Conspiracy theorists or Jihadists?

Keeping an eye on the media coverage of July 7th, and taking the media to task over their inaccuracies, mis-leading statements and distortions. Post all your complaints and responses here! If you spot inaccuracies in the media coverage, here's the place to tell us about it.

Conspiracy theorists or Jihadists?

Joined: 07 Dec 2005, 15:21

17 Jul 2006, 23:51 #1

Firstly, wasn't sure which section to put this topic in. The Antagonist and I both raised this question on the Narrative thread, but no one has really focussed on this truly bizarre little section of the Official Report.

In section 20 of the Official Report, there is the statement:
Hussain undertook a Hajj visit to Saudi Arabia with his family early in 2002. After this, he began wearing traditional clothing and a prayer cap and would wear white on Fridays. Some time after this it was noticed that he had written ‘Al Qaida No Limits’ on his RE schoolbook. He was open about his support for Al Qaida in school and said he regarded the 9/11 bombers as martyrs.
However, further on in section 41, the report, completely contradicting the above paragraph, states:
Conspiracy theories also abounded, at least some of the bombers seem to have expressed the view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the US.
I was reminded of this confusing issue when I saw a blogger write earlier on tonight:
"The 7/7 bombers were deeply into the 9/11 conspiracies that it was all a Zionist plot to discredit Islam, we're told, and it fits. And conspiracy theories are rife, still amongst some angry young Muslim men."
I can only assume that this sentiment is based on section 41 on the Official Report - although where the 'Zionist plot' aspect comes from I'm not sure, since the report definitely doesn't mention this. From "some of the bombers seem to have expressed the view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the US" to being "deeply into" conspiracy theories. I don't know if the blogger has seen some other evidence that the men held such views, but it seems inaccurate to say they were 'deeply into the 9/11 conspiracies' when the Report itself is ambiguous about whether they actually were.

I have a couple of problems with this issue. Firstly, the Report has contradicted itself here, by first saying one of the men regarded the 9/11 bombers (actually I thought they were hijackers, and that there were definitely no bombs in the WTC but a trivial detail, I guess) as martyrs, then saying the men apparently didn't believe 9/11 had happened that way. Saying that the men 'seemed to have' expressed a view, is not the same as having certain knowledge that they did.

Secondly, if they did express this view, and felt that the 9/11 attacks were actually prepetrated by the US in order to discredit Islam, why commit an act which demonstrates an ideology that they themselves didn't believe in, that they believed had been contrived by the US?

If they really were 'conspiracy theorists' who believed that 9/11 was an inside job, there is simply no logic in reinforcing the stereotype of the 'suicide bomber' that they believed the US had fabricated. Labelling the 7/7 suspects as 'conspiracy theorists' doesn't really lend weight to the argument that they did what they believed the 9/11 hijackers didn't do.

Is anyone able to make sense of this?

By the way, I would have asked the blogger this via a comment on the post itself, but it is stated later that she doesn't want to hear from us because we're 'conspiraloons.' Since there is no way I can discuss this issue with her, and try and get some clarification as to what she meant when she mentioned this in her post, I was wondering if there was anyone here who could explain to me if I've misunderstood something fundamental here, or is this really as nonsensical as it appears to me? If 'conspiracy theorists' don't believe that terrorist attacks are carried out by extremist Muslims, then it doesn't make sense that a 'conspiracy theorist' would also be an extremist Muslim and carry out a terrorist attack. Why would the Official Report mention that some of the men were sceptical about the 9/11 attacks as some way of endorsing the likelihood that they were suicide bombers?
"We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a lying freedom." - Errico Malatesta, Democracy and Anarchy 1924
Reply
Like

Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 22:57

18 Jul 2006, 08:40 #2

Kier,

Yep, I thought it strange when I read ...
* Conspiracy theories also abounded, at least some of the bombers seem to have expressed the view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the US
in the 'narrative'.

This statement (like so many in the narrative) is just speculation and it means nothing unless some evidence can validate the assertion. Where did they get the info from? Did they have books/leaflets re '911-inside job' in their possession?


I think it is a case of a twisted variation of EITHER YOUR WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS, presented for the reader of the Narrative - i.e. if you believe that 911 was an inside job, then you vindicate the action of these 4 'bombers'.

I believe the inclusion of such a statement* is a guarding mechanism to prevent young Muslim men & indeed anyone, from going down the route of further research into revealing that false flag operations (e.g. the probability of 7/7 & 9/11 being inside jobs) do exist.

There is definitely something strange about #41, but it would have been put there for a reason........

They had to get the dismissive term Conspiracy Theory in to the narrative, somehow.........
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened." -- George Orwell, 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 14 Jan 2006, 22:43

18 Jul 2006, 11:50 #3

I agree with Kier's impeccable intellectual logic although we should bear in mind that we people are often illogical, hold two contradictory beliefs in our minds which we never quite sort out. We could emotionally identify with heroic suicide hi-jackers (murderers actually) out of our deep alienation from US corporate and military power but also believe that it is the great Satan = Deceiver and that we poor Muslims have been framed and scapegoated again.

Having said that, I am not saying the leeds 4 were so emotionally self-indulgent, or needy, or lost, as to believe both these two things, just that if they were living from a groupthink-emotional-identity-driven sort of space (and few of us are completely clear of such space), then such a space can hold two contradictory beliefs because the array of believed things isn't responding to the outside world realities or logic, but to inner emotional and belonging needs.

And I agree with Sinclair that this is a warning off sort of smear, a sign from the Home office to the 'responsibles' to be vigilant about thoughtcrime in the congregation, with the cagtegory of 'terrorism' being constantly stretched to include any kind of deviance the Regime doesn't like, no matter how nonviolent. (Thank God they didn't proscribe HT).
Reply
Like

Joined: 01 Apr 2008, 12:34

29 Sep 2014, 12:57 #4

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 54380.html

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged.

The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy.

The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism - not just violent extremism.
Reply
Like