There's a very good article in the Independent today by Robert Fisk. He heads it with 'Nine years, two wars, hundreds of thousands dead - and nothing learnt'.

His argues that why should we suprised that the apotheosis of 9/11 should be a crackpot preacher threatening a Nazi-style book burning over a would be mosque, two blocks from ground zero - 'as if 9/11 was an onslaught on Jesus-worshipping Christians, rather than on the atheist West'?

He makes the case that 9/11 served only to spawn even more crackpots and that the 'war on terror' has done nothing to quell the rise of them in increased numbers - kill one, ten more appear (the pastor being just the latest).

The winner in all this is not peace and democrasy but the arms trade which has done very nicely indeed (make what you will of that).

And all of them, the crackpots, terrorists, insurgents and Bush, Blair talk to God.

He points out that the central issue is Isreal and the West's support of her, nothing has changed there but we conveniently ignore that. The conflict of Isreal and Palastine is at the heart of the War on Terror as much a 9/11.

More importantly....the animosity between Islam and the West is as huge as it's ever been and idiots like Pastor Jones ensure it won't go away anytime soon.

Well one could argue that the actions taken since 9/11 have prevented a repeat of 9/11 on US soil, and hence have, to some extent been successful.

Invasion of Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11, though it was billed as a war on terror, whatever that is. Iraq was at least in part about oil. There's a brilliant documentary about the history on this and how the US government story changed as the US public failed to respond to the need for a war for oil (with footage of the changing story, as I recall). I'll try and find the link. Israel will also be in any Middle East story.

Magpie: how have any actions taken since 9/11 prevented anything? What actions, and what have they prevented?

The documentary I mentioned:

Blood and Oil
[www.youtube.com]
(link to first part)
All 6 parts are on YouTube

High quality stuff, with lots of historical footage.

Is this westernphobia?.

I dunno but are you are troll tarot cos you sure as feck add nothing to any discussion.

Magpie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well one could argue that the actions taken since
> 9/11 have prevented a repeat of 9/11 on US soil,
> and hence have, to some extent been successful.

But the actions since 9/11 may well have fuelled anti-American/Western feelings enough to provoke further attacks in the future.

such as 7/ 11.

"How have any actions taken since 9/11 prevented anything? What actions, and what have they prevented?"

From a US-Centric approach - the actions taken by the US - ie aggressive pursuit of Al-Queada/Bin Laden, and increased homeland security measures, have prevented any further large scale Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil, and on that basis have been successful.

Anti-Western/US/British sentiment will always be there (whether justified or not) as it is used by the various governments in the region as a smoke scene behind which their failures to deliver freedom, economic growth etc are hidden.

It’s entirely possible that nothing of the like would have happened again anyway tho, right?

Major events like that, by their nature just are rare

Timothy Mcveigh exploding a bomb in Oklahoma didn’t precipitate a wave of similar homegrown attacks

One of the things that bugs me most about current flight restrictions is the 100ml fluids thing – which didn’t come in until several years after 9/11. So the worlds “experts” looked at all possible avenues of attack after 9/11 and thought about EVERYTHING to prevent something like this happening again only to find “ooops” – fluids can be used for nefarious purposes

It doesn’t instill confidence does it?

I don't think that you can argue that one action 'prevents' another until the same situation has repeated itself so many times that the probability of cause leading to effect is 100%.

The unfolding of history is an uncontrolled experiment. We'll never know what 'might' have happened.

However, here's one option. As an alternative to a military war that Saddam knew he was likely to lose, he concentrated on an economic war, investing heavily in driving up prices from the oil fields of the Middle East and Venezuela.

Coupled with the inevitable collapse of the sub-prime housing market, the double whammy with high oil prices resulted in a collapse so sudden and precipitate that it exceeded the ability of western governments to control it through quantitative easing.

Russia saw it's chance and started cutting off gas supplies to Western Europe on the basis of unpaid bills - an argument it uses frequently with Eastern European client states.

Under the shadow of dried up power stations and street riots that were killing hundreds every night, the West embarked on a War for Oil in the middle east that, because of its swiftness, couldn't be so easily covered up as a compassionate liberation.

The lack of political compromise drew both Russia and China onto the opposite sides into a fireballing conflict in the Middle East and.....

Well of course its impossible to prove that action taken results in an event not happening. However, the absence of proof does not mean that the action was not successful.

How about another counterfactual - what action should the US have taken after 9/11?

And more importantly, what do people think the outcome of this 'new' history would have been?

Can I just remind people that firstly most people most places in the world are perfectly friendly, and have less 'anti-someone else' thinking than the average resident of Beckenham.

Secondly, where it can be found, the majority of anti-western thinking elsewhere in the world has little to do with the Iraqi war and mostly to do with the ongoing economic rape of their resources.

Chinese people don't like it when westerners tell them they have to live in the dark and the cold so that a pasty faced fat bastard can drive an SUV.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s entirely possible that nothing of the like
> would have happened again anyway tho, right?
>
> Major events like that, by their nature just are
> rare
>
> Timothy Mcveigh exploding a bomb in Oklahoma
> didn’t precipitate a wave of similar homegrown
> attacks

Exactly, Sean. And each event tends to be different. So they are alike only in the sense of being major.

It is therefore difficult to know what measures could be taken that could have any effect.

And even when you decide which measures you might want to implement, it can be impractical to do so.
Hence we do not have 'security theatre' for anyone attempting to join a Tube train or to board a surface train, despite major incidents having taken place on both of those (UK, Spain).

>
> One of the things that bugs me most about current
> flight restrictions is the 100ml fluids thing –
> which didn’t come in until several years after
> 9/11. So the worlds “experts” looked at all
> possible avenues of attack after 9/11 and thought
> about EVERYTHING to prevent something like this
> happening again only to find “ooops” – fluids can
> be used for nefarious purposes
>
> It doesn’t instill confidence does it?

It's all part of 'security theatre'. (See Bruce Schneier's writings.)

The BIG question is: Why do we inhabit a many-worlds reality where sh!t happens all the time?

I tend to try and inhabit a world of my own

set a night aside and watch the entire "power of nightmares" series. then come back here and post what you have learned. innit.

...corrected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2010:11:23:13:37:34 by mattbrownis.

The Taliban or Al-Qaeda?
I think it's generally accepted that the Taliban were the brainchild of the ISI isn't it?

It is a very good documentary, but like Curtis' other work somewhat overeggs the pudding. That's not to say he doesnt have valuable insights.
The Trap is well worth a watch too, though less relevant now New Labour is dead (it must be true, red ed sed so).

Taliban and Al-Qaeda brainchild = ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (CFR) and HENRY KISSINGER.

Just mind you don't use words like "paradigm" or your old adversaries might get a hard on again!

I think you're confusing 'brainchild' with 'consequences of strategic decisions' New Nexus.
Still, not irrelevant names to be throwing in to the mix.

El Pibe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you're confusing 'brainchild' with
> 'consequences of strategic decisions' New Nexus.
> Still, not irrelevant names to be throwing in to
> the mix.

Hegelian Dialectic.

Problem, reaction, solution.

[whatreallyhappened.com]

Hmm, well a very quick dip into Hegel's dialectic and I'm already getting the impression you've not thought about it deeply, but are parroting people who also seem to have totally misinterpreted it.

As far as I can see it says that social forces veer one way then in an opposite direction and so forth in a manner of conflict (not meant to be interpreted as literal conflict) until some kind of resolution (sysnthesis) is arrived at.
It doesn't say that Kissinger fostered conflict in order to control your mind.

As for the conspiracy stuff, oh dear.

Incidentally I've just finished reading Jon Ronson's Psycopath Test, where he suggests that conspiracy theorists are mentally ill and quite possible psycopathic with regards to at least:
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Lack of empathy
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Lack of realistic long-term goals

El Pibe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm, well a very quick dip into Hegel's dialectic
> and I'm already getting the impression you've not
> thought about it deeply, but are parroting people
> who also seem to have totally misinterpreted it.
>
> As far as I can see it says that social forces
> veer one way then in an opposite direction and so
> forth in a manner of conflict (not meant to be
> interpreted as literal conflict) until some kind
> of resolution (sysnthesis) is arrived at.
> It doesn't say that Kissinger fostered conflict in
> order to control your mind.
>
> As for the conspiracy stuff, oh dear.
>
> Incidentally I've just finished reading Jon
> Ronson's Psycopath Test, where he suggests that
> conspiracy theorists are mentally ill and quite
> possible psycopathic with regards to at least:
> Grandiose sense of self-worth
> Lack of empathy
> Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
> Lack of realistic long-term goals
>
>


“Conspiracy” is prosecuted in most Court systems.
Conspiracy to defraud.
Conspiracy to steal.

But then again the court system is somewhat psychopathic.

A conspiracy is a plan to commit an illegal act, so it will by definition be prosecutable in a court of law.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they refuse to accept that the world is chaotic and that people get things wrong.

Rather than see ineptitude (the cia failed to see the ability and ambition of al qaeda) they see omnipotence (the cia/mossad/the lizards were behind the planes/performed a controlled explosion/used a death ray from the moon).

The degree of omnipotence they attribute nefarious forces seems to be inversely proportional to the sanity of the conpiracy theorist.

What gets me is the selectivity of their obsessions. I don't see why noone has said that the indian ocean tsunami was caused by an underground nuclear explosion in techtonic plates by barrat homkes in order to sell more houses or somesuch for instance.

Of course I'm not really called el pibe, I'm actually a composite avatar from an MI5/Shin Bet/NSA disinformation operation.

Sorry, I do not play with Passive aggressive types.

Have a nice day.

I thought that all pretty reasoned, even reasonable. Passive aggressive would be all 'I'm not playing' .... oh.

interstingly looking at the DSM-IV definition of passive-aggressive, two-four are striking:

complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others
is sullen and argumentative
unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority

Does the Jon Ronson book have a chapter on the 'real motivaton' of people who write books seeking to expose conspiracy theorists to the 'real motivation' behind their arguments?