|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandIndymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
|
Media descriptions of Zarqawi as Al-Qaeda leader are inaccurate international |
arts and media |
opinion/analysis
 Thursday June 08, 2006 19:28 by Paul MacGiolla Bán
 The mass media representation of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as an Al-Qaeda leader is inaccurate. Al-Qaeda as an 'organisation' has no formal structure, and would be more accurately described as philosophy. Media representations of the group are seriously flawed and buy into the assumptions underlying the US-led 'war on terror'. A number of media reports this morning describing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as an “al-Qaeda leader” are inaccurate. It is reported that the prominent Islamic militant has been killed in an air bombing raid north of Baquba. Contrary to media portrayals, al-Qaeda is an anarchic concept, and the group actually does not have leaders or a formal membership. Al-Qaeda operations – the most prominent being the attacks of September 11th 2001 – are carried out by groups and individuals acting autonomously. There is no centralised leadership, and thus the portrayal of al-Zarqawi as an “al-Qaeda leader” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of al-Qaeda, which should be more accurately described as an ideology than an organisation. According to Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, the term al-Qaeda refers to “a mode of activism and a tactic” rather than a coherent organisation, and was originally conceived as a revolutionary vanguard movement of fundamentalist Islam" (all quotes are from this excerpt from Burke’s book). The only coherence of al-Qaeda is imputed by the West – the common perception of the group is nothing more than a myth. Jason Burke had been covering the Middle East and Southeast Asia for a decade at the time of the September 11th attacks, spending many years living in the region. In 1991, he travelled to join Kurdish freedom fighters in Iraq, and later spent four years living under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He is now the Chief Reporter of The Observer. Burke reports that Western European intelligence groups said that Zarqawi had founded a group in Iraq in opposition to al-Qaeda. According to Burke, it is “only if al-Qaeda is, wrongly, conceived of as a single organisation encompassing the whole of contemporary radical Islamic activism could one say that al-Zarqawi was ‘al-Qaeda’”. The mass media representation of al-Zarqawi as an al-Qaeda leader is indicative of a casual and systematic misreporting of events in the Middle East. Mass media reporting of the region is characterised by a lack of nuance and a regurgitation of establishment concepts and vocabulary. The distinction between the mainstream portrayal of al-Qaeda and the reality is important, because the common misrepresentation feeds into the underlying assumptions of the US-led war on terror. The presentation of al-Qaeda as a traditionally structured, hierarchical group creates the impression that it is possible to counteract its activities through a standard confrontational strategy. However, this methodology is inappropriate. It has long been obvious that the US failure to respond to the root political, social and economic causes of instability in the Middle East has been severely damaging to the supposed US goals of democratisation and stabilisation. This is particularly so when the true nature of al-Qaeda is taken into account, including its lack of a central funding system or global strategic planning, and its decentralised, autonomous basis of organisation. These basic facts about al-Qaeda are one of the reasons why it is ridiculous to suggest that an al-Qaeda attack could never take place in Ireland. It is often said that Ireland is not of sufficient geopolitical importance to warrant such an attack, but the reality is that there is nobody in al-Qaeda making these kinds of strategic decisions at a macro level. All it would take would be one militant-minded Muslim to declare himself an al-Qaeda operative, and instigate an attack. All that is necessary is the access and the willingness of Islamic militants who buy into the al-Qaeda philosophy. The US utilisation of Shannon airport makes Ireland a ‘collaborator’ in the Iraq war, according to former assistant secretary general of the UN, Denis Halliday. According to Burke, mainstream assumptions about al-Qaeda are based on “profound misconceptions”, the central such assumption being “the idea that bin Laden led a cohesive and structured terrorist organisation called ‘al-Qaeda’”. The goals of the adherents to the al-Qaeda ideology are inhumane and contemptible, but no effective response can be implemented without a clearer understanding of the nature of the group. This flawed coverage was exacerbated in the US media with regard to al-Zarqawi - according to an article in April in The Washington Post, Colonel Derek Harvey of the US military admitted that the military had intentionally enlarged Zarqawi's caricature to inflate US claims to be fighting terrorism in Iraq. The US approach, rather than eliminating Islamic militancy, is likely to radicalise the Muslim populations of the Middle East (and elsewhere). Its support for authoritarian governments that facilitate its strategy objectives; its political, military, and economic backing of Israel’s occupation of Palestine in contravention of international law; its own occupation of Iraq; its rhetoric towards Iran: all belie its claim to support democratisation and to be a progressive force in the region. By the heavy-handedness of its approach and the illegitimacy of its claims, the US approach is alienating Muslim populations globally, and thus contributing to making the world a more dangerous place. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (16 of 16)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Dropped a bomb on him apparently . Photographs of his corpse too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5059494.stm
Zarqwari's first mention in the Western Press was in "the Wall Street Journal" Feb. 10th 2004 Vol xx11 no 7.
