BBC says Al Qaida is fake

[Oliver]

I don´t know if this is posted before but a BBC-Documentary
claims that Al Qaida is an inside-job, an illusion, a propaganda
fairytale.

Debunkings, please.

The_Power_Of_Nightmares Part 3/3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240&q=power+of+nightmares&hl=en

[Skibum]

Could you post a synopsis?
I really don't want to waste an hour on it.

[defaultdotxbe]

i think the idea is not so much that al qaeda is fake, but the threat posed by al qaeda is way overstated

[Dog Town]

i think the idea is not so much that al qaeda is fake, but the threat posed by al qaeda is way overstated

Love to see BBC explain that, to the victims families, of aQ's overstated threats!

[Oliver]

Could you post a synopsis?
I really don't want to waste an hour on it.

They claim that Al Qaida as organisation does not exist but
invented to create a new threat to the world after the collapse
of the soviet union.

[Oliver]

i think the idea is not so much that al qaeda is fake, but the threat posed by al qaeda is way overstated

No no, they say Osama exists but Al Qaida as worldwide terrornetwork is a complete fairytale. :confused:

[Pardalis]

No no, they say Osama exists but Al Qaida as worldwide terrornetwork is a complete fairytale. :confused:

So who is OBL, and the 19 highjackers?

:confused:

[gumboot]

No no, they say Osama exists but Al Qaida as worldwide terrornetwork is a complete fairytale. :confused:


How do they explain Osama and his cronies being so eager to support the outlandish fabricated concept of Al Qaeda?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

How do they explain Osama and his cronies being so eager to support the outlandish fabricated concept of Al Qaeda?

-Gumboot

I have to view it again to fully translate it. :blush:

[brodski]

No, the documentary argues that there is a threat from Islamist terrorism, but that Al Quieada is more of a franchise operation than an organized terrorist group.

[gumboot]

No, the documentary argues that there is a threat from Islamist terrorism, but that Al Quieada is more of a franchise operation than an organized terrorist group.


Gotcha...

As in... group in England does something, then goes, "Yeah, we're Al Qaeda too! W00t".

But in fact the first time OBL and his buddies learned of the group was after the attack had occured.

Well I've always felt that Islamic Terrorists were united by a common ideology, not by a common command structure.

-Gumboot.

[Oliver]

...watching again right now...

Al Qaida as an organisation did not exist. The attacks on america
have been planed by a small group around Bin Laden in the late
nineties. What have united them was an idea, en extreme inter-
pretation of islamism developed by Ayman al Zawahiri.

With the american invasion, that group had been destroyed,
killed or scattered.

What was left was the idea...

[Gravy]

Gotcha...

As in... group in England does something, then goes, "Yeah, we're Al Qaeda too! W00t".

But in fact the first time OBL and his buddies learned of the group was after the attack had occured.

Well I've always felt that Islamic Terrorists were united by a common ideology, not by a common command structure.

-Gumboot.
As I recall, the director issued a statement after the 7/7 attacks to the effect of, "Okay, Islamist terrorism is real and really bad, but it's still overblown as a global problem." (absurdly rough paraphrase, I'm sure)

[Loss Leader]

I don´t know if this is posted before but a BBC-Documentary
claims that Al Qaida is an inside-job, an illusion, a propaganda
fairytale.

Debunkings, please.

The_Power_Of_Nightmares Part 3/3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240&q=power+of+nightmares&hl=en


I think every intelligence professional who knew anything about the Muslim terrorist network from before 9/11 to today all understood that "Al Qaida" is more an umbrella term for a wide array of terrorist groups who in may cases barely know and rarely communicate with each other - from the local guys in Indonesia who really don't care about anybody outside Indonesia to OBL and his plans to attack the west.

I think there is some reality to the fact that the Bush administration has not discouraged the general public from thinking of Al Qaida as a formal, para-military organization. It's much easier to gain and keep support for a war against one big, bad enemy than to explain that we're trying to supress multiple spontanious fundamentalist uprisings in diverse nations all over the world.

[Oliver]

The american government set up a search for the al
qaida organisation inside its own country. Thousands
were detained by all branches of the law and the
military....

...and bit by bit they found a network. A series of
hidden cells in cities across the country. From Buffalo
to Portland. The americans called them "sleeper cells"
just been waiting to strike.

But in reality theres very (inaudible) evidence.

Maybe some english people are able to sum it up. The
narrator has some gruesome british slang from time to
time. :D :p

[gumboot]

As I recall, the director issued a statement after the 7/7 attacks to the effect of, "Okay, Islamist terrorism is real and really bad, but it's still overblown as a global problem." (absurdly rough paraphrase, I'm sure)

Sounds like he's parroting Michael Moore...

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I think there is some reality to the fact that the Bush administration has not discouraged the general public from thinking of Al Qaida as a formal, para-military organization. It's much easier to gain and keep support for a war against one big, bad enemy than to explain that we're trying to supress multiple spontanious fundamentalist uprisings in diverse nations all over the world.


I think there's is fairly substantial evidence to indicate that Al Qaeda is a fairly well organised entity, and is rather sophisticated.

I think the thing that has happened is other unrelated groups of fellow terrorists have CLAIMED membership in Al Qaeda when they are in fact just independent terrorists.

Al Qaeda are the mujahedeen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later took over the MAK infrastructure. They were trained and assisted by Pakistani, British, and American intelligence (to what extent depends on who you believe). I would expect them to be well organised and very professional. But I would also expect them to be fairly localised to Pakistan (ex. Afghanistan). And the operations in Afghanistan would have greatly hampered their efforts. The CIA maintain that the Al Qaeda leadership has been severly depleted.

Meanwhile every terrorist and his dog are CLAIMING to ALSO be part of Al Qaeda. This gives the impression that Al Qaeda is operating all over the world. While I would also expect there to be Al Qaeda members in various nations, I doubt they have established operations in many places - their operations tend to take a long time and be rather elaborate. Bojinka was stopped. 9/11 succeeded. The latest airline plot was also foiled. (Note, this plot appears to have originated in Pakistan which is where many suspect the remnants of Al Qaeda are now located).

The UK seems to have a fairly well established terrorist network, and there are obviously strong links to Pakistan. I feel this is sufficient to warrant investigations into a significant Al Qaeda presence in the UK. But as for the myriad of other terrorist activities about the place? I don't think they are related to Al Qaeda. Any claim of connection to Al Qaeda is one of opportunity. But opportunity for whom? Western governments? Or the terrorists themselves?

-Gumboot

[Loss Leader]

I think there's is fairly substantial evidence to indicate that Al Qaeda is a fairly well organised entity, and is rather sophisticated.

I think the thing that has happened is other unrelated groups of fellow terrorists have CLAIMED membership in Al Qaeda when they are in fact just independent terrorists.

Well, I don't see that we disagree much. The "real" Al Qaida, as it were, is Pakistan/Afghanistan based and has decent organizational and operational experience. But the popular western notion of Al Qaida is an oportunistic myth that benefits all the parties involved in some way. Who exactly created the myth would be a great doctoral dissertation for some lucky Poli Sci grad student.

[Oliver]

Well, I don't see that we disagree much. The "real" Al Qaida, as it were, is Pakistan/Afghanistan based and has decent organizational and operational experience. But the popular western notion of Al Qaida is an oportunistic myth that benefits all the parties involved in some way. Who exactly created the myth would be a great doctoral dissertation for some lucky Poli Sci grad student.

"Al Qaida is the term that americans had given him (OBL)"

"The americans decided to prosecute Bin Laden but to do this under american law in his absence, they had to create a criminal organisation like the mafia, whose members can be prosecuted without being present"

That´s what the documentary says.

[gumboot]

That´s what the documentary says.


If this is what the doco is saying I think we can feel fairly certain that it is full of BS ;)

And Loss, yes I agree that we are in agreement. :)

-Gumboot

[Mince]

I don´t know if this is posted before but a BBC-Documentary
claims that Al Qaida is an inside-job, an illusion, a propaganda
fairytale.

Debunkings, please.

The_Power_Of_Nightmares Part 3/3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240&q=power+of+nightmares&hl=en



BBC would say you're fake if it made them money. Are you fake?

[Oliver]

If this is what the doco is saying I think we can feel fairly certain that it is full of BS ;)

So there is evidence that the name "Al Qaida" was invented by OBL and co? I didn´t find any source confirming this.

Wiki ENG says something different to Wiki DE.

Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida (القاعدة, translit: al-Qā`ida; "the foundation", "the base" or "the database"). Robin Cook, former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom and member of the House of Commons representative, said that "Al-Qaeda" states "literally ‘the database' and was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." [5]

According to former French Military Intelligence official Pierre Henry Bunel , "Al-Qaeda" was an early form of intranet, that was used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. It was also used by the "American agent," Osama bin Laden to send coded or covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan. [6]

German Wiki states it was a guy named Abdallah Azzam, a jihad-theologian.

And French Wiki even talks about the "Made by US-Intelligence"-theory concerning the roots.

:boggled:

[MikeW]

Some thoughts on the "al Qaeda doesn't exist" proposition at http://www.911myths.com/html/do_al_qaeda_exist.html

And Gravy's post of the other day reminded me that I needed to mention the way Power of Nightmares treated the al Qaeda name, too: http://www.911myths.com/html/the_al_qaeda_name.html

[Oliver]

Some thoughts on the "al Qaeda doesn't exist" proposition at http://www.911myths.com/html/do_al_qaeda_exist.html

And Gravy's post of the other day reminded me that I needed to mention the way Power of Nightmares treated the al Qaeda name, too: http://www.911myths.com/html/the_al_qaeda_name.html

The nasty BBC... :D Thank you very much for clearing this up. :)

[boloboffin]

I've seen the BBC documentary, and what I took away was that Al-Qaeda was like a terrorism "foundation", if you will. It provides "grants" and maybe "seminars" on how to do terrorism, but the cells it generates are autonomous. They might coordinate communication among various cells, but decentralization is at the heart of its business model. It gives the organization certain weaknesses, but makes it extremely difficult to stamp out.

