Welcome nomen. Here's a site with a write up on this topic.
http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:3hB ... =clnk&cd=1
Check out who wrote the article- The New York Times, August 19, 2002 ‘Qaeda Videos Seem to Show Chemical Tests’ By Judith Miller
That says a lot about the intention. It was a time when emotions were stirred up against Islam and the stirring up was being done by whatever propaganda machines could be utilised.
The tape was among about 250 that Nic Robertson, a CNN reporter, was taken to 10 days ago, 60 of which hebrought out of Afghanistan with him. Experts say the collection is the largest known assembly of videotapes evermade by Al Qaeda of its activities -- a library that was collected, cataloged and stored by unknown individuals,apparently to document the history of Al Qaeda.The archive includes instruction tapes on bomb-making and on how to shoot surface-to-air weapons, as well as thefirst meeting of Osama bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders with foreign journalists in May 1998, and other tapes --often violent -- contributed by affiliated groups in Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere.The earliest videotapes dated back to the late 1980's; the most recent included news broadcasts of the collapse of theWorld Trade Center.
Pretty obvious what the intent was. They carefully chose the tapes to show and fully dramatize the atrocities that Al Qaeda would stoop to. I mean, no one had even heard of this group before, so this item needed maximum overkill.
With what we know about Al Qaedas origins now and the complicity of the CIA in its formation, it is another example of intentional demonizing for purpose.
A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency said the agency could not comment on the significance of thematerial because CNN had not provided the tapes to the agency. But he said the tapes, as described, were consistentwith what intelligence analysts have said about Al Qaeda's quest for chemical and other weapons of massdestruction and its testing of "crude" agents.Government and private chemical weapons and terrorism experts watched many hours of the tapes last week, as dida reporter for The New York Times, at the invitation of CNN.One of those experts, Magnus Ranstorp, director-designate of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and PoliticalViolence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, said the tapes suggested that Western intelligence agenciesmight even now be underestimating Al Qaeda."In conjunction with the Encylopedia of Jihad and other written manuals, the tapes show meticulous planning,preparation and attention to the tradecraft of terror," Mr. Ranstorp said.
Fear being manufactured for the purpose of the war in Afghanistan and eventually justification of Iraq. It works.
This is how they explain the appearance of these tapes.
Mr. Robertson and senior CNN executives declined to say precisely how or where they located the tapes, but they said CNN did not pay for them. Mr. Robertson said he drove 17 hours from the Afghan capital of Kabul about twoweeks ago to view the tapes, which he said had been moved away from their original location. His contacts inAfghanistan told him the tapes had been moved. After watching the material for more than a day, he selected thetapes of greatest interest and took them out of Afghanistan.
All that driving and sitting on his ass, must have been so grueling. Then having to go through it and pick out the stufff that had the proprer stimulus for Evening News. Blood and death sells. Judging from the fact that they did not pay for them, the government obviously OK'd their use and the military made sure their friends got the copies they could use.
Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian who is cooperating with the government in its prosecutions of those accused in theplanned bombing of the Los Angeles airport, testified last year that he was taught to poison people by putting toxinson doorknobs and that he engaged in experiments in which dogs were injected with a mix of cyanide and sulphuricacid.In February, four Moroccans in Italy were detained for possessing cyanidelike compounds and maps of theAmerican Embassy.
Fear is a weapon of mass destruction.
From Tomdispatch- http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=43459
Most Americans responded not to al-Qaeda, but to a terrifying vision of world's end and to headlines that indicated another Pearl Harbor had occurred, that we had been attacked by a new Evil Empire. Unfortunately, that vision and the feeling that our very Greatness had been assaulted fit all too comfortably with the apocalyptic religious and political visions -- world dominating and world-ending -- that lay close to the hearts, minds, and long-range plans of the tiny group then running an adrift administration for the Earth's only superpower. In the endless rites that would follow as the President launched his "Global War on Terror," we would seek a variety of roles expansive enough to suit a wounded but globe-bestriding colossus. We would become the planet's Greatest Victim, Greatest Survivor, and Greatest Dominator, leaving only the role of Greatest Evildoer up for grabs.
In the process, the horrific but actual scale of the damage would disappear. It no longer mattered that the attacking group had been relatively small, limited in its means (hence, four years without an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist incident in the U.S.), and massive only in its luck and daring -- abetted by the fact that the Bush administration was looking for nothing like such an attack, despite that CIA briefing handed to George on a lazy Crawford August day -- "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" -- and so many other clues.
Over four years later, a question of costs naturally arises from Gitmo-ized, Patriot-Act-ified, Homeland-Security-ificated America, from the country of more than two thousand dead and more than sixteen thousand wounded, from the perspective of a war of choice that has taken at least $250- 281 billion in chump change through fiscal year 2005. Our world has been damaged in so many ways, many still not fully apparent, and one question is: Who made us pay the price? What did they do to us and what did we do to ourselves? Or put another way, how much of the costs of 9/11 were costs of choice?
This was the result of the fear that was created. The Costs of an Imperial Presidency
We know now that, within five hours of the moment the Pentagon was hit, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had already asked his aides "to come up with plans for striking Iraq"; that within days, the President and his top officials were already considering launching the Middle Eastern war of their dreams.
We know that eight days after the attacks, the complex 342-page Patriot Act had already been hustled over to Congress by Attorney General John Ashcroft; that it passed through a cowed Senate in the dead of night on October 11th, unread by at least some of our representatives, and was signed into law on October 26. The Act was officially a response to 9/11, but as its instant appearance and rushed passage indicate, it was made up of a set of already existing right-wing hobby horses, quickly drafted provisions, and expansions of law enforcement powers taken off an FBI "wish list" (previously rejected by Congress). All these were swept together by people who, like the President's men on Iraq, saw their main chance when those buildings went down. As such, it stands in for much of what happened "in response" to 9/11, including the invasion of Iraq that the administration spent so much time tying untruthfully to that day. In other words, the most devastating costs of "9/11" we inflicted on ourselves in a way al-Qaeda was incapable of doing.
Normally, any such proposition faces a problem. Unlike in lab experiments, there's never a control group in human life against which to measure the nature of change. Oddly enough, though, that doesn't hold when it comes to 9/11. There turns out to be something against which to measure the Bush response -- the nearly forgotten case of the anthrax killer (or killers), known in law enforcement circles as "the Amerithrax case."
Lost in the Hills of America
The anthrax attacks of 2001 are now so out of memory that it's hard to recall the panic and fear caused by the appearance of those first envelopes, spilling deadly powder and containing threatening letters. But according to a LexisNexis search, between Oct. 4 and Dec. 4, 2001, 389 stories appeared in the New York Times with "anthrax" in the headline. In that same period, 238 such stories appeared in the Washington Post. That's the news equivalent of an unending, high-pitched scream of horror.
Looked at with a cool eye, this buried nightmare could be seen as the more threatening of the two attacks that year. The 9/11 assaults were, of course, vastly more costly in lives -- almost 3,000 dead against just 5 from anthrax inhalation. On the other hand, the al-Qaeda strike only simulated a weapon-of-mass-destruction attack. You had to use some sci-fi-style imagining -- and perhaps your knowledge that the old Soviet Cold War weapons labs and arsenals were now ill-tended and leaking material -- to conjure up a situation in which Osama and crew might get their hands on a real version of the same. (The administration, of course, did exactly this -- from Attorney General Ashcroft's sudden announcement in Moscow of the arrest of Jose ("dirty-bomb") Padilla to those Iraqi mushroom clouds that went off rhetorically over American cities in speeches by the National Security Adviser, the President, the Vice President, and other top officials before we launched our invasion of Iraq.
With the anthrax killer, no sci-fi imaginings were necessary. He (she, them) used an actual weapon of mass destruction -- highly refined anthrax, the Ames strain that almost certainly fell out of the not-so-perfectly guarded American Cold War weapons labs. And then, after the series of postal attacks ended, the anthrax killer(s) remained at large not in the mountains of Afghanistan, but somewhere in the United States -- with no evidence that the supply of anthrax had been used up. Who needs to imagine al-Qaeda "sleeper cells" here in the U.S., when you have such a live wire in the neighborhood?
Keep in mind that visions of anthrax-like weaponry would soon mobilize a nation in fear and hysteria around orange alerts and duct tape, smallpox-inoculations and finally a war lest any of this stuff, or anything faintly like it, drip out of the hands of Saddam Hussein and into those of terrorists heading our way. And yet, by early 2002, the first WMD attack in the U.S. was already slipping out of the news and drifting from memory. Here was the stuff of a terrifying made-for-TV movie or simply a trailer for the end of the world. It should have been unforgettable.
Had the anthrax attacks been -- as the threatening letters, ominously dated "9/11/01," that accompanied them implied -- the work of an Islamic terrorist group, we would probably still be talking about it -- and we would have no control group to measure 9/11 against. But let's briefly review what did happen.
Just a week after the Twin Towers went down, the first of seven letters filled with anthrax arrived not from the distant outlands of the planet, but from Trenton, New Jersey. This first wave was sent to a potpourri of media outlets: ABC, NBC, and CBS news as well as the New York Post and the National Enquirer in Florida. They proclaimed, "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great." Two more, also postmarked from Trenton and dated October 9, 2001, were sent to Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. These letters emptied prime-time TV newsrooms and, for the first time since the British burned Washington in 1814, cleared the halls of Congress while it was still in session. It should have been unforgettable.
You can see where this is heading. Manufactured fear sets off panic. Planes crashing into buildings doesnt project possession of WMD's but sarin and Anthrax can be projected as legitimate attempts to possess and distribute agents that provide a gruesome death to a paranoid fear filled populace.
The purpose when fulfilled though can quickly be forgotten and it's back to Wal-Mart and that busy day of acquiring consumerist dreams again.
Within the last year, the ongoing investigation of the case has, according to the Washington Post, been significantly downsized. The number of FBI agents assigned to it has dropped from 31 to 21 and postal inspectors from 13 to 9. Many of those remaining are now said to be "in the process of taking inventory. The FBI and postal inspectors have spent months piecing together a voluminous internal report that will review the scope of the investigation…" It has "cold case, dead file" written all over it.
When it comes to costs, according to the Post, "at least 17 post offices and public office buildings were contaminated. Including cleanup costs, an FBI document put the damage in excess of $1 billion." And that doesn't account for the more subtle costs such as the role the attacks played in panicking Congress into an invasion of Iraq. Would the administration's various bizarre fears and alarms about the dangers to us of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have had such a realistic ring to them if our representatives hadn't actually experienced a bioweapons attack? It should have been unforgettable, but by some mysterious process that has yet to be considered, the attacks were, in a sense, "disappeared."
Pretty obvious where the real world terrorists live- In the whitehouse and the pentagon, would be closer to the truth. It is intended to divert the real attention of what is wrong in the world on a manufactured enemy that is a clever ruse to allow America to hang on to its "Ace Up Its Sleeve", the thing that keeps them from being invaded and treated as if they were the real Iraq.
Despite what we've heard, the greatest WMD danger to Americans comes not from impoverished Third World or rickety Middle Eastern rogue states, but from the arsenals and weapons labs of the two former Cold War superpowers. But nothing in the media coverage since then has indicated anything of the sort. While, prewar, reporters prowled Iraqi nuclear facilities, wrote major pieces on Iraq's "Dr. Germ," and brought down whole forests of trees in the service of WMD programs at Iraq's Tuwaitha or North Korea's Yongbyan, or on gassed dogs in Afghanistan and the Iranian bomb that also wasn't, the Soviet and American weapons labs, the Soviet and American Dr. Germs, the Ames anthrax strain, and the anthrax killer hardly took out a tree or two.
When was the last time you read a major report on the state of American biowarfare work? When was the last time you encountered a significant story about the weapons labs at Fort Detrick in suburban Maryland where the Ames strain was evidently first researched or the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah where it was produced and tested? How much attention has been given to recent contracts linked to Dugway that signal a desire on the part of the U.S. military to "buy large quantities of anthrax, in a controversial move that is likely to raise questions over its commitment to treaties designed to limit the spread of biological weapons"? When was the last time you read an article on whether the Homeland Security Department or the Pentagon is attending to the potential dangers of the American WMD arsenal? How much attention has gone into the decrepit system for locking down Russian WMD stocks? The odd news piece, nothing more. And while this administration spends about a billion dollars a week on its war in Iraq, it has hardly had the will or interest to raise the few billion dollars a year needed to help lock-down the Russian arsenal. Imagine that. If, of course, the President had chosen to launch his "war" on terror against the anthrax killers, this might have been our top priority.
Since September 11, 2001, weapons of mass destruction have been dealt with purely as a danger from the peripheries, not as a heartland issue. In fact, the Bush administration has successfully focused all our WMD attention and fears out there, not in here. The Iranian bomb -- at best, years away according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate -- has been the singular focus of the world's attention; while the nuclearized "global strike force" the Pentagon has been preparing for future use in Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere is barely attended to.
Now, here's the interesting thing: Because this administration had its eyes set on the Middle East from the beginning, it essentially chose its terror war from column A (the September 11th attacks), not column B (the anthrax attacks, once it became clear that they were connected not to al-Qaeda but the American arsenal). Hence our control group. Here, for instance, is a very partial list of actions not taken by this administration in relation to the anthrax attacks:
Our President never swore to get the killer(s), "dead or alive." He kept no profile of the possible killer or killers in his desk drawer, so he could cross him/them off when caught. The President, Vice President, National Security Adviser, and others did not warn the public and Congress regularly of the possibility of "clouds of anthrax" being released in our major cities (though this had, after a fashion, already happened) even as they were issuing dire warnings about fantasy Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs that might at any time spray biological or chemical weapons over east coast cities. (Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, for example, said that he voted for the administration's resolution authorizing force in Iraq because "I was told not only that [Saddam had weapons of mass destruction] and that he had the means to deliver them through unmanned aerial vehicles, but that he had the capability of transporting those UAVs outside of Iraq and threatening the homeland here in America, specifically by putting them on ships off the eastern seaboard.") No American planes swooped down to bomb the weapons labs of Fort Detrick or the Dugway Proving Grounds; the only suspect publicly identified, while hounded for a period, was never declared an "enemy combatant." No one seized and rendered him; no CIA agents swept him from the street, cut off his clothes, shot him up with drugs, slipped him into an orange jumpsuit, whisked him onto an unregistered plane, and took him to a secret prison in Egypt or elsewhere to have "the truth" beaten or waterboarded or otherwise tortured out of him. Nor did he end up incarcerated in Guantanamo for years, trial-less and beyond the reach of the courts. Quite the opposite, Hatfill is suing former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Justice Department, and others for violating his constitutional rights and the New York Times for defaming him.
Nor, in the wake of the anthrax attacks, was any kind of global war declared on the killer or killers, or troops deployed anywhere. In fact, no drastic actions of any sort were taken. In the wake of the attack, the post office became more careful; U.S. weapons labs were assumedly better secured; and remind me what else occurred in response to one of the most dangerous attacks in our history? Beyond the dead and injured, the panic of the moment, and the monumental costs of cleaning up congressional offices, newsrooms, and post offices, what were the costs?
As it turns out, the Bush administration acted in response to 9/11 in every wild and extraordinary way -- and in response to the anthrax attacks in next to no way at all. Put the two together and what you can see is the degree to which the costs of 9/11, whether in Iraq or at home, are the responsibility not of the attackers, whose damaging acts were violent in the extreme, spectacular, and limited, but the Bush administration.
It's an irony of our world that neither Osama bin Laden, nor the anthrax killer(s) have been apprehended. By now, bin Laden has, in fact, disappeared into something like the kind of anonymity the anthrax killer had from the beginning. Whether in the mountains of Afghanistan or the exurbs of America, the search for the perpetrators of the two greatest terrorist attacks in our history -- the Twin Terrors -- was not expanded until success was achieved, but downsized. When it came to the hunt for bin Laden, this happened way back in 2002 when the Bush administration began switching key personnel out of Afghanistan to prepare for its long-desired invasion of Iraq. Both are now cold cases.
You might think that this administration, supposedly dedicated above all else to protecting the United States from terrorism in its newly formed Homeland Security State, would have devoted resources above all else to the task of implacably hunting down these particular terrorists, wherever they might be; that dead-ends met would have only led to redoubled efforts. That would have been, if not a "war" on terrorism, then at least a police action of note. Instead, with thousands of Americans and Iraqis now dead and an actual weapon of mass destruction still potentially loose in our land, the inability to focus all resources on real terrorists and bring them to justice seems but another cost of George Bush's "war on terror."
The saddest story is this: If tomorrow, George Bush, Dick Cheney and their cohorts were somehow tossed out on their ears -- call it indictment, impeachment, or something else -- what they, not Osama bin Laden or the anthrax terrorists will have cost us, in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will still be incalculable. Among the greatest costs will be the way administration officials used the 9/11 attacks (and buried the anthrax ones) in order to breach so many levees of our world.
What they have embedded in our lives since 9/11 -- from Northcom to our newest pinheaded giant bureaucracy, the Homeland Security Department, from the Patriot Act to ever increasing domestic spying by the Pentagon and the National Security Agency among other organizations -- will be with us long after they are gone. Just imagine a political change of fortunes in our country in which the Democrats take Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Then ask yourself a single question: What will the Democrats do with Guantánamo. Unfortunately, you already know the answer.
Now, let that pause button go and watch not just the Twin Towers but so much else in our world tumble down one more time.
Read this article by Underground Panther In The Sky- http://upits.pitas.com/082302.html
The trouble with al Qaeda ...
by Underground Panther in the Sky
Have you noticed, after all these child abduction stories, we get videos of dogs and other animals being tortured for testing chemical weaponry? Normally this side of business is hidden from the public eye, but it has always been business as usual for chemical and biological weapons makers. What makes you think these tapes were not created by our tax dollars — dollars we shovel unquestioningly to our exploiting government-corporate-military, that convinces us we are free when we never truly own what we buy? The Bush administration will not even show Congress what it does with our money!!?? So then how do we loudly complain we don't like what he does with our money, when we don't even know what is done? And we don't bother to find out?
Uncle Sam wants us all upset at seeing the dying pooches in a rush of emotion, so we fail to remember. Bush and Bin Laden were buddies and America funded them. Of course they'd want evidence of work being done. These tapes might have been proof that al Qaeda was doing the job we paid them to do.
What might have led up to this? Ask yourself why. Is it because these so-called "powers that be" want our lives on the line so they may control the oil and grab land — and deepen the hatred the world has for the United States? Bush can hide underground when the world wrath comes, but we the people can't. We the people have let ourselves become expendable, and we will be expended if we go to war and invite the wrath of the world into a fight we citizens didn't provoke.
To dare to ask, What was the date when these animal torture tapes were made? That question does not diminish the pain reaction, but it changes the entire propagandic goal the government had in showing us the dying puppies. Were the tapes made while America was funding bin Laden's guerrillas to beat the Russians to the oil in the Caspian Sea? Was America funding the gas tests so Bin Laden could kill more Russian soldiers? If the dates match up, then very possibly we are seeing our tax dollars at work in those videotapes.
Part of our irresponsibly generous unregulated money flow, all given away to government, entails unsavory things that are not in our interest. And it happens more when we are not interested. The money each of us must slave half the year to earn at jobs we hate — does it go to the gassing of dogs by our "friends" in business, fighting a war for us, who turned to enemies when they didn't agree with American business and corporations?
America didn't get to be the richest, most powerful country in the world by being "nice." It is a warlike, greedy country, and full of cutthroat competition.
Fearful that having a "radical" opinion might risk our little job, cost us money or public esteem, we are now cowards. Each one of us who are silent, obedient and timid are opening the door of corporate fascism. Instead of taking out our despair on those who cause it, for profit we take it out on each other — our outrage about injustice and our denied dreams — we take it out on each other, at home, in the street, or in the bar.
And that is just how the oligarchies who are in power like us — drunk, easily provoked and duped, divisive, abusive, inhibited, trusting of government and mistrusting of each other, obedient to authority in symbol, and loyal ... to the flag.
We are not going after the government's interests like we should, which would be in our interest. Nor are watching what they are doing, independent of the media they own, using the leash of public opinion to curb their injustices deposited here or abroad. That is our real patriotic duty. And we aren't using our brains and remembering what they did to us and others before, all in the name of greed.
So the corporate leaders feel safe torturing dogs in private with nerve gas — in America, at places like Ft. Detrich, as well as funding al Qaeda overseas with our tax dollars, to secure the oil field from Russian competition. They know we will forget about it all and not get involved. They know how to mobilize us, just by showing us something that tears open an old, deep childhood wound. Evoke memories of the death of a pet, long buried in the heart of a sad little boy that is now a frustrated unhappy man staggering under the burdens of being an adult/wage slave in this culture, and they've got us.
A person can't grow up in this culture without dying inside. They can't see themselves as autonomous, self-sufficient, empowered, free-thinking beings with many facets. To feel empowered reminds the citizen of the life being stolen from them hour by hour, of the tears penned up.
His rant goes on,but it does detail many issues that are worth knowing or thinking about. Seems some people were not fooled by this repeated pattern of manufacturing consent. The rest just returned to Dick and Janes and Spot the dogs little problems at home and at school- the day to day grind of the parents to fit into the American dreamscape of Life Liberty and Happiness pursuit and of course, the busy world of shopping. Such is our fate as people outside the world of influence. Such are the little people and their Lilliputian reality. Back to the baseball games, freeways and shopping carts which are already in progress. Have another beer and Move along, move along- nothing happening here.
What way can you provoke a nation of lonely, insecure, busy, atomized government-work-society-created, misanthropes stuck in cruel social conditioning of learned helplessness, excessive greed and consumer competition? How can you convince them to go to war and kill themselves and whoever they can kill?
Just show a tape over and over on the media, of Enemy X killing an innocent cute sentimental animal on TV.
Years ago it was women and children that provoked the visceral reaction — not any more. Our empathy for humans is dulled to the point that human deaths just can't provoke a war anymore. Many people think humanity is just a plague on the Earth anyway. The US government took a tip from the pedophiles — threaten their pets, to get them to do what you want!
To the observer, deep down, secretly ... animals (especially pets) are the last true friends we have in our American lives, still capable of unconditional love, who care when we cry out in pain. These things we need to live, that we never seem to find in other humans when we relate to them as valid, unique beings capable of love, in this dog-eat-dog society.
Addendum: I researched more on the dog gassing tapes. Some say CNN bought those tapes from an undisclosed contact in Afganistan (uh huh) and they were made, they guessed, from 1998 and 2001.But funny who got those tapes from Al Queda? Was it really just found by some Afgan dude poking around a house bin Laden was at? And don't you think American agents, if they want bin Laden so damned bad, would have swarmed over that house looking for evidence? How could they ignore 30 or so video tapes with titles like munitions, kidnappping, etc.?
Some of these tapes may show Al -Queda doing some stupid militia crap, but can you ever be sure they aren't staged. Can you ever trust "undisclosed sources" in corporate media with an agenda of it's own that isn't about freedom for everyone, just freedom for themselves?
—Underground Panther in the Sky