The London Blasts: Media Review

THREE MONTHS ON - FOUR YEARS ON

DAY 93: 8 October 2005

The Fourth Anniversary Of The Invasion Of Afghanistan

Guardian Errata

Illusions About US Policy In Iraq #1 #2 / Denial And Brainwashing

More Snippets

Al-Qaeda Splits? / US Terrorist T-Shirt / Repression - Starkey & Robertson

GUARDIAN ERRATA

THINGS IN TODAY'S GUARDIAN THAT ANNOYED US #1

ILLUSIONS ABOUT US POLICY IN IRAQ

In a piece on 'democratisation' in the Guardian, James Harkin worries that the US may back away from democratisation in Iraq and go for a 'local Iraqi strongman'. Democratisation was not the plan! The strongman was the plan. (See Briefing 41 and others, War Plan Iraq and Regime Unchanged.)

Harkin claims that there was 'little evidence of any real enthusiasm for popular sovereignty'. If you look at the early weeks of the occupation, the picture is actually very different (see Regime Unchanged for a snapshot).

THINGS IN TODAY'S GUARDIAN THAT ANNOYED US #2

ILLUSIONS ABOUT US POLICY IN IRAQ #2

In another Guardian article riffing on Bush's 'divine inspiration', Mark Lawson says 'It's perhaps surprising that divine revelation should so precisely coincide with state department policy during the Bush administration.'

But Bush foreign policy was precisely to trample on State Department policy, leading to the humiliation and subjugation of Colin Powell, and to the Iraq war - which was opposed by the State Department and the military (who regarded Secretary of State Colin Powell as their continuing military leader).

THINGS IN TODAY'S GUARDIAN THAT ANNOYED US #3

DENIAL AND BRAINWASHING

Kathleen Taylor is an expert in 'brainwashing', which is to say she studies it, not that she is expert in doing it, though she has a good go in her Guardian article about 'brainwashing' and 7/7. In it, she refers in passing to the importance of restricting the victim's communications; the need to control what the victim sees, hears and thinks about.

In al-Qaeda, a potential suicide bomber would be groomed, she suggests, by giving them

'fewer aspirational Hollywood fantasies and adverts promoting western consumer lifestyles; more about the west's selfish greed, its neglect of its own disadvantaged, and the atrocities that emerge whenever Europe or the US bungles foreign policy.'

As we noted in an earlier Media Review, it has been suggested by someone who knew the Leeds bombers that watching videos of Muslim suffering and resistance in Bosnia, Chechnya and Iraq was the turning point for those three 7/7 bombers. One of the 21/7 bombers was reported to have said much the same of his own group.

But no one forced any of the bombers to stop watching Hollywood fantasies or to watch these particular videos. There was no external brainwashing. Secondly, how does US/European atrocities always get to be the result of 'bungles'? There is a presumption here, which is in fact part of the Western system of 'brainwashing under freedom' (copyright Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky). (This Chomsky interview is item 7 in the Google search for the term, our piece on Chomsky's media analysis is item 2.)

BRAINWASHING

Taylor says in brainwashing, 'five core techniques keep cropping up: isolation, control, uncertainty, repetition and emotional manipulation'. Maybe we'll have time to write something about the British media and these five core techniques another day.

UNREALISTIC?

Incidentally, Taylor ends her piece with an analysis of 7/7-type atrocities which starts like this:

'If Mr X [the al-Qaeda recruiter] is adept at what he does, Adam [the potential suicide bomber] will not pause to reject the twisted terrorist logic that says it's OK to kill D because D supports A, who sent in the soldiers who killed B, whom I care about. Adam will not care that D may not have voted for A; that B's death may be due to human error or military savagery, which A condemns; that D has no way of changing A's behaviour; or that Mr X's goals are completely unrealistic.'

All spot on except for X's goals being 'completely' unrealistic. The driving force of the al-Qaeda insurgency is the knowledge that that the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan. There is a real possibility that the US will be driven out of Iraq (albeit at the cost of thousands of lives and the real prospect of a civil war that could outstrip Lebanon). Israel was driven out of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The goal of expelling the US and its allies from all Muslim-majority states is unrealistic (US commitment to maintaining control of Middle Eastern energy resources is total), but is it 'completely unrealistic'?

Some of the goals may be achievable. Equally, the indiscriminate and brutal methods of al-Qaeda and its affiliates make some of the goals less achievable and less realistic.

