Skip Navigation | Sheffield IMC | UK IMC | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

UK Indymedia UK Indymedia Sheffield Indymedia Sheffield Indymedia

Chossudovsky interview: "Al-Qaeda Is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence Asset"

Jole Garduce | 18.07.2006 20:32 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Sheffield

Michel Chossudovsky, author of the international bestseller America's War on Terrorism, personally graced the jam-packed local launch of his latest book held at the Asian Center at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City last June 24. During the launch, he gave a lecture about the imminent danger of a U.S.-made nuclear catastrophe amid the Bush administration's preparations for war with Iran.

Joel Garduce of Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies (CAIS) caught up with the director of the Centre for Research in Globalization (CRG) during his short weekend stay in the Philippines and conducted the following interview.

Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky


JPG: How would you characterize your book's contribution in giving a better understanding of the events surrounding 9/11?

MC: Well, there have been many books on 9/11. In fact, I would say that we had a lot of coverage of that event from many angles.

I have not centered on what had happened that particular day from the point of view of what happened to the buildings, and so on, which has been the subject of a lot of investigations.

What I have focused on is the role which the 9/11 events have played in justifying the invasion of Afghanistan almost a few weeks later after 9/11, and of course the invasion of Iraq.

And so I've tried to analyze the 9/11 events from geopolitics of war because essentially 9/11 is still the core event which justifies the war on terrorism. Without 9/11, there is no war pretext. That is why 9/11 is a very important landmark because it is being used extensively by the Bush administration to attempt to demonstrate that America is under attack, that these (wars on Afghanistan and Iraq) are acts of self-defense, and consequently that they must make war on the terrorists, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

And so I think that has been my focus, I've looked more on the geopolitics of 9/11, the role of intelligence agencies. And I've also centered on the fact that these terrorist cells, namely al-Qaeda, are invariably linked to the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). They have been consistently supported by U.S. intelligence, and so that this whole process of fabricating an enemy, namely, al-Qaeda, is in fact also an intelligence operation.

So it begs the question: if al-Qaeda were, according to the Bush administration, to have a role in 9/11, then we would have to investigate the relationship between al-Qaeda and the U.S. intelligence apparatus. I personally believe that the evidence supports it that al-Qaeda did not play a role in 9/11 in any way. But in fact, that that in itself is a red herring. Because al-Qaeda is a U.S.-sponsored intelligence asset.

JPG: Is it accurate to say that your research points to 9/11 looking more like an inside job?

MC: Well, I haven't made that statement. I never made a statement that it's an inside job.

What I've done is to show that the official narrative or explanation which was provided regarding 9/11 can be refuted, (that this official narrative) is a lie.

What the 9/11 Commission Report has submitted is an extensive narrative of what happened that day and what happened on the planes. And the evidence suggests that that reporting is a lie. It's fabricated.

And I can't say unequivocally that this is an inside job but I can say unequivocally that the U.S. administration is attempting to cover up in terms of actually investigating who's behind 9/11. And so they have to send in the picture of what happened which is to my mind totally fabricated.

JPG: Your research goes against the thesis of some thinkers like Noam Chomsky that 9/11 is principally a blowback operation. How would you look at these views?

MC: Those views are totally incorrect. The blowback assumes that the relationship between al-Qaeda and the U.S. government intelligence ceased in the wake of the Cold War. Because that's what they say.

They say we created al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan war. We trained the mujahideen, we helped them in fighting the Soviet Union. And in the wake of the Cold War, al-Qaeda has gone against us. And that's what's called the blowback. Blowback is when an intelligence asset goes against its sponsors.

That viewpoint I say is incorrect because in the course of the 1990s there's ample evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the U.S. administration, during the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration, leading up in fact to 2001. There's evidence of active collaboration between al-Qaeda paramilitary groups in the Balkans and senior U.S. military advisers.

I think that that view is mistaken, whether it emanates from the Left or from other quarters. It is totally mistaken and it is very misleading because it really provides legitimacy to the war on terrorism. It essentially says yes, the war on terrorism is a legitimate objective of U.S. foreign policy. And either they are mistaken or they are involved in media disinformation.

