Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

al-Qaeda's recruiting techniques hae changed

0 helpful
28 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Well we all know that al-Qaeda has been fuelled by malicious religious intent, 'give your life for Allah' etc. Money has never been a recruiting factor, until now.

al-Qaeda has been recruitig Muslim Africans from the very poor and downtrodden slums of black Africa and coercing them to join the al-Qaeda with large monetary gains.

They are offered money for training and most of all, thier families ae rewarded if the die for the cause (hired suicide bombers).

This just goes to show how the Iran affairs were left too soon, al-Qaeda took less of a hit than Kerry apparently did to get his three purple hearts. It was a waged war that the USA left and al-Qaeda continued. You are so tied up in Iraq though, it has given al-Qaeda time to restructure, you may have forgotten about the undefeated enemy, they sure haven't.

28 replies

by jamesrl

Oz, I have overlooked it a couple of times, cause we all make mistakes.

But you keep referring to an invasion of Iran, when I think you mean Afghanistan. Iran has not been invaded by anyone, at least since Saddam invaded in 1984. While Iran seems to have some tenuous ties to Al Qaeda, it does support terrorist groups in Isreal.

James

by oz_media

Yes it was Afghanistan. When I referred to invasion of Iran, I should have said war in Iran.

My goof,
Oz

by oz_media

This was reported on canadian new report last night, one of those half hours news reports that focuses on a single subject, not evening news.

Kinda like the whole Diane sawyer thing.

I have looked for it today but habven't found the written story yet, probably take a few days for them to update the website with the latest stories.

I really doubted anyone else hasd reported this in the USA, which is exactly why I posted the comments, to see what has been aired in the states.

by protiusx

Much as I expected. There was a guy in the thirty's and fourty's who once said "If you tell a lie enough times to enough people it becomes the truth".

As for the Canadian news report - garbage in garbage out.

by skipperusn

As you always ask people - Hardcopy ... where is it in Hardcopy - you may of been smoken that wacky stuff and dreamed the report..

by skipperusn

As you always ask people - Hardcopy ... where is it in Hardcopy - you may of been smoken that wacky stuff and dreamed the report..

by oz_media

Good morning! Wake up yet?

As I explained, "This was reported on canadian new report last night, one of those half hours news reports that focuses on a single subject, not evening news."

"have looked for it today but habven't found the written story yet, probably take a few days for them to update the website with the latest stories"

believe me, the reporter was quite hot, had I had an opportunity I would most certainly hae asked her for a hadcopy, that I would transpopse into a soft copy for your viewing of course.

My post was more of a question, how can you debate a freaking question? I know, because it was MY post and you simply have to by law.

by gateboy1

From the stories that I've read on the internet, it looks like Israel is going to be taking care of Iran. You don?t want to upset the Israelis? For such a small country I believe that they will clean up the Middle East with a couple of tactical nukes. The US and Britain will take care of Al Qaeda? and as for Al Qaeda recruiting the poor down trodden of Africa. If you watch the news the United States and Britain have been picking up Al Qaeda operatives left and right. I do however think that Canada needs to get increase its efforts in security and be on the look out for terror cells. Most of the current cells are probably alive and well in Canada plotting their next attacks.

by oz_media

Are you sugesting that Canada is not responding to the terrorist threats? Perhaps you could provide more detail on your point.

Canadian troops ARE in Afhganistan still but I assume you are speaking on an internal perspective and not what we are doing overseas?

by gateboy1

Am I working a nerve yet?

Oz, I like Canadians don't get me wrong. I know that the Canadian Military is in Afghanistan and doing a fine job to boot. I felt bad for the Canadians that were killed in that friendly fire incident. I read all the news regarding the terror alerts and there's much more than we can all do to ensure our safety. I watched the 60 minutes special on the open borders and troubles between the US and Canada. I can see where the holes are and what affects they can have on our safety. The thing is, is that we as Americans and Canadians and Europeans. We need to protect our citizens and make sure our children are safe. I think that measures need to be taken to ensure that our families and friends are safe. If that means taking this on the offensive then so be it. Al Qaeda is still there but I feel that it is just a former shell of what it used to be... Think about this, if they were stronger and more well equipped now then why have they not attacked? The reason, British and American arrests, Pakistan arrests, Australia Arrests... We are taking them down...

by jamesrl

NOT ONE OF THE 9/11 BOMBERS EVER CAME THROUGH CANADA.

And yet we hear this all the time.

Have we had Al Qaeda agents in Canada, yes - as you have had in the US. Do we have more Al Qaeda here than in the US? Not that anyone has any real figures on. Is it easy to get into Canada - no. Is it easier to get into Mexico - Yes.

Canada has been increasing its security efforts since 9/11 - the RCMP, customs, airports and CSIS(our CIA) have all increased in spending and efficieny. We have ALWAYS co-operated with US agencies.

So why do Americans blame us for letting terrorists in? If they got in through US customs and immigration, perhaps you should look to your own house.

As to tactical nukes in the middle east - do you really think that would help create lasting peace? If anything it would encourage moderate muslims all over the world to become radical.

James

by admin

Go figure. :)

It's all a shell game really. I can't wait till I see what happens right before the elections....

by oz_media

YOu could explain what you mean, in detail and with suporting evidence.

fact of the matter is, I get US news as well as Canadian, ad other world news.

When the rest of the world resports something ad the US doesn't, given the fact that reporters are saying they are restricted by editors as to what can or can't be aired or deemed appropriate (as well as the Pentagon's own restrictions)one would be fie in surminsing that teh US is not showing the whole picture ad the rest of the world is. If so, how did they get all the video footage of things that never hapened?

so you discounted a report based on the fact that it isn't available online and came from another country, great mentality.

by protiusx

I will say it very plainly:

You are one of many people whom repeat things you here others say as if it is the truth and know nothing of what you are talking about. When pressed for clarity or for proof you say you heard from a friend or on the news but can't pin down the source.

Pentagon's restrictions? Do you honestly believe the stuff you write? The majority of the American media complex is owned and run by the elite left. Look at CNN, NBC, CBS or any of the other alphabet channels as well as the majority of the news-papers. This is what I mean by garbage in garbage out. You are consuming the garbage televised into your living room by the leftist media and you are spewing it out onto this forum without regard to it's legitimacy.

by kaligaclark

The Democratic presidents have never had a media person frozen out of the White House for speaking poorly of them and Bush has had a few frozen out for speaking against him. The media sees this and is careful about what they say so they can get the next story otherwise they will be frozen out of the loop.

Furthermore, the media is far from left, if it were then you would have heard much more about the record breaking march that happened in April in DC. There were a record 1.15 million people marching in DC, more than even the million man march, but you barely heard about that. History was made and the media refused to cover it. You still hear about the million man march, but the media nowadays does not want to report anything that will upset bush.

by oz_media

You seem to think the pentagon is NOT laying any rules down as to what can and can't be reported in teh USA. THis is getting old now, because PROOF from the Pentagon themselves has been shown here seeral times for th exact same reason, some idiot sayign it possibly couldn't be so.

When they said NO caskets were to be filmed returning fom Iraq. Do you think this an isolated rule that sat by itself or an ammedment to a document that already exists?

When they said no pictures of injured American soldiers wer to be shown. Do you think this an isolated rule that sat by itself or an ammedment to a document that already exists?

Why is it that in Canada, I see the blood and gore, the maimed children in various news stories regarding the war. I flip to US channels, and not even a slight mention, yet along a pictoral represntation of the atrocities of the war.

You are fed with kid gloves and plastic spoons.

You hear what you want to hear as it is not a good idea to show Americas reality or they would never support war in the future.

War censorhsip has been lightened up since Nam (Nam was the big turnaround with so many freelance reports goig unedited), it has been a FACT since WWII that the US government restricts what can and cannot be shown regarding the war.

Just look at all the US propaganda films from WWII, how would they explain all the horrors after showig all those films? (Again, just use a search engine and look for US WAR CENSORSHIP, or FREEDOM of the PRESS or Iraqi Reports Censored in the USA and you will see it all.

Now, you will ultimately just deny it could happen in your great country and it MUST be my substanmdard socialist country's reports that are feeding me such BS.

So explain the footage from the frontline.
Did you see the 2 hr, 2 part documentary called DEADLINE IRAQ where reporters were voicing thier distaste for everything being censored. There were US reporters who were not allowed to air footage in the USA that had already been aired in Canada.

"Now that the war is "over", journalists and journalism are still making headlines. Christaine Amanpour of CNN has stated that the coverage of the war, prticularly in America, was too driven by partiotism, John Burns of the New York Times recently said that the Iraq war highlights how corrupt journalism has become. His colleague at the Times, Judith Miller, has heself been accused by some media observers of being corrupted by Pentagon influences. The controversy around Tony Blair ad the BBC's coverage of the war continues to boil.

Give all this, we thought it would be fascinating and informative to zero in on the journalists who were there. Whether there were logistical impediments to getting theri stories out, or editorial concerns, or military restriction, there was much that they cound't, or wouldn't say during the war. Now they can. We interviewed nearly 50 journalists from around the world, representing the broadest range of media affiliations. You can read th eentire interviews from 12 ofd them here on our website.

And th ecomposite picture they give us of this war is one that we didn't really see: what went on behind the scenes, the fear, the exhilaration, the tedium, the professional gratification, as well as the toll it took on them emotionally and psychologically. It is their storis, as well as footage and pictures that NEVER saw air tiem during the war, that lie at the heart of "Deadline Iraq: Uncensored stories of the War."

I just finished watching another British documentary narrated by a former republican cabinet member about Timothy McVeigh and how the US had hidden a lot of VERY conclusive evidence regarding the second person in the truck and how they knew exactly who he was. How the building was not destroyed by teh truck bomb alone but the engineers onsite even agreed there was an internal explosion as well in order to remove key supports. These supports and evidence we later destroyed before the engineers were finished the report.

How the MANY cameras surounding the area were also disallowed in court, wheras they would only have rpovided information regarding the second person. Public privacy concerns were raised and the films were disallowed. Would this not make ANY further film whatsoever by big brother to be disallowed as it infringes on public provacy?

Too many questions ad too much grey area surrounding America. Hooray for the red, GREY and blue.

So Canadian documentary not allowed to be aired in the US as it does not favour the current administration or laws surrounding censorship.

British doumentary regarding McVeigh(sp?)not allowed to be aired in the USA as it does not favour the administration or laws surounding censorship.

And then there's Christopher who feels the world's media is all biased and wrong, while the USA is showing the True Hollywood Story.

by kaligaclark

I cannot believe the replies I am seeing. We should all be coming together to fight the terrorist not fighting each other. I do agree that the US has not focused on al queda as they should have. Bush has focused his efforts on Iraq to make up for the humiliation of his father. We have lost nearly 1000 men/women in Iraq and I would have prefer those efforts to go towards al queda instead of Iraq. There is no iron clad proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but no one ever al queda denies their involvement with 9/11. I would prefer to go after the true villians of 9/11 and not the imaginary or hopefull wishes of the president.

by oz_media

The posts hee regardless of topic are split in two. Pro-Bush, Anti-Bush.

Pro-Bush is: correct.

Anti-Bush is: socialist, commies that think Kerry is better and don't care if their families die, that despise America and everyone in it.

I hate the easy route as much as I hate Bush.

by protiusx

I work with people in DC. With the proliferation of the Internet there must be a source reporting it somewhere?

by oz_media

No you don't get on my erves, it 's the blind and unwilling to understand that get to me, almost as pity though that pople can live thier entire lies with no idea and efuse to see the forest through the trees.

Your point is well made and I agree with one exception, reports say that al-Qaeda is FAR bugger in number than before and that they are in over 60 countries now.

They have grown, not decreased, we must remeber these regimes are fulled by a common hate for America, the more you are active on a world stage, the bigger the hate becomes. Sice Iraq, I am positie there are more people against America than ever in America's history. I don't think the invasion wasn't needed, I just disagree with how Bush made it seem SO imperative an action that the US wouldn't wait the few remaining weeks for the inspectors to finish a job that was prove to be successful.

He ignored his allies, he mislead America and expects people to forget it. Well perhaps Bush supporters will but not too may others.

by maxwell edison

.
Franklin Roosevelt:

Heck, most of America didn't even know about the wheelchair until years after his death.

