The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The traditional conspiracy theorist's work usually focusses on their own and/or the american governments.
But now I'm going to have a pop at looking at what Al Qaeda might be thinking about.
*Most conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong, so don't have nightmares kids :^)
Long term - AQ are hard line muslims with a goal of establishing an Islamic 'super-state' in the middle east.
9/11 - It seems like a good starting point for a look at current AQ tactics.
Why? Aside from the hating America and basic stuff, what were they hoping to achieve? Well, lets look at what consequences they could expect to have arrisen from the attack:
Publicity for their cause
American retailation
Strengthening of opinion in both pro and anti american sentiment
Very limited practical damage to the long term functioning of America
So, this gives the (I understand) generally accepted conclusion, that the purpose of 9/11 was to polarise the world into pro and anti (in the muslim middle east in particular) american feeling, thus to strengthen their long-term agenda.
What about the inevitable American relatiation? AQ must have known it would come, so we can assume it was part of their plans. Perhaps being willing to sacrifice control of Afghanistan (at least for now) in order to suggest to other states that america was an aggressive invader, and further polarise opinion.
Which brings us to Spain. At this point I'm going to assume that AQ were responsible for the Madrid bombs - uncertain I know, but conspiracy theory is all about assumption and supposition :^).
What were they seeking to achieve here?
Recent intelligence indicates a long-term intent by AQ to strike Spain in the run-up to their elections, suggesting that this was designed to 'pursuade' Spain to withdraw from the coalition.
Let's look at Spain more closely: Aznar took Spain into Iraq against the general will of his electorate, but his party was expected to win another term regardless (Aznar himself was standing down), before those bombs.
Why did those bombs change the outcome of that election?
Was it because it bolstered the desire of the Spainsh people to withdraw from the conflict?
Much of the swing vote seemed more pursuaded by Aznar's rush to blame ETA, rather than the actual suggested involvement of AQ. That couldn't have been predicted. Also, aggressive atacks were actually used to incite America into military involvement. Though there are significant differences between Spain and America, can we really believe AQ thought the same tactics would produce the opposite result?
Well perhaps - as mentioned, the spanish people didn't want to go into Iraq anyway, while in comparison the general American's attitude is far more militaristic, aggressive and gung-ho. Just look at the attitude towards firearms.
So on balance, I'd have to draw the conclusion that the attack was designed to pull Spain out of the coalition and out of Iraq.
Then what is AQ's stake in Iraq? Even the US government has admitted (despite former claims to the contrary to justify the war) that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and AQ.
Then again, amidst the unstability in Iraq it has been suggested that AQ are taking the opportunity to build a foothold in the country.
Also, taking Spain out of the coalition is also likely to weaken the coalition in any future military plans - plans that might again challenge AQ themselves.
So AQ want to prevent Spainish military involvement - doesn't this kind of contradict their earlier incitement of American action?
It's possible that the coalition have done what AQ wanted, so now AQ are ready to disband the coalition.
It's also possible that AQ are seeking to 'divide and conquer' their enemies - they wanted a western military action, but they also want to control it, limit it to something they can cope with. That means just America for now.
More likely I feel is that AQ aren't so interested in Europe - their real hatred is of America. It would fit well with their idea of polarisation of global opinion - but perhaps polarisation into 3 groups:
1.America
2.Anti-american, pro-AQ
Rest of world - anti AQ of course, but also against america's actions
What does that mean for us?
Paradoxically, it would mean AQ's first high profile attack on Europe is actually a good sign for the continent - showing that they'd rather not fight us.
I say 'us' - that's not quite accurate, as in Europe, we in the UK are now the exception - the only ones who still really stand in line with the americans.
Of course, Blair took the UK into Iraq against at least a large proportion of the will of his electorate, but (given the tories' stance) a pro-war government is expected to win another term regardless (Labour themself may be removed), before those...
When's the election again?
But now I'm going to have a pop at looking at what Al Qaeda might be thinking about.
*Most conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong, so don't have nightmares kids :^)
Long term - AQ are hard line muslims with a goal of establishing an Islamic 'super-state' in the middle east.
9/11 - It seems like a good starting point for a look at current AQ tactics.
