24 July 2007

Creating Terror: a lateral view

I recently did a talk on this subject at the Indian YMCA, and a couple of people have written summaries of it.

London Sound Posse kindly recorded the whole thing and have put it up online here:

http://media.putfile.com/Nafeez-Ahmed---Creating-Terror---7-13-2007

and/or here:

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=23955

A short synopsis and commentary on the talk can be found at 9/11 Cult Watch here, by Paul Stott, who works with the parapolitical journal Notes from the Borderland.

Another synopsis and introduction has been posted by Reprehensor on 9/11 Blogger here.

It's interesting that websites which offer quite opposing theoretical interpretations of the events of 9/11 are nevertheless both able to appreciate my work in this area.

13 comments:

  1. Are you able to post the text of your talk?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nafeez, what did you think of The 4th Bomb. I have had some v. good feedback. I'd be interested in knowing what someone with your wide ranging overview thought of it.

    Daniel Obachike

    You can email me from the www.the4thbomb.com site

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent discussion, Nafeez. You are one of the only researchers to delve into this subject in any substantial manner.

    I was particularly satisfied to hear you mention the U.S.-Jundullah link to the "liquid explosive" plot last year.

    As far as I know, my articles "Still Playing With Fire" and "U.S. Proxy Linked to Liquid Explosive Plot" provide the only documentation of this information.

    Readers are invited to follow the links.

    On a related note, recent reports suggest the Jundullah are still active U.S. assets. And these guys are drug smugglers, right? So where is all the heroin coming from?

    Devlin Buckley
    The American Monitor

    ReplyDelete
  4. [i] Roger ha detto...

    Are you able to post the text of your talk? [/i]

    Hey, would anyone be so kind to do that ? I think Nafeez did enough :D Unfortunately English isnt my first language, I listened to the conference and it was great, but of course I missed some words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Respect man. Found myself here thanks to the fluid nature of the internet. I hope more people find themselves here. Obviously everything is messed up right now, as it has been so often in the earths history, but what can be done? More and more people are seeing the true nature of the beast, lets hope this could be the first step to something better. The world needs a new Confucius who can bring back personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nafeez,

    Excellent stuff, could you put up some of the references that you might have for the speech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. really good stuff. never heard anything connect the dots so well.
    i wish more people in the U.S. would listen and think about this stuff.
    if you ever want to drop a line on my blog, it's:
    daredevil92103.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. England and America's terrorism or imperial wars do not just happen "out of blue." Nor are they the product of individual US-UK criminal regimes like Blair and Bush. Nor it is a merely a question of "complicity," "bad policy decisions," or "blowback."

    These are just damaged controlled alibis.

    In the case of Iraq, the USA-UK's war has been continuous since at least 1990 and Operation Desert Storm. Throughout the 1990s, America and England routinely bombed Iraq (under the guise of their no-fly zones) and starved its people through "UN" (read US-UK) economic sanctions.

    In short, America and England have been willfully and criminally guilty of genocide against Iraq for over a decade.

    It should also be noted that war criminal Tony Blair was democratically elected and reelected by the British people--even after the lies about "Iraqi WMDs" became public knowledge. This reveals much about the myth of a "peace-loving" England.

    In terms of the Middle East in general, Imperialist England's colonial wars, occupations, and covert terrorism go back generations such as exemplified by Winston Churchill's infamous gassing of the Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. Today, the English laud Churchill as a great patriot and national hero.

    This is a tradition that some Anglo apologists would prefer to minimize, divert attention from, or sweep under the rug--as if it is just ancient history not relevant to the present.

    However, this heritage of British and American terrorism/imperial war is essential for understanding the terror wars that the USA and UK engage in today.

    To be blunt, terrorism is an essential aspect of the "democratic" British regime, its military and intelligence institutions, and indeed one might say British civilization (sic) itself.

    One can thus find examples of British false-flag terrorism used against the IRA in Northern Ireland decades ago that anticipate similar terror tactics that the British are currently using against Iraq.

    "Were British Special Forces Soldiers Planting Bombs in Basra?"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=994

    Terrorism is as British as God Save the Queen or the Union Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The vested interests encourage the growth of imperialist wars and irrationality because both serve to distort the discontent of the masses away from their vested interests (the uninvested surplus).
    Accordingly, some of the defenders of vested interests divert a certain part of their surplus to create instruments of class oppression, instruments of imperialist wars, and instruments of irrationality. Once these instruments are created and begin to become institutions of class oppression, imperialist wars, and of irrationality, the chances of the institution of expansion being reformed into an instrument of expansion become almost nil.
    These three new vested interest in combination with the older vested institution of expansion are in a position to prevent all reform. The last of these three, the old institution of expansion, now begins to lose its privileges and advantages to the three institutions it has financed. Of these three, the institution of class oppression controls much of the political power of society; the institution of imperialist wars controls much of the military power of the society; and the institution of irrationality controls much of the intellectual life of society.
    These three (which may be combined into only two or one) become dominant, and the group that formerly controlled the institution of expansion falls back into a secondary role, its surpluses largely absorbed by its own creations.
    - Carroll Quigley "The Evolutions of Civilizations" pg 153

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nafeez, I guess you have a preview copy of Peter Dale Scott`s soon to be published book - maybe you say that you have in one of your talks, but I can`t remember. Anyway, here`s an except posted on Guerrilla News Network...

    http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3242/Exclusive_excerpt_The_Road_to_9_11_Wealth_Empire_and_the_Future_of_America

    I tried posting this blog a few days ago but I think something went awry in my posting! Luke Ryland on Sibel Edmonds` case...

    http://lukery.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nafeez, today`s rather amazing piece from Robert Fisk. He admits that even he questions the 'truth' about 9/11. Maybe he should have a copy of your 'War on Truth'. I imagine the both of you could have a very good discussion on the subject. ...

    Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11

    Published: 25 August 2007

    Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

    His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

    Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

    Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

    Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

    But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

    I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

    Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

    But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

    Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.

    http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece

    ReplyDelete
  12. Salaams Nafeez

    Ramadhan Kareem first of all.

    Keep up this brilliant work I read your book on the 7/7 Bombings and have been spreading the word for others to read it.

    I'll continue to read your work with avid interest.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete