Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Al Qaeda works for the CIA..why shouldn't I believe this?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
intaglioreallyOffline
Well what am I now?
Joined: 14 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1596
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-01-2004 23:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

That, LBD, was one of the best argued posts I have ever seen
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9566
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-01-2004 23:20    Post subject: Re: Re: Conspiracies are real, "al-Qaeda" is ficti Reply with quote

AndroMan wrote:

Must be rather curious to live in such a class bound layer of society.

Interesting article though.

Must be something to do with the writer's grammar school background. Wink


I went to grammar school. And I'm not ashamed to admit it!
Back to top
View user's profile 
dot23Offline
Osirian X
Joined: 21 Aug 2001
Total posts: 1096
Location: Hanoi
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 08:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed Intaglio; I applaud thee, oh source of Quackery, for a, assumedly, well-researched and presented post.

Quote:
Conspiracy theorists: sure, there are nutters. There are religious nutters as well. They are often the same people.


Indeed; television preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon!

I've also long pointed out that Al-Qaeda is mostly an invention of the media and Whitehouse press office, its name derievd, according to some, from "Database" as arabic has no direct translation, and apparently refers to a list of jihadis which passed through Afghanistan between 1986-1988 (during which time, as is fairly common knowledge now, the Mujahadeen fighting the soviets were covertly funded by the CIA). Of course this could just be a list of phone numbers, perhaps safe locations where he could stay or divert funds. OBL is characterised as the mastermind behind 911, but again this has never been proved. In fact the main driving force behind the religious comments made by OBL is undoubtedly al-Zakawi, ex-head of the supposedly defunct Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, and if anyone egged on the hijackers to kill in the name of Allah and Islam, I imagine it would have been him. OBL is really just the money man, IMHO.

In effect the 'creation' of AQ as a single entity which is being controlled by OBL serves 2 purposes - it allowed the invasion of Afghanistan (the pretext of which was to destroy AQ training camps and capture OBL - remember he's been on the run for 2.5 years now! What's often forgotten is that the Taliban offered to hand him over but Bush refused) and it fosters suspicion against all Muslims, as this nebulous organisation has no country of origin, no banners or flags, no identifying traits of any sort, therefore anyone of middle eastern or Muslim appearance *could be a member*. This is why the War on Terror is basically a pseduo-religious crusade, one only has to look at the "asylum seeker" issue at home in the UK - funnily enough it's nearly entirely Muslims who are encarcerated in refugee camps; look at France's ridiculous proscription of head scarves.

There certainly are conspiracies going on left right and centre, and to deny that is to pretend to a whistful version of human nature were everyone is fair, no-one is corrupt, and politicians are only interested in the good of society.

The world is also changing rapidly, and breeding CTs as Iraq breeds new terrorists. The WWW has allowed the most feeble of evidence to become easily attributed, the most bizarre of accusations to be taken seriously, and, like this message board, information to be shared amongst like minded individuals. Globalisation means that whether George Bush is a member of a secret society has an indirect effect on Malaysian textile workers, and so they take an interest in an area which would been of no value to them previously. Conspiracy itself has grown larger, the stakes higher, the need for secrecy more yurgent as multinationals strive to protect their investments in far flung places. The oil network links Nigerians to Tajikis; everyone is connected.

To believe that everything happens in accordance to national and international law, and that the media only wishes to inform is the real delusion; that rich men wish to remain that way apears to be a fundemental of human nature, and not a conspiracy.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 09:06    Post subject: Re: Re: Re: Conspiracies are real, "al-Qaeda" is f Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:

I went to grammar school. And I'm not ashamed to admit it!
Woops!

No offence intended, honest! Surprised
Back to top
Guest
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 09:29    Post subject: Then the Country Lady Said, "Personally, I'd Smoke Them Reply with quote

dot23 wrote:

This is why the War on Terror is basically a pseduo-religious crusade, one only has to look at the "asylum seeker" issue at home in the UK - funnily enough it's nearly entirely Muslims who are encarcerated in refugee camps; look at France's ridiculous proscription of head scarves.
Ah, but it's far more wideranging than that.