The issue (from a potential bomber's point of view) is not whether the goal (an end to US support for Israeli aggression, for example) is achievable, but whether the means chosen (killing 3000 civilians in New York, for example) is likely to advance that goal, or to retard it. For the rest of us, the moral dimension is inescapable. For the potential bomber, it is not.

IMMATURITY?

Let's carry on with Taylor's analysis:

'Adam will not stop to ask the difficult questions or to remember the long list of radicals whose fire was doused, of necessity, once they gained power and realised just how muddled and compromised the real world is.'

'Adam would certainly never admit that terrorism springs not so much from evil as from immaturity: the lazy or callous or desperate short-sightedness of people who, like an angry toddler, want their demands met, now, however stupid those demands may be.'

Is it stupid to want Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and to stop its brutal practices? Is it stupid to want the US/UK 'coalition' to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop their brutal practices? Is it stupid to want Russia to withdraw from Chechnya and to stop its brutal practices? Is it stupid to want the US and its allies to stop supporting dictators in the Middle East who crush dissent with their brutal practices?

Are we going to reduce the threat of terror if we call al-Qaeda bombers 'immature'?

Are al-Qaeda bombers who kill masses of innocent civilians really 'immature' or driven into a bigoted madness by the suffering and humiliation which they cannot stop?

In contrast, we might remember the words of Cherie Blair in 2002:

'As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress.'

Or the words of Jenny Tonge MP in 2003 about the situation in Palestine:

'If I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself.'

THAT FREEDOM, HOW PRECIOUS

Taylor finishes her piece:

'Brainwashed Adam [the potential bomber] is no longer able to think any of these thoughts. But we can, and that freedom gives us a great advantage over him: the ability to understand what makes Adam and others like him behave the way they do. Whether - and how well - we use that knowledge is up to us.'

How we use our understanding of the worldview of al-Qaeda-type terrorists is of course the crucial issue (we might as well make sure it is an accurate understanding first). What is ironic is that an article which fails so lamentably to 'understand what makes suicide bombers behave the way they do' ends by congratulating itself on 'our' great advantage over the bombers.

MORE SNIPPETS

AL-QAEDA SPLITS?

'End beheadings – shoot hostages, orders al-Qaeda':

'Al-Qaeda has abandoned hope of defeating the US-backed Government in Afghanistan and instead is concentrating on driving American forces from Iraq, even if that means ditching its brutal methods.'

'According to the Pentagon, the strategy is set out in a 6,000-word letter sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in July.'

'Al-Zawahiri warns al-Zarqawi that his brutal tactics, which include beheading Western hostages, killing hundreds of Shia Muslim civilians and murdering Iraqi officials, could alienate Muslim public opinion. He allegedly recommends shooting, not decapitating, prisoners.'

'He considers a clash between Sunni and Shia Islam inevitable but questions the wisdom of bombing Shia targets and reminds al-Zarqawi that half of the battle against America is being fought through the media.'

'However, beheadings and suicide bomb attacks against Shia targets have continued unabated. This could indicate that al-Qaeda lacks control over al-Zarqawi. Although respected among Islamic militants, al- Zawahiri is a fugitive living on the Afghan-Pakistani border, while bin Laden has not been heard of for nearly a year.' (The Times, page 48)

'The call by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, may further isolate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qa'eda leader in Iraq after Sunni clerics and several Sunni insurgent groups demanded an end to his self-declared "war" on Shias, saying the attacks jeopardised "the success of the plan of Jihad and resistance in Iraq and lead to further bloodshed of innocent Iraqis." '

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the letter "demonstrates that among the terrorist leaders there are differences of opinion concerning the terrorist tactics, but it also shows unity in terms of their overall objectives".

'According to Mr Whitman, Zawahiri "says they should avoid tactics such as bombing mosques (and) slaughtering hostages in order to not alienate the masses".' (Telegraph, page 17)

'Officials said the letter, a treatise outlining a strategy for a global jihad, had been authenticated from multiple sources and gave a rare insight into the relationship between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida and its affiliate in Iraq.' (Guardian, page 19)

'The Pentagon said that in the letter Zawahiri complained about the loss of key leaders, a breakdown of communications and funding problems - to the extent that he asked al-Zarqawi for funds to help militants on the run in south Asia.' (Telegraph, page 17)

 

TERRORIST T-SHIRT - US STYLE

'Woman thrown off flight for offensive T-shirt' (Telegraph, page 16):

'Lorrie Heasley, 32, boarded a Southwest Airlines flight in Los Angeles wearing a T-shirt with a design including the images of President George W Bush, Dick Cheney, the Vice President, and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, above an obscene variation on the title of the hit comedy film Meet the Fockers.'

