The making of the terror myth

[qwertyMike]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html


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.

[sweetheart]

1. i read that article in the print version

I was waiting for the BBC2 show to air, as i am sure it will raise
more questions.

I found this interesting as well.

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."

Like someone on DU said, "War is terrorism for the rich, and
terrorism is war for the poor." I think it captures the issue
in a nutshell. Interesting that the term started with state terrorism,
however, as if the bush people realize that terrorism will not exist
without state support.

The article also mentions the empty threat of the russian attack
that was used to fuel dozens of american attacks, whilst russia
attacked nobody until afganistan... and that was used as "proof"
that the "red menace" was REAL.... all the while, the red-white-and-blue
menace has killed millions in its support of global empire and war.

Funnily, the article in this DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2500220

makes the point that the empire no longer is bound by anything,
and is itself creating reality, not to be questioned except by
those who clean up after the powerful ones have gone.... what
hacks.

It is sickening to no end, and only reinforces how badly the November
poll must be won by Mr. Kerry.

[MatrixEscape]

2. Noam Chomsky

Noam understands it along similar lines. I find his ability to research and compile information on the subject is superlative.

An excellent excerpt from Media Control:

The Journalist from Mars
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Journalist_Mars.html

[sweetheart]

3. insightful article as one can expect from Dr. Choamsky

His riff in the middle about the official definition of terrorism
being unusable due to the fact it describes our actions... excellent!

..official definition in the U.S. code and Army manuals, and
elsewhere. It is defined briefly. Terrorism, as I'm quoting, is
defined as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of
violence to attain goals that are political, religious or
ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or
instilling fear."..

That this is an unusable definition, and that terrorism is whatever
they do to "us" is sooooo true.

...The U.S. could easily have obtained clear and unambiguous
authorization-not for pretty reasons, but it could have obtained
it. However, it rejected that option.
And that makes good sense. In fact, there's even a term for this in
the literature of international affairs and diplomacy. It's called
establishing credibility. Another term for it is declaring that
we're a terrorist state and you'd better be aware of the
consequences if you get in our way. Now that's, of course, only if
we use "terrorism" in its official sense,...

And in the end, the GOP, negroponte, rumsfeld, bush and the lot
should be hanged for agressive war, war crimes and terrorism... but
as choamsky says, honest truth and sincere moralism do not jive
with terrorist control of society.