Do you know the story of Tyler Kent? Happy reading: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html

Did you know that FDR established an "Office of Censorship" in 1941?

Did you know that FDR supported the Communications Act of 1934, which established the federal government's ownership of the rights to use the electromagnetic spectrum and solidified its absolute power to regulate broadcasting?

Did you know that President Roosevelt expanded the reach of the FCC by appointing as its chairman James Lawrence Fly, an activist New Dealer whose principal objective as an administrator was to enact rules barring ownership of broadcasting outlets by newspapers -- especially those newspapers which opposed the Roosevelt administration No. 2? In fact, the courts had to stop FDR's attempt to stifle anti-New Deal reporting.

I could go on....

John Kennedy:

Given a "free press pass" on his womanizing.

Have you noticed how the "information" about JFK has changed (unfavorably) over the years since his death?

Watch "JFK: A Presidency Revealed" produced by the History channel.

JFK censored news from Vietnam, especially concerning the CIA's involvement.

I could go on....

Bill Clinton: Can you say the rape of Juanita Broderick?

I could go on....

On Lyndon Johnson.......

I could go on and on and on and on with any of these Democrat Presidents. I could probably post hundreds of examples.

Do you really believe what you said?

by maxwell edison

.
You said, "Bush has had a few frozen out for speaking against him".

Please provide names and circumstances. Please be specific.

Thank you.

by dilbert-tom

So exactly what are you proposing ? Here are some ways to cripple Al Qaeda that would be very effective, albeit undiplomatic or at best "Politically Incorrect":
- Don't wait for the UN to unite against terror, when 70+% of UN Reps are from dictatorships, many profiting from terror.
- Attack them in Syria. We know they're there - but Syria will consider such attacks acts of war.
- Help Israel attack them in the Philistine Territory (rather than be appalled whenever they countersrtike).
- Pass Federal Concealed Weapon Carry law to make it possible and reasonably simple for Citizens to be Armed
- Issue 'single [fragible bullet, unable to penetrate aircraft hull yet lethal] shot guns to ALL passengers on aircraft [of course collect them when unloading plane] explain that the single shot must be treated carefully (if this was in place on 9/11, all attempts would have failed). This would obsolete the paranoid security that currently intercepts knitting needles and nail clippers, etc.
- Racial profiling, also profile by Nationality and method/type of ticket [one-way tickets purchased for cash same day by Arab males should be most suspect].
- Consider and be prepared to 'invade' any country harboring terrorists, trying to use diplomacy to explain how these 'police actions' are not acts of War against the Nation(s) invaded. This includes Saudi Arabia, and other Nations that are currently suppling us with Oil.
- Discourage National Media from making this an issue about 'who should be President' and focus on the bigger issue : "Who is the UN working for and why is the USA paying for most of it" ? Just look at who is the leader of the UN's "Human Rights" committee...it's not even a good joke.
- Close our Borders. Deport all illegal immigrants and bill their Countries of origin for our trouble, itemize by individual.
- Activate and use the Draft, we have entirely too many Reserves in use...what would we do if another Nation actually initiated formal hostilities (eg; North Korea) ?

Exactly what are you proposing ? Details.

And what Girly-Men are going to DO IT ?

Enough whining about "What we're doing wrong" and let's see what you are suggesting to "Do it Right by -". Leaders cannot be effective by complaining about "what's wrong", but only by developing SPECIFIC plans about how to do it RIGHT.

by skipperusn

Question - is that a joke son :-0 I have read and re-read and read again and don't see a question in it ... Its a statement and your comments .. I asked for the hardcopy - most news sites have the story up before it hits the verbal communication..

Your so full of B.S. - its funny

by oz_media

You are right, I had nothing to do today so I thought I'd just make it up and post it on TR. Geez nobody would possibly expect prrof on TR, everyone just takes your word for it.

Damn clever aren't you? geez and I always thought OTHER people here were pretty clever, you have em all beat with your eloquent and unbiased approach to providing facts.

Damn Skipper, can I be like you when I grow up?? PLEEEEASE!?

by protiusx

I imagine your right. The media as a whole is politically left of the general public and extreemly left of my political ideology. Perhaps from where you are (way out there next to Marx and the lot) the media apears to be a bit to the right.

This discussion is closed to new replies.