9/11 and U.S. client states

JPG: You've cited the role of countries like Pakistan through its Inter-Services Intelligence agency or ISI. How would you reckon the role of other countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and even Israel in the perpetration of 9/11?

MC: Well, we're talking about intelligence agencies. Pakistan has played a very key role historically in supporting al-Qaeda right from the beginning under the helm of Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the military commander who was president of Pakistan in the early 80s. And it was under the auspices of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence that the training camps, the madrassahs were established.

In turn, Saudi Arabia played a role because they provided funding through Islamic charities. So there is a connection between Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda. And apparently there's also a role played by Saudi intelligence.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan have certainly played a role but I think that Pakistan's role was far more central in the institutional support provided to al-Qaeda, on behalf, always on behalf, of the (ISI's) counterpart, the CIA.

My research has centered much more on the role of Pakistan's ISI. Because Pakistan's ISI also appeared to be involved in the conspiracy in the wake of 9/11, to wage the war on Afghanistan using 9/11 as the pretext.

Israel influence

JPG: There was a recent furor over the article by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that saw print in the London Review of Books last March. It's ruffled some U.S. circles about how the Israeli government exercises much influence over the U.S. government, specifically the Bush administration where many personalities identified with the Bush ruling clique are considered neoconservatives. How would you account the influence of the right-wing circles in Israel over the Bush administration and the conduct of the U.S. war on terrorism?

MC: I think that this relationship is far more complex than that. I don't believe that Israel overshadows U.S. foreign policy. I think that there's in fact a coincidence as far as foreign policy perspectives are concerned.

And this is something that is not recent. It goes way back in fact to the creation of Israel.

But on the other hand, to say that Israel overshadows U.S. foreign policy is incorrect. Because I think that Israel is an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. And it is being used in this particular context in the pursuit of U.S. hegemony. Now, Israel has an agenda. So I would identify (the U.S. and Israel) as involved in a longstanding military alliance. The U.S. has extensive military aid to Israel for a long time.

But I don't share the viewpoint that somehow Israel is now hijacking U.S. foreign policy and manipulating it. That position is simply incorrect.

However, we also have to understand another dimension of this question. The Jewish lobby in the U.S. may in fact play a role (through) their U.S.-based organizations. These are not Israeli-based organizations. And they certainly play a role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and in sustaining a pro-Israeli position. That is probably true.

But that is an entirely different mechanism to that of a foreign country actually hijacking America's foreign policy. To the extent that American foreign policy would be different had it not been for Israel, I don't buy that. Because U.S. foreign policy in fact is quite consistent in its stance from the Truman Doctrine which was formulated by George Keenan in the mid- to late 40s, and early 50s to the present neoconservative agenda.

The other aspect, and it's very popular both among leftist analysts as well as the libertarian right-wing analysts is to say somehow the neoconservatives are really different from their predecessors. And they are putting forth the Democrats as a possible alternative to the neoconservatives when in fact, if you really look at what's happening in the last ten to fifteen years, you see a continuum.

I mean, you had the First Gulf war, you had the war on Yugoslavia, you had the invasion of Afghanistan, then you had Gulf War II. And if you go back further in history, the wars in Afghanistan during the Cold War era to the present, there's been a very consistent thread and it has been pursued both by the Republicans and the Democrats.

On the 9/11 truth movement

JPG: You have emerged as a leading resource speaker of what has been called the international 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately, Filipinos are not yet familiar with that; there isn't much of an active 9/11 truth movement locally. Could you familiarize us with this movement?

MC: I'm not a member of the 9/11 truth movement as such. I have participated in some of their activities.

I have some reservations regarding this group because it has very contradictory elements within it. And there are various internal disputes also within the group.

Moreover, I do not believe that the analysis of 9/11 should be strictly limited to looking at what happened to the buildings and so on. It's a much broader focus which is required. It's the use of massive casualty-producing events to justify war.

And so we are simply not looking at 9/11. We're looking at 9/11, we're looking at the London bombings, we're looking at the Madrid bombings, we're looking at the Bali bombings, and so on.

We're also looking at the various suicide attacks which have taken place in the Iraqi war theater. And we know that many of those suicide attacks in fact were instigated by the occupation forces.

So I think it's also important at least from my perspective to broaden this understanding of 9/11. And the 9/11 truth movement has done lots of good work. They tend to be much more specialized in focusing on Building 7 and the World Trade Center, and what happened to the planes going into the Pentagon, whether it was a plane or a missile. And all those things I think are very important. I've been following that literature very carefully.

I have not been involved in the direct investigation into that particular aspect of 9/11. I have done one piece of analysis which maybe is a bit in line with that literature, recently. It's the issue of what happened on the planes. And I have a chapter in my book which focuses on that because it just struck me that there was a very important relationship which has not been well-analyzed, that none of those cellphone conversations could have taken place from cellphones at altitudes above 8,000 feet. And so I wanted to review that narrative in the 9/11 Commission Report. And identify very concretely that it is simply fabricated. It is impossible to make a telephone call from high altitude onboard a plane. And most of their descriptions rest on that. Not all of it, but most of it rests on telephone conversations between alleged passengers on one hand and family members on the other. And the industry is absolutely unequivocal on that. They say that you could not make a telephone conversation at 31,000 feet. You might be able to do it at 8,000 feet but the planes were flying at high altitude during the good part of the time when they were in the air.

The U.S. and fascism

JPG: How do you view claims that the U.S. government especially under the Bush administration has become a full-fledged fascist empire a la Nazi Germany?

MC: There's certainly evidence to suggest that the Bush administration is moving towards a police state. There's repeal of the rule of law because people can be arrested arbitrarily.

There's a military agenda to conquer foreign lands, and the pretext is fabricated. So, yes, there are certain features reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

But on the other hand one has to be very careful in making those comparisons.

Because one of the features of Nazi Germany was that Nazism was also a means for creating employment in the military-industrial complex, so that they were building up their military and they had expanded defense expenditures, infrastructures, so on, which created a lot of jobs in the course of the 1930s. And what characterizes the present regime in America is yes, movement towards martial law and the police state, militarization of civilian institutions, and also big contracts for the military and lots of military spending. (However) the type of weapons systems which currently prevails is such that these hardly create any jobs.

And so we're today in a neoliberal context. Nazi Germany was not characterized by neoliberal reforms. And that was one of the reasons why there was more support for the Nazi programme in the middle to late 30s. Because there was a promise of jobs which ultimately was reached in the late 30s when the German military machine was in full swing.

Rifts in the U.S. establishment

JPG: There had been revelations in U.S. media that point to the Pentagon under Rumsfeld getting more control over the covert operations than the CIA. and the U.S. State Department. How do you regard these revelations? Do they indicate anything of value in terms of the changes being undergone by the U.S. state?

MC: There's always sort of a rivalry between competing agencies of the U.S. government. I think that the Pentagon has been vying for some time to implement its own intelligence operations. In this particular case, they implement disinformation campaigns which consisted of planting news stories in the media. So yes, they are involved in intelligence.

But on the other hand, I don't view this necessarily as a crucial issue. It's a rivalry between bodies of the state apparatus. There can be very significant discrepancies.

Look at the person now who's in charge of intelligence. It's John Negroponte, who was involved in the dirty war in Central America, particularly in promoting the para-military death squads in Honduras and also his role in Nicaragua.

I think in effect that these organizations are rivals but they also collaborate well. They always have joint committees, the Pentagon, the CIA., the NSA., and so on. I really don't think that any change in direction would occur as a result of these discrepancies. They're normal within governmental structure.

JPG: There have been a string of prominent Americans coming out against the Bush administration and its handling of the war in Iraq, of the U.S. war on terror. They include active and retired generals, some previous Cabinet secretaries and even some current members of the U.S. Congress. There seems to be emerging rifts within the U.S. ruling class. What do you think are the prospects of the anti-imperialist movement being able to make use of these rifts within the U.S. ruling class?

MC: I think there are people in the U.S., both Republicans and Democrats, who recognize that the course adopted by the Bush administration, particularly in Iraq, but also in relation to Iran, is going to lead essentially to a complete fiasco.

And it's not that they are against U.S. foreign policy as decided by the Bush administration, but they believe that it should be conducted differently, perhaps with a less militarist perspective.

So you have people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a firm believer in the idea that America should extend its interests into Central Asia, for instance, and gain control over the Eurasian corridor, and the oil reserves of that region, but would probably favor a somewhat more negotiated policy, rather than all-out military conquest and war and so on and so forth.

So people like that are now more or less presenting (themselves as) voices of moderation. But it doesn't mean necessarily that they are in disagreement with the broader objectives of U.S. imperialism, which is really to colonize regions.

I see dissent from within the establishment but I don't see necessarily more articulate dissent against the project of global domination and militarization which the Bush administration has been putting forth.

JPG: So these emerging rifts within the U.S. ruling elite do not really indicate a departure from the imperial project that the U.S. has been conducting?

MC: I think that these differences in the current context could still play a very important role. It's not to say that things don't change.

What I'm saying is that these differences of viewpoint is not some kind of big revolution in U.S. politics. It's simply the fact that within the ruling elite, people think the Bush administration has taken on a course which is untenable and which ultimately will lead to disaster, and is not furthering the U.S. corporate agenda in a most effective way.

So these moderating views do not mean that the U.S. all of a sudden has become a peaceful nation. It simply means that they want to give a slightly more humane face to imperialism. That's really the whole issue.

There's a global military agenda, there's a plan to conquer, the plan to dominate and impoverish. And that some people in America think that there are better ways of doing it. That's the way I see this critique. Because the people who were undertaking that critique are themselves the architects of this military agenda, including Brzezinski.

And the Democrats don't really have an alternative viewpoint to that of the Republicans. They probably would be a little bit less radical in pushing certain policies but I don't think that fundamentally they would do things that different.

You must remember that there are certain institutions which will be there all the timethe CIA, the Pentagon, and so on irrespective of the team of people who are in power. And ultimately, to what extent do these people call the shots in consultation, let's say, with Lockheed Martin, the defense contractors, and the oil companies?

JPG: But what if it's possible that the war crimes committed by the Bush administration and those in the U.S. ruling elite are held to account? Don't you think the people's movement in the U.S. and the antiwar movement worldwide can benefit from holding to account the Bush administration and even the Democrats who approved of this war on terrorism?

MC: I think that at one level, there's certainly an opportunity to push forward in terms of let's say the people's movement in the U.S. as a result of the faults of the Bush administration, let's say with regard to Iraq, with regard to the torture.

But we must not fall into the trap of thinking that if Bush is impeached or if there's change in direction leading let's say to a new president who is a Democrat, that there will be fundamental change in America.

You see, the U.S. is also involved in what we call regime rotation. A regime rotation in America doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be real and meaningful changes in the way in which the country is moving nationally and internationally.

And that's where the confusion emerges, because there's a movement in the U.S. that says anything else but Bush. And they say yes, we must get rid of Bush.

Now that assumes first of all that Bush is actually making the decisions. He's not. He himself is a puppet. He has limited understanding of U.S. foreign policy and acting on behalf of other interests.

Clearly yes, the advisory team is important but I would say we have to look at the role of U.S. intelligence, the military, the links between the military intelligence establishment and the oil companies and the defense contractors, and so on. And of course Wall Street which ultimately is really the basic pinnacle of financial power in America.

And so having come to the understanding that somehow if Bush is impeached or whether there's a change in regime that there's going to be fundamental change, I think is an illusion.

On the contrary, it might mean that it might demobilize people who would otherwise be more aware of the fact that you don't change a New World Order by simply changing a president. You need much more carefully thought out ways of waging the struggle. You have to target the defense contractors, the oil companies, the insidious role in pushing a military agenda, not to mention 9/11, the use of 9/11 as a pretext.

That's the way I see it. I'm not particularly impressed by that perspective that ultimately once you get rid of Bush you solve the problem. But I should say that an impeachment of Bush would be a very important achievement.

It's ironic to say the least that there was an impeachment move against Clinton for his involvement with Monica Lewinsky but when extensive war crimes are revealed and when the U.S. president blatantly violates all the domestic and international norms of justice, and engages upon a criminal war with no justification whatsoever, that more or less he could continue exactly the way he wants, I think there we have a problem.

So yes the impeachment of President Bush is something that I would support. But I don't believe necessarily that it will resolve matters in the longer run, in the longer term.

JPG: Given the unprecedented belligerence of the U.S. under the aegis of the war on terror, what are the prospects of a schism developing within the imperialist camp similar to what developed during World War II where there were Allied Powers vis-à-vis the Axis Powers?

MC: You mean, between the U.S. and UK on one hand, and France, Germany on the other?

JPG: Or say, Russia and China?

MC: Well, certainly, I wouldn't say that China and Russia are part of that imperialist design. They're not countries which have imperial agenda as such. I'm not saying necessarily that they couldn't in the future. But historically the Soviet Union didn't really have an imperial agenda. And China has never had an imperial agenda. In its history, it's always remained within its borders.

I think what we're looking at is the relationship which exists within the Western military alliance. That is really the crucial thing. And the fact that you have very significant divisions between U.S., Britain, on one hand, and France and Germany on the other. I think that's very important.

And you have splits in the defense industry, the military-industrial complex. Britain is integrated into the United States. The British aerospace systems is actually producing for the U.S. Department of Defense as exactly the same privileges as the U.S. defense contractors. And it was an agreement that was signed in 1999.

And then you have the European defense industry which is really Franco-German. And so you have a split or divisions between what I call the Anglo-American alliance where you can add Australia, Canada, perhaps also Israel, and maybe a few other countries, who are part of this agenda. And then you have the Franco-German alliance.

But I should also mention that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is still an organization so firmly under U.S. control. And that's why you see the fact that now with the buildup of the possible war with Iran, what's happening is that you have also tacit support expressed by President Jacques Chirac of France. And so you don't have a situation in any way comparable to that prior to the war on Iraq.

© 2006 Bulatlat · Alipato Media Center

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.


Michel Chossudovsky's lecture, War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 is the final film in Sheffield Indymedia's Summer of Truth" film festival.

There are more articles by Michel Chossudovsky listed on the PGA web site, his own site is GlobalResearch.ca.

Jole Garduce
- Homepage: http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-21/6-21-asset.htm

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

Chossudovsky Is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence Asset

22.07.2006 12:03

"because essentially 9/11 is still the core event which justifies the war on terrorism....and consequently that they must make war on the terrorists, including Iraq and Afghanistan. "

The most important lie about 911, the lie that obviously benefits Bush and Blair most, is that 911 somehow justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whatever the real 911 story that is still the most damaging and deadly lie since it has killed more innocents than died on 911.

So why would Chossudovsky enforce this most important propaganda point ? Is he a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence Asset or a useful fool ?

I mean, tell me if I'm wrong since then I've wasted the past five years of my time getting arrested protesting the Afghan and Iraq invasions when they were actually justified invasions. Instead I could just move to Sheffield to investigate 911.

Danny


Danny are you thick or what?

22.07.2006 15:32

9/11 was/is used by the US administration to justify the wars and attacks on civil liberties. Why are you intentionally misreading what he is saying?

bemused


Why lie when the quote is in-front of us ?

22.07.2006 18:37

"9/11 was/is used by the US administration to justify the wars and attacks on civil liberties"

Thats not what he says, so why are you misreading him ? He says "911 is the ... event which justifies the war on terrorism". That is something quite different - do you think he is unable to express himself accurately ? What he says above is the equivalent of saying the Reichstag fire was the event that justified the persecution and banning of the German Communist party. It didn't justify that at all. Nothing justifies the Iraqi and Afghani wars and I would be suspicious of the politics of anyone who said it did.

You claim he states something he does not, and while I may be thick I can still spot your lie while it is visible on the page. And I have a fair idea why you are lying.

Danny


Wood.. trees...?

22.07.2006 18:50

Danny you can't see the wood for the trees can you....?

You think that, based on this one snippet of an interview that you have interperated in a daft way, that Chossudovsky supports the war against Afganistan and Iraq. This is nonsensical, look at his web site, he has been against the wars from the start and still is:  http://globalresearch.ca/

even more bemused


you are confused not bemused

23.07.2006 01:39

I never said he supports the wars. That's either two lies you have told now or it's you is a bit thick and you probably shouldn't slang others off for their intellect. He says that 911 justifies the wars period. The implication of course is that since he disbelieves the official 911 story therefore the wars are unjust. The implication is that investigating 911 is more important that opposing the wars. And it's a lie. The only way to stop the wars is for enough people to take direct action. If folk want to investigate 911, fair enough, they have enough websites and forums for that purpose. It isn't activism though and it's ruining IM.

There are companies close to Sheffield that manufacture whole or in part Israeli UAV drones and no activists have targetted them. Too busy solving 911 from your bedsits doubtless.

Danny


Info War

23.07.2006 12:52

Danny,

You're right

The only way to stop the wars is for ENOUGH PEOPLE to take direct action.

To me the lies of 911 are a way of letting "enough people" see the deciet perpetrated by world leaders in order to continue the gluttonous life styles of the elite few that support them. If "enough people" see 911 for what it is then "enough people" are more likely to join in on a lock on at any munitions factories around sheffield.

You know what's going on, millions don't.

All power to your elbow.

twopercenthuman


I challenge you to an action

23.07.2006 15:40

>To me the lies of 911 are a way of letting "enough people" see the deciet perpetrated by world leaders in order to continue the gluttonous life styles of the elite few that support them. If "enough people" see 911 for what it is then "enough people" are more likely to join in on a lock on at any munitions factories around sheffield.

>You know what's going on, millions don't.

It is a question of personal strategy then, and I'd be interested in exploring those differences and I reckon we could do that politely. It's also a matter of group strategy and that's where things often get bitter.

You hope that by proving Bush killed 3000 americans in a false-flag attack that he will be overthrown and society will be reformed. It's a worthy goal. It's debatable given the number of US troops and innocent foreigners killed openly by Bush since then, but if you suceed then it will have been time well spent.

However, you should recognise each day you fail to prove that is a day you haven't tried the other strategies, and in effect you are a loss to the peace movement. Even just as an investigator there are serious local issues to investigate like where is all the new land that the MoD have been purchasing and why. You say I know what is going on. To the extent that is true I learned it before 911 which means you don't need 911 to know what is going on, there are other strategies for informing people. Other people here - and you should credit anyone here with being better informed than the general public - would like to overthrow Bush and reform society but still believe the official story or at least doubt the alternative theories. Some see 911 as irrelevant simply because we are in the state of rebellion that you are calling for and have been for some time.

Indymedia is a to a great degree a self-organising system regardless of admins. Folk post their articles on the issues that interest them. If someone posts too many articles too often on the one newswire then other peoples issues disappear from view faster. Unlike most issues though, 911ers haven't organised a group so we get more disparate individuals posting their assorted thoughts separately. Not only does this annoy folk who are interested in other issues, it actively puts off activists who disagree as it gives a false representation of the various single-issue campaigns. For instance, anti-nuclear groups such as TP and CND are well established, and so we get relatively few anti-nuclear posts here, and most of them are reports from actions.

Say a single-issue vegetarian started posting here relating every issue to their cause, blaming every war on the aggresive tendencies of meat-eaters, or every virus on meat-eating, or famine and poverty, or global warming and desertification on meat eating. Now they would have valid points and indisputable facts but pretty soon every here would have got the point and be bored of it, eventually leading to a carnivore backlash. No single issue is prime or representative and I think the newswire is at it's best when there are more issues and points of view on it. If you see an existing 911 story on the newswire then please add your new post as an addition rather than as a different thread

There are already websites and forums for any given issue, IM is almost uniquely about where those issues cross into activism. The 911ers for the most part haven't crossed into action, they should be encouraged to do so but they should also be discouraged from posting so much dubious personal speculation. Once the 911ers are more of a genuine community then they might also wish to address the quality of journalistic sources that they as a group quote. There is a world of difference between linking to uruknet.info to prove a point, and linking to rense.com which only discredits yourself as a nazi. Personally I distrust Chossudovsky but he is at least at the more credible end of the scale, however even if you agree with him could you not have written a better article youself ? I think Chomsky is more credible than Chossudovsky but I'm not going to start posting Chomsky articles in response when they are well publicised elsewhere on the net, that'd make IM a debating forum between North American pseudo-intellectuals.

I was told after a similar post on 911 I was wrong to counterpose thought and action, that thought precedes action. The point is action doesn't always follow thought, most times thought stagnates into prevarication and IM should be about action, what we have done rather than what we think others should do. Goldmann said "Revolution is but thought carried into action". I've seen lots of 911ers calling for action, saying this is the time for protest over 911. Can I ask any 911ers who read this to suggest appropriate targets in the UK for a 911 direct action ? Is my suggestion of an arms company appropriate ? Now, once you agree upon a target, can you raise enough people who are willing to hit it and risk being arrested to publicise your cause while doing real damage to your opponents ? Do you have the skills and equipment and experience or would you need training or advice ? I'd be happy to spend a few nights behind bars if it'd increase the quality of 911 posts here.

What exactly is holding you back ?

Danny


I challenge you to attend a screening!

24.07.2006 19:31

Sorry about the rambling nature of this reply I hope it answers some of your points.

First It's my policy not to post anyone elses' articles on IM and I'll only add comments to already posted articles and use links to support what I say.

I've only posted one article on IM. It was about pressure and action in the USA to get the criminals in charge of America indicted, it was a gloomy look at how "the powers that be" would mannage the change over of power when Bush is finally indicted. The show trial, the media attention, bigger than Jackson, meanwhile its business as usual.

I have very few illusions as to the power of the 911 truth movement something may happen or not who knows, but it does have the potential to create a massive shift in the perceptions of millions.

I grew up with the Vietnam war on the telly every night while I ate my fishfingers or whatever my mum put on the table.
I saw that war eventually stopped by large scale public disobedence and direct action. i saw the mass movements for civil rights in America and grew up with the cold war and mutually assured destruction.

I saw the "hippy" peace movement disolve into "me-ism" and "alternative" capitalism. I saw the punk movement, and saw that most of the participants were merely following fashion, then came the "free party scene" people high on MDMA exploited by drug dealers and capitalists and thinking for a few short hours that they were free and all was well with the world. I saw the destruction of working class power in the miners strike and the steel closures. I worked in the co-operative housing movement. I saw the Greens destroyed by loon ball David Ike.
All this has left me cynical about human "intelligence" and atomised.

I got my information from the music and writing of the time and from the mass media. None of this is possible today the corporations have it all everything is censored and vetted in the hierarchical structure of corporate dominance.

All except the internet and we may loose that aswell.
IM was the only outlet open to us . It does actually say "Publish Your News" on the banner. So that's what we did. News is information as well as reported actions as far as I'm concerned.

I saw the power of protest music and became a musician hoping to spread the ideas of dissent through music. I became involved with "world music" hoping that it would spread awareness that there are other cultures on this planet other than western styles.

I have never before thought that any other previous Conspiracy Theory could stand up. JFK was the closest but was never really provable.

I and an admin at IM watched a video by anti-semite Hufschmidt on 911 sent to me by my conspiraloon brother and that was enough to convince us that there was at least a cover-up going on.

We investigated further and found the 911truth movement and the science behind the claims and judged it to be true - proven. I'm not interested in proving anything to me the thing is proven without any doubt. You just have to look at the video of the WTC7 collapse to see that it's a controlled demolition.

You don't need a court of law to change your mind

I'm well aware that the libertarian right have taken a lead in the 911truth movement, mainly because of the threat to civil liberties posed by anti-terror legislation. The right in America are well organised and have a policy to hijack any event they can and use it to further their cause. 911truth, the Palestinian struggle anything at all. The Nazi suprematists who are still bent on the genocide of the Jewish people use 911 to spread what they call anti-Zionist propaganda and then slip too easily into turning Zionist to Jew.
But the 911 truth movement is a very broad church and that's why I think it has a massive potential for change, but it still is only potential especially in the UK. it seems to me that the American people have to do most of the activism in this case. 911 has to get off the internet and onto the streets.

So the IM admin suggested the month of film screenings at Matilda. Sheffield IM and the Matilda collective agreed. And so admin posted an article about the screenings. It has meant long hours at the computer deflecting all the "conspiraloon" comments and arguing our point.

The last day of screenings will be at SIF this coming Sunday we propose to discuss the issues of groups/actions etc at that screening you're welcome to come and challenge people to act I know some of the regulars that have attended the other screenings are keen to set up actions concerning 911 truth.

The film screenings are activism the idea was to get a group together and act!
We're still waiting to see if that will happen.
I think the main thrust of actions should still be with the dissemination of information visibility leaflets meetings etc in order to build a larger group to carry out larger actions. That's just my idea of what should happen I am open to any suggested action. At the end of this season of films 911Truth in sheffield should probably get off the IM newswire unless actions need to be reported. I don't however see 911truth as a single issue it covers many bases. That's why we tagged the series of films "911 OIL WAR and GLOBALISATION"

twopercenthuman


Free Icecream

25.07.2006 12:18

It's too far south for me to attend and challenge anyone I'm afraid. If I make it down that far it'd be to hit the Israeli arms manufacturer rather than to watch movies I could download here. I don't like having to travel far for actions as I live in a 'target-rich' part of the country and I'll be cursing the local activists inactivity if folk have to come in and 'dot their work for them'. Sure, big targets like miltary bases require people travelling to them but relatively insecure targets such as arms manufacturers are easily dealt with by local groups.

I agree with most of what you say although I have a tighter definition of activism. I attended one of the Lebanon protest marches on Saturday, but marching isn't activism imao, and I was asked to recruit folk for a follow-up action, but recruiting isn't activism either. Activism to me is if any of the folk actually turn up and hit an appropriate target successfully. Similarly news for me on IM means just news of current actions and targets. Sure, if an IM poster had first-hand new of say the Lebanon slaughter, that'd be newsworthy. You say IM was the only outlet open to you. I find it hard to name a forum that doesn't carry 911 reprints from the US 'libertarian-right' and so can't believe that. If you can reclaim and reform the 911 junk-mail then at least it'd be an improvement. You do seem one of the most sensible 911ers that have posted here, and maybe you should reverse my general advice and post more often. Like if you notice another 911er linking to Rense to prove a point then maybe you should point out Renses Nazi links rather than waiting for a non -911er to, as it is hard not to tar all you with the same brush. Broad churches are fine but if you find nazis on the same pew then it's time to find a narrower church.

I really don't understand why anyone would need the 911 part of "911 OIL WAR and GLOBALISATION" to be persuaded to take action. Why not "911 OIL WAR GLOBALISATION AND FREE ICECREAM" ? If you know Iraq is an oil-war then you know the hundreds of thousands killed there are innocent victims of our criminal governments and so why you need to prove that the 911 deaths were also crimes is a mystery to me. Maybe the 911 victims were killed by Bush. If you are successful in what you are doing then just maybe one day you'll prove that to everyones satisfaction. That won't mean a thing to the families of the victims of our governments current and ongoing crimes.

Unlike your admirable stance, I do post comments on other peoples threads now. I never did this when I first posted here, I was very respectful and only rarely posted to correct any misinformation from actions I'd taken part in where I was an eyewitness. My impression of the newswire is that was typicial but it no longer is. I hope when you 911ers do get more organised it helps restrain the sheer volume of posts on the wire that I'm sure you yourself would recognise as conspirologist.

Danny


Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Sheffield Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Sheffield [navigation.actions2016]

Sheffield [navigation.actions2015]

Sheffield [navigation.actions2014]

NATO 2014

Sheffield Actions 2013

G8 2013

Sheffield Actions 2012

Workfare

Sheffield Actions 2011

2011 Census Resistance
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Occupy Everywhere

Sheffield Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

Sheffield Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

Sheffield Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

Sheffield Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

Sheffield Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

Sheffield Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

Sheffield Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

Sheffield Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech