AL-AWLAKI killed in US air strike

[reel.deal]

.

[Guerrero]

But, as "Al Qaeda" is my favourite horse, let me jump on its back once more:
1. The "Al Qaeda" Media presence is outright fakery. Anwar Al-Awlaki is just a face on the newspaper page, a sim or an actor on the videos, blogging from straight outta Tel-Aviv.
2. The "Al Qaeda" carrying out succesful attacks are israeli Mista'aravim pseudo-terrorist cells.
3. The "Al Qaeda" members getting killed or captured for torture by the Americans are Arab patsies recruited and fucked over by Mossad.

Okay, here is the funniest thing I have ever read about an "Al Qaeda"-member, on ADL's page: http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/anwar_al-awlaki.htm

In one post on his blog, al-Awlaki further criticized Israel and the Jews, claiming that the Jews "have a hidden agenda" and have infiltrated every government in the world. He has also promoted the conspiracy theory that contends that Israelis were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Fuck me, I have always though "Al Qaeda" claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. But no, the evil ones are blaming it on the Jews. Fucking hypocrite jihadists.

I mean...for fuck's sake! Is it me going crazy, or are the perps loosing their grip on the real reality??

I know for a fact that Anwar Alwaki was a real person and an imam. What I do not know is if he really ever started spewing out speeches promoting violence against America or Americans. Before Alwaki got in the news as the US govt's next #1 guy, I'd had the opportunity to read some of his writing, listen to some of his audio speeches on regular islamic websites, and there was nothing "terror promoting" or "violence promoting" in any of what I read or heard. No one I know who has heard the guy speak either live or on the internet, has ever heard him promoting what the US govt claims he was promoting....which I'm not really even sure what it is...which gets me to thinking that, THAT part of the story, is what is largely made up. The question I have though is how or why did Alwaki get in the US govt's scope to begin with, why did they pick him? I guess he must have done something, said something, wrote something somewhere that got him in their radar...And thought he'd make a good candidate for America's next Most Wanted on the Terrorism list, I just don't know how a guy who was making and writing speeches that weren't out of the ordinary in early 2008, was all of the sudden giving speeches promoting Kill the Americans by late 2008.

Does anyone hear have any youtube video links that show him talking like that? Or even supposed quotes from his supposed dangerous speeches? Warriorhun gave us the quote that he was claiming Israel was behind 9/11...so is that the poisonous toxin he was guilty of spreading?

[Maat]

I know for a fact that Anwar Alwaki was a real person and an imam. What I do not know is if he really ever started spewing out speeches promoting violence against America or Americans. Before Alwaki got in the news as the US govt's next #1 guy, I'd had the opportunity to read some of his writing, listen to some of his audio speeches on regular islamic websites, and there was nothing "terror promoting" or "violence promoting" in any of what I read or heard. No one I know who has heard the guy speak either live or on the internet, has ever heard him promoting what the US govt claims he was promoting....which I'm not really even sure what it is...which gets me to thinking that, THAT part of the story, is what is largely made up.

How do you "know for a fact Anwar Alwaki [sic] was a real person and an imam", did you see him in person? And even if you did, how would you know if he was a "real imam" anyway?

Have you read Simon's post referencing al-Awlaki from last year?
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2214626

It was all made up, just their usual propaganda malarkey. Check out CNN's crap on this perp agent/actor:

"20 NOVEMBER 2009 – CNN AMERICAN MORNING with Jim Acosta"
http://jarretbrachman.net/?page_id=34

[Guerrero]

I know for a fact that Anwar Alwaki was a real person and an imam. What I do not know is if he really ever started spewing out speeches promoting violence against America or Americans. Before Alwaki got in the news as the US govt's next #1 guy, I'd had the opportunity to read some of his writing, listen to some of his audio speeches on regular islamic websites, and there was nothing "terror promoting" or "violence promoting" in any of what I read or heard. No one I know who has heard the guy speak either live or on the internet, has ever heard him promoting what the US govt claims he was promoting....which I'm not really even sure what it is...which gets me to thinking that, THAT part of the story, is what is largely made up.