'When the plane made a scheduled stop in Reno, Nevada, passengers joining the flight complained to cabin crew. Ms Heasley, who was accompanied by her husband Ron, was asked to wear her top inside out, but she refused and was ejected.'

' ''I just thought it was hilarious," said Ms Heasley yesterday. "I have cousins in Iraq and other relatives going to war. Here we are trying to free another country, and I have to get off an airplane. . . over a T-shirt. That's not freedom." '

'Ms Heasley, a lumber trader from Washington state, said she wore the top as a joke for her Democrat-voting parents who were waiting to collect her from the airport in Portland, Oregon. She said she planned to file a civil rights complaint against the airline.'

'The American Civil Liberties Union in Las Vegas said that under the constitution, the T-shirt was protected political speech. Ms Heasley said she had been in touch with ACLU lawyers and wants Southwest to reimburse her for the last leg of the trip.'

REPRESSION - STARKEY AND ROBERTSON

Two interesting interventions on the repressive laws front. Predictably, Geoffrey Robertson, human rights lawyer, uses his new book on the trial and execution of Charles I to defend civil rights and judicial independence against New Labour:

'In January 1649, lawyers fled the Inns of Court to avoid involvement in the prosecution [of Charles I]. The brief was accepted by a barrister named John Cooke: it instructed him to frame a charge "to the end that no chief officer may hereafter presume to enslave or destroy the English nation and expect impunity for so doing".'

'This use of the word impunity enters history in Cooke's brief. He deposed more than 30 witnesses to prove Charles’s command responsibility — not merely for starting the conflict but also for supervising the torture of prisoners of war and for directing plunder and pillage of the homes of non-combatants... Historians have caricatured it as a “show trial” although it was uniquely fair by the standards of the time and its verdict was far from pre-ordained — it was crucially influenced by the King’s lack of remorse for deaths on both sides during the Civil War. His execution brought about a short-lived republic but, at the Restoration, Cooke and the surviving judges were subjected to a rigged trial at the Old Bailey, followed by disembowelling at Charing Cross in the presence of Charles II.'

'Not even the rabid royalist resurgence in 1660 could bring back the Star Chamber, although habeas corpus was cleverly circumvented. The King’s judges died bravely and aroused such public sympathy that the Government feared to bring more republicans to trial: the Lord Chancellor directed that they should remain imprisoned on offshore islands such as Jersey, where the “great writ” could not reach. This device — the Bush administration’s precedent for Guantanamo Bay — was reversed by the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679, a statute applied by the US Supreme Court in 2004 when they ordered that detainees should have due process.'

'The principles of those who established parliamentary sovereignty cannot be brushed aside. They insisted that there could be no secret trials, no months of detention at executive discretion, no nobbling of judges. The Prime Minister may say that, after the London bombings “the rules have changed”, but some rules are immutable. Parliament can derogate from the European Convention, but cannot alter its own constitutional history.'

Less predictably, right-wing historian Dr David Starkey has spoken out in favour of civil liberties and a 'tolerant' attitude towards Islam:

'Dr David Starkey said that the religious intolerance of previous centuries could be repeated unless society reconsiders its attitute to Church and State. Direct parallels could be drawn between the present and the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when a common enemy was defined by religious belief, culminating in civil war.'

'The historian voiced alarm at the trend towards “thought crimes” encapsulated in anti-terrorism legislation and what he saw as new Labour’s political correctness. The same trends could be seen, he said, when Henry VIII fused Church and State by declaring himself head of the Church of England.'

'What today might be described as thought crimes, such as expressing any sympathy for suicide bombers, would in previous eras have been termed heresy.'

'The key to present-day threats, he said, was tolerance. In the same way that a multitude of religious sects were allowed to continue without threat of being burnt at the stake after the Restoration, Britain today should tolerate Islam.'

If only those advocating 'liberal' approaches to these questions could stop posing this as a confrontation between 'the West' (or 'Britain') and 'Islam'. The West contains Islam just as it contains Christianity. Both 'the West' and 'Islam' are broad oceans containing enormous diversity, some elements of which are congenial to each other, and some of which are mutually repellent.

JNV welcomes feedback.