The document discusses a US intelligence officer's claim that every terrorist attack in the US has been a "false flag" operation. It then provides context on the concept of "false flag" attacks using 9/11 as an example. The document also discusses whistleblower claims that groups like Al-Qaeda and potentially ISIS have been created or amplified by Western intelligence for geopolitical goals. An FBI whistleblower is quoted saying the US revives terror scares to promote the terror war industry.

1. US Intelligence Officer: “Every Single Terrorist Attack
In US Was A False Flag Attack”
May 15, 2015 by Arjun Walia. 57 Comments.
Apart from documents that have outlined supposed terrorist threats, like Al-Qaeda, and their connection to US
intelligence agencies, like the CIA, there are a number of whistleblowers that have come out adding more fuel to the
fire. Because not many are even aware of these documents, letting people know about a truth that can be har d for
people to accept, let alone ponder the possibility is very important. It’s just one aspect of the veil that’s been blinding
the masses for quite some time now.
The latest whistleblower is David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, and the second-highest-
ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence. He is a former CIA clandestine services case officer, and this
is what he had to say:
“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States,
every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the
FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to
incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”
Keiser Report: War on terror - self-leaking ice cream cone (E731)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=750&v=GrFnFflv1Lg
What Is A “False Flag Attack?”
A great example of a false flag attack is 9/11, something that many people believe to be a creation of US
intelligence agencies, or some entity above the government (one that controls what Eisenhower called “the military
industrial complex”). The idea is that these so called terrorist attacks are created by this group, in order to justify the

2. infiltration of other countries, and to justify a heightened state of “national security.” As a result, in the eyes of the
citizenry, war and mass murder are justified, when the intentions behind these actions are something the citizenry
has no idea about. This is why we see a false sense of patriotism programmed into many people, especially in the
United States. Men and women join this massive military machine with good hearts, thinking that they are serving
their country and fighting terrorism, when they are doing the complete opposite. They are only participating in a
fabricated war based on lies and misinformation.
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence
officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an
intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified internationa l
leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.” – Former
British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook
Today, we might be seeing the same thing with ISIS. Although there are no verified documents like there are when it
comes to Al-Qaeda, given what that information shows us, combined with Wikileaks documents and statements
from insiders, we could be looking at the same thing.
Not long ago, FBI whistleblower stated that:
“The US is reviving terror scare with ISIS to promote the terror war industry.”
You can read more about that story here http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/21/u-s-is-reviving-terror-
scare-to-promote-the-terror-war-industry-fbi-whistleblower/
Again, 9/11 is a great example and you can find out more information about that here. http://www.collective-
evolution.com/?s=9%2F11
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/15/us-intelligence-officer-every-single-terrorist-attack-in-us-was-a-false-
flag-attack/
FBI Whistleblower: “U.S Is Reviving Terror Scare With
ISIS To Promote The Terror War Industry”
October 21, 2014 by Arjun Walia. 18 Comments.
Share on Facebook Twitter
7.1K
SHARES
Select Language ▼

3. So called “terrorist” attacks have been taking place on the planet for decades, the most memorable one being 9/11.
Almost 15 years later, that one “terrorist” attack has served as a massive awakening tool for the human race,
allowing us to see through the veil that’s been blinding the masses for so long, but we still have a long way to go.
Interestingly, it’s a well documented fact that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA, there are multiple sources that
show that, and it seems that ISIS might not be any different. (source)(source) The same terrorist groups the United
States and their allies are fighting against were created by the United States and their allies themselves, this is a
historical fact, so it’s important we ask the same questions when it comes to ISIS and keep our minds open to that
possibility.
Many believe these groups are created to give the false illusion that we are under attack, in order to justify the
infiltration of other countries for ulterior motives, and many still believe we are going after “terrorists.”
Here is a video of US four star General Wesley Clark pretty much alluding to the same thing.
The video below is of FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds appearing on RT news. She is a former FBI tr anslator and
founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She gained a lot of attention in 2002 after she
accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals, which included serious security
breaches and cover-ups, alluding to intelligence that was deliberately suppressed.
Here’s what she had to say about the “terrorist” group ISIS. She basically points to the belief that ISIS is the creation
of those who are calling them terrorists. Think about that for a moment.
You can read a full transcript of this interview here.
What do you think? Do you think ISIS is just another creation of the United States and their allies? Share your
thoughts in the comment section below.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/21/u-s-is-reviving-terror-scare-to-promote-the-terror-war-industry-fbi-
whistleblower/

