In his latest book, British-born journalist Robert Fisk argues that the U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard are doing a better job of spreading the message of terror than al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
According to Fisk, fear of terror is the message from the world superpowers they inject into their voters as effectively as Osama bin Laden, the alleged perpetrator of Sep. 11 attacks, could have wished after the incident.
"Pollies feed us with fear," Fisk says. "Al-Qaeda is part of the monster they need for this…. They tell us, 'they're coming, they're coming',
"Why do we allow Bush, Howard and Blair to say 9/11 changed the world?
"Bin Laden wanted 9/11 to change the world, and this is what they (Howard, Bush and Blair) are saying."
After 30 years of reporting from some of the most war-torn areas of the globe, Fisk is now in Sydney to promote his book: The Great War for Civilization - the Conquest of the Middle East. The book reflects on 50 years of bloodshed in the Middle East and details Fisk’s meetings with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon.
The chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent met Bin Laden three times, first in a Sudanese desert, then at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, and later at an unspecified location on the top of a mountain. Fisk says he didn’t request any of the meetings with the al-Qaeda chief.
According to Fisk, Bin Laden is no longer the linchpin of al-Qaeda, which had become a monster that allegedly continue to attract people who share its ideology. However, Bush and Blair spent half a decade exploiting al-Qaeda chief for political ends. The terror warnings of both leaders always back Bin Laden's threats. They have relied on terrifying their voters with renewed and bloodcurdling threats.
Fisk says this policy isn’t new. In his book, he recalls the near sinking of the USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter jet in 1987. Because Iraq was a U.S. ally at the time, President Regan blamed Iran. “It was an interesting precedent,” Fisk wrote. “When Iraq almost sank an American frigate, Iran was to blame. When al-Qaeda attacked the United States fourteen years later, Iraq was to blame.”
An editorial on the Times states that the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were hijacked to validate the repeated violation of international laws. It argues that the Bush Administration wants the world to believe that the U.S. is so threatened to authorize the kidnappings of foreign citizens, detentions without trial and violation of the Geneva Conventions and employment of puppet leaders to help it in its “war on terror”. The article also states that the U.S. and the UK use the same logic to claim the right to invade foreign countries in defiance of international law, like what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This requires at the very least a defensible moral superiority. But this supremacy is already questioned by many people around the world, including many Americans. Last year’s BBC poll of 21 countries gave a majority that declared George Bush “a threat to world peace”.
There never was a “terrorist threat” to western civilization or democracy, only to western lives and property. The threat becomes systemic only when democracy loses its confidence and when its leaders are weak. Bush and Blair’s launch of a “long war” against Bin Laden, and by implication, a long suppression of civil liberty, is ludicrous
"Why do we allow Bush, Howard and Blair to say 9/11 changed the world?
Other than to say, we don't mind and hey next time use a nuke. I think they have every right. And I think a lot more saud that about it changing the world, though I think it better even more to say it woke the world up to Islamic fundametalism.
According to Fisk, fear of terror is the message from the world superpowers they inject into their voters as effectively as Osama bin Laden, the alleged perpetrator of Sep. 11 attacks, could have wished after the incident.
Alleged, he claimed responsibility and offered the US a "Cease fire" like he has Islam in his back pocket.
According to Fisk, Bin Laden is no longer the linchpin of al-Qaeda, which had become a monster that allegedly continue to attract people who share its ideology. However, Bush and Blair spent half a decade exploiting al-Qaeda chief for political ends. The terror warnings of both leaders always back Bin Laden's threats. They have relied on terrifying their voters with renewed and bloodcurdling threats
.
The search for bin-liner will never stop, even if he becomes a student at Yale university like the Taleban PR guy with his Nike trainers.
There never was a “terrorist threat” to western civilization or democracy, only to western lives and property. The threat becomes systemic only when democracy loses its confidence and when its leaders are weak. Bush and Blair’s launch of a “long war” against Bin Laden, and by implication, a long suppression of civil liberty, is ludicrous
Oh right, I don't accept this crap. 9/11 told the world we cannot allow minority fundamentalists strike like this. The war may be long bloody and unlike anything we have seen, but if the day ever came that our leaders stood up and said we will take no action against bin-liner and his yobs because they do not threaten our western civilization or democracy then could the last person to leave the UK please switch the light off.
ya fear and terror are the most effective ways of ruling and controlling - from either side. long throughout history this has been known, from the Mongol-Tartars and their terror tactics. this is nothing new, but it's just so much more in the forefront that people are starting to notice.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks