s Algeria, Kosovo, Chechnya and other countries. I repeat: the relationship between Western Intelligence Services and Al Qaeda remain to this day.

i’d be inclined to think the same, however i have no conclusive evidence of this as i do not yet have the access to such information and intelligence sources

Personally I doubt it, although no doubt they meet from time to time, both sides thinking they can get more from these meetings then give up.

Numerous agreements have been struck. Look up David Shayler for a particularly cutting example.

But at this point in time, the inherent differences between the two sides are not resolvable. The US wants more control and ownership of Middle East resources, the Fundamentalists want this for themselves. This is a basic difference that cannot be decided peacfully.

Dave

There is so much more at stake here than just Middle Eastern gas and oil. For one thing, the relationships between Al Qaeda and the West extend far beyond the Middle East geographically.