Letters to the Editor
-
The Year of the Pig
I recently watched a movie I had seen in my teens, "The Year of the Pig". Vietnam. It's interesting, because after I saw that movie, I never believed anything that government said could be taken at face value. That was like '69. Movies can be very influencing. But that was the message I wanted to hear.
Even if there is an AQ, it's probably a spent force. Most Muslims do not want to live in caves, or with fundamentalists. There's no reason to take the idea that Bush's policies are completely wrongheaded, to extremes.
Ultimately Carter could have rejected the Shah, talked about democracy in Iran. The Dems could have undone the notion that our interests in the MIddle East were 1) Oil 2) .... ummm, nothing.
Why did we get Reagan? Of course he was an illusion. On some level, Bush is make-up democracy for people we never felt deserved any self-determination. But look at the Egyptian elections. Democracy in the Muslim Middle East is not likely to match the pseudo-Christian, semi-Western model Bush proposes.
I guess the problem with this documentary is that it won't change any minds. On the other hand, there are some films that successfully carry the message "See, you were right, you are right, so continue". I hope that's what this is. Really. But I love the BBC, even when I disagree with them.
-
Where's the beef?
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.
-
Beyond the Multiplex
When will those on the self-righteous, intellectually pretentious and condescending Left ever face the fact that accusations are not proof, and allegations are not unquestionable evidence? Do they really know the distinction between subjective and objective? Why is it that, whenever those on the Left rant about the "roots of terrorism", they see those roots everywhere but in the twisted minds and ideologies of the terrorists themselves?
The idea that Al-Qaeda does not exist is not just "heretical", it is typical of the self-serving, cancerous, opportunistic propaganda of the crypto-Marxist Left, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is capable of studying history in an objective fashion.
There are, obviously, a lot of unanswered questions about various elements of Jihadist terrorism, and about the activities of the former Baathist regime of Iraq. It may be decades before a great deal of other important pieces of the puzzle are discovered. That is simply the way historical discovery works. What is not reasonably questionable is the guilt of Osama bin Laden himself, in the support, implementation and financing of the 9-11 attacks. He is shown on captured tapes, admitting those deeds, proudly. Are those who want to demonize George Bush now going to come up with another in their long line of anti-American, anti-business, anti-Capitalist conspiracy theories to explain away those tapes? Perhaps they were just forgeries! That's it! A Hollywood actor was standing in for Osama! Everyone knows there were no Jews killed in the 9-11 attacks, right? When Iraqi children, eating candy given to them by American soldiers, are targeted DELIBERATELY by Fascist terrorists who boast about how they want to put women back in their proper place in the 8th century, it's all a part of a diabolical Clausewitzian plan of American deception to steal Iraq's oil. Right?
Even though no American is currently in charge of Iraq's oil revenues, even though no American is currently in charge of the new and fractious U.N.-approved Iraqi government or its oil ministry, any robbery that happens, or any beheading of an innocent by those who want to impose a medieval theocracy, or re-impose a Fascist mafia on Iraq, can be blamed on an American corporate conspiracy or those in the Iraqi government because, after all, even though that diverse and contentious elected government is saturated with many people who fought bravely against Saddam Hussein, they are just our "puppets". Right?