[MikeW]

Ah, just noticed a Q&A with Adam Curtis, who made the programme. Does he have any support at all for the CTers...?

"Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?"

Cliff Babbs, Daventry

No.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm
Guess not!

[dirtywick]

No no, they say Osama exists but Al Qaida as worldwide terrornetwork is a complete fairytale. :confused:

I'm not sure when this documentary was made, but that's partially true of a decade or so ago. Al Qaeda, and particularly OBL, has rapidly grown in power and influence over most Islamic extremists since 9/11.

So there is evidence that the name "Al Qaida" was invented by OBL and co? I didn´t find any source confirming this.

Wiki ENG says something different to Wiki DE.

In addition to what others have posted, there's numerous documentations of OBL and his subordinates using the name Al Qaeda to describe themselves. So, IMO, whether or not they came up with the name, which they apparently did, isn't relevant to claiming whether or not they exist as they use the name themselves.

[Oliver]

I'm not sure when this documentary was made, but that's partially true of a decade or so ago. Al Qaeda, and particularly OBL, has rapidly grown in power and influence over most Islamic extremists since 9/11.

I think it was aired the first time in 2004.

In addition to what others have posted, there's numerous documentations of OBL and his subordinates using the name Al Qaeda to describe themselves. So, IMO, whether or not they came up with the name, which they apparently did, isn't relevant to claiming whether or not they exist as they use the name themselves.

No, they say OBL adopted the name "Al Qaida" after he realized that this was the name americans gave his organization.

[osmosis]

I thought the documentary (all 3 parts) was well done and very convincing. If anyone has any factual objections I'd be interested in hearing them, but otherwise it's simply a matter of disagreeing with what appear to be very sound arguments.

[sleahead]

The BBC needs to make up it's mind on the subject. In July and August last year, it aired a series of three documentaries under the banner "The New Al-Qaeda", explaining how Al-Qaeda has evolved. I don't think the films are available on the net, but a description of the content can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4683403.stm

Or just read their own "Investgating Al-Qaeda" webpage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/

I can't let the subject of OBL and Al-Qaeda go by without a link to JREF member Karim's film, "The Paladin of Jihad":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8073634249820550181

[gumboot]

No, they say OBL adopted the name "Al Qaida" after he realized that this was the name americans gave his organization.



Oddly enough, I've often heard cited that the term "Al Qaeda" was not used in the CIA or FBI until very late in the piece - perhaps even after the African Embassy Bombings in 1998. This is usually used as evidence of how far behind the "game" they were - in other words, Osama and the Mujahedeen formed Al Qaeda in the very early 90's (91?) and although US intelligence was aware of something going on, it took them 7 years to even find out the NAME of the organisation.

-Gumboot

[geni]

BBC would say you're fake if it made them money. Are you fake?

The Documentry has little in the way of merchenideing opertunities and the BBC doesn't carry ads so it is hard to see how it could make them money.

[gumboot]

The Documentry has little in the way of merchenideing opertunities and the BBC doesn't carry ads so it is hard to see how it could make them money.


Because they sell the documentary...

Duh.

-Gumboot

[W6102LA]

According to the documentary "National Geographic: Inside 9/11" the network was named "Al Qaeda" in 1988, just after they forced out the Russians from Afghanastan. "Al Qeada" = "The Base"

[Darat]

The BBC needs to make up it's mind on the subject. In July and August last year, it aired a series of three documentaries under the banner "The New Al-Qaeda", explaining how Al-Qaeda has evolved. I don't think the films are available on the net, but a description of the content can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4683403.stm

Or just read their own "Investgating Al-Qaeda" webpage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/

I can't let the subject of OBL and Al-Qaeda go by without a link to JREF member Karim's film, "The Paladin of Jihad":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8073634249820550181

You are confusing the BBC's news output with it's programming output. These programmes were not news broadcasts.

[Spins]

A CT'ist on another forum posted a similar link to a video on YouTube taken from the same documentary, here was my reply...


What this documentary (it's actually called "The Power of Nightmares") was trying to say is that since Al-Qaeda has no clear structure, and there are also doubts about exactly how many members make up the organization (I'd guess a couple of thousand at the most), and it appears it's members are scattered across the globe. Does this fail to meet the governments description of the widespread entity that is Al-Qaeda, the answer is probably yes!

By Al-Qaeda members I don't mean someone who is a Bin Laden sympathizer or wears a Bin Laden t-shirt or has Bin Laden wallpaper on their desktop, these people probably number in the millions.

This doesn't mean Al-Qaeda doesn't exist or that other forms of radical Islam don't exist (some of which are affiliated with Al-Qaeda); just the government's definition of Al-Qaeda as a widespread global organization is exaggerated.

Since it only took 40 or so members of Al-Qaeda (or whatever you want to call them, it doesn't really matter) to plan, finance, and carry out the attacks on 9/11 then IMO it doesn't matter about the size of the organization, it's the will to carry out these attacks, for this reason they are rightly seen as a legitimate terrorist threat.

What you probably also fail to realise is that this documentary set out to compare the rise of American neoconservatives and radical Islam, and actually asserts that both are closely related. That some popular beliefs about both of these groups are inaccurate, and that both movements have benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat.


Also I'd just like to add that the writer and producer of the documentary does not believe 9/11 was an inside job...


Q: Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?

Cliff Babbs, Daventry

A: No.


...taken from here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm).

[Darat]

Because they sell the documentary...

Duh.

-Gumboot

Are you certain? Many of "the BBC's" programmes are not in fact the BBCs to sell - the BBC will have just bought certain broadcast rights. In this particular instance I do not know if this is a BBC owned programme or not.

[Spins]

You are confusing the BBC's news output with it's programming output. These programmes were not news broadcasts.
Yes, it was not a news broadcast it was a 3 part documentary series first shown on BBC 2 back in 2004.

[gumboot]

Are you certain? Many of "the BBC's" programmes are not in fact the BBCs to sell - the BBC will have just bought certain broadcast rights. In this particular instance I do not know if this is a BBC owned programme or not.


Of course. I am working on the assumption that the original statements of it being a BBC Documentary are accurate. This premise is the basis of this particular strain of the thread.

-Andrew

ETA:

According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/companycredits) the documentary was produced by the BBC.

[Darat]

Of course. I am working on the assumption that the original statements of it being a BBC Documentary are accurate. This premise is the basis of this particular strain of the thread.

-Andrew

It's common usage to call an independent produced documentary a "BBC documentary" even if the BBC does not have the rights to sell it - the term "BBC documentary" really doesn't tell you anything more then it was broadcast on the BBC.

[sleahead]

You are confusing the BBC's news output with it's programming output. These programmes were not news broadcasts.

True, Darat, but the Power of Nightmares, and the two other items I've linked to, appear in BBC webpages headed "BBC News", as does the CTs beloved "Hijack 'suspects' still alive and well" BBC webpage. Though in the case of the latter, I've no idea whether the story was broadcast at all, or in what form.

[Architect]

Maybe some British people are able to sum it up. The narrator has some gruesome British slang from time to
time. :D :p


(corrected for accuracy)

[Spins]

The BBC needs to make up it's mind on the subject. In July and August last year, it aired a series of three documentaries under the banner "The New Al-Qaeda", explaining how Al-Qaeda has evolved. I don't think the films are available on the net, but a description of the content can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4683403.stm

Or just read their own "Investgating Al-Qaeda" webpage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/

I can't let the subject of OBL and Al-Qaeda go by without a link to JREF member Karim's film, "The Paladin of Jihad":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8073634249820550181

The BBC isn't biased in any way, they'll show programs from all points-of-view. Also I'd just like to point out for anyone who doesn't get the BBC channels, the BBC isn't just about news...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/whatson/

I think maybe the title of the thread should have been...

"3 part BBC documentary series written and produced by Adam Curtis says Al-Qaida is fake!"

...to avoid confusion. :D

[Spins]

This is also a good documentary called "I met Osama Bin Laden"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3570751.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3570751.stm)

...it's been a while since I've seen this one but I do remember the reporter mentioning that Bin Laden had a kidney problem, although he didn't need dialysis it seemed because he met up with him in the Tora Bora mountain range. The only thing he said was he sipped green tea constantly throughout the day to ease his condition and keep his kidneys clean.

[geni]

Because they sell the documentary...

Duh.

-Gumboot

They could but there are better ways for them to make money. There is little evidence that the BBC is influence by finacial issues (beyond initial cost) in the makeing of programs of this type.

[firecoins]

Al Qeida has existed since 1988 according to the 9/11 commission and other reports. The CIA wasn't aware of it until 1996. Until 1996, they thought OBL just financed attacks. In reality thats all he does. 9/11 was planned by KSL, executed by the 19 suicide bombers and financed by OBL.

[RyanRoberts]

The BBC isn't biased in any way, they'll show programs from all points-of-view.

You sure we watch the same (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml) BBC (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770)?

Lack of bias doesn't mean "generaly says things I agree with". Which broadly, I did with the power of nightmares. The common current of Islamic terror groups is not taking orders from Bin Laden like Bond villain henchmen, it is a literalistic reading of Islam. I would argue that this in fact makes the situation far more dangerous, as the basis of their emnity for the west is deeply ingrained the faith shared by peaceful Muslims. Qutb didn't pull that interpretaion out of thin air.

[Spins]

You sure we watch the same (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml) BBC (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770)?

Lack of bias doesn't mean "generaly says things I agree with". Which broadly, I did with the power of nightmares. The common current of Islamic terror groups is not taking orders from Bin Laden like Bond villain henchmen, it is a literalistic reading of Islam. I would argue that this in fact makes the situation far more dangerous, as the basis of their emnity for the west is deeply ingrained the faith shared by peaceful Muslims. Qutb didn't pull that interpretaion out of thin air.
Too much political correctness is a problem throughout the UK not just the BBC.

Curtis has also stated: "Something extraordinary has happened to American TV since September 11. A head of the leading networks who had better remain nameless said to me that there was no way they could show it. He said, 'Who are you to say this?' and then he added, 'We would get slaughtered if we put this out.' When I was in New York I took a DVD to the head of documentaries at HBO. I still haven't heard from him."

There have been equally damming documentaries on OBL and Al Qaida on the BBC in the past, maybe I should have said they are less biased than most news organizations because nobody is 100% un-biased. For example in the UK it's not PC to criticize Islam, but it's OK to criticize Christianity.

[MarkyX]

The BBC isn't biased in any way

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

[Spins]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
I should have said they are less biased, see my post above for the reply I made to RyanRoberts who posted the same link.

The BBC are more willing to show documentaries such as the "Power of Nightmares" than most American TV networks, then the viewer is left to decide whether it was accurate or not, rather than being unnecessarily censored beforehand.

[gumboot]

I think maybe the title of the thread should have been...

"3 part BBC documentary series written and produced by Adam Curtis says Al-Qaida is fake!"

...to avoid confusion. :D


The series was produced by the BBC.

I used to uphold the BBC as one of the rare less-bias sources of information. However these days I would consider them just as biased and sensationalist-eager as any American broadcaster. I'm not sure if this is a shift at the BBC itself, or simply me discovering a bias that was always there.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

[COLOR=black]The BBC are more willing to show documentaries such as the "Power of Nightmares" than most American TV networks, then the viewer is left to decide whether it was accurate or not, rather than being unnecessarily censored beforehand.


You mean like when the History Channel plays "Loose Change"?

It's not about bias. It's about facts. If the documentary states that "Al Qaeda" was invented by US intelligence, that's not a matter of "bias". It's a matter of it being true, or a lie.

All information I'm aware of indicates it's a lie. In which case the BBC is lying.

I would be very happy to see "factual" broadcasters censoring their programmes so they only broadcast things that were true. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. It's something they seem to have all forgotten.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

For example in the UK it's not PC to criticize Islam, but it's OK to criticize Christianity.

In germany it´s the same behavior. Criticism against jewish people is nearly a taboo, against other ethnic groups unpopular but against the western world in general no problem at all - even if seldom. Okay, america is evil number one today as far i see it beside the old middle-east criticism.

BTW: What about the critisism within the us. What is politically incorrect today and what not?

[Childlike Empress]

The documentary is very specific about the alleged roots of the term. From the transcript (http://web.telia.com/~u70316236/tpon/) (beginning of part 3):

VO: In January, 2001, a trial began in a Manhattan courtroom of four men accused of the embassy bombings in east Africa. But the Americans had also decided to prosecute bin Laden in his absence. But to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organisation because, as with the Mafia, that would allow them to prosecute the head of the organisation even if he could not be linked directly to the crime. And the evidence for that organisation was provided for them by an ex-associate of bin Laden’s called Jamal al-Fadl.

JASON BURKE , AUTHOR, “AL QAEDA” : During the investigation of the 1998 bombings, there is a walk-in source, Jamal al-Fadl, who is a Sudanese militant who was with bin Laden in the early 90s, who has been passed around a whole series of Middle East secret services, none of whom want much to do with him, and who ends up in America and is taken on by—uh—the American government, effectively, as a key prosecution witness and is given a huge amount of American taxpayers’ money at the same time. And his account is used as raw material to build up a picture of Al Qaeda. The picture that the FBI want to build up is one that will fit the existing laws that they will have to use to prosecute those responsible for the bombing. Now, those laws were drawn up to counteract organised crime: the Mafia, drugs crime, crimes where people being a member of an organisation is extremely important. You have to have an organisation to get a prosecution. And you have al-Fadl and a number of other witness, a number of other sources, who are happy to feed into this. You’ve got material that, looked at in a certain way, can be seen to show this organisation’s existence. You put the two together and you get what is the first bin Laden myth—the first Al Qaeda myth. And because it’s one of the first, it’s extremely influential.

VO: The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organised network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name: “Al Qaeda.” It was a dramatic and powerful picture of bin Laden, but it bore little relationship to the truth.

[ EXCERPT, CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO : BIN LADEN AND SOLDIERS ]

VO: The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term “Al Qaeda” to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans have given it.

[ CUT TO MANHATTAN SKYLINE ]

VO: In reality, Jamal al-Fadl was on the run from bin Laden, having stolen money from him. In return for his evidence, the Americans gave him witness protection in America and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believed that al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans the picture of a terrorist organisation that they needed to prosecute bin Laden.

SAM SCHMIDT , DEFENCE LAWYER EMBASSY BOMBINGS TRIAL: And there were selective portions of al-Fadl’s testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organisation was. It made Al Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with Al Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden—who talked a lot.

BURKE : The idea—which is critical to the FBI’s prosecution—that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.

