I have not seen the flim, but none of the "revelations" here should be new to anyone. Also, we cannot lay blame for the public's ignorance on the government (perhaps on the administration, but not on the government itself). Rather, it is the result of lazy reporting across the spectrum (the Wall Street Journal excepted -- and I am referring to their reporting, not to their editorials)

I covered security issues in Germany for one of the weeklies, and was always frustrated with the magazine's tendency to overstate the heirarchical structure of al-Qaeda. I also repeatedly heard from both US and American intelligence sources their frurstration with the over-use of the term "sleeper cell" in the media, as well as with the complete misrepresentation of the "structure" of al-Qaeda. They were making an effort to correct a common misperception, but when stories were suggested on how al-Qaeda REALLY fits together and the true nature of these so-called "cells", we were told, "I think we have a handle on that."

Well, yeah, maybe they did - but I never saw it explicitly explained in the magazine I worked for or in any of the other weeklies.

And it is not because they were part of some vast conspiracy to decieve. Basically, it's because the paradigm of a structured organization provides something that is easy to write about, so it gets written about.

But to deny all structure is also a fallacy, because there was a well-structured and well-run inner core, and diffuse thousands of yound commers and goers.

As for who planned 9/11, it is clear to anyone who attended the trial of Mounir al-Motassadeq that the members of the cell went to Afghanistan to train to fight the Russians, but were recruited to carry out this plan. Unfortunately, most reporters showed up on day one and then for the verdict. They missed a lot.

Bin Laden's role appears to have been over-stated from the start as well -- ditto Mohammed Atta (If I see one more reference to him as the leader of the Hamburg Cell, I will scream). But to get hung up on when the name al-Qaeda was applied, and to confuse this with when and how the lose organization came into being, is a huge mistake.

Everyone should know the backgrounds of both the neocon movement and the Islamist movemnt, and and both have been reported and explained well before this film ever came about -- even in the weeklies.

Again, I have not seen the film -- but it sounds to me like the director simply took a lot of stuff that has been laying around and scooped it together in a comprehensive way. Good for him, if he presents an accurate picture of what happened and increases our understanding of current events.

But if all it does is replace one illusory structure with another -- then we really have nothing but another Michael Moore on our hands.

...but after spending a few years involved in the European Islamist scene, I realized how INTENTIONALLY wrong and distortive he is.

Fisk's facts are selectively accurate -- he CHOOSES to villify retaliatory strikes, rather than simply to question their wisdom (of which there is certainly a lot to question). He CHOOSES to ignore the FACT that millions of Middle Easternern "Intellectuals" have learned nothing more than various aspects of Islamic law, and see the world only through that RIGHT-WING prism, which is doomed to deepen the current pseudo-intellectual paralysis over the coming decades unless subjected to critical analysis.

He CHOOSES to ignore the FACT that the region has been in decline ever since Islam stopped expanding through conquest and was forced to grow organically -- something it is incapeable of doing as a political system.

I concede the West has kicked the Middle East around a lot, but the question we should all be asking isn't "Whether?" -- but rather "Why?" -- why is it so easy? Why has the Middle East been such a mess for so long, despite its once glorious history? Why is someone other than the Middle Easterners themselves always to blame (Before the West, it was the East -- the Chinese)?

Fisk obviously has an attachment to the people of the region, and has certainly met individuals who have been wronged and suffered great losses, but until he starts asking the difficult questions that look into the society that has failed its people for so long, he will always only find the simplest -- and least accurate -- of answers.

So, the Danish newspaper "provoked" the Muslim extremists -- what's wrong with that?

When Martin Luther King, Jr. staged his rallies, he intentionally chose cities run by oafish, bigotted police chiefs and mayors, knowing that these men would show their true colors to the world.

Some people accused him of provocation -- and they were right.

But if a reasonable act provokes an unreasonable response, who is at fault? King didn't create the bigotry -- he simply prodded it into the open, where it could no longer be denied.

Where would we be today if Americans had remained in denial of the true state of civil rights in the United States in the 1960s?

Where will we be today if the world -- and moderate Muslims above all others -- remain in denial of the state of human rights in Islam?

The world needs to examine the ideology of Islam, and weigh its tennets against those of the modern concept of human rights. And, please, let's stop equating criticism of this ideology with racism. Islam is an ideology, not an ethnicity.