Log in

View Full Version : Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?



Skeptic
13th January 2005, 03:17
Subj: LA Times: Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda does not exist?
Date: 1/11/05 11:42:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Nico Haupt posts:

...now let's bet within how many hours the CIA will produce a new "bin
laden audio/video" or someone plants a car bomb in Iraq....



January 11,
2005
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,5399604.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer11jan11,0,5399604.story)

Robert Scheer:
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the
center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy,
does not exist?

To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is
heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance
of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant
new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers
systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith
in the so-called war on terror.

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour
historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting
Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the
threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated
and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread
unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services
and the international media."

Stern stuff, indeed. But consider just a few of the many questions the
program poses along the way:

• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist
organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed
by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed
to produce hard evidence of it?

• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained
on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them
with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of
Al Qaeda?

• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when
experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in
2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in
Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

Of course, the documentary does not doubt that an embittered,
well-connected and wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Laden helped finance
various affinity groups of Islamist fanatics that have engaged in terror,
including the 9/11 attacks....

demonedge
13th January 2005, 08:12
I think that report is bordering on insane paranoid delusion. Al Quadea (spelling?) does exsist, it's just not as omnipotent, or dangerous as the bush administration, or the media makes it out to be. It's really probable it's more of a loose organization of smaller entities, think about it, it'd make sense

Looter
13th January 2005, 20:53
This article doesn't go far enough. Osama bin Laden is a CIA sting, his Al Quaida network is a fantasy made on TV. Real Terrorists dont get interviews on 60 minutes. Whoever masterminded 9/11 certainly wasn't living in a cave in Afghanistan. Wiping out his base there did nothing.

Skeptic
14th January 2005, 02:09
There is no doubt that Al Queada was a creation of the CIA. And certainly the most genrous donor and its main source of funding up until the summer of 2001 was the U.S. government. It is possible that they changed allegences, but how likely is that? Any serious study about the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 911 attacks on Sept. 11th 2001 as well as the bombing of Mardrid trains leads to the conclusion, in my opinion, that the United States government were behind them.

praxis1966
14th January 2005, 05:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:09 PM
There is no doubt that Al Queada was a creation of the CIA. And certainly the most genrous donor and its main source of funding up until the summer of 2001 was the U.S. government. It is possible that they changed allegences, but how likely is that? Any serious study about the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 911 attacks on Sept. 11th 2001 as well as the bombing of Mardrid trains leads to the conclusion, in my opinion, that the United States government were behind them.
While I don't doubt this possibility, I think that that Ockum's Razor will qualify a much simpler explanation for these incidences.

I personally believe that it is much more likely that Al Queda and the CIA were begrudging business partners in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Neither party really felt amicably toward the other, but they most certainly had the same goal: an end to Soviet incursion in Afghanistan, but for very different reasons. It is true that bin Laden and his cohorts wouldn't have been what they are today save for the financial and material assistance of the Agency, but I believe that their association ended after that protracted struggled reached conclusion. As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

The fact is that the same Muslim clerics who headed the resistance movements in opposition to the Soviets used CIA assistance to do it, while at the same time railing against "the Black Arm of the Great Satan" (i.e. the CIA and United States) in their mosques. It is my contention that 9/11 was what the Agency calls "blowback."

In any event, I have long doubted the capacity of Al Queda in as much as the Bush administration would have the American public believe. Bush and Cheney need Al Queda. If the enemy weren't drawing ever nearer, perhaps living right next door, there would be no justification for a seemingly endless "War on Terror," whatever that means.

To give an example, last summer the allegations had just begun to surface that Bush may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard. Right on cue, John Ashcroft was paraded in front of dozens of news cameras to ratchet up the terror alert status to code orange. This did two things: provided a skillful political misdirection for an end run around some tough questions while simultaneously reminding the American people of their patriotic duty, paranoia.

It's all highly Orwellian if you ask me.

Edit: I have one point of order. The CIA didn't fund Al Queda up until 2001. The federal government did, however, send the Taliban government billions of dollars in foreign aide throughout the 1990s and up until 2001. How much, if any, of this money reached Al Queda hands is still a matter of some debate. Not that I'm defending the Bush administration of course.

bolshevik butcher
14th January 2005, 14:06
There was this programme on tv a while ago called the power of nightmares, that proved al quieda didn't exist.

Intifada
14th January 2005, 19:11
There was this programme on tv a while ago called the power of nightmares, that proved al quieda didn't exist.

They are in fact thinking of showing the series again.

You can watch the documentary here. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm)

Al Qaeda is not the widespread, organised movement that Bush and Blair seek to scare the people with.

Jason Burke wrote a good book about Al Qaeda.

bur372
14th January 2005, 21:32
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear was a great program really intresting and asked some good questions. It could only be shown on the BBC really, just imagine this on Fox News.

Skeptic
15th January 2005, 01:03
Quoted from praxis' response:

"Edit: I have one point of order. The CIA didn't fund Al Queda up until 2001. The federal government did, however, send the Taliban government billions of dollars in foreign aide throughout the 1990s and up until 2001. How much, if any, of this money reached Al Queda hands is still a matter of some debate. Not that I'm defending the Bush administration of course."

In the summer of 2001 the Bush Administration gave the Taliban $43 Million Dollars. The Bushites told the Afghanis "We can either bury in gold or bombs."

What ever the case my be with Osama Bin Ladin, he denied in a face to face interview having anything to do with the 911 attacks. If you study the attacks the only conclusion you can come to is the it was eliments of the U.S. government which destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.

guerillablack
15th January 2005, 02:19
Wow, i wish i could watch it.

Commie-K
16th January 2005, 09:50
No surprise if it is, indeed, exaggerated. Check out Osama's 'right hand man' al-Zarqawi..

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...0160&hl=zarqawi (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=30160&hl=zarqawi)

bur372
16th January 2005, 15:04
"the power of nightmares" is an execllent series. For all you brits its being repeated tuesday to thursday this week at 11:30 on BBC 2.

For all you non-brits who have broadband and really want it download bit tornado or azeruses or whatever bit torrent program you prefer http://www.bittornado.com/ register on www.uknova.com (http://www.uknova.com) and you should find it there.

Don't Change Your Name
19th January 2005, 21:10
I wouldn't be surprised if Al Qaeda doesn't exist. After all, if we consider that no WMDs have been found in Iraq, this last 2 wars could have been a big hoax.

Taiga
20th January 2005, 11:24
Sounds pretty probable. What a good scapegoat........ ;)

seraphim
20th January 2005, 11:39
Al Qaeda may not be as suffisticated as the U.S and U.K would have us believe yet the reality is far more chilling. What Al Qaeda has is a network of terrorist organisations throughout the world, linked only by a few highly trained(C.I.A, M.I.6) individuals. These individuals have access to two critical things 1. Innumerable financial resources. 2. Innumerable dedicated followers. These followers are armed with Al Qaedas most dangerous weapon.......................... There willingness to die for a cause. Ask anyone you may know who has been involved in any kind of counter terrorist, counter insurgency, close protection etc. and they will all tell you one thing in almost all cases a person who is hell bent on a mission (assassination, bombing etc.) and has a disregard for there own life is a very real threat, and their chances of mission success are very high they may not be suffisticated but they are a real danger.

Marxist in Nebraska
20th January 2005, 17:28
Disclosure: I have not seen this documentary. Everything I know about it comes from what I have just read on this thread.

It is quite a jump to go from Al-Qaida is clearly not the omnipotent beast the Bush administration needs it to be for propaganda purposes... to... Al-Qaida does not exist... or... Al-Qaida is a prop owned and controlled by the CIA, etc.

The ruling class of the United States has grown quite fat on the half-trillion dollar a year Pentagon budget. The rhetoric about needing such military expenditures during the Cold War was easily deflated upon critical review, but was at least remotely feasible. With the implosion of the Soviet Union, a new boogeyman was needed to justify the staggering, economy-dragging cost of the bloated Pentagon.

Thus, official rhetoric turned from anti-communism to anti-terrorism. Luckily, there were a handful of real-life enemies. That the CIA spawned them for cynical reasons a decade earlier was of no concern, of course. The rehashing of cynical Cold War tactics, spawning terrorists to fight terrorists, is also of no concern. Hey, it means we will have enemies ten years down the line to justify the Pentagon budget then.

I do believe that Al-Qaeda is a violent, terrorist organization dedicated to hurting the United States until the U.S. packs up and abandons occupation of the Muslim holy lands, and ceases to aid Israel. As neither of these things will ever happen so long as the U.S. strives to be an imperial world power, they will clash until the end of one group or the other. One can find any number of independent, reputable scholars who will tell you the exact same thing.

Battling Al-Qaeda does not lend itself to massive combat, which is what our massive military infrastructure is designed for. Al-Qaeda is very loosely connected, with most terrorist cells operating virtually independently. Communication is very limited, probably only when bin Laden makes public statements. Even if bin Laden called off the "jihad", there would be no assurance all cells would surrender.

So the Bush administration, and their true masters--the mega corporations, need the kind of myths Rumsfeld, et al spout. The existence of purported high-tech caves creates an excuse for the Pentagon to buy new and more expensive underground tracking and bunker-busting bombs, etc. All this allows high-tech corporations to get public subsidies of research and development, and then to make a killer profit when they finish their product and sell it marked up to the U.S. government.