I was listening to a documentary on Radio 4, last night, 'Seven Days' , about 'Eco Warrior' type crusties trying to save some piece of English National Parkland from having two quarries reopened and from having 3 and a half million tons of sandstone extracted over the next ten years.

Anyway, at one point the reporter interviewed some local councillor type from a nearby village. Now, in former times, the guy would probably have been elected to the post of Village Idiot, but now his view on the "Eco Warriors" was that they were really squatters and just like 'Al Quaeda', in that they were trying to overturn the due processes of business and law and order.

So these eco-friendly, crusty types, with their dogs on strings and caravans painted in gay kabbalistic colours suspended up trees, were really terrorists in this bucolic, crypto-fascist, country type's eyes and just like mass-murdering terrorists.

Certainly made my ears pop when I heard the cretin. It kind of reminded me of those banners hung over the sides of troopships, coming back from the Falklands, after the "victory", proclaiming that "the nurses and the miners" would be next! Sad


Last edited by Guest on 26-03-2004 09:36; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
KondoruOffline
Unfeathered Biped
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Total posts: 5371
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 09:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

A person who prevents third world countries using pesticides to combat malaria IS a mass muderer....
Back to top
View user's profile 
dot23Offline
Osirian X
Joined: 21 Aug 2001
Total posts: 1096
Location: Hanoi
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 09:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

reminds me of the "warballs" section in private eye, where jumped up 'columnists' compare everything from football matches to board meetings to 9/11.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 09:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Homo Aves wrote:

A person who prevents third world countries using pesticides to combat malaria IS a mass muderer....
Errm?

Not up a tree in rural Kent here, are we?
Back to top
KondoruOffline
Unfeathered Biped
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Total posts: 5371
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 10:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, but Im sure things would be different if there was still malaria in the Fens...

...That is, `if` there were still Fens.....
Back to top
View user's profile 
Guest
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 11:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

Homo Aves wrote:

No, but Im sure things would be different if there was still malaria in the Fens...

...That is, `if` there were still Fens.....
Some of the flaws in this line of argument should be becoming a bit more apparent, by now.

:p
Back to top
Anonymous
PostPosted: 26-03-2004 19:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the Weather Underground didn't exist, nor Aryan Nation, not the Black Liberation Army, or the KKK.

the premise of the article is nonsense.
Back to top
dot23Offline
Osirian X
Joined: 21 Aug 2001
Total posts: 1096
Location: Hanoi
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 27-03-2004 04:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rube, in what way? - all the gruops you mention are heirarchical (as far as I know), had stated aims and some sort of manifesto and are/were fairly open in terms of fund raising and recruiting. The point about AQ is that it doesn't follow well known patterns - although OBL is certainly involved in raising money for terrorist gruops and setting up training camps there doesn't appear to be a rigid structure to the organisation, if indeed one can even call it that. The Madrid bombings were claimed by a gruopd using a completely sepearte name, with "AQ reprentaitve" added as an afterthought, perhaps to gain media coverage. I question whether a gruop going by the name of AQ actually exists in concrete terms, or whether it is more of a loose affilitaion of like minded individuals who have similiar aims and recieve funding using conduits arranged by OBL. Does this constitute a gruop in terms of the names you mentioned, or a gruop such as Hamas which has a 'uniform', a leadership structure and the rest? Unclear to me, and as I said before, it is convenient for the media to paint AQ as a real organisation, as it gives a focus to a murky world.
Back to top
View user's profile 
KondoruOffline
Unfeathered Biped
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Total posts: 5371
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 27-03-2004 07:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

After that, why does the term, `Franchise` spring to mind??
Back to top
View user's profile 
Mighty_EmperorOffline
Divine Wind
Joined: 18 Aug 2002
Total posts: 19440
Location: Mongo
Age: 43
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 15-10-2004 12:52    Post subject: Al Qaeda: The real Phantom Menace? Reply with quote

Very interesting:

Quote:
The making of the terror myth

Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the 'inevitability' of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy - and al-Qaida a dark illusion. Andy Beckett reports

Friday October 15, 2004
The Guardian

Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, there have been more than a thousand references in British national newspapers, working out at almost one every single day, to the phrase "dirty bomb". There have been articles about how such a device can use ordinary explosives to spread lethal radiation; about how London would be evacuated in the event of such a detonation; about the Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement on terrorism in November 2002 that specifically raised the possibility of a dirty bomb being planted in Britain; and about the arrests of several groups of people, the latest only last month, for allegedly plotting exactly that.

Starting next Wednesday, BBC2 is to broadcast a three-part documentary series that will add further to what could be called the dirty bomb genre. But, as its title suggests, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear takes a different view of the weapon's potential.

"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.

During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "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." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

Adam Curtis, who wrote and produced the series, acknowledges the difficulty of saying such things now. "If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, 'You're completely wrong,' even if the incident doesn't touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational."

So controversial is the tone of his series, that trailers for it were not broadcast last weekend because of the killing of Kenneth Bigley. At the BBC, Curtis freely admits, there are "anxieties". But there is also enthusiasm for the programmes, in part thanks to his reputation. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way."

The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.

Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation.

Curtis also cites the Home Office's own statistics for arrests and convictions of suspected terrorists since September 11 2001. Of the 664 people detained up to the end of last month, only 17 have been found guilty. Of these, the majority were Irish Republicans, Sikh militants or members of other groups with no connection to Islamist terrorism. Nobody has been convicted who is a proven member of al-Qaida.

In fact, Curtis is not alone in wondering about all this. Quietly but increasingly, other observers of the war on terror have been having similar doubts. "The grand concept of the war has not succeeded," says Jonathan Eyal, director of the British military thinktank the Royal United Services Institute. "In purely military terms, it has been an inconclusive war ... a rather haphazard operation. Al-Qaida managed the most spectacular attack, but clearly it is also being sustained by the way that we rather cavalierly stick the name al-Qaida on Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines. There is a long tradition that if you divert all your resources to a threat, then you exaggerate it."

Bill Durodie, director of the international centre for security analysis at King's College London, says: "The reality [of the al-Qaida threat to the west] has been essentially a one-off. There has been one incident in the developed world since 9/11 [the Madrid bombings]. There's no real evidence that all these groups are connected." Crispin Black, a senior government intelligence analyst until 2002, is more cautious but admits the terrorist threat presented by politicians and the media is "out of date and too one-dimensional. We think there is a bit of a gulf between the terrorists' ambition and their ability to pull it off."

Terrorism, by definition, depends on an element of bluff. Yet ever since terrorists in the modern sense of the term (the word terrorism was actually coined to describe the strategy of a government, the authoritarian French revolutionary regime of the 1790s) began to assassinate politicians and then members of the public during the 19th century, states have habitually overreacted. Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford, says that governments often believe struggles with terrorists "to be of absolute cosmic significance", and that therefore "anything goes" when it comes to winning. The historian Linda Colley adds: "States and their rulers expect to monopolise violence, and that is why they react so virulently to terrorism."

Britain may also be particularly sensitive to foreign infiltrators, fifth columnists and related menaces. In spite, or perhaps because of, the absence of an actual invasion for many centuries, British history is marked by frequent panics about the arrival of Spanish raiding parties, French revolutionary agitators, anarchists, bolsheviks and Irish terrorists. "These kind of panics rarely happen without some sort of cause," says Colley. "But politicians make the most of them."

They are not the only ones who find opportunities. "Almost no one questions this myth about al-Qaida because so many people have got an interest in keeping it alive," says Curtis. He cites the suspiciously circular relationship between the security services and much of the media since September 2001: the way in which official briefings about terrorism, often unverified or unverifiable by journalists, have become dramatic press stories which - in a jittery media-driven democracy - have prompted further briefings and further stories. Few of these ominous announcements are retracted if they turn out to be baseless: "There is no fact-checking about al-Qaida."

In one sense, of course, Curtis himself is part of the al-Qaida industry. The Power of Nightmares began as an investigation of something else, the rise of modern American conservatism. Curtis was interested in Leo Strauss, a political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s who rejected the liberalism of postwar America as amoral and who thought that the country could be rescued by a revived belief in America's unique role to battle evil in the world. Strauss's certainty and his emphasis on the use of grand myths as a higher form of political propaganda created a group of influential disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz, now the US deputy defence secretary. They came to prominence by talking up the Russian threat during the cold war and have applied a similar strategy in the war on terror.

As Curtis traced the rise of the "Straussians", he came to a conclusion that would form the basis for The Power of Nightmares. Straussian conservatism had a previously unsuspected amount in common with Islamism: from origins in the 50s, to a formative belief that liberalism was the enemy, to an actual period of Islamist-Straussian collaboration against the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan in the 80s (both movements have proved adept at finding new foes to keep them going). Although the Islamists and the Straussians have fallen out since then, as the attacks on America in 2001 graphically demonstrated, they are in another way, Curtis concludes, collaborating still: in sustaining the "fantasy" of the war on terror.

Some may find all this difficult to swallow. But Curtis insists,"There is no way that I'm trying to be controversial just for the sake of it." Neither is he trying to be an anti-conservative polemicist like Michael Moore: "[Moore's] purpose is avowedly political. My hope is that you won't be able to tell what my politics are." For all the dizzying ideas and visual jolts and black jokes in his programmes, Curtis describes his intentions in sober, civic-minded terms. "If you go back into history and plod through it, the myth falls away. You see that these aren't terrifying new monsters. It's drawing the poison of the fear."

But whatever the reception of the series, this fear could be around for a while. It took the British government decades to dismantle the draconian laws it passed against French revolutionary infiltrators; the cold war was sustained for almost half a century without Russia invading the west, or even conclusive evidence that it ever intended to. "The archives have been opened," says the cold war historian David Caute, "but they don't bring evidence to bear on this." And the danger from Islamist terrorists, whatever its scale, is concrete. A sceptical observer of the war on terror in the British security services says: "All they need is a big bomb every 18 months to keep this going."

The war on terror already has a hold on western political culture. "After a 300-year debate between freedom of the individual and protection of society, the protection of society seems to be the only priority," says Eyal. Black agrees: "We are probably moving to a point in the UK where national security becomes the electoral question."

Some critics of this situation see our striking susceptibility during the 90s to other anxieties - the millennium bug, MMR, genetically modified food - as a sort of dress rehearsal for the war on terror. The press became accustomed to publishing scare stories and not retracting them; politicians became accustomed to responding to supposed threats rather than questioning them; the public became accustomed to the idea that some sort of apocalypse might be just around the corner. "Insecurity is the key driving concept of our times," says Durodie. "Politicians have packaged themselves as risk managers. There is also a demand from below for protection." The real reason for this insecurity, he argues, is the decay of the 20th century's political belief systems and social structures: people have been left "disconnected" and "fearful".

Yet the notion that "security politics" is the perfect instrument for every ambitious politician from Blunkett to Wolfowitz also has its weaknesses. The fears of the public, in Britain at least, are actually quite erratic: when the opinion pollsters Mori asked people what they felt was the most important political issue, the figure for "defence and foreign affairs" leapt from 2% to 60% after the attacks of September 2001, yet by January 2002 had fallen back almost to its earlier level. And then there are the twin risks that the terrors politicians warn of will either not materialise or will materialise all too brutally, and in both cases the politicians will be blamed. "This is a very rickety platform from which to build up a political career," says Eyal. He sees the war on terror as a hurried improvisation rather than some grand Straussian strategy: "In democracies, in order to galvanize the public for war, you have to make the enemy bigger, uglier and more menacing."

Afterwards, I look at a website for a well-connected American foreign policy lobbying group called the Committee on the Present Danger. The committee features in The Power of Nightmares as a vehicle for alarmist Straussian propaganda during the cold war. After the Soviet collapse, as the website puts it, "The mission of the committee was considered complete." But then the website goes on: "Today radical Islamists threaten the safety of the American people. Like the cold war, securing our freedom is a long-term struggle. The road to victory begins ... "

------------------------
ยท The Power of Nightmares starts on BBC2 at 9pm on Wednesday October 20.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1327786,00.html
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
KondoruOffline
Unfeathered Biped
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Total posts: 5371
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 15-10-2004 14:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isnt this the thing we have been talking about for yonks?

<Dons tinfoil hat>
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group