Al Qaeda Does Not Exist

The trailers to the documentary look very good and I will be watching. Who blew up the trains in Madrid though? If we are to the believe the Hamburg Cell, another excellent recent programme, 'they' (whoever they are) seem to have 3 things which that make them a credible threat:
1) Money (diminishing I hope)
2) Recruits(rapidly growing I suspect)
3) A Cause (re-inforced by their perception of persecution by West)
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:

_"I don't think [a Dirty Bomb] 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

---

A modest proposal: let's ask the US DOE to set up a dirty bomb experiment using a device that bangs lumps of plutonium together. And let's ask Dr. Rockwell to demonstrate its safety by standing next to it - or at least far enough away not to be zapped by the explosion itself. I think he will decline...

Simon -- "Who blew up the trains in Madrid though?"

According to a money laundering expert on the radio this morning it is widely beleived that it was funded by people in Britain from the proceeds of cheque and credit card fraud.

He was very interesting actually, and pointed out that this idea of "terror money" is basically flawed and and terrorists are funded by by small amounts of cash from crime that never goes anywhere near bank accounts. Even 9/11 is reputed to have cost only around $300-500k.

Jeremy -- Dirty bombs are not nuclear bombs so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
A modest proposal: let's ask the US DOE to set up a dirty bomb experiment using a device that bangs lumps of plutonium together. And let's ask Dr. Rockwell to demonstrate its safety by standing next to it - or at least far enough away not to be zapped by the explosion itself. I think he will decline...

---

Plutonium explosions are actually clean on the scale of these things. I believe they would use Uranium and isotopes of Ceasium (musch easier to find: Hospitals etc.) rather than the esoteric Plutonium.

Matthew,
It is interesting, and I shall be watching!
Simon

quote:

---

Al Qaeda Does Not Exist

---

So, are we to accept the (Al Jazeera) conspiracy theory that it was really the Israelis who, together with the CIA, destroyed the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and left others dead on a field in Pennsylvania?

quote:

---

Who blew up the trains in Madrid though?"

---

quote:

---

..widely beleived that it was funded by people in Britain..

---

The investigative journalism of El Mundotraces it to Morroco and France, both of which had ample reason to remove the governing party.

"So, are we to accept the (Al Jazeera) conspiracy theory that it was really the Israelis [...]"

Erm, no. And, fwiw, Al Jazeera is not responsible for such bizarre conspiracy theories which tend to eminate from the US.

"The investigative journalism of El Mundotraces it to Morroco and France"

The bloke on the radio said that it was "widely believed in the intelligence services" that some funding came from Britain rather than the actual terrorists or even the idea/planning.

Matthew

"alpha Ori, alpha Ori, alpha Ori."

So well known is the Al-Qaeda brand that at it's mearest invocation existing laws are suspended, new laws are created and millions of people granted a job for life servicing and feeding the Al-Qaeda brand. I feel that terror groups have always existed, do exist and will exist well into the future but not all of these groups are to be associated with Al-Qaeda. What I fear most is that these groups will be forced into the Al-Qaeda brand as it is now being used as a catch all for "anyone who is not one of us" and as a rallying point for anyone from whatever faction wishing to use chaos to bring about change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
respected documentary maker Matthew

---

Oh dear. That kinda pulls the rug out. Whilst I may well subscribe to his view, the words 'documentry' and 'objective, true, unbiased, etc...' don't really tally.

If it's a TV documentry it's pants. Sad fact of life. Sorry. Entertaining, possibly.

Cheers

Harry

IIRC prior to 9/11 al-Qaeda was the name of a training camp (or group of them) in Afghanistan, not the name of an organized network of terrorists. So if you ask a terrorist trained at one of these camps if they belong to al-Qaeda, they'd look at you cross-eyed.

I think someone with intellectual clout (Clinton anyone?) would have adopted a more divide-and-rule/iron-fist-in-velvet-glove diplomatic aproach to tackling global terror rather than declaring a "war on terror" that would serve to unite all Islamic-based terror groups under one "flag."


Regards,

Steve.

Fascinating stuff and brilliantly put together. Especially loved the whole "The absence of secret weapons demonstrates that secret weapons exist" thing.

Can't wait for next week.

Matthew

ps Fabulous bonus comedy footage of Rumsfeld in 1976 as well.

Deja Vu

At the point when Rumsfield was wittering on at a press conference about how the USSR was making secret weapons and hiding them, I imagined that there were 100,000 BBC2 viewers up and down the country jumping up and down on their sofas screaming "nooooooooooo".

Hey, got fooled once, got fooled again. Anyone up for a third go?

On a related subject there was a provocative article in the Times yesterday written by Simon Jenkins, basically saying that the best chance that USA and UK have got of getting out of Iraq PDQ was for Bush to win the next election, as Kerry would try and muddle on in Iraq out of a desire not to appear weak. Bush, so this theory goes, will get out ASAP and declare it a victory. The article went on to say that Bush won't be listening to his neocon advisers once he escapes Iraq, some of whom have Iran and Syria on their hit list. Hey, its a theory!
My own view is get Bush out at all costs. Blair and his cabinet must go too.
Simon

Reminds me of a quote...

quote:

---

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

---

There's no doubt that Adam Curtis is a fabulous documentary writer. The Century of the Self is possibly the most enlightening thing I've ever seen on TV.

It was good that the programme was a little more subtle than "we've all been fooled by the neocons into believing in something that doesn't exist". Much was dedicated to chronicling the serious and powerful Islamic fundamentalism which certainly does exist and certainly is dedicated to slaughtering those who do not believe in its particular reading of the Qu'ran.

What Curtis is very good at (although not always objective about) is untangling the relationship between beliefs, economics and history. The potential problem with his approach (and maybe this is inevitable with TV)is that things can sometimes get packaged a little too neatly together.

Funny hearing Fukuyama described as a neo-conservative. And I did appreciate the irony of "the Matrix" on C5 at the same time...

Tim