Why? Aside from the hating America and basic stuff, what were they hoping to achieve? Well, lets look at what consequences they could expect to have arrisen from the attack:
Publicity for their cause
American retailation
Strengthening of opinion in both pro and anti american sentiment
Very limited practical damage to the long term functioning of America
So, this gives the (I understand) generally accepted conclusion, that the purpose of 9/11 was to polarise the world into pro and anti (in the muslim middle east in particular) american feeling, thus to strengthen their long-term agenda.
What about the inevitable American relatiation? AQ must have known it would come, so we can assume it was part of their plans. Perhaps being willing to sacrifice control of Afghanistan (at least for now) in order to suggest to other states that america was an aggressive invader, and further polarise opinion.
Which brings us to Spain. At this point I'm going to assume that AQ were responsible for the Madrid bombs - uncertain I know, but conspiracy theory is all about assumption and supposition :^).
What were they seeking to achieve here?
Recent intelligence indicates a long-term intent by AQ to strike Spain in the run-up to their elections, suggesting that this was designed to 'pursuade' Spain to withdraw from the coalition.
Let's look at Spain more closely: Aznar took Spain into Iraq against the general will of his electorate, but his party was expected to win another term regardless (Aznar himself was standing down), before those bombs.
Why did those bombs change the outcome of that election?
Was it because it bolstered the desire of the Spainsh people to withdraw from the conflict?
Much of the swing vote seemed more pursuaded by Aznar's rush to blame ETA, rather than the actual suggested involvement of AQ. That couldn't have been predicted. Also, aggressive atacks were actually used to incite America into military involvement. Though there are significant differences between Spain and America, can we really believe AQ thought the same tactics would produce the opposite result?
Well perhaps - as mentioned, the spanish people didn't want to go into Iraq anyway, while in comparison the general American's attitude is far more militaristic, aggressive and gung-ho. Just look at the attitude towards firearms.
So on balance, I'd have to draw the conclusion that the attack was designed to pull Spain out of the coalition and out of Iraq.
Then what is AQ's stake in Iraq? Even the US government has admitted (despite former claims to the contrary to justify the war) that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and AQ.
Then again, amidst the unstability in Iraq it has been suggested that AQ are taking the opportunity to build a foothold in the country.
Also, taking Spain out of the coalition is also likely to weaken the coalition in any future military plans - plans that might again challenge AQ themselves.
So AQ want to prevent Spainish military involvement - doesn't this kind of contradict their earlier incitement of American action?
It's possible that the coalition have done what AQ wanted, so now AQ are ready to disband the coalition.
It's also possible that AQ are seeking to 'divide and conquer' their enemies - they wanted a western military action, but they also want to control it, limit it to something they can cope with. That means just America for now.
More likely I feel is that AQ aren't so interested in Europe - their real hatred is of America. It would fit well with their idea of polarisation of global opinion - but perhaps polarisation into 3 groups:
1.America
2.Anti-american, pro-AQ
Rest of world - anti AQ of course, but also against america's actions
What does that mean for us?
Paradoxically, it would mean AQ's first high profile attack on Europe is actually a good sign for the continent - showing that they'd rather not fight us.
I say 'us' - that's not quite accurate, as in Europe, we in the UK are now the exception - the only ones who still really stand in line with the americans.
Of course, Blair took the UK into Iraq against at least a large proportion of the will of his electorate, but (given the tories' stance) a pro-war government is expected to win another term regardless (Labour themself may be removed), before those...
When's the election again?
Belldandy wrote:
> A big hole in your theory is that Al-Qaeda are only interested in
> America - they aren't, and their goals go much further than an
> Islamic mega state in the Middle East.
>
> ....
>
> Rather, what Al-Qaeda wants people to think is that if their nation
> stays away from the USA it will be left alone, when what they
> actually want is the US isolated militarily and diplomatically
Fair enough, you're probably right that their plans go further than Anti-America and Pro-Big Islamic State.
But in the slightly shorter (but still quite long) term, we seem to have a similar conclusion: The attacks are to split the world into 3 kinds of group - (i)Pro AQ, (ii)Anti AQ and US (and associated political and military action), and (iii)an isolated US.
