roachboy

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4171213.stm

has anyone seen this series?
what do you make of its general argument?
for myself, i have long suspected something like this--i figured that the organization that flew the planes on 9/11/01 died on the planes, that the americans were then in a position of having to respond, and thereafter constructed al-queada as the Enemy--when it seems to me that the reality is that the americans are in a "war" on ghosts.
but this was primarily a deduction i made based on information available at the time. i had no access to more complete information (i ahve no hope of ever getting a security clearance).....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

There is a distinct possibility that the al Qaeda network is either very very small, or it is even a fatasy being used as a distracton and boogeyman. There is a mountain of evidence that points to pretty serious lies about the al Qaeda networks. Guess how many al Qaeda terrorists they've found in America? None. Britan? None. Spain? None. As a matter of fact, there was virtually no evidence thaty al Qaeda was involved with 9/11.

Bookman

There is no clear explaination for anything which has happened post 9-11.
The evidence from the WTC disaster was carted off to the market.
Any "independent" investigation was blocked.

Why should one believe the Al Queda story?

Willravel

To quote host:

To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

FBI Director Mueller said, "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot"
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

The_wall

Very interesting article. I've often thought about why peopled seemed to get scared after 911, I never really got scared because I figured the chance of another 9/11 scale attack was so small, that it probably wouldn't happen again in the near future.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

powerclown

If one were to take the transcript above as the gospel truth, what is one to make of the above confusing and contradictory statement?

"There is a threat, but there isn't a threat"
"We did actually see those towers collapse, but there is nobody responsible for it."

I think I understand the underlying sentiment here: that there is no need for hysterics, paranoia and aggression (iraq) because of 9/11, and I agree to an extent. The "Homeland Security Advisory System" with it's color chart of differing levels of alert is ridiculous and comical. I've read some articles on the mindset of Israeli society, for example. In the face of almost daily terrorism, the general populace has developed an almost blase attitude as a means of keeping their fears in check and carrying on with their lives.

It's also easy to extrapolate that governments will use this fear and paranoia to stay in power, but I don't happen to believe in such conspiracies. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, just that I don't believe its all an artificial creation. I see too much evidence to the contrary. One only need take a look at world events to see islamic fundamentalism in action. How are all these worldwide acts of violence to be explained? Every time there is a bombing somewhere, world newspapers report that "al-qaeda has taken responsibility" etc...it's unfortuante, and I for one am sick of hearing about 'islamic terrorism' - it just keeps happening over and over again...I really wish it weren't true, but how does one ignore these things?

And what to make of this character, Osama bin Laden? A Hollywood extra in bad makeup, speaking from an indoor sound stage somewhere in Los Angeles?

Charlatan

People were scared after 9/11 because it was unprecedented...

A coordinated attack on US soil. The spectacular collapse of the towers, let alone the apparent attack on the Pentagon were unexpected and shocking.

It rocked the average person in America to their bones because they never thought it could happen.

The fact that it happened once is enough to make people think it *could* happen again.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

powerclown

Exactly.....

Manx

There is nothing contradictory about the statement you quoted. Clearly, your caricatures of the statement are contradictory.

The statement is rather clear. The question was posed "Are you saying that there is no threat?" And the answer is "No. There is a threat. What I am saying is that there is no all-powerful, grand, shadow organization that is creating the threat."

Manx

And an asteroid *could* come crashing into the Earth and extinct-ify us all, as has happened in the past.

Most people would consider someone who is overly concerned with such an asteriod to be emotionally hysterical. And although the probability that a 9-11 event will happen again is, to some degree, greater than another asteriod event, a concern of either is still emotionally based. If, as the series author points out, the 9-11 event was a last ditch type of effort, the 9-11 concern is even more emotionally based.

How long do we have to go living our lives based on emotional instead of empirical decisions?

powerclown

The next question could logically be: what is the real-world difference? Either there is a threat or there isn't a threat, no?

Manx

The entire article and almost certainly the entire series is discussing the difference. That's the whole point of it.

The_wall

I think the point is that the threat exists, but people think the threat is far bigger than what it really is. Steps could have been taken to prevent 9/11, by both the Clinton and Bush administration, and if 9/11 had been prevented there would be no war on terror right now.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

powerclown

Agreed. But the difference here is that 9/11 actaully happened, in real life, while the asteroid scenario is theoretical.

Manx

That's not a significant distinction. Whether it is theoretical that an asteriod collided with the Earth in the past does not mean it is theoretical that an asteriod could collide with the Earth in the future.

The real distinction between the two events is that 9-11 happened 3 years ago.

Willravel

If 9/11 wern't linked to the al Qaeda in any way (hypothetically), most americans wouldn't even know the organization exists at all. The fact that there is very little information linking the al Qaeda to 9/11 makes the al Qaeda threat we percieve much greater than it should be. This IS emotion and, more specifically, fear based. The idea that the al Qaeda is an "all-powerful, grand, shadow organization" is not based in fact. While there have been al Qaeda actions in parts of Asia (Philipines) and the Middle East, there supposed actions in America and Spain have little evidence to support their involvement.
What we hear about on the news is usually something like "we suspect that terrorists can use *insert over-complicated and absurd method* to kill you..." with no regard for the fact that there is no evidence that the al Qaeda is considering or has even imagined said option. Believe it or not, our news organizations don't regularly interview terrorists and get them to tell us what they are going to do to us. It is more than evident that this is simple fear tactics. "You'll want to buy our newspaper and watch our nightly news because if you don't, you might miss something the terrorists can do to you!" Welcome to corporate news.

powerclown

Agreed.
I would say there is more cause for concern for an event that happened 3 years ago, as opposed to a scenario such as the dinosaurs returning to crush us all!

I believe there simply needs to be a prudent security concern on the part of the people in charge with these things. No more presidential commercial nonsense showing wolves creeping through a dark forest. Deal with it like you would, say, a tsunami disaster. No need for theatrics.

Or watch our documentary...

Willravel

Good point. However, I'm more likely to watch news that tries to undo the damage. Even if this report is more tactics for ratings (and all reports from media seem to have that as one of if not their single goal), this interview does attempt to open a pocket in the fog of "terror". That attempt is not trivial, but noteworthy.

irateplatypus

i'm sure the people of madrid would prefer that such ghosts would quit planting bombs on their trains.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Willravel

There is no proof that the al Qaeda was behind the attack. Reports point to Moroccans working completly independant of the al Qaeda.

When Roachboy said "ghosts", he was talking about America's war with the al Qaeda. The Madrid bombing, while being an atrocity, has no connection with America's specter, the al Qaeda.

irateplatypus

well, besides al qaeda taking a direct claim of responsibility (through their military spokesman for europe)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509556.stm

those same moroccans were found to have al qaeda ties...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1760742

you may not think al qaeda (one in the same with the one we are fighting) was responsible for the train bombings... but you're plainly in error when you say there is no proof of it available.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

jimbob

I saw the first and last of the 3 episodes, missing the one where the neo-cons turned their attention towards Clinton as 'the enemy within' after the fall of communism. The adverts for the series ran along the lines of "Politicians used to woo us with visions of a brighter future (cue film of a 50's-style futuristic car zooming along an empty road with an Aryan nuclear family within) but those visions were not true. Nowadays they have found a stronger emotion to engage with us - fear. But just as their dreams of the future were not true, neither are their nightmares."

The first programme centred on 2 figures who were in America in the 50's and disliked the liberalism of the day, thinking that it had gone too far, and that people needed an enemy to focus on to bring society back together. One figure was Leo Strauss, an American academic, and the other was an Egyptian (Egypt had adopted much of the American liberalism) whose name I forget. They influenced the neo-cons and the muslim fundamentalists respectively. That the foundations of the two 'sides' is apparently based on the same reasoning is quite a coincidence don't you think?

I can't remember too much of the muslim side but followers of Straus's philosophies sought positions of power in the government and intelligence agencies where they could push for a branding of the soviet union as an 'Evil Empire'. This is despite the CIA finding that the USSR was much less capable than the US militarily and therefore the threat of an attack was low. Using circular logic like "they're our enemy and nobody would be our enemy without being militarily our equal or superior, so they must be strong and therefore they are our enemy," the neo-cons launched 'Team B' and reversed the CIA's earlier analysis. They also suggested that the lack of evidence for large fleets of submarines was actually evidence for their existence. After all, if your enemy had fleets of submarines they'd keep them pretty secret wouldn't they! The documentary had neo-cons explaining the logic above and had plenty of people to say that the USSR wasn't strong militarily.

The third program was on al Qaida (the new enemy after Clinton), which it turns out was formed in a New York courtroom in early 2001. For Bin Laden to be tried for the 1993 WTC bombing (or maybe the USS Cole, I can't remember) he had to belong to an illegal group, and al Qaida was its name. Bin Laden didn't mention the name in his first videos after 9/11, only later adopting the name himself.

The episode was pretty much a compendium of lies told about 9/11 and events since. For example, there was the James Bond Villain-style 7-storey al Qaida headquarters built into a mountain in Afghanistan. A cross section diagram was published in a Rupert Murdoch-owned British newspaper which has always had close ties to the intelligence community, but soldiers sent to look for Bin Laden said they'd found absolutely nothing in any of the places they'd been told to examine. There was a clip of Bush talking to a crowd about how terrorists had been stopped in various US cities and the war was being won. This would no doubt scare people but the cases never came to trial (there were no clips of Bush telling anyone this!) and the evidence shown in the documentary was just laughable. Eg a camcorder left turned on and carried on a shoulder strap around Disneyland was supposed to have been recording the distance between various attractions; film of a person by a trash can in Disneyland was supposed to be a suggestion that bombs should be placed in the trash; scribblings on a piece of paper found under a sofa in a rented house were said to be the plans of a building or complex (I forget precisely what, but it was a likely terrorist target) but were later identified as belonging to a previous occupant with learning difficulties.

The bit in the article above about dirty bombs probably refers to the sources who claim in the 3rd show that a dirty bomb in a big city would possibly kill a handful of people, at the most. Apparently the science that tells us hundreds of people would be dead makes the assumption that those people would be right next to the bomb when it explodes and then not move for 300 years! The dirty bomb threat was, as we all know, spread far and wide in the media.

The gist of the series is that modern politicians want us to believe that we're under attack and that they are the only ones who can protect us. The narrator points out that this is a technique first used by the environmentalist lobby!

Definitely worth watching if you can.

jimbob

According to the documentary al Qaida is at best a very loose network of like minded people. They suggested that the 9/11 attack was not concieved within a meeting of al Qaida generals but by someone with a grudge who went to Bin Laden for funding. That being so, anybody could claim to be the "military spokesman for europe" and it would be true.

Willravel

The al Qaeda has taken responsibility for several terrorist events that they have been foiund to have no ties to. How many groups do you think claimed responsibility for that particular bombing? How many groups claimed responsibility for the Murrah building bombing? Claiming responsibility is NOT proof.

From your second link: "Spanish officials say Zougam, who is already in custody, is a key suspect in their investigation."The investigation of 9/11 has turned up thousands of people who supposedly had al Qaeda ties. Almost none of them turned out to have such ties. The only proof that Madrid investigators have on him even being present at the bombing is the eyewhitness reports, and that wasn't enough to make an arrest.

roachboy

interesting...jimbob, do you have any idea if this series has been released commercially?
and what company might have produced/released it?

more when i have some time to devote to thinking about things.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mephisto2

I remember recently reading an article was describing how the CIA now believe it may be beneficial NOT to capture or kill Bin Laden. Imprisioning or killing him would only create a martyr. Currently, he's just an old man living in caves around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border; occassionally making statements but undertaking nothing really important himself.

They went on describing how Al Queda and Bin Laden are, if anything, simliar to a "terrorist venture capitalist". Whackos come up with an idea for an attack, and approach Bin Laden looking for funding. If he thinks it's worth while he may help with financial assistance. But the head of a global conspiracy? Hardly.

Though, I honestly find it difficult to understand where he's getting all this money. I thought all his funds were seized already?

I don't think Al Queda is the threat that the American government (Democrats and Republicans alike) make it out to be. Maybe it once was, but no more. The threat of international terrorism certainly exists, but it's localized. Indonesia is a perfect example. There's no shadowy super-group out there plotting the American downfall. Just a lot of crazy, and pissed off, religious fundamentalists.

Mr Mephisto

Manx

That's not how you win elections.

powerclown

Is that you, Mr. Rove?

archer2371

Mr. Mephisto is the one that has come closest to what al Qaeda actually is. Granted it's no S.P.E.C.T.R.E. but al Qaeda is dangerous enough to be a threat. It's not some magical organisation that only popped up after 9/11, it's been around for about fifteen years now. al Qaeda is either directly or indirectly responsible for the first WTC bombing (directly), several attacks in Saudi Arabia (directly), operations in Somalia (indirectly), the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Kenya (extremely directly), the USS Cole bombing (directly), the 9/11 attacks (directly), and the 3/11 train bombings in Spain (indirectly). The indirectly part comes from many of the Muslim fundamentalist's idolisation of Osama bin Laden, they all want very much to impress him. So someone speaks to a friend, who's a friend of a friend, who's a friend of a friend's friend of someone who's in al Qaeda or one of its affiliates to help draw up a plan and they send it along the line, and if Osama or one of his lieutenants likes it enough, they'll either take over the planning or just provide some funds and/or weaponry to complete the task. Then the assignment is attempted and if it's successful, then we know about it, more so now than ten or even five years ago. While there is such a thing as giving too much credit to al Qaeda, there's also such a thing as not giving it enough credit. Don't underestimate this political movement's ability to guise itself under religion to motivate people to perform acts of violence against the United States and her allies. Cuz that's when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Seaver

That was a really long post that I would have loved to read... until I got to this part *scrolled past to the next post*.

jimbob

I just think it's a shame when people try to change others instead of learning how to live with them. It's a restriction of freedom in a way, and it's (arguably) not made society better in this case. Point taken though, the sentence was unnecessary and I've got rid. You can read the rest now ;-)

There's a better critique of Straussian philosophy in this short comment on the series

jimbob

not sure about commercial availability, but the series is being repeated starting 18th Jan and you can see it at informationClearingHouse, with transcripts:
bbc, power of nightmares

There's a more full review (I can't remember the whole thing 3 months after broadcast!) at commonDreams: Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power

Dragonlich

I think Al Qaeda exists, in the same way that "Communist Russia" existed in the past, and "Nazi Germany" before that. Al-Qaeda and Bin laden are the visible part of Muslim extremism, just like Russia and Germany were the visible part of their respective ideologies. The politicians and media people talking about the war on terror need a visible enemy, and Al-Qaeda is the obvious target...

Al-Qaeda is probably made up of only a small group of isolated individuals, but it's example is followed by extremists world-wide. Given this status, it's kind of silly to say that Al-Qaeda is or isn't a threat. Of course it is a threat, but it's not a threat in itself; it is a threat because of it's influence.

When some extremist wacko blows up a train in the name of Al-Qaeda, an Al-Qaeda that isn't really responsible for the attack, does that make the attack less deadly, or not as bad? Of course not! 9-11 and 3-11 still happened, they caused many deaths. But you cannot honestly say that "Al-Qaeda" did it, just that they influenced it.

I wonder if it would be worse if Al-Qaeda were as (physically) powerful as it is claimed. IMO, influencing others to do your work for you is more destructive than doing it yourself, especially in the case of suicide bombers; if Al-Qaede would need to do all the blowing up themselves, they would very quickly burn up their resources... With the current situation, it is much harder to stop terror attacks, and to put an end to the threat.

Whether it is wise to leave Bin Laden and his band of merry men alone is a different question, of course. One has to wonder if making him a martyr is worse than the current situation.

roachboy

but what consequences would follow from recognizing that al-qaeda is most a signifier, constructed, inflected, maintained, propogated like some bizarre plant by the american press, working in its usual manner, o so independent of the interests of those in Power?

that it might exist in trace form, but is mostly the correlate of the discourse of "resoluteness"?

one consequence is that the "war on terror" become incoherent.
in a sense, it collapses--you cannot seperate the category "terror" from the political situations that generate it. you are pushed back into the circular relation between american actions--real and symbolic--the material institutions to which those actions refer--real and symbolic--the consequences of these material institutions--real and symbolic--and the sense of desperation they generate in the people most impacted by them.

you also end up having to think about the consequences of communication media like this one--bin laden could easily be one guy and al qaeda the cameraman who shoots videos of him--what this guy primarily does is issue press releases that claim responsibility for various otherwise unrelated actions---and because of the way in which al qaeda is framed in the states, these claims are taken entirely seriously----there is a cache you can acquire from being understood as the Most Dangerous Man--al qaeda, whatever it is, and the bush administration=a perfected symbiosis.

but if you think about this, the entire rationale for bushpolicies implodes.
on the one hand, it is about time.
on the other hand, how to react?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

JohnBua

I am not so scared for me, even though I live near Manhattan. I am scared that some of my countrymen will be murdered by terrorists, just as my best friend was on 9 11. Its not all about my safty, its about the safty of my countrymen.

Strange Famous

I saw this show, it was very interesting. I personally think Al Qieda, while they are real are not the terrible threat they are presented to be. I think, that the myth of Bin Laden as this terrible evil master terrorist in some fortress somewhere actually hides a more powerful truth. The weapons of destruction are so powerful, so great, that even the slightest man can cause an attack like 9/11 - it doesnt take some evil master terrorist, it takes 20 religious bigots, a few flight lessons and kitchen knives.

I dont see Bin Laden as a great evil doer, I see him as an articulate and intelligent racist and religious bigot, a hatemonger with a good speaking style. A lot of what he says may seem resonant but what lies behind it is petty hate and intolerance.

I found the profile of Sayyed Qutb far more interesting, and found him to be a far more interesting and ambivalent case.

I am sure the whole theme reminded many people of the following exchange, which remains as true today as when it was spoken:

Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

if anyone is interested in the show:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

sorry if repost of link

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas