It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The making of the terror myth

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It sure is an interesting article, maybe we need consider this possiblity.





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




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.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]



www.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
... Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

Is this TV show not just exactly portraying what some views assert - that the war on terror is almost wholly manufactured. Sure, we can come to accept we have 'Islamic' terrorists blowing stuff up based upon a clash of ideology - but then the next question only moves beyond them to ask - "who is really behind it all - seeding and nurturing those ideologies" – is this not where this is headed ?

Thing is I wonder - is this show just part of the process ?

I’m sure you can imagine the discussion up and down the land: “It’s only a TV show, surely you are not suggesting it’s got any truth in it – why would they allow it to be shown if it was?” and so on ...

Sorry, that may be way off topic: and in amongst my ranting I may have missed the detail but was your question:


Originally posted by edsinger
It sure is an interesting article, maybe we need consider this possiblity.


about the manufactured war (a kind of continued cold-war maybe), or about the effects of a 'dirty bomb' ? (I'm guessing the former ...)



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
This article was brought up in another ATS thread here.

And, while there may be something to the fact that Politicians and the media do tend to harp on the warnings from the intellingence community, that does not negate the fact that the intelligence was there to begin with. The truth is that a "dirty" bomb would have massive repercussions. It would not only cause the usual amount of casualties, but becuase of the persistent nature of radiation, it would take a tremendous amount of resources to try and clean up both the blast area, areas downwind and those contaminated. Not only this, but the psychological effect would be devastating, as the fear of radiation poisoning, whether real or imagined, would be great among the population.

So yes, the fear of a "dirty" bomb may have been exaggerated, by those looking for votes and viewers. But to imply that it is some grand propaganda scheme by "Straussian" conservatives, as Mr. Curtis refers to them, is not supported by any facts.

One could use the same argument, to say that the left (or any group for that matter) throughout history has demonized their opponents and exaggerated the threat, to gain and retain power.

-Cypher



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
NO not that the war on Terror was manufactured, I do not belive that the United States allowed 911 to happen williingly, I just dont.

What I was saying, is the threat that the terrorist pose overstated? I could very well believe this one. I read the 911 report and realized that the Arab countries give the US much more help against these assholes than is publically known.

But still, I know that Islamic Fundemantalism is on the run, they are still fighting and will continue to do so, but they have no safe havens anymore....it will be intersting to see what Bush does about it in the Lame Duck years of his second term.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypher
This article was brought up in another ATS thread here.

One could use the same argument, to say that the left (or any group for that matter) throughout history has demonized their opponents and exaggerated the threat, to gain and retain power.

-Cypher


Sorry about the repost...you can close the thread then.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Actually Edsinger, I think that this thread is more representive of the actual article. The thread I referred to earlier basically became a Bush + Al-Queda conspiracy fest from the beginning. So MODS, if you don't mind, can you leave this open for the time being and see were it goes?

If one is to read the article carefully, they would quickly find that the author of the program does not believe that the conservative governments of the west, and the Islamic terrorists are actively collaborating together in the traditional sense. Mr. Curtis instead claims that both sides are "collaborating still: in sustaining the "fantasy" of the war on terror."

He goes on to say that "(the war on terror) 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."

This is not, to say that Osama bin-Laden and Al-Queda do not exist, or that they are a puppet of western governments. Mr. Curtis in fact actually claims that they are "...not an organised international network. It(Al-Queda) 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."

Now I don't know about you, but I find that to be a rather interesting idea. I think it's wrong, but nonetheless interesting.


-Cypher



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
NO not that the war on Terror was manufactured, I do not belive that the United States allowed 911 to happen williingly, I just dont.


Ok, this is a perefctly reasonable view to take, but I guess I'd wonder at how to define "US" in that context - I wonder if a some would, do even, regard acts such as 911 as a price worth paying, measured against some greater gain, and those people may not necessarily be the elected leaders of soverign states ... although perhaps at that point any distinctions around [the originators of] the terrorist act may become irrelevant (and is more than adequately covered elsewhere),


Originally posted by edsinger
What I was saying, is the threat that the terrorist pose overstated? I could very well believe this one. I read the 911 report and realized that the Arab countries give the US much more help against these assholes than is publically known.


I wonder if we'll ever know the true extent of the threat ?
Maybe it's part of the risk managment tho - overstate the risk to ensure that the worst is planned for, then if it's not that bad you are more than adequately prepared ?


Originally posted by edsinger
But still, I know that Islamic Fundemantalism is on the run, they are still fighting and will continue to do so, but they have no safe havens anymore....it will be intersting to see what Bush does about it in the Lame Duck years of his second term.


Will the safe-havens not just become the hearts and minds of those to whom this belief has an appeal ?, Surely then that is where the hardest battle will be fought ? (Actually, and perhaps ironically - isn't this close to the primary truth of jihad as an internal struggle with ones Self, rather than as an external struggle - or is that too simplistic ?).

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here by the way - I'm just throwing up a few thoughts.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by 0951]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
OK let me see if I get this,

The possibility of the US internal terrorist network doing 911 for the greater good in essence....??

Possible? Yes
Likely? No

While I came to ATS for the Military stuff originally and maybe someone can find out when I joined, but it was a while back. As i got more into this site, I saw the bias and decided to come by a little bit more. I will possibly fade way after the elections a bit, who knows.


The Illuminati posts are good stuff but I can not see this a as new thing. When was war declared on the US by Islamic fundamentalism? Some could say after the 1967 Israeli war, maybe the 1973 war? Maybe it was 248 marines in Beirut? No I think it too is more than that......It is a clash between ideals of two cultures.....with two fringes on each side stepping up the scale of attacks to get their way.


[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
OK let me see if I get this,

The possibility of the US internal terrorist network doing 911 for the greater good in essence....??


Ah, no, I hadn't thought of it like this, I was drifting towards the well trodden NWO / shadow govt' conspiracy, and that the US administration wasn't a participant (at least not some of it) ... but the idea that it could have come from a patriotic US group taking action to maybe save the US from itself (as set out in the 2nd Amendment), hmm, an interesting direction ?
Wasn't this the arguement put forward by McVee ?

I think I'd probably agree with your conclusion tho' - Possible>yes, Likely>no.

As to the timing - I'd guess the "clash of culture" probably goes hand in hand with the foundation of Islam.

(Two quick points to aid clarity: One: Clearly not with the US, but with the 'host' culture. I don't really know one could identify a specific point at which when this 'round' started. Two: this is in no way intended to be read as suggesting that this is exclusive to the foundation of Islam either, this 'difficulty' can be found to accompany the foundation of many of the worlds ideas, religions, theories, and such).

An interesting tangental debate, but I must apologise, I do rather seem to have gone off the original question posed in this thread which was:



Originally posted by edsinger
What I was saying, is the threat that the terrorist pose overstated?



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0951

Originally posted by edsinger
OK let me see if I get this,

The possibility of the US internal terrorist network doing 911 for the greater good in essence....??


Ah, no, I hadn't thought of it like this, I was drifting towards the well trodden NWO / shadow govt' conspiracy, and that the US administration wasn't a participant (at least not some of it) ... but the idea that it could have come from a patriotic US group taking action to maybe save the US from itself (as set out in the 2nd Amendment), hmm, an interesting direction ?
Wasn't this the arguement put forward by McVee ?

I think I'd probably agree with your conclusion tho' - Possible>yes, Likely>no.

As to the timing - I'd guess the "clash of culture" probably goes hand in hand with the foundation of Islam.

(Two quick points to aid clarity: One: Clearly not with the US, but with the 'host' culture. I don't really know one could identify a specific point at which when this 'round' started. Two: this is in no way intended to be read as suggesting that this is exclusive to the foundation of Islam either, this 'difficulty' can be found to accompany the foundation of many of the worlds ideas, religions, theories, and such).

An interesting tangental debate, but I must apologise, I do rather seem to have gone off the original question posed in this thread which was:



Originally posted by edsinger
What I was saying, is the threat that the terrorist pose overstated?




Ah yes but we seem to have touched something here.

I think this round started in 1993 and continued through and admin with its head in the sand. the fight was tried with law enforcement and met some success.

911 changed that, massive death......now they get the military one...



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
0951,

You brought up an interesting point when you posted:


I wonder if we'll ever know the true extent of the threat ?
Maybe it's part of the risk managment tho - overstate the risk to ensure that the worst is planned for, then if it's not that bad you are more than adequately prepared ?


This reminds me of the old adage, “Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.” In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, this seems obvious. For after the tragedy, everyone from the President on down was citied for NOT warning the public of the potential for attack. However, if you recall the halcyon days before the 11th of Sept. 2001, there was no public outcry for disclosure of any and all terrorist threats. Just the opposite was true. Before the attacks, it was expected that the governments of the world, would NOT publish all they knew about terrorist threats in order to better pursue the actors. Since then there has been a major debate on the public’s “right to know”. Politicians and Intelligence agencies have thus changed their policies regarding release of specific and general threats. They now err on the side of caution in warning the public of possible attacks.

Mr. Curtis’ hypothesis that “Straussian” (read conservative) governments over hype the threat assessments to create an enemy, seems to ignore this fact. It also apparently ignores the intelligence gathered around the world. It even ignores the testimony of convicted terrorists themselves.

When Mr. Curtis claims that Al-Queda was "...not an organised(sic) international network. It(Al-Queda) does not have members or a leader” he is directly refuted by the testimony of Ahmed Ressam, (the Algerian who intended to set off a suitcase bomb at Los Angeles International Airport) during the trial of Mokhtar Haouari, for the bombing of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. You can read one of the articles that touch on this subject here , at the CNN Law Center. Basically, Rassem testified that he and the defendants were trained at terrorists training camps in Afghanistan, run by none other than Osama Bin-Laden.

This is just one example of DIRECT testimony of a convicted terrorist who has let us glimpse into the world of OBL and Al-Queda. A quick Google Search will lead you to many more. To ignore this information, or dismiss it and the reams of intelligence that hasn’t been publicly released, as disinformation prepared in order to retain power is willful ignorance in my book,

-Cypher



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Well with the information comming forth about the extent of Al Qaeda and the ties with the Baghdad regime and the one in Sudan, we are getting closer to the picture...this battle has been around a while..

Some possible links to Al Qaeda

1993 WTC1
OK CITY
Africa Embassy bombings
TWA 800
Somalia (Black Hawk Down specifically)
USS COLE
911


Well now the world gets mad when we strike back?

From G.W.'s on mouth: Did you listen? Did the world?

Taken from the 911 Report....................


Having issued directives to guide his administration’s preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. “Tonight,” he said, “we are a country awakened to danger.” The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was “responsible for bombing the USS Cole.” He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. “The Taliban must act, and act immediately,” he said. “They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.” The President added that America’s quarrel was not with Islam: “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every [emphasis mine] government that supports them.” Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
President Bush argued that the new war went beyond Bin Ladin. “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he said. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. “The President had a message for the Pentagon: “The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.” He also had a message for those outside the United States. “This is civilization’s fight,” he said. “We ask every nation to join us.”




top topics



 
0

log in

join