How do you "know for a fact Anwar Alwaki [sic] was a real person and an imam", did you see him in person? And even if you did, how would you know if he was a "real imam" anyway?

Have you read Simon's post referencing al-Awlaki from last year?
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2214626

It was all made up, just their usual propaganda malarkey. Check out CNN's crap on this perp agent/actor:

"20 NOVEMBER 2009 – CNN AMERICAN MORNING with Jim Acosta"
http://jarretbrachman.net/?page_id=34

Thank you Maat for your questions, suggestions, implications...I suspected as much would come here and have been ready to answer.

Have I met Anwar in person? No. However, once upon a time, I was interested in becoming muslim. I am from New Mexico...and if you are familiar with Anwar's bio, you would know that Anwar was, "supposedly", born and raised in New Mexico, however, southern NM; I am from northern NM. I think probably as a result of his NM connection, he had ties to the northern NM muslim community and as a result, gave several speeches/khutbahs/sermons...whatever you prefer to call them...at the mosque in Albuquerque. I know a lot of the muslims here in ABQ and the majority of them were here and attended the lectures where Imam (which is actually just a muslim term to denote a leader of prayer and signifies nothing else, so that is how I know he was an "imam") Anwar Alwaki gave at the ABQ mosque (ICNM...you can google their website - Islamic Center of New Mexico). I do not doubt the character and what these people have told me to be true...especially since when they told me this, they had no reason to lie or fabricate because it was still before Anwar had even made it into ANY news headline. None of these mulsims were connected to eachother either...so their would be no mass conspiriatorial agent thing in that sense either.

Look...I get the fakery thing and understand when and how and why it happens. But sometimes, things aren't 100% false/fake...meaning that these people that the establishment chooses to pick on aren't always total fabrications. I have no idea about Osama Bin Laden...if he was ever real or not...but Anwar, I would bet my life on the fact that he was a real muslim, practicing preaching, educated muslim...I have been trying to find out why they picked on him, the real guy, as their fake poster boy for islamic terrorism however, because nothing I have ever heard/read/seen of him, suggests that he was a "terrorist" promoting violence against america. What he did talk a lot about sometimes though was Israel being behind 9/11 and the Illuminati. I can't imagine that would be the reason they would pick on him though...so I am still wondering/pondering that question and wondering if anyone reading this thread can shed some light on THAT.

[Maat]

How do you "know for a fact Anwar Alwaki [sic] was a real person and an imam", did you see him in person? And even if you did, how would you know if he was a "real imam" anyway?

Have you read Simon's post referencing al-Awlaki from last year?
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2214626

It was all made up, just their usual propaganda malarkey. Check out CNN's crap on this perp agent/actor:

"20 NOVEMBER 2009 – CNN AMERICAN MORNING with Jim Acosta"
http://jarretbrachman.net/?page_id=34

Thank you Maat for your questions, suggestions, implications...I suspected as much would come here and have been ready to answer.

Have I met Anwar in person? No. However, once upon a time, I was interested in becoming muslim. I am from New Mexico...and if you are familiar with Anwar's bio, you would know that Anwar was, "supposedly", born and raised in New Mexico, however, southern NM; I am from northern NM. I think probably as a result of his NM connection, he had ties to the northern NM muslim community and as a result, gave several speeches/khutbahs/sermons...whatever you prefer to call them...at the mosque in Albuquerque. I know a lot of the muslims here in ABQ and the majority of them were here and attended the lectures where Imam (which is actually just a muslim term to denote a leader of prayer and signifies nothing else, so that is how I know he was an "imam") Anwar Alwaki gave at the ABQ mosque (ICNM...you can google their website - Islamic Center of New Mexico). I do not doubt the character and what these people have told me to be true...especially since when they told me this, they had no reason to lie or fabricate because it was still before Anwar had even made it into ANY news headline. None of these mulsims were connected to eachother either...so their would be no mass conspiriatorial agent thing in that sense either.

I know what an "imam" is, my question was how would you know if he was a real one, since anyone can feign piety and put on a good act of being 'religious' with knowledge of 'the book' (plenty of so-called Christian preachers and televangelists do that too!). And hearsay is not proof of anything if you didn't see him yourself, nor is assuming those you heard it from were trustworthy. Even if they believed it themselves, they could just as easily have 'heard' it from someone else.

Look...I get the fakery thing and understand when and how and why it happens. But sometimes, things aren't 100% false/fake...meaning that these people that the establishment chooses to pick on aren't always total fabrications. I have no idea about Osama Bin Laden...if he was ever real or not...but Anwar, I would bet my life on the fact that he was a real muslim, practicing preaching, educated muslim...I have been trying to find out why they picked on him, the real guy, as their fake poster boy for islamic terrorism however, because nothing I have ever heard/read/seen of him, suggests that he was a "terrorist" promoting violence against america. What he did talk a lot about sometimes though was Israel being behind 9/11 and the Illuminati. I can't imagine that would be the reason they would pick on him though...so I am still wondering/pondering that question and wondering if anyone reading this thread can shed some light on THAT.

I wouldn't "bet my life" on anyone being a real religious anything just because they claimed to be, or faked it well! Do you have any idea how long before 9-11 they had their agents and plans in place? If he was promoting the "Israel did it" hang-out, he was a disinfo agent, reinforcing the 9-11 hoax of "victims" and deflecting attention from the Media complicity (which is what that's all for).

I think you can rest assured he was not legit, the "innocent" pose is all part of the PsyOp. They don't "pick on" real Muslims in this country, only the planted & fabricated players in their "terrorist" pantomime, to be dramatically "killed" (aka relocated/reassigned).

[nonhocapito]

It seems Al-Alwaki was very comfortable sitting in the fake "muslims versus the west" paradigm, doing next to nothing to actually emancipate his followers (educating them not only about the involvement of Israel and the zionists, for example, but also on the more important use of fakery and manipulation of news). If he was a real leader, it appears he was oblivious to the real issues. To the ends of this ugly game, this equates to him being a disinfo agent and a fake leader, unfortunately.

But even if Guerrero is right, and this guy really appeared rooted in the New Mexico muslim community, this doesn't automatically tell us whether he was an agent, an actor, a digital entity or a real leader committed to the cause.

First off: Al-Awlaki's alleged affiliation to Al-Quaeda. Can we really accept this part of the story, considering Al-Quaeda is most certainly a non-existent or completely controlled organization?

On top of that, there is the alleged intensive use of bookface and tubeyou, in line with the "arab spring" tendency to use social networks to spread ideas (but in fact to manufacture consent and summon an opposition out of thin air): this is the most important clue, I believe, considering it is so easy to pledge fake substance to something that way. A real leader would grow out of the internet pretty quickly, wanting to meet the followers, rally people, appear surrounded by them etc.

To sum up, knowing the methods of the pigs in charge, I wouldn't put past them having completely invented and created out of thin air this "terrorist": regardless if an actor was needed to impersonate him on certain occasions or, given his "internet leader" status, if everything was made up in front of a computer without too much bother.

[warriorhun]

Dear nonhocapito and All,

To cut a long story short, we have to ask the following question:
Did our new best mate Resting in Peace, Anwar Al-Awlaki actually ever claimed himself to be of "Al Qaeda"?
If the answer is an emphatic yes, then its case closed. Sim, actor, agent, patsy, either or all, is all the same: part of the "Al Qaeda"-hoax.

If the answer is a no-then a bit of speculation may be open to us.
If no, then we should not forget that the elimination of any possible emerging future Muslim leader with more than two brain-cells is priority to the people behind the War on Terror.
What is easier then to brand such people as "Al Qaeda" in the newspapers and so get a popular approval for killing them? Its not as if the drone targets can write for example to the editor of the New York Times, demanding a correcting article, threatening with a lawsuit...

[Guerrero]

Dear nonhocapito and All,

To cut a long story short, we have to ask the following question:
Did our new best mate Resting in Peace, Anwar Al-Awlaki actually ever claimed himself to be of "Al Qaeda"?
If the answer is an emphatic yes, then its case closed. Sim, actor, agent, patsy, either or all, is all the same: part of the "Al Qaeda"-hoax.

If the answer is a no-then a bit of speculation may be open to us.
If no, then we should not forget that the elimination of any possible emerging future Muslim leader with more than two brain-cells is priority to the people behind the War on Terror.
What is easier then to brand such people as "Al Qaeda" in the newspapers and so get a popular approval for killing them? Its not as if the drone targets can write for example to the editor of the New York Times, demanding a correcting article, threatening with a lawsuit...

Thank you warriorhun. This is what I was trying to suggest albeit not as direct and to the point as you. The problem is, only if I saw a youtube video of Anwar himself speaking and claiming to be part of Al Qaeda, would I believe that he ever claimed to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda. I am sure all mainstream media news outlets claim that he claimed he was...but like you said, it's not like he could call up a lawsuit against them for slander when the US Govt has a hit on his head. This is what I was trying to get at with my point about muslims in New Mexico... he was a popular muslim sheik for a lot of muslims here and from what I understand, in the US in general, and not because the muslims here are "jihadist" or "islamist" but because I guess whatever he actually was speaking and preaching about spoke to them.

I was just wondering also if anyone here has any links of Anwar speaking for himself. I don't care to read links to CNN or ABC or Newsweek talking about Anwar, I want to hear what this guy was saying/preaching from his own lips. The site I had visited back in 2008 before Anwar had made it into any news propaganda, had been shutdown once he did because America's enemy #1. So so much for being able to go back and read what he was preaching again, the govt couldn't have that - knowing people would be curious to go searching the net for the guy's own words... But I am wondering if anyone here knows of other links, sites, where his own work and words still exists.

[nonhocapito]

Did our new best mate Resting in Peace, Anwar Al-Awlaki actually ever claimed himself to be of "Al Qaeda"? If the answer is an emphatic yes, then its case closed. Sim, actor, agent, patsy, either or all, is all the same: part of the "Al Qaeda"-hoax. If the answer is a no-then a bit of speculation may be open to us.

Unfortunately it is not enough for him not to have claimed to be of Al-qaueda. I don't think any leader, be it a real or a fake one, would say he is part of al quaeda, because the minute he does, muslims would stop following him.

But he positioned himself in a gray zone between "al quaeda" and actual pro-islam opposition, and I think that a legitimate muslim leader would go to great lengths to stay the hell out of that gray zone.
Why did he even do that? The way I see it, it's simple: he (if there was a 'he') was set out from day one to compromise and marginalize muslim opposition.

There are more false leaders and false messiahs in this world than true ones, i think we can safely assume that, no?

Also, correct me if i am wrong, but we never saw him surrounded by followers. I think I saw a video of his once preaching in a mosque but that's it. Is anyone really mourning this "leader" today? Are his followers vocal at all? He didn't seem to have any credit in arab countries or with arab masses. He was no Arafat. Why even go to such trouble to unlawfully kill him or pretend to?

I think that in his videos he frequently stated that killing of americans was good and necessary, and terrorism acceptable: this denotes either gross stupidity or deliberate misleading. It also denotes absolutely no desire to actually help out the muslim community, but rather to stuck them even more with the terror label 9/11 have given them.

Here are a few videos of his where he apparently supports the "killing of americans":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ssage.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/vid ... e-12087685
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n

Do you really need this guy to say "I'm with al-quaeda" to know that he is a fake?

[Maat]

Right on, Nonho!

Guerrero, I must remind you that the only videos that ever had visuals of al-Awlaki speaking at a microphone, never showed him in the same shot as any supposed audience — only edited with scenes of an audience then cut to close-ups of Awlaki. All the rest are just audio collections of his 'lectures' on the Koran and Muslim history (still on Youtube).

So, no proof of any real life followers in a mosque, just a talking head on video or a voice on tape. That is the same technique they've used for all their fake "jihadists / terrorists", including Osama Bed Linen.

Here's a fairly recent audio speech of al-Wacky Awlaki in English, actually inciting Muslims to fight Americans (it may not be up for long though):
http://youtu.be/vWV9i80XhgM

Edit update: As I suspected, that video AND the uploader's account has been removed by Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/survantofALLAH

[warriorhun]

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

But he positioned himself in a gray zone between "al quaeda" and actual pro-islam opposition, and I think that a legitimate muslim leader would go to great lengths to stay the hell out of that gray zone.

I am not saying you are wrong, nor do I want to appear slow-witted, but I have to admit that I am at a bit of a loss about interpreting your "grey-zone" metaphor.
Could you please elaborate for me-in a sentence or two-on what you mean by that "grey zone"? Thank you in advance.

As per Al-Alwaki's message about the killing of Americans, this is a quote out of context in a way. Did he mean the killing of Americans in America with terror attacks by homegrown or foreign terrorists, or did he mean in Muslim countries occupied by the Americans by a legitimate insurgency? These messages are not the same...

[nonhocapito]

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

But he positioned himself in a gray zone between "al quaeda" and actual pro-islam opposition, and I think that a legitimate muslim leader would go to great lengths to stay the hell out of that gray zone.

I am not saying you are wrong, nor do I want to appear slow-witted, but I have to admit that I am at a bit of a loss about interpreting your "grey-zone" metaphor.
Could you please elaborate for me-in a sentence or two-on what you mean by that "grey zone"? Thank you in advance.

As per Al-Alwaki's message about the killing of Americans, this is a quote out of context in a way. Did he mean the killing of Americans in America with terror attacks by homegrown or foreign terrorists, or did he mean in Muslim countries occupied by the Americans by a legitimate insurgency? These messages are not the same...

Well, the "grey zone" would be "not being with al-qaueda" and yet "supporting violent action against americans and the western world as muslims".

I admit that if one Muslim leader says "it is lawful to kill americans", this does not automatically qualify him as a double agent or a fake. Maybe, in the context, there is some plausibility to it; however, it does seem something that, as a ultimate result, obviously damages all muslims. Just consider, as I said, the niche were they are being put with the terrorist labels and all.

After 10 years, my guess is that the really dangerous muslim leaders are not those like Al-Alwaki that confirm all stereotypes and prejudices and fit perfectly in the game, but rather those who are capable to discuss real problems (be them political, financial, educational, religious, colonial etc) without getting into the Islam vs the west paradigm. I suspect those leaders exist but we never hear about them. They are censored by all media, which probably in most cases makes it perfectly useless to "get rid" of them.

Perhaps I know what you are about to say: that muslims do want to fight against the west and destroy it. If they didn't want before, they want now after 10 years of "war on terror". I disagree with this general interpretation in this historical moment, and before you play the "turks in Vienna" card let me tell you what my limited experience with the arab world tells me: I think that arab leaders and the majority of people want to find a common ground and some form of conciliation with the "west" and do not seek war nor terror. This is my feeling, or my opinion if you will.

[Guerrero]

Also, correct me if i am wrong, but we never saw him surrounded by followers. I think I saw a video of his once preaching in a mosque but that's it. Is anyone really mourning this "leader" today? Are his followers vocal at all? He didn't seem to have any credit in arab countries or with arab masses. He was no Arafat. Why even go to such trouble to unlawfully kill him or pretend to?

I think that in his videos he frequently stated that killing of americans was good and necessary, and terrorism acceptable: this denotes either gross stupidity or deliberate misleading. It also denotes absolutely no desire to actually help out the muslim community, but rather to stuck them even more with the terror label 9/11 have given them.

Here are a few videos of his where he apparently supports the "killing of americans":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ssage.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/vid ... e-12087685
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n

Do you really need this guy to say "I'm with al-quaeda" to know that he is a fake?

Ok. Nonhocapito. Look, I never met the guy personally, so I really don't know if he ever existed or is just an amalgam of fiction played out by the media. But there would have had to be an "acting" Anwar going around and giving speeches at mosques and meeting muslims, since I know a number of muslims who belive they met him and/or heard/saw him speak at their mosque and I strongly believe these people aren't lying, but I will admit that if anything, Anwar could have been an agent, hired by whomever, to try to incite muslims toward terrorism. Maybe by playing an educated lecturer who preached regular islam for a number of years, his switch (if there was one in reality) towards inciting/promoting violence/terrorism, was all part of the plan and hope by the creepy powers that be, that his popularity would carry his following into following however, being that most muslims are in fact truly muslim and trying to follow islam best that they can, this call towards violence and terrorism merely isolated Anwar and caused muslims to stop listening.

Now you ask, why didn't Anwar have some mass following of supporters that was obvious...well I just want to interject a few things I know about islam and muslims. It is considered unislamic to develop any kind of "cult of personality" around any human, even the most revered prophet, Mohammed. So mainstream muslims don't develop cult like followings of other people, regardless of how popular their writings/teachings may be at any given point. Secondly, most mainstream muslims in America these days are not about to publicly align themselves with any leader that the govt has pegged as a terrorist leader, irregardless of their private beliefs, they do not wish to sacrifice their lives and the safety of their family, to support someone who may or may not be a terrorist. Most mainstream muslims believe the mainstream media as much as the next average Joe, is what I have found.

[warriorhun]

Dear nonhocapito,

you say:

Perhaps I know what you are about to say: that muslims do want to fight against the west and destroy it. If they didn't want before, they want now after 10 years of "war on terror". I disagree with this general interpretation in this historical moment, and before you play the "turks in Vienna" card let me tell you what my limited experience with the arab world tells me: I think that arab leaders and the majority of people want to find a common ground and some form of conciliation with the "west" and do not seek war nor terror. This is my feeling, or my opinion if you will.

dear nonho, do not give up your regular job to work as a full-time mind-reader just yet , 'cause I was about to say something different. Please allow me to share my feelings or opinions, too.

The Muslims are just people like us. They want to earn a decent living, to have sex with a wife (or four ) they love, to have kids, to enjoy life. Only they follow more closely the religion of their ancestors than we in Christian Europe.
I think all Muslims over 30 years of age prefer peace to war any given day.
I do not think they want to fight the West and destroy it, not even after the last decade. BUT. I do think they want to fight the invaders on the Muslim lands, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, etc... I think they have every right to do so, and if I lived there, I would join up the insurgency myself. But this is not terrorism, this is legitimate warfare, and it is a man's honor-bound duty to fight the enemy.
I think every red-blooded idealist Muslim guy between 18 and 30 years of age would welcome the opportunity to fight against the occupiers on Muslim lands. (Of course, they are ripe to get fucked over by the Mossad "Al Qaeda"-recrutiers). And I think they do not want to come here or to America to kill the locals in terror attacks-because that is a totally different animal than defending one's own peoples and lands from an attacking enemy.

The "Turks in Vienna", "Europistan" and the like is a different matter.
They are not coming here en masse to create a European Muslim Caliphate, no matter what the Israel-financed pro-Jewish anti-immigration and anti-Islam West European far-right says.
They are coming here because of economic reasons, trying to make a living: it is not an evil master-plan of the Muslims to take over Europe.
BUT: This mass-immigration is very much encouraged by the liberal-bolsheviks, the cultural marxism of PC/Multikulti forces. Supposedly the dream was a Multikulti Paradise, but of course, they wanted to import the colored third world/Muslim masses only because it un-avoidably results in conflict with the locals. Also the old marxist reflexes die hard: they need proxy forces in their favourite past-time of class war, a lumpen-proletariat or underclass. As the Western living standars increased, they needed to import the new underclass ready to be freed of "oppression" and "racism"... and who can be used as proxies against the locals. Of course, the newcomers will never feel they are one people with the locals and will never behave as if they were, however the locals have to behave as if the newcomers were their own people so as not to be "racist nazis": everyone can figure out what "healthy" results this will produce. But I can not blame the newcomers to use the system to their own advantage, its the locals fault who are letting them... or letting alien forces rule over us, pushing Multikulti: we are talking about the well-known arch-enemy Boss characters of course

IMO, of course.

[pov603]

@warriorhun
Well put. Some food for thought in what you have said.