A great article, although it should be pointed out that the Extremists behind the Bush Regime already had plans for these military adventures before 911 (www.newamericancentury.org), and an attack on Afghanistan was already in the staging. The Taliban had offered to hand Bin Laden (who, as a CIA asset, was known as Tim Osman) over, but the US ignored this.
Also, the Government's Conspiracy Theories about the attacks on NY, DC, and London remain, to this day, unproven and uninvestigated. Another issue we're supposed to "take on faith" ...
Also, the Government's Conspiracy Theories about the attacks on NY, DC, and London remain, to this day, unproven and uninvestigated. Another issue we're supposed to "take on faith" ...
Terror network is a myth
By gwynne dyer
Publish Date: 8-Jun-2006
They arrested 17 alleged Islamist terrorists in and around Toronto on June 3, most of them young and Canadian-born. They had bought three tonnes of ammonium nitrate, and are accused of planning to bomb targets in southern Ontario. Shock! Horror! How could this happen here?
Canada refused to take part in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, so most people assumed that it was therefore an unlikely target for terrorist attacks. Relatively speaking, it probably still is—but it does have several thousand troops in Afghanistan, and the new government in Ottawa is actively seeking closer ties to the Bush administration in Washington. Enough, perhaps, to motivate a bunch of radicalized young Muslim-Canadians who couldn’t reach non-Canadian targets anyway.
Any terrorist attack on Canada is bound to be homegrown, because there is no shadowy but powerful network of international Islamist terrorists waging a war against the West. There are isolated small groups of extremists who blow things up once in a while. There are Web sites and other media through which they can exchange ideas and techniques, but there is no headquarters, no chain of command, no organization that can be defeated, dismantled, and destroyed.
There have been Islamist terrorist groups in the Arab world for decades, but there never was much of an international Islamist “terrorist network”. Even in al-Qaeda’s heyday, before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan effectively beheaded it in 2001, there were only a few hundred core members.
According to U.S. intelligence estimates, between 30,000 and 70,000 volunteers passed through al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, but their long-term impact on the world has been very small.
For most people who went to those camps, it was more a rite of passage than the start of a lifelong career as a terrorist. The average annual number of Islamist terrorist attacks in Arab and other Muslim countries has been no greater in the past five years than in the previous 10 or 20.
The West has been even less affected. The 9/11 attacks on the United States were a spectacularly successful fluke, killing almost 3,000 people, but there have been no further Islamist attacks in the U.S. The two subsequent attacks that did occur in the West, in Madrid in 2004 and in London last year, cost the lives of 245 people. And those attacks were both carried out by local people with no links to any “international terrorist network”.
The contrast between the received wisdom—that the world, or at least the West, is engaged in a titanic, unending struggle against a terrorist organisation of global reach—and the not very impressive reality is so great that most people in the West believe the official narrative rather than the evidence of their own eyes. There must be a major terrorist threat; otherwise, the government is wrong or lying, the intelligence agencies are wrong or self-serving, the media are fools or cowards, and the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
There isn’t a major terrorist threat; just a little one. The massive overreaction called “the war on terror” is due to the fact that 9/11 hit a very big and powerful country that had the military resources to strike anywhere in the world, and strategic interests that might be advanced by a war or two fought under the cover of a crusade against terrorism. If 9/11 had happened in Canada, it would all have been very different.
A kind of 9/11 did happen in Canada. The largest casualty toll of any terrorist attack in the West before 2001 was the 329 people who were killed in the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182, en route from Toronto to London, in 1985. Two hundred and eighty of the dead were Canadian citizens. Since Canada has only one-tenth the population of the United States, it was almost exactly the same proportionate loss that the United States suffered in 9/11.
It was immediately clear that the terrorists were Sikhs seeking independence from India, but here’s what Canada didn’t do: it didn’t send troops into India to “stamp out the roots of the terrorism” and it didn’t declare a “global war on terror”. Partly because it lacked the resources for that sort of adventure, of course, but also because it would have been stupid. Instead, it tightened security at airports and launched a police investigation of the attack.
The investigation was not very successful, and 21 years later most of the culprits have still not been punished. But Sikh terrorism eventually died down even though nobody invaded the Punjab and nobody else got hurt in Canada. Sometimes not doing much is the right thing to do.
Not doing too much would have been the right response in 2001, too.
It was legal for Washington to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, and public outrage in the U.S. made it almost unavoidable politically, but it was bound to end in tears. If the Afghan regime could have been forced to shut the al-Qaeda camps down without an invasion, that would have been the wiser course of action. The right goal was not to fall into Osama bin Laden’s trap and not to act in ways that spread suspicion and hostility in Muslim communities at home and abroad.
By gwynne dyer
Publish Date: 8-Jun-2006
They arrested 17 alleged Islamist terrorists in and around Toronto on June 3, most of them young and Canadian-born. They had bought three tonnes of ammonium nitrate, and are accused of planning to bomb targets in southern Ontario. Shock! Horror! How could this happen here?
Canada refused to take part in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, so most people assumed that it was therefore an unlikely target for terrorist attacks. Relatively speaking, it probably still is—but it does have several thousand troops in Afghanistan, and the new government in Ottawa is actively seeking closer ties to the Bush administration in Washington. Enough, perhaps, to motivate a bunch of radicalized young Muslim-Canadians who couldn’t reach non-Canadian targets anyway.
Any terrorist attack on Canada is bound to be homegrown, because there is no shadowy but powerful network of international Islamist terrorists waging a war against the West. There are isolated small groups of extremists who blow things up once in a while. There are Web sites and other media through which they can exchange ideas and techniques, but there is no headquarters, no chain of command, no organization that can be defeated, dismantled, and destroyed.
There have been Islamist terrorist groups in the Arab world for decades, but there never was much of an international Islamist “terrorist network”. Even in al-Qaeda’s heyday, before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan effectively beheaded it in 2001, there were only a few hundred core members.
According to U.S. intelligence estimates, between 30,000 and 70,000 volunteers passed through al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001, but their long-term impact on the world has been very small.
For most people who went to those camps, it was more a rite of passage than the start of a lifelong career as a terrorist. The average annual number of Islamist terrorist attacks in Arab and other Muslim countries has been no greater in the past five years than in the previous 10 or 20.
The West has been even less affected. The 9/11 attacks on the United States were a spectacularly successful fluke, killing almost 3,000 people, but there have been no further Islamist attacks in the U.S. The two subsequent attacks that did occur in the West, in Madrid in 2004 and in London last year, cost the lives of 245 people. And those attacks were both carried out by local people with no links to any “international terrorist network”.
The contrast between the received wisdom—that the world, or at least the West, is engaged in a titanic, unending struggle against a terrorist organisation of global reach—and the not very impressive reality is so great that most people in the West believe the official narrative rather than the evidence of their own eyes. There must be a major terrorist threat; otherwise, the government is wrong or lying, the intelligence agencies are wrong or self-serving, the media are fools or cowards, and the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
There isn’t a major terrorist threat; just a little one. The massive overreaction called “the war on terror” is due to the fact that 9/11 hit a very big and powerful country that had the military resources to strike anywhere in the world, and strategic interests that might be advanced by a war or two fought under the cover of a crusade against terrorism. If 9/11 had happened in Canada, it would all have been very different.
A kind of 9/11 did happen in Canada. The largest casualty toll of any terrorist attack in the West before 2001 was the 329 people who were killed in the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182, en route from Toronto to London, in 1985. Two hundred and eighty of the dead were Canadian citizens. Since Canada has only one-tenth the population of the United States, it was almost exactly the same proportionate loss that the United States suffered in 9/11.
It was immediately clear that the terrorists were Sikhs seeking independence from India, but here’s what Canada didn’t do: it didn’t send troops into India to “stamp out the roots of the terrorism” and it didn’t declare a “global war on terror”. Partly because it lacked the resources for that sort of adventure, of course, but also because it would have been stupid. Instead, it tightened security at airports and launched a police investigation of the attack.
The investigation was not very successful, and 21 years later most of the culprits have still not been punished. But Sikh terrorism eventually died down even though nobody invaded the Punjab and nobody else got hurt in Canada. Sometimes not doing much is the right thing to do.
Not doing too much would have been the right response in 2001, too.
It was legal for Washington to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, and public outrage in the U.S. made it almost unavoidable politically, but it was bound to end in tears. If the Afghan regime could have been forced to shut the al-Qaeda camps down without an invasion, that would have been the wiser course of action. The right goal was not to fall into Osama bin Laden’s trap and not to act in ways that spread suspicion and hostility in Muslim communities at home and abroad.
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
A beautiful example of the art of Black Propaganda in the service of Blair
15.06.2006 00:59
It was legal for Washington to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, and public outrage in the U.S. made it almost unavoidable politically
UNQUOTE
A statement of pure EVIL. Hitler invaded each nation during WW2 using EXACTLY the same logic. Set up a false-flag, or simple issue lies against a regime, and then use that as an excuse to storm that nation.
Of course, once again on Indymedia, we have someone (Gwynn Dyer in this case) clearly stating that all Blair has to do to justify his coming genocide in Iran is use Hitler's methods once again, and create a false-flag. The rest of the so-called 'liberal' coment in the article is so much blah-blah filler.
Afghanistan was invaded as a stepping stone to Iraq (and what Gwynn Dyer so very conveniently forgets to remind you is that after the 911 false-flag, many in senior positions within the US regime demanded that IRAQ be attacked, NOT Afghanistan). Iraq was invaded as a stepping-stone to Iran.
The article begins by accepting as true the Canadian intelligence propaganda operation against the arrested muslims. What Gwynn Dyer fails to point out is that Canadian security services merely (in an pattern of operation now seen repeated in France, UK, and US- Australia will surely follow) infiltrated a 'cell' of rightfully angry muslims, used an agent provocateur to identify the stupidest member, and persuaded that person to buy a few bags of fertilizer. This then allowed the Canadian police to arrest everyone linked to this person, and present their angry emails and discussions as proof that they were planning terrorist acts. Needless to say, even with the VAST amount of surveillance the muslims were under, they certainly didn't wait to see if anyone even tried to build any kind of bomb in order to REALLY prove their terrorist nature.
The difference between persuading a naive person to buy some fertilizer, and having people actually build any kind of bomb is exactly the distance between an American having a gun collection, and actually using the collection to commit any kind of crime. However, the Canadian intelligence operation knew (as in the UK and French cases) that there was zero chance of persuading anyone to build an actual bomb, so they simply take what they have, and try everyone with intent.
In history, when any group of people are squeezed by foul racist acts, some members of that group will talk of violent revenge. The percentage of those that actually go on to do anything violent or illegal is as good as non-existant (although if justice is not re-asserted, a violent organisation may eventually emerge to fight for justice that way). In the early days of racist injustice, those racist states can all to easily infiltrate and use agent provacateurs, after which every angry word becomes proof of the guilt of the targetted people. If in the early days, the existing laws force (appropriate) aquittals for lack of evidence, the racist state will use the media to state outrage at such aquittals, and demand the passage of new laws lowering evidentiary requirements.
At some point, the state will have enough legal powers to guarantee that any member of the target group that expresses any opposition to acts of racist terror by the state, can be successfully targetted and prosecuted (which soon enough means executed).
In Hitler's time the jews were the 'terrorists' and Germany's laws were adjusted over and over until Hitler could 'proof' their 'terrorist' nature by always successfully punishing them in his courts. Any response to their persecution was merely further proof of their 'guilt'. And any act by any jew 'hothead' driven to extremes by the crimes of the nazis was presented as proof of the 'jewish threat'.
Today, no-one says that Hitler invaded any nation legally. You see, that's how we resolved WW2- by fully recognising the true evil of Hitler's acts and propaganda. Today's growing evil will only be over when Blair, and all of his actions, are seen in the self-same light as those by nazi Germany. No wicked crap about Blair legally invading ANYWHERE. No crap about muslim terrorists in the US, UK, Canada etc. Instead, a laser like focus on the millions of muslims murdered by Blair, the racist propaganda campaigns orchestrated by Blair's Mass Media, and the intelligence operations run to demonise muslims.
The evil only stops when Blair is stopped. From Europe mostly objecting in public to the Iraq war, Blair has manipulated a new world, where most of Europe (including France and Germany) and Canada offer vocal support and enthusiastic anticipation for Blair's coming GENOCIDE of Iran. If Bush falls in the US, it is certain that he will be replaced by a more powerful pro-war, pro-Blair leader (Blair's first choice for his new US lieutenant would be Hillary Clinton, of course).
Articles that accept EVERY WORD THAT BLAIR HAS UTTERED AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and endlessly repeat the words 'muslim' and 'terrorist' are articles designed to be pro-Blair propaganda. NEVER TAKE THE SURFACE MESSAGE. Black Propaganda is vastly more sophisticated than that. Instead look at what isn't said. Examine which words get repeated, and in what proximity to each other. Note the assumptions that are presented as fact. Count how many times the OFFICIAL OTHODOXY (ie Blair's stated facts) is confirmed.
The bad guys have vast amounts of practise targetting decent people. They know the methods that work, and never fail to use them. The Guardian, for instance, targets a 'liberal' readership, but is Blair's main anti-muslim, pro-war newspaper. Preaching to the choir is hardly useful when you wish to make converts, so The Guardian is vastly more important as a propaganda organ than say The Telegraph.
When looking for intelligence service propagandists (as in this case) look into the background of the person. With gwynne dyer, his background is pathetically transparent, and it is a joke that anyone would fail to spot the intelligence service connections.
twilight
Plus ca change...
16.06.2006 16:36
What evidence do you have for this other than a dubious story found on a dubious website full of ufo stories and naked teen girl pictures?
Des Ouffes
Old enough to bleed...
17.06.2006 11:26
Lolita