4. U.S. wants to revive terror scare in
order to keep up the terror war industry
- FBI whistleblower
October 12, 2014 09:30
Download video (201.2 MB)
President Obama admits the rise of Islamic State was never properly
addressed by the U.S. intelligence. Vice-President of the States puts
all the blame on America’s allies, saying it were they who funded
jihadists. Terrorists threaten direct attacks on American soil. Is the
U.S. ready to respond with more than just airstrikes? Was it really
unaware of the growing threat? And were that the allies that gave a
helping hand to the radicalism in Iraq and Syria? To find answers to
these questions, we speak to FBI whistleblower; Sibel Edmonds is on
Sophie&Co today.
Follow@SophieCo_RT
Sophie Shevardnadze: Former FBI whistleblower, author, Sibel
Edmonds is my guest today. Sibel, it’s really great to have you on our
show. So, when asked if the rise of ISIS was a surprise, Obama
admitted that the intelligence community underestimated ISIS in
Syria – did it not see it coming in Syria or Iraq?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, the answer depends on if you want to take
President Obama or the U.S. authorities in their words and evaluate
based on that. I think whether the rise of ISIS is mainly about the
brand change. Sometimes… sometimes as it happens in marketing
we get to see exactly the same principle within the geopolitical
games that have been in play for a while now, especially since the
end of the Cold War, and the Al-Qaeda brand began wearing off,
and that brand now has been changed to ISIS - as always, by

5. design; and, considering the fact that we cultivated and put
together and financed and created the ISIS, for me it goes into one
of those caricature or funny statements that are put out by the
mainstream media, statements issued by people like Obama or
anybody from the State Department.
SS: So what you’re saying basically is that it was expected for ISIS to turn into something so powerful, into a
powerful group, but they are not just admitting to it?
SE: To answer the question briefly, the ISIS is what is the U.S. media and the propaganda creators behind
the media decided to create. I mean, tomorrow or 3 months from now we will start hearing another name,
that we’ve never heard of, and within a month they can make that the world’s greatest or the most
dangerous threat. And, again, that is the main concept here, and I know the Western media, U.S. media,
the Western media, they have been playing it as such, but they did exactly the same thing with Al-Qaeda. I
mean, Al-Qaeda was hundred people, or 100,000 people, or ten million people… Another interesting
perspective in this is that I referred to the brand-change, and sometimes you have to switch the brand for
the marketing purposes – with ISIS as you can look at and see from the term, from the name now, the
brand created, the Western powers have gotten closer to just name and link the entire global terrorism to
Islam, and that’s another marketing strategy by the U.S., NATO and main Western countries.
SS: Ok. Once again, what we hear from the media is that President Obama blamed the chaos of the Syrian
civil war for the rise of ISIS. At the same time, the U.S. doesn’t hide that it’s been helping the rebels in Syria
from the very beginning. Did the U.S. intelligence know who they are funding?
SE: Absolutely, as they did in 80s with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, as they did it with various so-called
Islamic terror cells within Caucasus and Central Asia, as they did with Al-Qaeda, and this is not different. As
I’ve said, you’re only looking at a brand change; you’re not looking at any kind of a new phenomenon, as
far as the U.S. global perpetual warfare is concerned.
SS: Now, the U.S. is only ramping up support for moderate rebel groups in Syria – or so they say. So, who
works to determine if rebels are moderate or no? Is there really a way of knowing that?
SE: Again, it is really to talk to or talk around all these propaganda created by the Western powers
through the mainstream media, and I feel that if I start even commenting on that, its belittling the facts on
the ground. Again, I want to go back and provide the context, and say: look, Mujahedeen, which later
became aka Al-Qaeda, they were the freedom fighters. So, and we have had similar situation in the
Balkans during the war. You know, you had people or the factions that were considered fanatics or
criminal or terrorists, whether it was KLA, and then they became “freedom fighters”, they became our
allies. You’re looking exactly at the same thing. Different brand, but you’re looking exactly at the same
phenomenon, and we can talk around this and bring in all the different factors, they should put forward by
the Western media, and then we can put it and compare it, what has been happening in the past 30-35
years, and we’ll see that the marketing strategy is the same, it’s just a brand differs.
SS: What we’re seeing right now is that the U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria aren’t stopping ISIS – well, at least not
yet – and the Kurdish fighters on the ground are asking for the ground support. Will the U.S. be sending
troops to fight ISIS on the ground? What do you think?

6. SE: That’s going to depend on various factors, on what’s going to happen. I’m going to go back to context
and history – the Kurdish factions and the Kurdish factor has always been used and played. The Kurdish
faction and the Kurdish factor was the case when we had the war with Iraq. We had the northern territory
and the Kurdish area, and then we always get to “Okay, what is going to be Turkey’s role? Are they going
to be weary of what’s going to happen afterwards, if this happens with us and the Kurds?” And again,
you’re looking at exactly the same replicate of what we had in place, what was taking place during the
initial stage of war against Iraq.
SS: Right now, the U.S. military actions in Iraq have one set of objectives, and then, in Syria, another – for
example, Kurds in Iraq receive so much aid, so quickly from the U.S. – unlike the Kurds in Syria. What, is it,
like, two kinds of brands of Kurds, like you say? Why is to assume 2 different strategies when fighting one
enemy?
SE: Absolutely. You have the Kurds in Iran – and you’re looking at totally different characteristics and
where do they stand within the… Looking at there, there are over 25-30 million Kurds, and the Kurds in
Syria, we have Kurds in Turkey, you have the Kurds in Iraq, the Kurds in Iran; and right now the game and
the play being centered around the stage in Syria, so we’re looking at a different mechanism there, then
maybe, we’re looking at what’s happening with the northern Iraq. And also, you have to look at oil factor.
What do we have in Syria, where the Kurds are concentrated, versus what we have in Northern Iraq, in
such places as Kirkuk and well, do we have an oil factor there or we don’t have it there? So, if you start
putting those kinds of information that comes with region and a different sects, let’s say, in this case –
Kurds, you’re looking at several different factors in play, you’re not looking at only one, so you’re not
looking at the Kurdish faction, and here are the Kurds, and trying to, basically, put the ball in the same
bucket. It all depends on the geostrategic facts, and what we’re facing, what we have, what is in play, what
is at the stake – and, again, you can never compare Northern Iraq with what’s happening in Syria and the
Kurdish region in Syria.
SS: Yeah, because I was thinking maybe they were not helping the Kurds in Syria, because they’re affiliated
with the Kurds in Turkey, and America, maybe, doesn’t want to upset Turkey, being one of its greatest allies,
no?
SE: No, not really, because you had exactly the same scenario with the Kurds in northern Iraq and they
Kurds inside Turkey. If you look at the border region and the cross-border activities between the Kurds in
Iraq and the Kurds in Turkey, we had exactly the same situation – and this was one of the main reasons
that Turkey did not want to allow U.S. using it’s airbase during the early stage of the war against Iraq. It
was about the Kurds in northern Iraq and how that would upset the equilibrium that the Turkish
government wants to preserve and keep in place as far as the Kurdish faction is concerned.
SS: Now, the former CIA chief and the ex-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. is looking at at least a
30-year war against ISIS, which is not at all what the White House is telling the public. Is he exaggerating?
What’s your estimate?
SE: I would say it’s a very short period; I’m really surprised, because we just talked about the brand
change. The war against Al-Qaeda was declared as a “forever war” and it has been expanding. I mean,
when the war against Al-Qaeda started, it was supposed to be in Afghanistan, and we started chasing Al-
Qaeda in Yemen, and Pakistan with all the drone attacks, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact that this was going
to be a forever war… and now that the brand has changed to ISIS, I’m very surprised that the former FBI
director is stamping it with a short-time period. I believe 30 year period is very short, unless that have

7. already in plan other sects or other factions that they are going to declare the “world’s great and most
dangerous terrorists”, I would say it’s a very short period of time. We currently are more interested in an
ongoing, never-ending, perpetual war, so I would, if you compare it with what we have been
characterizing - or our government and the media – Al-Qaeda, I’m surprised that he has put such a short
time-stamp on ISIS. Considering the attraction, or the attractiveness, of the brand, because it has the world
“Islam” built into it, and let’s just forget Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was the just the noun, the name – and
this case you’re looking at the far-reaching implications. Now you declare that current greatest
threatening organization that has the word “Islam” built into it – and I think it’s much more attractive to be
used. So, I would say, yeah, it should be forever. I’m surprised it’s 30 years.
SS: Now, U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden blamed Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey for helping extremists in
Syria – then he later apologized for his comments, but was he right?
SE: Rather than dignifying people like Biden, let’s talk about, again, context and history – and I’m going to
be repeating that, and I’m sorry if the viewers are going to say “how many times is she going to say
“context and history”” – well, my website, my news organization was the first one to really break within the
U.S. the training of the Syrian rebels in Turkey, and this was 6 or 5 months before anything about Syria
actually made it to the news; using a U.S. airbase – and this is in Southern Turkey, close to the border with
Syria – and this was NATO and the U.S. factions training and arming and sending back, having them cross
the border, rebels, long before Syria actually became the news. As I said this was done in Turkey by the
NATO forces, mainly U.S. and British forces, and it was something that was planned and designed and
implemented by the U.S. So, for Joe Biden to come and put this out right now… of course he will get away
with it, because the mainstream media here is not going to go and revisit the facts that were exposed with
the activities of the U.S., what they did in Turkey, training these faction – now it’s called ISIS, it’s like the
French fries or the freedom fighters: you’re looking exactly at the same fries at the same price. That’s all
I’m going to say, it’s just ludicrous. Then he took it back, because he upset the current president in Turkey,
Erdogan. I wouldn’t even find it newsworthy, but it’s funny.
SS: “Funny” is the right word. Why is it more important for Sunni countries like Qatar or Turkey to bring
down President Assad than to contain extremism? Because, the Qataris are helping the anti-Assad rebels and
Turks asking Kurds to turn against Assad before they get any help with ISIS – why?
SE: In reality, if you’re looking at the factual objective and the analysis of it, really, it’s not to their
advantage whatsoever. I mean, you just named the countries, for example, Turkey is a member of NATO
and Turkey is greatly managed and directed by the U.S. – has been for a several decades, there’s no
question about that – and then you’re looking at the United Emirates and the countries within the region,
including Saudi Arabia, you’re looking at the tentacles of the United States. I call them the “tentacle
nations”; so, if you start looking and say “what is their advantage?” – of course, there are no advantages,
and you only look at disadvantages. If you start polling people within these countries, and I can speak of
Turkey, for example, if you start getting the opinion polls in Turkey, you will see that over 90% of Turkey
are against such moves; and Turkey had a pretty good relationship with Assad and with Syria, they’ve
engaged in some really good level of commerce. There has been zero advantage. They have to implement
policies created, designed and issued by the U.S. and NATO, and that’s what they are doing. So, to answer
your question – it has never been question of any other nations, especially in the region, their interest or
their advantages or even comparative advantages. It has always been about what is designed, what is put
in place, what orders are issued here in the U.S., and that’s the end of it. Other people’s interests, other

8. nations interest is not even in the equation, it has never been. If you ask a populous people in those
nations, they would actually nod and they would say yes, that’s exactly what they believe – because that’s
the reality.
SS: All right, here’s another possible and interesting turn of events – FBI chief James Comeywarned terrorists
are working on an effort to attack the U.S. very-very soon. Is the U.S. ready to respond?
SE: We have to look at different things and see why this statement was made. Is it based on some sort of
facts and real solid intelligence gathered, or is it the fact that… for example, we have had for the TSA, for
the flights, the threat level has been really low, and when that goes for a long time, people get antsy, they
say “This is really annoying to have all these screens out there and going through them, we haven’t had
any terrorist threats really, the level has not been blinking red or even orange, it’s been yellow, let’s go
through the rainbow colors” – so, it’s time to re-energize the Americans with the fear of terrorism. We
need to have more expenditure for things to put in place, because we can go ahead and increase the
threat level within the airports. Let me give you an example. If you look at the stock market and stock
prices for all the military-industrial complex-related companies and firms, you will see how they have just
gone up tremendously since the brand switch from Al-Qaeda to ISIS, and this is, again, the brand-change
I’m referring to, this is when you say “yes, now we can go ahead and produce and sell more to the
government and it will spend billions more”. So, the same thing is true for the internal security, fear-
mongering factors on the ground in the U.S. It’s time to re-energize that fear, and that is exactly what they
are doing. What’s going to follow this is there’s going to be more measures put in place, whether it’s in
the airports, or whether it’s the hiring within the FBI, or increasing the number of informants. Those are the
things that are going to follow this announcement: “we have to have more expenditure, because of the
public consent, because the fear level is going to go up, and therefore those expenditures are going to be
justified” – and it is that simple as that.
SS: The FBI also says that dozens of Americans are believed to be fighting in Syria with rebel groups. How did
that happen?
SE: Well it has to happen. If it’s not the case, it has to happen, because you’re looking at…how ordinary
Americans perceive these things? Think about it: Syria and this area, that region in Iraq – they are
thousands of miles away, what can they do to us from there. So, it’s not enough to raise the terror threat
and really do some heavy-duty fear-mongering. But, if you bring some U.S. elements and ties there, if we
have Americans over there, who are going to come back here, and they are going to, you know, be our
boogey-men on the ground, and they going to blow up buildings – that’s going to be marketing-wise
more attractive, and it’s going to be easier to sell to the American public the notion of our war against
ISIS. You’re not going to hear much of the Al-Qaeda for a while, Al-Qaeda is going to disappear and exit
the stage, replaced by ISIS – so yes, this is another marketing strategy. If we start looking at what’s
happening, what has been happening and what is being put forward by these people, including the
former CIA director and the U.S. – and if you start looking at it from the marketing perspective we get to
find more answers and understand what’s going on, rather than trying to approach this through some
logical, political, philosophical or even sociological analysis. I think the best model that fits and explains
what’s happening right now is the marketing model, and we should look at it as such.
SS: Twitter is suing the FBI because it is not allowed to tell the public when the government asks for
surveillance help – why is surveilling Twitter such a big deal for the U.S. government? Does so much depend
on Twitter and other social media?

9. SE: No. Why surveilling all Americans through NSA with their phone, every single conversation is such an
important thing for the government? Again, I’m going to take us back and say what kind of reaction from
the public does this create? When we hear every day how much is being gathered from the Facebook is
true and what’s being gathered and collected and how people are being monitored through their Twitters,
combined with what we have already known since 2004-2005, the expose on NSA, you have a better
chance of controlling the majority, controlling the people.
SS: Can the FBI and CIA, NSA control their information; prevent it from gaining public attention. Like, what
can prevent people like you, for instance, or Ed Snowden, from speaking out?
SE: Nothing. Nothing prevents people from speaking out. I have been speaking out. I don’t think the U.S.
government is really bothered. If the U.S. government is really bothered by people who are speaking out,
people like me or some credible, real whistleblowers, and if that becomes a real threat, it’s very easy for
them to take out those people, to eliminate them. But they are not, because it’s hasn’t risen to that level
yet. If the reach were such and if the consequences of people speaking out really reached a real masses
and brought out some reaction – then you would be looking at totally different scenario, or the reaction
,or action, by the U.S. government. But we haven’t seen it yet.
SS: Sibel, thank you so much for this wonderful insight and for your take on things that are going on around
us right now. We were taking to Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower. We were talking about how the U.S.
government is handling the situation around ISIS. Thanks a lot for your thoughts, that’s it for this edition of
Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.
http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/195384-us-fbi-syria-isis/
Decorated American General Warned Us About Plans To
Take Over Syria In 2003
June 22, 2013 by Noah Bonn. 5 Comments.
Share on Facebook Twitter
755
SHARES
Select Language ▼
General Wesley Clark explains Libyan invasion, Syria, Somalia
planned years in advance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSNyPS0fXpU
The following video is of former Four Star US Army General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO,
Wesley Clark at a 2007 interview with Democracy Now. Clark recounts a moment shortly after September 11th,

10. 2001 in which he was presented a classified memo listing governments that the US was planning to overthrowin the
coming years. Among the countries listed were Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Though the timeline Clark
was presented is overdue, we have seen this information proven correct for the first three countries, and talks have
now begun of overthrowing the regime in Syria as well. Granted, there is undoubtedly some truth to what our media
is telling us about the violence and oppressiveness of the Syrian government, however where we sh ould begin to
ask questions is whether this is, in fact, the full reason for discussions of military involvement. Is our government
concerned about Syria out of purely altruistic humanitarianism, or could it be part of a much larger and longer -term
geopolitical strategy?
Problems are usually created by the same elitist groups that propose the solution. A U.S intervention in Syria is only
justifiable if there is enough chaos there to permit it. The entire middle east is littered with United States military
bases, and we can never be quite sure what type of agenda is really playing out. The ultimate goal could be creating
enough chaos, threat and fear in order to justify a world world government, or a new world order.
Some of General Clark’s statements have been controversial in the past , but he shares some interesting food for
thought here.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/06/22/gen-wesley-clark-predicts-us-intervention-in-syria-in-2007/
Al-Qaeda's origins and links
Al-Qaeda, meaning
"the base", was
created in 1989 as
Soviet forces withdrew
from Afghanistan and
Osama Bin Laden and
his colleagues began
looking for new jihads.
The organisation grew
out of the network of Arab volunteers who had
gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the
banner of Islam against Soviet Communism.
During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his
fighters received American and Saudi funding.
Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had
security training from the CIA.
The "Arab Afghans", as they became known, were
battle-hardened and highly motivated.
In the early 1990s Al-Qaeda operated in Sudan.
After 1996 its headquarters and about a dozen
training camps moved to Afghanistan, where Bin
Laden forged a close relationship with the Taleban.
Al-Qaeda's leaders: (From left) Ayman al-
Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden and
Mohammed Atef

11. The US campaign in Afghanistan starting in late
2001 dispersed the organisation and drove it
underground as its personnel were attacked and its
bases and training camps destroyed.
Cells across the world
The organisation is thought to operate in 40 to 50
countries, not only in the Middle East and Asia but
in North America and Europe.
In western Europe there have been known or
suspected cells in London, Hamburg, Milan and
Madrid. These have been important centres for
recruitment, fundraising and planning operations.
For training, the group
favours lawless areas
where it can operate
freely and in secret.
These are believed to
have included Somalia,
Yemen and Chechnya, as
well as mountainous
areas of Afghanistan.
There have been reports of a secret training camp
on one of the islands of Indonesia.
Unlike the tightly-knit groups of the past, such as
the Red Brigades in Italy or the Abu Nidal group in
the Middle East, al-Qaeda is loosely knit. It
operates across continents as a chain of
interlocking networks.
Individual groups or cells appear to have a high
degree of autonomy, raising their own money,
often through petty crime, and making contact
with other groups only when necessary.
Defining al-Qaeda?
This loose connection between groups has raised a
question of definition. When we talk about al-
Qaeda do we refer to an actual organisation or are
we now talking about something closer to an idea?
Attacks attributed to al-Qaeda or
associates
1993: World Trade Center bombing
1996: Killing of 19 US soldiers in
Saudi Arabia
1998: East African bombings
2000: Attack on USS Cole in Yemen
2001: Suicide attacks on New York
and Washington
2002: Attack on Israeli tourists in
Mombasa
2003: Four simultaneous bomb
attacks in Riyadh
Al-Qaeda's main figures
At large: Osama Bin Laden, Ayman

12. Attacks like the May
2003 bombings in
Riyadh and the attack on
Israeli tourists in
Mombasa in 2002 are
widely attributed to al-
Qaeda. But were these
attacks in any way
planned or financed or organised by Bin Laden or
the organisation he is still believed to lead?
Some analysts have suggested that the word al-
Qaeda is now used to refer to a variety of groups
connected by little more than shared aims, ideals
and methods.
We do however know that several radical groups
are or have been formally affiliated with al-Qaeda.
The most important is the radical wing of the
Egyptian group Islamic Jihad whose members took
refuge in Afghanistan and merged with al-Qaeda.
Its leader is Ayman al-Zawahri, a ruthless Egyptian
believed to be the brains behind al-Qaeda and the
mastermind of many of its most infamous
operations.
These include the attacks on two US embassies in
Africa in 1998 and the 11 September attacks
against New York and Washington.
There are also believed to be links with:
 Militant Kashmiri groups
 The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, or IMU
 The Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines;
 The GIA, or Armed Islamic Group, in Algeria
and its radical offshoot known as the Salafist
group, or GSPC.
'War on terror'
Western police forces and intelligence agencies
have had some successes in breaking up al-Qaeda
cells, closing down front companies and freezing
assets as part of the "war on terror".
Some of its top leaders have been killed or
captured, and interrogations of some members at
al-Zawahri
Captured by US: Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah
On trial: Zacarias Moussaoui,
Mounir al-Motassadek
Jailed: Richard Reid
Believed dead: Mohammed Atef
Who's who in al-Qaeda

13. Guantanamo Bay have further weakened the
organisation.
However, uprooting the organisation in its entirety
has been a highly complex and frustrating task.
In a recent report on Iraq and the war on terror,
the Oxford Research Group noted that despite the
detention of many of its members, al-Qaeda
"remains vibrant and effective".
Most frustratingly, the fate and whereabouts of
Osama Bin Laden himself is still a deep mystery.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1670089.stm
C.I.A. no Al-Qaeda ever existed - BBC documentary the power of nightmares
https://vimeo.com/46310516