These are some of the figures associated with him:-
30,000$ the amount Bin Laden gave him to start up.
25,000,000$ the amount the USA set on his head.
He never got into the playing cards of the "most wanted" of Iraq, because when they went in -
he hadn't started.(*)
& it still remains to be calculated whether or not his death has stopped him.
we saw him mentioned first on imc ireland here-
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63446
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/63446?&condense_comment...62167
his reward was only 10,000,000$
It went up 15,000,000$ in a little over 2 years.
why did they kill him?
he went on getting mentions.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72640
and lots of others. you do your own research. & don't be humble with it..........Get DNA samples from the dead baby or any of the dead babies & tell us what sort of lives they would have had & what they would have naturally "most probably" have died from -
& you get the Nobel Prize for Medicine!
(*) there are still 52 most wanted US cards about - but you don't get a reward for bringing them in
http://andorra.indymedia.org/cartes/
This is the third time the US terrorists have claimed to have killed Al Zarqawi - the non-existant leader of a non-existant organistion.
Zarqawi is a psyop. The evil that is the "insurgency".
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=401
Couldnt have come at a better time for the US? hahaha.
For a guy with a wooden leg (classic hollywood) he gets about on that video ok. Not to mention for a guy that's just had 2x500 lb bombs dropped on his heed, he's in remarkable condition.
Just like his "master" Osama who walks with a cane (classic hollywoood) and about whom the FBI announced yesterday that "the reason Bin Ladin is not WANTED is because they have no evidence linking him to 9/11".
Team Liberty spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
The only terrorist I will dance and cheer for when dead, is Bush. Oh, and Blair and Ahern and the leaders of the 13 other Euro states involved in the CIA human trafficking for torture program.
it could have come 24 hours before, and been the 6/6/06. In the last week I was very surprised to find an illustration in a book published in Portugal during the Salazar dictatorship on Philosophy a copy of an engraving of the archangel Gabriel giving the prophet Muhumud (PBUH) the Quran. I knew that such engravings exist, I remember during the "cartoons" pointing out the presence of such pictorial representations in Ireland's Chester Beaty library and the British Museum in London, and a quick look at google images under "muhammad gabriel" shows up a few others. But when I saw the photo of the now "dead and done" Zarqwuark, I really stopped for a moment to ponder the similarity -
as Jalalladin Rumi wrote "the full face like a pale moon, the beard and curly hair". I wonder did the US want to present the death mask of Zarqwuark that way on the 6th of the 6th of 2006 and someone persuaded them not to... I wonder did Zarqwuark do his best to look that way in life... I finally gave myself a rest from worrying about these things by noting that Zarqwuark the Jordanian at least didn't have or dye his hair red.
the death of the Jordanian has sparked obits :-
(2 of the best british ones)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5058262.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS...1.xml
the really obligatory reading Al Jazeera one-
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/128D6EEE-8BCA-46...A.htm
It has also apparantly sparked according to Fox/NBC/ABC &c... a new video from "Al Q #2" which was aired this morning by Al Jazeera which rejects a referendum in Palestine... no mention of Zwarqwuark. (perhaps they didn't know about it in world evil hq ) Of course Fox &c.., haven't mentioned that the new Al Q video has nothing to do with Zwarqwuark - that would tax the American intellect.
Dollar is up!!!!
Oil is down!!!!
& Baghdad is under a curfew.
they now say he unlike the baby survived the bomb so they had to shoot him. this is the USAF photo of the bomb. be impressed. be in awe.
Yeah i was wondering why the dollar suddenly shot up 2 cents on the Euro.
Another thing which is strangely missing from most major media outlets is the fact that 95% of people are'nt that afraid of terrorists. What i mean is that they haven't really struck that often have they? Remember Avian Flu? As soon as it's scary again they'll bring it back up again trying to scare people. It does'nt work so they dropped it.
What should people be worried about?
The fact that the UN is worthless and that the inability of countries to stop the process that has led, and continued, the Iraq war will contribute to it's decline as a international organisation.
Avian Flu? Terrorism? Try Aids and Hunger. Unpopular though and unlike terrorism and avian flu the threats are real and could be stopped easily.