VO: What did exist was a powerful idea that was about to inspire a single, devastating act that would lead the whole world into believing the myth that had begun to be constructed in the Manhattan courtroom.

[ CUT TO MANHATTAN SKYLINE : WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS . ONE TOWER HAS BEEN HIT , AND IS ON FIRE .]

For me, part one was the most interesting as it lays out the origins of the muslim brotherhood on one side, the neo-cons on the other and the similarities in their ideologies. "The rise of the politics of fear", as the subtitle says.

[Oliver]

You mean like when the History Channel plays "Loose Change"?

It's not about bias. It's about facts. If the documentary states that "Al Qaeda" was invented by US intelligence, that's not a matter of "bias". It's a matter of it being true, or a lie.

All information I'm aware of indicates it's a lie. In which case the BBC is lying.

I would be very happy to see "factual" broadcasters censoring their programmes so they only broadcast things that were true. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. It's something they seem to have all forgotten.

-Gumboot

It´s hard to see whats wrong or right if fiction is mixed with real facts - but i use to accept the BBC as usefull and well researching source without being sceptic all the time. So what is true within this docu and what not - especially concerning the Neocons?

[G-K-4]

Here is what I understand to be the sequence of events. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1980's -- The U.S. government supports mujehadeen forces who are from Afghanistan, in their war against the Soviets. Meanwhile, and seperately, Osama bin Laden of Saudi Arabia supports a smaller force of non-Afghan Arab fighters in Afghanistan.

[Doesn't this mean that bin Laden and the future Al Qaeda were not funded or created by the U.S. CIA?]

1988 -- The Soviets leave Afghanistan. Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri re-invent their foreign-fighters network into a new organization with a new mission. A new name for the new group is coined: "Al Qaeda"

OSAMA BIN LADEN, OCTOBER 2001: "The name 'al Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning 'the base' in English]. And the name stayed."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html

I have alse heard it said (but I don't remember where), that this name was also a kind of pun. The group needed to keep track of its fighters, for logistical purposes and for issuing payment to survivors when its agents were killed. They kept track of everything with a computerized database. Is this correct?

February 1998: The World Islamic Front declares its jihad. I see no mention of the name "Al Qaeda". But I also see that unlike the other presenters, bin Laden's name is not followed by the name of an affiliated organization.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

August 1998: Bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

2004: The BBC ...
... airs a documentary produced by Adam Curtis ...
... which quotes Sam Schmidt and Jason Burke ...
... who make controversial claims ...
... about how the U.S. government pursued Al Qaeda in court.

Schmidt was a defense lawyer in the Embassy Bombings Trial. Burke is a journalist with the British Sunday newspaper The Observer, and the author of Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror (2003).
http://silt3.com/index.php?id=586
See an excerpt of Burke's book at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,996509,00.html

It seems from what I read that Burke is saying that Islamic supremacist terrorism is real and dangerous. But al Qaeda is more a method or process, now franchised and used as name to invoke notoriety, and less a formal organization with a defined structure and hierarchy (like a standard state military). Saying this is not the same thing as saying that this network/franchise/label/movement doesn't exist.

[Childlike Empress]

I hope you all notice that TPON subscribes to the official CT?!

[gumboot]

Here is what I understand to be the sequence of events. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1980's -- The U.S. government supports mujehadeen forces who are from Afghanistan, in their war against the Soviets. Meanwhile, and seperately, Osama bin Laden of Saudi Arabia supports a smaller force of non-Afghan Arab fighters in Afghanistan.


I think there was a bit more to it than that. From what I understand the non-Afghani presence during the war was substantial - with both British and American intelligence agencies bringing large numbers of Arab fighters into Pakistan to be trained.

That seems to be the origin of OBL's involvement - Pakistan wanted a Saudi prince representing them in the operations, to make it "official". The Saudis weren't keen on that, but compromised by sending Osama - not a member of the royal family, but a member of a very closely linked and wealthy Saudi family.

Osama became the manager of Saudi money and Arab manpower being poured into Afghanistan. This included a vast network of fundraising organisations in the US, including the MAK network. Ultimately Osama assassinated the leader of MAK and took over the organisation itself. This became Al Qaeda.

The problem arose because the ideology that got foreign Arabs to fight in Afghanistan was a crusade to protect Islam. So once that battle was won, it was natural they were attracted to other conflicts that threatened Islam.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia this was their ultimate duty to defend their faith. Except the Saudis chose to be protected by the US instead - a big slap in the face of the Mujahedeen. Hence they declared war on the US and became more active in fights around the world - Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, and so forth.

-Gumboot

ETA. It is worth noting that the tactics of terrorism have been fundamental elements of Arab warfare for a very long time. It was hardly a new thing for Al Qaeda to employ such tactics.

[brodski]

It's not about bias. It's about facts. If the documentary states that "Al Qaeda" was invented by US intelligence, that's not a matter of "bias". It's a matter of it being true, or a lie.



But that is n to what the documentary says at all, it's point is that OBL funds terrorism, he funds and organizes terrorist training camps, and there are threats from Islamic terrorists. However there is no organized terrorist group, just a loose association of fanatics, and a brand name. The documentary claims that initially (under th Clinton Administration) the cohesiveness of OBLs terror network was over-hyped so that he could be prosecuted for the Embassy bombings under legislation originally designed to tackle organized crime. The idea of a vast, cohesive network is a much better "story" than the idea of a loose affiliation of terrorists, so that's the one which the Politicians and the media went with.
The documentary then argues that OBL recognized the power of this story himself, and so he started to bolster the Al Quieda "army" myth himself, when in reality all he does is provide funds and facilitate training.
One way to falsify this theory is to show anywhere where OBL himself used the term Al; Quieda before 2001. That's not to say that what we now refer to as Al Quieda wasn't around prior to 2001, it's just that he didn't use that name until the US (for understandable reasons) built the name up to represent more than it really did.

It is important to stress that this is not a conspiracy film, far from it, there is absolutely no suggestion that anyone other than fanatical islamists where behind 9/11, and all the other terrorist acts which have been pinned on them.
The film doesn't even argue that politicians deliberately sat down nd planned how to make Al Quieda more frightening, it was just a natural consequence of people hearing what they expected and wanted to here, and politicians expressing themselves in ways which where designed to gain the maximum public support. There is no Machiavellian prince pulling the strings.

I really would recommend anyone in this thread watch the film, it's well made and it deserves better than the spin the CTers are putting on it, because it doesn't support their claims at all.

[gumboot]

There is no Machiavellian prince pulling the strings.

I really would recommend anyone in this thread watch the film, it's well made and it deserves better than the spin the CTers are putting on it, because it doesn't support their claims at all.



You're such a spoil sport...:mad:

-Gumboot

[brodski]

You're such a spoil sport...:mad:

-Gumboot

:p

[Spins]

You mean like when the History Channel plays "Loose Change"?

It's not about bias. It's about facts. If the documentary states that "Al Qaeda" was invented by US intelligence, that's not a matter of "bias". It's a matter of it being true, or a lie.

All information I'm aware of indicates it's a lie. In which case the BBC is lying.

I would be very happy to see "factual" broadcasters censoring their programmes so they only broadcast things that were true. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. It's something they seem to have all forgotten.

-Gumboot
I disagree, but you've been answered fully later on in the thread so I won't repeat the same things.

What annoys me most about this documentary is that CT'ers have twisted it and tied it in with 9/11. That's the reason I posted this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2026682#post2026682) message on another forum, the poster I was replying to was claiming Al Qaida doesn't exist and this somehow proves 9/11 was a inside job.

BTW I don't think it needs me to point out that there is a huge difference between the factual nature of this documentary and Loose Change! If you have any problems with this documentary maybe you should take it up with Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis), his email address is at the bottom of this (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1558934,00.html) page, although I don't know if it's still valid.

[gumboot]

[COLOR=black]What annoys me most about this documentary is that CT'ers have twisted it and tied it in with 9/11.


That really shouldn't surprise you. CTers are good at that. :p

I just want to reiterate I haven't seen the documentary, and I don't know what it is about. I was responding to what others claimed it was saying, hence why I said "If the documentary is saying X".

:)

I'm also really not surprised that CTers think a documentary is saying something it isn't.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

I don't know what it is about.

:D

I'm also really not surprised that CTers think a documentary is saying something it isn't.

-Gumboot

You may take a look. It´s very entertaining if you like the BBC-Style. :D

[Muckar-duva]

It reminds me about the Al Qaeda book by Burke I have at home. Is it a good read?

[MarkyX]

Brodski, to answer your Al-Qaeda statement about OBL using it in the past

An october 2001 interview, OBL talks about his past


BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html

[Oliver]

The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English].

This is also explained within the documentary - but they claim nevertheless that the name was invented by the us. :boggled:

[brodski]

Brodski, to answer your Al-Qaeda statement about OBL using it in the past

An october 2001 interview, OBL talks about his past



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html

And do you trust him on this?
Part of the hypothesis under discussion is that OBL himself has lied about and exaggerated the size and reach of ther AL Quieda organization, in order to capitalize on the mythology which was floating around. Has anyone been able to come up with an example, prior to January 2001, of OBL using the term?

[W6102LA]

Here's a news item that predates 9/11 and uses Al Quaida...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/25/bin.laden/index.html

The U.S. officials, who wished to remain anonymous, told CNN "there are indications" that the Al Quaida group headed by bin Laden "is interested in expanding its operations" into Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

[G-K-4]

It reminds me about the Al Qaeda book by Burke I have at home. Is it a good read?
If you mean Jason Burke, you should know that he is one of the many people interviewed in the documentary.

[Oliver]

And do you trust him on this?
Part of the hypothesis under discussion is that OBL himself has lied about and exaggerated the size and reach of ther AL Quieda organization, in order to capitalize on the mythology which was floating around. Has anyone been able to come up with an example, prior to January 2001, of OBL using the term?

That´s the problem i had with this claim. OBL was fascinated that the americans thought he has an organisation called AQ and it´s a world-wide network. So he joined "the party" with the people who were celebrating this myth. :boggled:

[chacal]

<snip>
Osama became the manager of Saudi money and Arab manpower being poured into Afghanistan. This included a vast network of fundraising organisations in the US, including the MAK network. Ultimately Osama assassinated the leader of MAK and took over the organisation itself. This became Al Qaeda.
<snip>


Well I've heard that before, that Bin Laden had something to do with the assassination of Abdallah Azzam. But is that a fact that could be verified to some extent or is it just a rumour? Do you have a source to confirm this?

[Muckar-duva]

If you mean Jason Burke, you should know that he is one of the many people interviewed in the documentary.

Yes, that's why it reminded me of the fact that I have the book at home. The book, which I also wonder about- if anyone here read it, for example, and what they think of it.

[G-K-4]

I just want to reiterate I haven't seen the documentary, and I don't know what it is about.
The introduction to the first episode of The Power of Nightmares is contained in the following quote-box. This statement introduces Curtis' thesis.

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life.

But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror.

But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It’s a dark illusion that has spread, unquestioned, through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.
This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.
The documentary shows how the neo-conservatives in the U.S. (including Leo Strauss) learned in the 20th century that the public can be manipulated by emotional appeals (mostly fear). They saw the rise of fascism in Europe as a product of this manipulation, but decided that to preserve "democracy" in North America, the public would have to be manipulated here by the good guys. For example, the Soviets were made out to be more dangerous in the 1970's and 1980's than they really were. The public are seen as too stupid or complacent or self-obsessed to be willing to fight, unless you scare the bejeezuz out of them.

Meanwhile, Western politicians learned from the 1960's that you can't build a Great Society. But you can't get elected being a boring placeholder manager, either. So, casting oneself as a Great Protector of the People is a good image to cultivate if you want to gain or stay in office.

Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, secular leftist and nationalist movements were being defeated. The only opposition to the dictators and kings was the Islamic supremacists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These groups were horrified by the increasing presence of "corrupt" Western culture, such as television, music, and fashion, and they thought that the Umma was being led astray. Stries against the corrupters would rally the people to their true faith. Leaders such as Sadat were assassinated and the Shah overthrown to preserve traditional ways of life.

However, none of these kinds of events led to the people waking up and destroying the cultural pollution. They still liked their American TV shows; so they became the enemy. The Islamic supremacists started attacking them for being insufficiently pure. During the 1990's, this lost the jihadists even more support, and internal disagreements weakened them further.

September 11, 2001 was an answer to the prayers of both the neoconservatives and the Islamic supremacists. For the former, it highlighted the kind of threat they think they need to keep "their" public afraid, united, and mobilized. For the latter, it refocused the threat as an outside force, sparked a militarized reaction, and thus highlighted the kind of threat they think they need to keep "their" public afraid, united, and mobilized.

That's basically what I remember as the main argument of the Curtis' series.

And I'll add this: I've never heard "Baby, It's Cold Outside" the same way since.

[Buckaroo]

For those who would like to see the doc, but don't feel like sitting in front of youtube for three hours, here's a link to an .iso of a dvd that you can burn yourself, containing all three segments. Big download, of course, but it makes it much easier to watch:

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmaresDVD

[brodski]

Here's a news item that predates 9/11 and uses Al Quaida...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/25/bin.laden/index.html

But that's still after January 2001, which is when the "Al Quieda myth" is supposed to have started.

[brodski]

That´s the problem i had with this claim. OBL was fascinated that the americans thought he has an organisation called AQ and it´s a world-wide network. So he joined "the party" with the people who were celebrating this myth. :boggled:

You see this at lot in wars, each side exaggerates both their own power and the power of their enemy, it is excellent propaganda for both sides. there is no suggestion of any cooperation between OBL and the US in this matter, it's just the way which both sides tend to behave, and neither side gains from contradicting the other on this matter at this stage.

[Oliver]

You see this at lot in wars, each side exaggerates both their own power and the power of their enemy, it is excellent propaganda for both sides. there is no suggestion of any cooperation between OBL and the US in this matter, it's just the way which both sides tend to behave, and neither side gains from contradicting the other on this matter at this stage.

So the documentary and it´s claims could be true?

[jujigatami]

That´s the problem i had with this claim. OBL was fascinated that the americans thought he has an organisation called AQ and it´s a world-wide network. So he joined "the party" with the people who were celebrating this myth. :boggled:

I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but people in the "Mafia" never call the "Mafia", the "Mafia".

Its really what attorneys general have taken to call a gorup of organised crime families or gropus that opearte in a specific manner.

That doesn't mean the mafia doesn't exist.

[brodski]

So the documentary and it´s claims could be true?

I find them plausible. The thing is what is claimed in the documentary isn't what the CTers claim, it's the cock-up and opportunist theory of history, not the the conspiracy theory, which is put forward.