Maybe that's not really so profound, and I just took the scenic route to get to the conclusion, and there's still an excellent chance that my conspiracy theory skills aren't quite bordering on the telepathic ( :^) ), but while there's been a real lack of precise understanding of AQ's objectives (in the general media at least), that scenario seems to make a lot of sense.
> A big hole in your theory is that Al-Qaeda are only interested in
> America - they aren't, and their goals go much further than an
> Islamic mega state in the Middle East.
>
> ....
>
> Rather, what Al-Qaeda wants people to think is that if their nation
> stays away from the USA it will be left alone, when what they
> actually want is the US isolated militarily and diplomatically
Fair enough, you're probably right that their plans go further than Anti-America and Pro-Big Islamic State.
But in the slightly shorter (but still quite long) term, we seem to have a similar conclusion: The attacks are to split the world into 3 kinds of group - (i)Pro AQ, (ii)Anti AQ and US (and associated political and military action), and (iii)an isolated US.
Maybe that's not really so profound, and I just took the scenic route to get to the conclusion, and there's still an excellent chance that my conspiracy theory skills aren't quite bordering on the telepathic ( :^) ), but while there's been a real lack of precise understanding of AQ's objectives (in the general media at least), that scenario seems to make a lot of sense.
A big hole in your theory is that Al-Qaeda are only interested in America - they aren't, and their goals go much further than an Islamic mega state in the Middle East.
Bali, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, South Africa, none of those were US targets but they got hit badly, in some cases repeatedly. You're also forgetting the shoe bomber guy - he'd have blown a British 747 sky high if he hadn't been stopped.
Rather, what Al-Qaeda wants people to think is that if their nation stays away from the USA it will be left alone, when what they actually want is the US isolated militarily and diplomatically - something I've commented on in Goatboy's topic but which is buried under Light's attempts at verbal abuse.
With the US, and US public isolated, Al Qaeda can then turn to the rest of the non-Islamic world (as it defines Islam of course) and proceed to attack them, safe in the knowledge the US won't care by that point and that the rest of the world is too divided, inept or simply does not have the resources to fight back effectively.
I think the mistake is to assume America is their final objective, morelike America represents the only ones who can challenge a future state.
I mean, Kerry stands a good chance of winning in November I reckon, he's probably going to be looking at getting troops out of Iraq - the place will fall apart - but Kerry won't intervene again because to do so goes against what he told his supporters and means his chances of a second term would be gone immediately. Kerry also wants to reduce US dependence on oil, if the US doesn't have to intervene to safeguard oil reserves then all of a sudden it doesn't really have to intervene anywhere really except under the UN Peacekeeping missions which are beyond criticism for the most part due to their multinational makeup. Criticism of the US then dries up, Kerry can blame most things on Bush, and protecting just the US itself is possible especially without the budgetary drain of foreign interventions. Large parts of the rest of the world go to hell but the US mainland is safe, hence the voters are happy. The UK can probably do likewise, we're still dependent on oil but not all of it is from the Middle East, but as a small (relatively) island we can probably secure ourselves relatively well.
Essentially you end up with two worlds in one - a world of order and freedom and a world of anarchy and repression.
Bali, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, South Africa, none of those were US targets but they got hit badly, in some cases repeatedly. You're also forgetting the shoe bomber guy - he'd have blown a British 747 sky high if he hadn't been stopped.
Rather, what Al-Qaeda wants people to think is that if their nation stays away from the USA it will be left alone, when what they actually want is the US isolated militarily and diplomatically - something I've commented on in Goatboy's topic but which is buried under Light's attempts at verbal abuse.
With the US, and US public isolated, Al Qaeda can then turn to the rest of the non-Islamic world (as it defines Islam of course) and proceed to attack them, safe in the knowledge the US won't care by that point and that the rest of the world is too divided, inept or simply does not have the resources to fight back effectively.
I think the mistake is to assume America is their final objective, morelike America represents the only ones who can challenge a future state.
I mean, Kerry stands a good chance of winning in November I reckon, he's probably going to be looking at getting troops out of Iraq - the place will fall apart - but Kerry won't intervene again because to do so goes against what he told his supporters and means his chances of a second term would be gone immediately. Kerry also wants to reduce US dependence on oil, if the US doesn't have to intervene to safeguard oil reserves then all of a sudden it doesn't really have to intervene anywhere really except under the UN Peacekeeping missions which are beyond criticism for the most part due to their multinational makeup. Criticism of the US then dries up, Kerry can blame most things on Bush, and protecting just the US itself is possible especially without the budgetary drain of foreign interventions. Large parts of the rest of the world go to hell but the US mainland is safe, hence the voters are happy. The UK can probably do likewise, we're still dependent on oil but not all of it is from the Middle East, but as a small (relatively) island we can probably secure ourselves relatively well.
Essentially you end up with two worlds in one - a world of order and freedom and a world of anarchy and repression.
The traditional conspiracy theorist's work usually focusses on their own and/or the american governments.
But now I'm going to have a pop at looking at what Al Qaeda might be thinking about.
*Most conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong, so don't have nightmares kids :^)
Long term - AQ are hard line muslims with a goal of establishing an Islamic 'super-state' in the middle east.
9/11 - It seems like a good starting point for a look at current AQ tactics.
Why? Aside from the hating America and basic stuff, what were they hoping to achieve? Well, lets look at what consequences they could expect to have arrisen from the attack:
Publicity for their cause
American retailation
Strengthening of opinion in both pro and anti american sentiment
Very limited practical damage to the long term functioning of America
So, this gives the (I understand) generally accepted conclusion, that the purpose of 9/11 was to polarise the world into pro and anti (in the muslim middle east in particular) american feeling, thus to strengthen their long-term agenda.
What about the inevitable American relatiation? AQ must have known it would come, so we can assume it was part of their plans. Perhaps being willing to sacrifice control of Afghanistan (at least for now) in order to suggest to other states that america was an aggressive invader, and further polarise opinion.
Which brings us to Spain. At this point I'm going to assume that AQ were responsible for the Madrid bombs - uncertain I know, but conspiracy theory is all about assumption and supposition :^).
What were they seeking to achieve here?
Recent intelligence indicates a long-term intent by AQ to strike Spain in the run-up to their elections, suggesting that this was designed to 'pursuade' Spain to withdraw from the coalition.
Let's look at Spain more closely: Aznar took Spain into Iraq against the general will of his electorate, but his party was expected to win another term regardless (Aznar himself was standing down), before those bombs.
Why did those bombs change the outcome of that election?
Was it because it bolstered the desire of the Spainsh people to withdraw from the conflict?
Much of the swing vote seemed more pursuaded by Aznar's rush to blame ETA, rather than the actual suggested involvement of AQ. That couldn't have been predicted. Also, aggressive atacks were actually used to incite America into military involvement. Though there are significant differences between Spain and America, can we really believe AQ thought the same tactics would produce the opposite result?
Well perhaps - as mentioned, the spanish people didn't want to go into Iraq anyway, while in comparison the general American's attitude is far more militaristic, aggressive and gung-ho. Just look at the attitude towards firearms.
So on balance, I'd have to draw the conclusion that the attack was designed to pull Spain out of the coalition and out of Iraq.
Then what is AQ's stake in Iraq? Even the US government has admitted (despite former claims to the contrary to justify the war) that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and AQ.
Then again, amidst the unstability in Iraq it has been suggested that AQ are taking the opportunity to build a foothold in the country.
Also, taking Spain out of the coalition is also likely to weaken the coalition in any future military plans - plans that might again challenge AQ themselves.
So AQ want to prevent Spainish military involvement - doesn't this kind of contradict their earlier incitement of American action?
It's possible that the coalition have done what AQ wanted, so now AQ are ready to disband the coalition.
It's also possible that AQ are seeking to 'divide and conquer' their enemies - they wanted a western military action, but they also want to control it, limit it to something they can cope with. That means just America for now.
More likely I feel is that AQ aren't so interested in Europe - their real hatred is of America. It would fit well with their idea of polarisation of global opinion - but perhaps polarisation into 3 groups:
1.America
2.Anti-american, pro-AQ
Rest of world - anti AQ of course, but also against america's actions
What does that mean for us?