Sorry it's just i wait for that headline "Government realises war on terror is ridiculous, decides to focus on eliminating poverty and Aids around the globe"
IT's not even that much of a fantasy and thats what makes it so sickening.
Most people are unafraid of terrorism in their daily lives - as they should be.
Pushing terrorism as a topic that should be of concern to people is a part of the US-led war on terror: it creates a feeling of insecurity, and can contribute to a fragmentation of society.
"the fact that the UN is worthless and that the inability of countries to stop the process that has led, and continued, the Iraq war will contribute to it's decline as a international organisation"
That's at the core of the issue. The UN Security Council is the one organ that has a legitimate claim to legality in decision making about the use of force in International Relations. Chapter 7 of the UN Charter relates to the use of force in international law. Only the UN SC can approve it, despite US actions from Nicaragua to Iraq throughout the past decades. US support for the Contras was condemned by a major ICJ (International Court of Justice) decision of 1984.
The five permanent members spend the most money globally on armaments. These are the same states that are on the verge of stepping in to prevent Iran developing its nuclear capacity...? This demonstrates the futility of international law. In the global system, the breakers of the law and the enforcers of the law are the same: states. To be more specific, the component states of the UN, and particularly of the UN Security Council. The five permanent members, the only ones with a veto, are the US, the UK, France, China and Russia.
The three component parts of any legal system are the makers of the law, the enforcers of the law, and the targets of the law. Within the state, these are, respectively, two branches of the state and the public at large. In the international legal system, the target of the law and the enforcers of the law are the same entities. It just doesn't function.
The lack of any depth of understanding of the situation in Iraq and the global context in the mass media is quite worrying. There is still an insistence on representing al-Qaeda as a unified, coherent organisation rather than as a network and a mode of action.
Media reports this morning are speaking about al-Qaeda having selected a new leader to replace al-Zarqawi. This is compounding the lack of clarity about the nature of global terrorism. Zarqawi may have been a figurehead, but to allude to any formal selection of a leader in replacement shows a shocking lack of media understanding of the al-Qaeda network.
Al Zarqawi's grouping called itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. The respeced Arabic news network Aljazeera constantly called Al-Zarqawi the leader of this group. Only yesterday, according to Aljazeera: 'The shura (consultative) council and Al-Qaeda in the Land of Two Rivers have both agreed to appoint Shaikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajer to succeed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the leadership of the organisation," said the statement on the al-Hesba website, where al-Qaeda's official statements usually appear." It is Al Zarqawi's group that calls itself Al Qaeda, and release statements about appointing a new leader. Or is Aljareeza now part of the western media conspiracy?
1) the land of the two rivers is not Iraq. It comprises at once an area smaller than the internationally agreed borders of Iraq (you will note Kurdistan is not a part of it) and curiously at its widest part lays claim to an area "wider" than Iraq, as proven by many terrorist atrocities carried about the "al Q of the land of the 2 rivers" outside of the borders of Iraq at the sea port areas of Jordan & Israel.
2) Al Jazeera just might be part of the western media and the pillar of arabic media. All depends on how you see these things - HQ in Qatar - not very western - majority of readers resident in the EU or non arabic states - quite western that. Operates on internet (very western) and satelite TV - using several satelites all European owned.....,italy just scored a goal. very western that.
Until someone can show me how contributors to Indymedia Ireland have a better understanding of what constitutes Al Qaeda than Aljareeza, I'm still going to go with Alzareeza. This is one of the problems with this site these days. Al Jaqawi called himself an Al Qaeda leader, and the group he was the head of - it actually called itself 'The Al Qaeda in Iraq' - released a statement on a website used explicitly for Al Qaeda statements that it had appointed a new leader. Aljareeza has no problem with any of this, and yet an English-speaking discussion website situated thousands of miles away knows better? Sometimes I wish we could just give a good spring clean to the simplistic Chomsky that permeates these pages.
"There is still an insistence on representing al-Qaeda as a unified, coherent organisation rather than as a network and a mode of action."
I think Paul MacG hit the nail on the head there. When Al-Zarqawi and his supporters started calling themselves "Al Qaeda", they were adopting a "brand name" for jihadism that had already been established by Bin Laden. It didn't mean they were part of the same, tightly disciplined organisation - in fact Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden were rivals, Al Zarqawi had his own camp in Afghanistan.
The above description of the nature of al-Qaeda did not originate on this website, but is based on evidence from Jason Burke of The Observer. This conceptualisation of al-Qaeda has a wider acceptance than this – Jason Burke is just the most prominent author to have pointed this out. For example see:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/openblogs/blog/od/The+Lond...smm=y
So while Frank Grimes may try to refute this, he cannot portray it as some kind of leftie nonsense or “simplistic Chomsky” dreamt up on indymedia.
Frank Grimes refers to: “Al Zarqawi's group that calls itself Al Qaeda, and release statements about appointing a new leader”.
As pointed out by Mr. Chimes, the media (including al-Jazeera, it would seem) is creating the impression that al-Qaeda is a cohesive group when there is no basis for this. If Zarqawi adopted the name al-Qaeda, it is not representative of other al-Qaeda groupings in Iraq and elsewhere. Unlike the IRA, for example, al-Qaeda lacks a chief of staff, global mechanisms for appointing leaders and so forth. Its wholly decentralised nature is why it is so deadly.
On the contrary, the mainstream understanding of al-Qaeda buys into the assumptions of the US-led war on terror. It creates a definite bogeyman to play the role of a target in this saga. It creates a clearly delineated adversary to aim for. However, the more the US continues its heavy-handed approach to the Middle East, the more Muslim populations will gravitate towards identification with the destructive and dangerous ideology of al-Qaeda.
Jason Burke identified three strands within al-Qaeda: first, the hardcore group that surrounded bin Laden; second, the wider set of networks that came about autonomously through various local factors, and are linked loosely to the first component; finally, those who are simply motivated by the idea of al-Qaeda and buy into the ideology.
In 2003, Burke wrote that:
“Al-Zarqawi is not an al-Qaeda operative…
Primarily, al-Zarqawi is part of a broad movement of Islamic militancy that extends well beyond the influence and activities of any one man. This is a movement that is rooted in broad trends in the Middle East, in the economic, social and political failure of governments, both locally and in the West, to fulfil the aspirations of hundreds of millions of people. Islamic militancy is a multivalent, diverse and complex phenomenon. Focusing on individuals, even bin Laden, is a ludicrous oversimplification”.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,....html
This is the key issue here. Tracking down and killing or imprisoning all who would seek to use crimes against humanity and the targeting of civilians – what is referred to as ‘terrorism’ – is impossible. State terror directed against large regions on this basis is incredibly destructive and criminal, and does not even address the problems it claims to address.
Very interesting article I thought, nice to see that commentators haven't descended to the level of mud-slinging that many indymedia.ie threads lead to.
I'm not going to add to the article besides saying that I also think Jason Burke's book Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam to be the best on the topic (so far) and would urge readers (and the author of this article) to read to full book and not just quote from a The Observer article/extract (if you haven't read it already). This isn't to say that what is quoted from the article is wrong in any way but just to get a fuller picture.
For more information on Al-Jazeera, I have found the book Al-Jazeera: How Arab TV News Challenged The World by Hugh Miles very worthwhile.
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0349118078.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Although I haven't finished reading it I think Robert Fisk's latest The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East is well worth its weight. And John Pilger's latest Freedom: Next Time, published last week, is great (if the first essay on Diego Garcia is anything to go by).
I would dispute that the author of this story is in a position to make the judgements they have in relation to how Al Qaeda is or is not structured. It would seem extremely unlikely that Al Qaeda is just a brand name with no real links or connections between the various groups who claim its mantle. However is is probably accurate to say that it is not a homogenous group. I would also question whether the points raised re the structure of Al Qaeda are even that relevant. The most important issue is that Al Qaeda in its various formations is a reactionary organisation(s) and are the enemy of the working class internationally and far from being anti-imperialist are pro-capitalist and against all fundamental human and workers' rights.
Given the choice of whether to live in a country ruled by an imperialist warmonger and war criminal, the USA, or live in a country ruled by Al Qaeda and their fellow travellers such as the Taliban, the majority of sane people would chose the USA, because at least they would have some ability to organise politically to overthrow the regime governing you.
...I'm taking Al-Jazeera's word for it. Hahahah. How do you think all the fake intel videos end up in al-jazz. Fake Osama, Nick berg, ken bigley, the 7/7 london bomber ffs. Al Jazeera was set up in ADVANCE by the brits and the americans just for the part it is playing now. An occasional stray missile just to keep up appearances. CLIA operation. Central Lack of Intelligence to you.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405B.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...d=201
"Al Qaeda is not and never has been a "terrorist organization."
"Al-Qaida,(sic) literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians," admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,15238....html
Not surprising he popped his clogs a fortnight later.