The Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden Myth
tags:
Stumble ThisThe creation of Al Qaeda was necessary to create an identifiable group that Americans could be against. But unlike the Communist, is forever shadowy, forever disjointed, forever out there.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
terrorism,power of nightmares,osama bin laden,creation of myth,Adam Curtis,00s The Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden Myth
Comments  playlists with this video 9/11 by Duckman33
who voted for this video Farhad2000
- kulpims
- mauz15
- siftbot
x70 - heathen
- Eklek
- EndAll
- EDD
who has this post bookmarked Zonbie
- heathen
- MrConrads
- SpaceOddity
The Al Qaeda And Osama Bin Laden Myth Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. enon
(138 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
The Trailer for Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist Part 1. Take with a grain of salt but think.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Power-of-Nightmares-part-1
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Power-of-Nightmares-part-2
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Power-of-Nightmares-part-3
*politics
*documentaries
*worldaffairs
*lies
But winning or losing a war is unstable, and long wars breed resentment and low morale in the population. The best way to guarantee a stable environment for the military industry is to have a war that will never end, but is threatening enough to civilians to reinforce it's necessity.
The cold war allowed the creation of weapons for decades without actually having to fire them. and people knew the war was necessary or they would be nuked.
But the "war on terror" is even better. Not only are terrorists everywhere and unbeatable... but it allows you to remove low morale and dissent as unpatriotic and possibly a terrorist.
The only problem is you need to have a focal point for people to 'hate at'.
You can't have shades of gray. You need archetypes. You need a key villain and you need an organization so you can get a clear black and white of us and them.
it really just looks like a couple of nervy nitwits' "theories" ... with a cultured british accent thrown over that and stock video taken out of context and rather coincidentally rearranged
shouldn't be too hard for me to provide another "grain" for all of us to consider rubbing together with the former...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History_of_the_name
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108588&postcount=9
there you go...
something else just occurred to me from the video's mention of the "military-industrial complex" -- this being that we often don't consider much of the context of that particularly insightful eisenhower speech:
here's a gem that just precedes the now-iconic reference...
"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
now *that's* thought-provoking =)
expounding on that in a much-later newspaper editorial is ike's close friend and former naval aide to the president:
"The science community is paralyzed by a phony, egotistical self-
guilt, and the technophobes in academia have had a field day for a
generation, teaching our young people to scorn the sciences and feel
guilty for being Americans. Aided by a couple of administration in
which "social engineering" was more fashionable than science, techno-
logical leadership is passing from the United States to nations who
have struck a more rational balance."
http://www.fortfreedom.org/n09.htm
heh heh, i think something really "got his goat"
anyway, i've always felt that the surest way of losing an argument is to overstate it... i guess i feel that that's exactly what the first video does
here's what we can take from it, at least overwhelmingly so (in the court of public opinion)
- america's "reaction" to the attacks of september 11th made al-qaeda both a household name *and* target #1 of the us government (durr)
- this most likely helped consolidate bin laden's organization, and surely polarized islamic radicalism ever further, thus increasing al-qaeda's magenetism to ends both in funding and recruiting
- prolonged military action in the "war on terror" is CONTINUING to make our "military-industrial complex" lots of money (do you really think that strong ties between "death merchantry" and government didn't exist before 2001... or even long before ike's speech??)
- america's (and the world's) "military-industrial complex" will continue to thrive until (ha) there is peace... and then probably a bit longer
- the "war on terror" probably won't end even if we get every member of al-qaeda into the same denny's restaurant and then nuke it (in a similar fashion as to arresting al capone not ending the fbi's war on organized crime)
- this will continue to make both you and me sad, and the "desth merchants" happy
...
but maybe, just maybe, we should take note of what ike first said we *should* be... STRONG ... and *then* consider our thinking on maintaining the BALANCE he warned us all should be sought in his now-pop-culture reference
Everyone else is either excused or exploited as victims.
Numerous documents have shown that US military action in Iraq created further recruits for Al Q, who sought to tie down the American military in Iraq, the disparity of conduct between different members who cropped up showed that Al Q is not as organized or well finiaced as the West would lead us to believe. Those whose negative views of the West had their views reinforced in illegal unilatarel and unlawful actions leading to attacks in Madrid and London.
The policy created leads to a war that lasts forever, in the words of Bush a task that is never ends. Allowing for the endless war we saw in George Orwell's 1984.
"atheistic in character" Yeah Fuck You, Ike!
You are damn right I'll never forget.
This is an acute example of the genius of their (?) strategy. They use the media by proxy to drop hints to the public. The media covers their ass by saying things like "confident" (not "certain"). But the ploy works on 90% of the public, who just want to vent rage in some direction, and the administration claims to have said nothing of the sort.
The television was the greatest form of mind control ever invented.
It is such a pathetic syndrome of the Western armchair analyst.
- I have figured out exactly who is behind everything and it's the people that I read about on the internet and have seen on TV! If I do not understand an ideology or have no personal experience of something, it hasn't happened! There is no government more powerful than that of the US - they control EVERYTHING and I know ALL THERE IS TO KNOW about them!
If this were true you would all be dead; like real dissidents in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Belarus, all Arab states except Iraq and the West Bank, Iran etc etc...
I'm probably asking a stupid question that's been talked about for years and is already answered, but I wonder if what this documentary is saying is true (it certainly sounds likely) has Osama Bin Laden ever denied involvement? Why would he let that hang over him if he was innocent? I don't get it, what have I missed?
IIRC he denied involvement from the get go. When he realized what a PR coup it was for him to claim to to be associated with a successful strike on the most powerful nation on earth, coupled with the fact that innocence would not protect him in any case, might as well cash in the street cred.