Paradoxically, it would mean AQ's first high profile attack on Europe is actually a good sign for the continent - showing that they'd rather not fight us.
I say 'us' - that's not quite accurate, as in Europe, we in the UK are now the exception - the only ones who still really stand in line with the americans.
Of course, Blair took the UK into Iraq against at least a large proportion of the will of his electorate, but (given the tories' stance) a pro-war government is expected to win another term regardless (Labour themself may be removed), before those...
When's the election again?
But now I'm going to have a pop at looking at what Al Qaeda might be thinking about.
*Most conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong, so don't have nightmares kids :^)
Long term - AQ are hard line muslims with a goal of establishing an Islamic 'super-state' in the middle east.
9/11 - It seems like a good starting point for a look at current AQ tactics.
Why? Aside from the hating America and basic stuff, what were they hoping to achieve? Well, lets look at what consequences they could expect to have arrisen from the attack:
Publicity for their cause
American retailation
Strengthening of opinion in both pro and anti american sentiment
Very limited practical damage to the long term functioning of America
So, this gives the (I understand) generally accepted conclusion, that the purpose of 9/11 was to polarise the world into pro and anti (in the muslim middle east in particular) american feeling, thus to strengthen their long-term agenda.
What about the inevitable American relatiation? AQ must have known it would come, so we can assume it was part of their plans. Perhaps being willing to sacrifice control of Afghanistan (at least for now) in order to suggest to other states that america was an aggressive invader, and further polarise opinion.
Which brings us to Spain. At this point I'm going to assume that AQ were responsible for the Madrid bombs - uncertain I know, but conspiracy theory is all about assumption and supposition :^).
What were they seeking to achieve here?
Recent intelligence indicates a long-term intent by AQ to strike Spain in the run-up to their elections, suggesting that this was designed to 'pursuade' Spain to withdraw from the coalition.
Let's look at Spain more closely: Aznar took Spain into Iraq against the general will of his electorate, but his party was expected to win another term regardless (Aznar himself was standing down), before those bombs.
Why did those bombs change the outcome of that election?
Was it because it bolstered the desire of the Spainsh people to withdraw from the conflict?
Much of the swing vote seemed more pursuaded by Aznar's rush to blame ETA, rather than the actual suggested involvement of AQ. That couldn't have been predicted. Also, aggressive atacks were actually used to incite America into military involvement. Though there are significant differences between Spain and America, can we really believe AQ thought the same tactics would produce the opposite result?
Well perhaps - as mentioned, the spanish people didn't want to go into Iraq anyway, while in comparison the general American's attitude is far more militaristic, aggressive and gung-ho. Just look at the attitude towards firearms.
So on balance, I'd have to draw the conclusion that the attack was designed to pull Spain out of the coalition and out of Iraq.
Then what is AQ's stake in Iraq? Even the US government has admitted (despite former claims to the contrary to justify the war) that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and AQ.
Then again, amidst the unstability in Iraq it has been suggested that AQ are taking the opportunity to build a foothold in the country.
Also, taking Spain out of the coalition is also likely to weaken the coalition in any future military plans - plans that might again challenge AQ themselves.
So AQ want to prevent Spainish military involvement - doesn't this kind of contradict their earlier incitement of American action?
It's possible that the coalition have done what AQ wanted, so now AQ are ready to disband the coalition.
It's also possible that AQ are seeking to 'divide and conquer' their enemies - they wanted a western military action, but they also want to control it, limit it to something they can cope with. That means just America for now.
More likely I feel is that AQ aren't so interested in Europe - their real hatred is of America. It would fit well with their idea of polarisation of global opinion - but perhaps polarisation into 3 groups:
1.America
2.Anti-american, pro-AQ
Rest of world - anti AQ of course, but also against america's actions
What does that mean for us?
Paradoxically, it would mean AQ's first high profile attack on Europe is actually a good sign for the continent - showing that they'd rather not fight us.
I say 'us' - that's not quite accurate, as in Europe, we in the UK are now the exception - the only ones who still really stand in line with the americans.
Of course, Blair took the UK into Iraq against at least a large proportion of the will of his electorate, but (given the tories' stance) a pro-war government is expected to win another term regardless (Labour themself may be removed), before those...
When's the election again?