Is Al Qaeda a myth?

An article in the Oregonian yesterday was based on a BBC documentary that argues the threat to the West of Islamic terrorism is a politically-inspired fantasy. Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times asks the provocative question, “Is Al Qaeda just a Bush Boogeyman?”

The three-part BBC documentary is called “The Power of Nightmares.” Hopefully it will be shown in this country soon. Do you think the Sinclair Group is freeing up time in its schedule for this series? Or will Fox News, the self-styled paragon of “fair and balanced” reporting, air this counterpoint to the Bush administration’s portrayal of Osama Bin Laden as the real-life equivalent of Dr. Evil? (or, for those with a longer cinematic memory, Dr. No).

I usually enjoy pooh-poohing conspiracy theories. For example, I don’t think voting machines were rigged to elect Bush. But the producer of “The Power of Nightmares,” Adam Curtis, makes some eminently believable arguments in his response to comments from British viewers.

When you think about it, both Al Qaeda and the Bush administration have a mutual interest in fostering a belief in the existence of a world-wide Islamic organization which is powerful enough to rattle the foundation of Western civilization. Such a belief aids Al Qaeda recruiting (who wants to join a wimpy terrorist group?) and also is a great support for neo-conservative policies (if you’re not with us, you die).

Finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because they didn’t exist is a big story—one largely ignored by the docile American media (motto: "Pat us and we'll purr"). Discovering that the Al Qaeda threat has been vastly exaggerated by the Bush and Blair administrations would be an even bigger story. It’s too bad that the BBC was the first to raise this possibility, ahead of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN.

The United States may be #1 in many regards, but not when it comes to investigative reporting of questionable Bush administration policies.

Comments

[Sharmoota]

It should have been you who lost family/friends in the WTC attacks. Better yet, maybe you should have lived under Saddam. You could be one he used to play fetch with, pointed guns at, shot for shits and giggles, etc. Too much mouth running from you little lefties and you still can't say anything. Tell us how you'd deal with someone who attacked your country had you been President at the time? Would you have offered to sit down and discuss 'feelings' with them as they lay on a big black couch? Maybe you'd offer to spoon feed them strained carrots and peas and wipe the drivel from their mouths? I am so glad that someone like you isn't making the decisions here. That's why I voted Bush in 2004.

[Brian]

Sharmoota, terrorism is real. The 9/11 attacks were real. Saddam Hussein was, and is, real. What is in question here isn't those realities, but how the Bush administration frames, presents, and interprets them. This is what the myth of Al Qaeda may be. The organization certainly exists, and does much harm. But does the reality of Al Qaeda bear much resemblance to the picture the Bush administration presents? Likely, no.

I say this because Bush has been wrong on every substantial issue so far. He told us the country could afford massive tax cuts and still have a budget surplus. Wrong. He told us invading Afghanistan would result in the capture of Bin Laden. Wrong. He told us that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Wrong. And now he is telling us that social security is in crisis. Also wrong.

When Bush is wrong on everything else, why should we believe that he is right about Al Qaeda? This is why it makes sense to closely question how Bush is presenting this terrorist threat, because he's been wrong on every other major issue so far.

[Ernest T Spoon]

Brain and Laural,
I watched the airplanes crash into the second World Trade Towner from the comfort of my livingroom the morning of September 11, 2001.

The first words out of my mouth were, to the best of my recollection, were, "They let them do it." Meaning, of course, the present administration tacitly allowed the act of terrorism to occur for tawdry political purposes.

Since that time I've increasingly skeptical of al Qeada's influence and power. Moreover, during the presidential election just past, it seemed that video images of Osama bin Laden appeared at just the correct and crucial moment to re-enforce Bush's theme of an all-powerful, all-threatening global terroris network. The ruse worked on reactionary "badasses" as the above poster.

Also keep in mind the cozy, and very personal, relationships of the Bush and Binladen families dating back to at least the Seventies. I also suggest "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger for a short history of relationships between an American political dynasty and the rulers of Saudi Arabia.

I too am looking forward to viewing the above mentioned BBC documentary, however I do not hold any hope that it will be aired on any American television network or local outlet. We will be forced to surreptitious Internet downloading, clandestine DVD buring and passing home-made copies round from hand-to-hand.

[Marie]

I'm part way through watching the serise on CBC (Canadian broadcasting). My reaction was "oh my god, I've been duped". I'm completely amazed that Sept. 11th was allowed to happen. Marilyn Manson said in an interview to Micheal Moore, "If you make the people fearful, they consume". Meaning they lock themselves in thier homes and buy buy buy. Which is what the producers of this documentary are trying to express. I keep hoping that it's a mock-u-mentary like "Dark Side of the Moon", but it isn't. For anyone curious, the shot of the turban-clad man with the brilliant blue eyes is from "Thief of Baghdad".. and excellent fantasy movie from the 40's!

[Kilfarsnar]

This is an old topic (2 1/2 years!) but I cannot resist weighing in. I wonder if anyone will see it.

It is my belief that Al Qaeda is indeed a myth. It is a useful myth to most who want to maintain and consolidate power. As Ernest commented above, Osama bin Laden's videos popped up at very opportune times. The bin Laden's and the Bush's have a history that goes back decades. Do we not find it odd that we have not had a "terror alert" since the 2004 election when they were quite frequent before that?

I have watched the Power of Nightmares a number of times. It is a very good mini-series; not over-the-top, very sober. It makes the case well that Al Qaeda is not the sprawling terrorist network we have been led to believe it is.

Think about it: What proof do we have of Al Qaeda's menace besides government pronouncements? How is it that the government knew, on the afternoon of Sept. 11th, who the hijackers were and who they worked for? Why has the Bush administration consistently blocked and stalled FBI investigations of Osama and the bin Ladens in general? Why, on Sept. 17th, did Osama bin Laden deny involvement in the attacks, saying, “I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” This was reported by CNN. Don't terrorists usually seek credit for their crimes? Why does the FBI website not list the 9/11 attacks as a reason for Osama's being on the most wanted list? Why did FBI chief Robert Mueller admit that they have no hard evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the attacks?

As I'm sure you realize, I could go on. It is unanswered questions like these that make me think we are not being told the truth about current events. Who has benefitted most from the current climate? Who has seen their power and fortunes increased?

I know it is difficult to question our leaders' intentions. But it is not unpatriotic. Our loyalty should be to our country and its citizens; not to any current officeholder, whomever they are. We owe it to ourselves, and those who died in the attacks and subsequent wars, to seek the truth and hold those responsible accountable. If we do not do this, our understanding of the world we live in will be based on lies. None of us wants that.