The "new" PBS is quick to tie the London bombings to Al Qaeda

[paineinthearse]

I have not been watching all the media coverage, but when did Al Qaeda claim responsibility.

Received by email

Special FRONTLINE Rebroadcast -- Al Qaeda's New Front

FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/

In response to the terrorist attacks in London, over the next few nights many PBS stations will be offering a rebroadcast of FRONTLINE's January 2005 report "Al Qaeda's New Front," which tells the story behind this morning's bombings.

The film and accompanying Web site investigate the threat radical jihadists pose to Western Europe, which is home to an estimated 18 million Muslims. Al Qaeda, once just a loose organization on the continent, has morphed into a powerful ideological movement that is inspiring some disenfranchised European Muslims. Cells have been broken up in the U.K., Germany, Italy, and Spain, but successful attacks have been carried out in Madrid, Amsterdam, Istanbul, and now, London.

"This country has seen terrorism since the end of the 1960s," Sir David Veness of Scotland Yard told FRONTLINE in what now seems like a
prescient warning. "Both domestic extremism and international perrorism here on the streets of London. What is different about this form of terrorism is the unequivocal intention to cause mass murder ... without warning in any form to the public."

Please check your local listings to find out when your PBS station will be airing this program. Or watch the entire film now streaming online on FRONTLINE's Web site at: http://www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/front/

Michael Sullivan
Executive Producer, Special Projects

----------------------------

To purchase a VHS or DVD copy of current or past FRONTLINE programs,
click on http://www.ShopPBS.com/

----------------------------

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers.

----------------------------

FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of the WGBH Educational Foundation.

----------------------------

[Massacure]

1. The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsability

I read that at the BBC.

[paineinthearse]

10. Thank's, I'd not seen that.

What a name. Whose front orgnaization is that?

[stickdog]

11. An unknown group claimed responsibility on an unnamed website.

Pretty compelling evidence, huh?

[MrMonk]

2. I don't see an "evil" motive.

Frontline is simply accommodating the public's interest by re-broadcasting a popular episode.

[Maple]

3. This is what media is going on

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan . The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London . Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan . He who warns is excused. God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly."


Which, of course, could have been posted by anyone, since nobody has heard of this group before

[joemurphy]

4. Al-Qaeda Responsibility

There was a report on NPR shortly after the bombings occurred that a website of a group claiming affiliation with Al-Qaeda (that no one had ever heard of before) also claimed responsiblity for the bombings. The website then closed down. The comment was that often Al-Qaeda cells tasked with a given "project" give themselves a name. NPR pointed out that the way the bombings were conducted -- with calculated simultaneity--was typical of Al-Qaeda.

[TahitiNut]

8. Funny how a website posting with clear earmarks of being a hoax ...

... is leapt upon as valid by the ethnic war-mongers and the TANG memo just "couldn't" have been typewritten in the age of chisels and stone (according to the troglodytes on the right), despite a secretary affirming the truth of the information therein.

[ovidsen]

5. Interesting.

While some group with Al Qaeda in its name has claimed responsibility for the attacks, there's no evidence that the claim is valid, or that the group exists or, even if it does, that it has any connection with Osama.

But given OBL's past statements, he wouldn't disavow the attacks. If he's still alive, that is.

[Sandpiper]

6. So far it's based on an unsubstantiated internet posting

That could have been written by anyone.

But standards of proof aren't quite what they used to be.

We went to war with Iraq on equally "credible" intelligence.

[Lone_Wolf]

7. On MSNBC they were quick to blame fanatical muslims...

It's funny how this ties into *'s press conference last week. It is also kind of funny how something like this happens when *'s numbers are sinking, the DSM, Plamegate, Halliburton, etc. It's just TOO convenient.

Something smells very funny about this latest bombing.

[bloom]

9. I've heard it was discredited

but it seems it's all that we are allowed to speculate about.

[stickdog]

12. But who IS al Qaeda, anyway?

Israel quite obviously deals with a large number of hardline Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks on a weekly (or, at best, monthly) basis:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

The webpage linked above lists over 350 separate fatal incidents resulting in well over 1000 Israeli fatalities since September, 2000.

But I haven't yet located a single incident out of these 350+ in which more than 30 Israelis died. Nor have I found a single example of a well-coordinated, multiple-attack terrorist strike (defined as three or more separate fatal acts of terrorism executed within a span of three hours). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could direct me to these entries?

Now, it seems to me that the more sophisticated and spectacular an act of terrorism is -- the more, shall we say, made-for-TV -- the greater chance that this dramatically successful act of terrorism was state sponsored to achieve some political end. This is purely a function of the far greater MEANS and OPPORTUNITY of state sponsored mil/intel organizations when compared with those of the typical Jihadist terrorists they are tasked with foiling. Surely, we would all agree that this exact pattern (of highly dramatic and potent terrorist acts correlating with covert state sponsored activities) is quite typical in the historical records of many perhaps less "politically enlightened" regions -- such as Indonesia, South Africa and Latin America, for example.

Unlike Israel (which deals with far more numerous but typically far less potent Jihadist attacks), the USA & Great Britain appear to deal almost exclusively with spectacularly successful, well-coordinated, highly sophisticated MADE-FOR-TV Goldfinger/Dr. No-type terrorists.

The Jihadist terrorists attacking Israel don't typically choose highly symbolic strike dates (like 9/11 or 7.7 -- with years of inactivity between) to launch singular and discrete but highly memorable, extremely fatal and very well-coordinated multi-strikes. In contrast, real terrorist organizations almost invariably attempt to highlight the desperate straits of their causes by aggressively claiming full responsibility for their violent acts using previously known and recognized channels and spokesmen. Furthermore, these real Jihadist terrorist organizations do not put a premium on huge and horrifically fatal MADE-FOR-TV terror muscle-flexing but instead foster a continual atmosphere of perilousness by striking whenever, wherever and however they can.

Maybe I'm far too cynical, but I've started to suspect that the term "al Qaeda" has now come to simply signify any anonymous act of terror that might otherwise appear sophisticated enough to implicate state-sponsored mil/intel. I realize that this is a generalization at best, but please understand the context in which I'm daring to utter such blasphemous thoughtcrime. Our entire corporate media apparatus and political hierarchy have already convicted Islamic fundamentalists of today's crimes with nary a shred of backing evidence. In contrast, I'm not trying to convince anyone to jump to any hasty conclusions -- just to duly consider all logically probable alternatives.