The Al Qaeda Myth http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/12/the_al_qaeda_myth.php Tom Porteous April 12, 2006 Tom Porteous is a syndicated columnist and author who was formerly with the BBC and the British Foreign Office. We now know that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings in July 2005. This is the conclusion of the British government's official inquiry report leaked to the British press on April 9. We now also know that the U.S. military is deliberately misleading Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world about the extent of Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraqi insurgency. This was reported in The Washington Post on April 10, on the basis of internal military documents seen by that newspaper. What do these revelations tell us about the arguments of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Blair that in Al Qaeda the "Free World" faces a threat comparable to that of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a world-wide terrorist network which seeks to build a radical Islamist empire over half the world? That they are threadbare, to say the least. But also that they are cynical, misleading and self serving. The London bombings, it turns out, were the work of four alienated British Muslims, with no links to "international terrorist networks", who had learned how to make bombs by trawling the Internet. They had been radicalized and motivated, according to the report, by British foreign policies in the Muslim world—a view Tony Blair has consistently sought to undermine and discredit. The role of the alleged "Al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq," Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, we are now told, was cynically misrepresented and exaggerated by the U.S. military's propaganda units in an effort to discredit and divide the Iraqi insurgency and to provide a retrospective justification for the Iraq war by suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11. Wherever in the world Al Qaeda crops up, its appearance has often been uncannily convenient for the local authorities—dictators, warlords, occupation forces and elected governments alike. And often the precise nature of the Al Qaeda connection turns out, on close examination, to be tenuous or non-existent. But by that time the message has gone out and sunk in: "Al Qaeda was here". It's almost certain that as the United States ratchets up the pressure on Iran in the coming months the non-issue of Tehran's "links" with Al Qaeda will come to the fore. In fact the groundwork is already being laid. Blair, no less, said ominously in a speech last month that although "the conventional view is that Iran is hostile to Al Qaeda: we know from our own history of conflict that, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change." So as the confrontation with Iran builds, watch out for leaked reports from anonymous security officials about dastardly Iranian-Al Qaeda conspiracies. Stripped of exaggeration, romanticism, demonization and myth making, the picture of Al Qaeda which has emerged from the trial in the United States of Zacarias Moussaoui is of a fractious organisation that has been a magnet for bewildered martyrdom-seeking fantasists. At least this has a ring of truth to it. This is not to say that Al Qaeda is not dangerous. It is a serious security challenge. It may even one day be a strategic threat, especially if it gets hold of some WMD. But it is not the threat Bush and Blair tell us it is. The recent revelations of the non-existent role of Al Qaeda in the London bombings and of the Pentagon's deliberate exaggeration of Al Qaeda's role in Iraq reinforce the argument that in their response to the threat of Al Qaeda (the so called "war on terror," or "Long War"), the United States and its allies are making strategic errors of monumental proportions. First, this war, as it is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not principally fighting "Al Qaeda" but is creating and fighting new enemies: people who don't like being invaded, occupied and kicked around by foreigners and who are prepared to stand up and resist. These people may eventually become terrorists. But it will have been U.S. policies that created them. If Iran is next on the Pentagon's list, the same thing will happen there. To the extent that Israel is seen by the United States as pursuing its own war on terror in the Palestinian territories it occupies, it is happening in Gaza and the West Bank too. Second, the Long War is a distraction from the real issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to reduce conflict, violence and injustice in the region and thus to reduce the radicalization of a generation of angry and alienated Muslim youth at home and in the diasporas. These include: ending the Israeli occupation of occupied Palestinian territories through negotiation; pursuing peaceful nuclear reduction throughout the region; and engaging seriously with political Islam. Talk of "democratization" without engaging with political Islam is nonsense. Third, on the grounds that it is fighting a "just war," the United States and its allies have justified using levels of violence, coercion and repression—including torture, collective punishment and the killing of large numbers of civilians—which are not only of questionable tactical efficacy, but have led to a collapse of U.S. prestige in a part of the world where it has long been seen as a necessary protector, stabilizer and arbiter. The fact that there was no operational link between the London bombers and Al Qaeda shows that its real danger lies in its ability to inspire terrorist attacks. In this it has no better allies and collaborators at present than the United States and Britain under their current leaders. Copyright © 2006 Tom Porteous / Agence Global
Most experts now agree that Al-Qaida is more so of a 'flagship name' than an organization that directly plans and carries out attacks. The Europe attacks were an example of that. The Taba and Sharm-e-Sheikh attacks were another example. A part of the insurgency in Iraq is yet another example.
it makes good politics and is very convenient for people to just blame things on al qaeda, becuase once others hear that name it seems that they just accept al qaeda's responsibility without even scrutinizing the authenticity of the claims
Doesn't this just support the president's point that he doesn't care about Osama bin Laden and that al Queda was largely destroyed by our operations in Afghanistan? It doesn't matter if the terrorists are in that particular organization, terrorists in Hamas, Hezbollah, or independents are no less terrorists. This article argues like it would be okay to fight al Queda, but now that we are fighting others (like Israel has been fighting Hamas and Hezbollah for a long time) that is somehow different and bad.
If this were correct then I'm wondering why the US has been a target of Middle Eastern terrorism from the 80s through today. Crazy at it seems with these types of 'reports,' but 9/11 happened BEFORE the intervention in Iraq. I think we might consider that today's claims of Iraq inspired doom are a bit exaggerated.
I think that tidbit of the article you quoted was probably referring more so to the regimes in the region previously viewing U.S. presence in the region as a necessary 'stabilizing' force, while now that might not necessarily be the case anymore. At least that was my impression...
Fair enough, although I'm not sure what the impact of THAT is. The regimes that used to think we were a stabilizing force but converted internal dissent into anti-americanism that led to terrorism against the US are now not so sure the US is a stabilizing influence. Well whoop dee damn doo.
I'm wondering why the US has been a target of Middle Eastern terrorism from the 80s through today. Actually, Hayes, wondering about that instead of just buying the Bush or warmongering line, is a good start. Hayes correctly notes that there was some incidents of terrorism, and even 9/11 occurred , before the invasion of Iraq. Crazy as it seems, to Hayes this somehow proves that the US could not lose additional prestige in the Middle East AFTER the invasion. ( I guess he does not believe polls or other measures), Previous incidents of terrorism also irrationally convince Hayes that terrorism could not increase due to the invasion of Iraq. As evidenced by his numerous Muslim bashing threads, I think Hayes' basic confusion is that he fails to realize that most Arabs and or Muslims (neither before 9/11 or the 1980's) have not been terrorists or extreme haters of the United States. Hence, though it may be true that no matter what we do, Al Qaeda members or some other extremists will hate us, self defeating actions that we take to confront them or unjust US policies in general in the Middle East, such as the Iraq War can still cause increasing numbers of the large majority of non-terrorist or extremeist Muslims/ Arabs to start hating us, too. I think polling has shown that this is exactly what has happened. The more who hate us, the more terrorists are born. Not so diffcult really.
Yup. The worst incidents of terrorism against the US were BEFORE the intervention in Iraq. wnes - now THESE are strawman arguments, lol. I never said anything like this. The problem with this is twofold. First, if tigermission is right then its talking about prestige vis-a-vis governments, not individuals. Second, you can't just declare doom - you need to quantify the increase so it can be weighed vs. the benefits of the intervention. We know that the worst incidents happened before the intervention in Iraq. We know therefore that very bad incidents of terrorism have and in all probability would have happened in the future sans Iraq. So it is your burden to show that your alleged increase in terrorists has led to incidents worse or at least in addition to those that would have happened anyway - and that they outweigh the benefits of the intervention. Further, if the argument that despotic regimes fuel terrorism is true - then continuing to pursue the status quo pre-intervention would have continued to fuel terrorism. Whereas the policy post Iraq is clearly to try and democratize the Middle East - which should, if the asserted theory is true - reduce terrorism, even if there is a short term spike. Not so difficult to understand really.
Fighting Al Quida was the justification for war in Afgahn, rightfully. The "others" we are fighting have little to no links to Al Quida ...so that IS in fact bad since our country painted Iraq and Al Quida with the same brush. I don't understand the significance of mentioning Hamas and Hezbollah.
We are fighting a global war on terror. That means all terrorists, not just AQ. The administration has said that many times. Given that fact, it doesn't matter if the terrorists we are fighting are linked with Al Queda, a different terrorist organization, or not affiliated with anyone at all. The article talked about Israel in the same light as the US: Israel is fighting such organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah, among others, and has been for a very long time. Just because they are not affiliated with Al Queda, the article says they are creating and fighting new enemies. The author is trying to draw some sort of distinction between Al Queda and other terrorists, and implies that fighting one group is good while fighting the other is wrong. It is a load of crap.
All i know binladen accepted the bombing of Sep/11 as his deeds. alqaeda or not, bin laden has gotta to pay.
When I was 4 years old I stood on the grassy knoll and I shot JFK. Now there were 15 or so eyewitnesses that would say I was playing on the jungle jim at my preschool, but they were are 4 year olds and tend to be untrustworthy as witnesses. Do I have to pay?
hamas also is the elected govt of palestine and provides tremendous amounts of social services hezbollah has just under 20 members in the lebanese parliament and lebanon's energy minister is a member of hezbollah....hezbollah also owns a television station, al-manar.....they also provide social services as well....they also liberated south lebanon from 20 years of israeli occupation in may 2000 if this is indeed a global war on terror, then why is the us negotiating and finalizing deals with terrorist organizations such as the mko/mek your argument has no merit
In addition to this, they have executed many attacks on Israeli civilians, as gunmen, bombers, and suicide bombers. They are not considered a terrorist organization for the social services they provide. Take a guess as to what is more relevent to the discussion of the war on terror. The Nazis were the elected government of Germany in the late 1930's and provided all kinds of social services, but they also killed 6 million Jews and a like number of other innocents. Take a guess as to which is more relevent to the discussion of WWII. They shouldn't be. There are claims from some anonymous source that the US MAY be working on an insurgency with MEK in Iran, put that has hardly been confirmed. Whether they are or not has nothing to do with the legitimacy of fighting other terrorist organizations, specifically those that are hostile to the US and its allies. Your argument is irrelevent, in parts based on conjecture, and supports two of the worst terrorist organizations in the world. Shockingly it doesn't bother me that you don't see the merits of mine.
If Bin Laden attacked us and we still don't have him, why are we fighting a "global war?" Ah yes, I remember, that didn't come up until we needed justification to go to war in Iraq. You know, the country that didn't have any terrorists until after we invaded them and opened up the boarders.
Did everyone miss this? Why did he even propose his title, when he had to admit to this? If you asked Tom whether he thought that a.q. was actively trying to procure WMD and whether they would hesitate to use them on civilian masses, what else do you think he would have to admit to? This is the luxury of idiot journalists. They can twist facts and propose baseless hypotheses w/o direct loss of life. Politicians (even dumb ones) do not have that luxury. And FWIFW, ask the families of 9-11 about the 'myth'. More civilians died that day than soldiers at Pearl Harbor. It should not be trivialized my dolts.
