THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Sunday, October 19, 2008


Recently the Taliban have sought to instigate talks that may lead to a settlement in Afghanistan which the US and their allies now concede is unwinable. Part of the concessions the Taliban are willing to make are to disassociate themselves from ‘al Qaeda’. A reader has asked me to comment on this. Here is my response.

The attitude of the Taliban with regard to ‘al Qaeda’ is indicative of the extent of influence ‘al Qaeda’ as an organisation really has in Central Asia – about zilch.

Western propagandists would like us to think that ‘al Qaeda’ is an extensive, well-organised internationalist Jihad movement with branches every place where there are American and allied forces. The reality is that ‘al Qaeda’ exists these days largely as a figment of Western propagandist’s somewhat vivid imagination and the words ‘al Qaeda’ are basically used as a convenient catchall label to define to the Western public who the ‘enemy’ is as it relates to the equally overused and inappropriately titled ‘Global War on Terror’. In nearly all cases they are, in fact, simply fighters who are resisting US domination in their respective countries. Among these fighters are those who have come from other countries to help those they consider to be their ‘brothers’ defend their country despite the fact it is not their own country. It is this air of internationalism among young Muslims wanting to help other Muslims in the fight against oppression and persecution and this notion of pan Islamic camaraderie that has given rise to the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being the overarching enemy. They have become the perpetual enemy. There is barely any discussion in the West about any of today’s trouble spots around the globe where ‘al Qaeda’ doesn’t get a mention.

Rather than try to explain to the Western public the intricate nuances of continually shifting alliances and allegiances of America’s enemies in every theatre of fighting, it is far easier for the US and their allies to simply lump all of these enemies under the one banner called ‘al Qaeda’. And in situations where the Western public know that a particular group is known not to be ‘al Qaeda’ then they are usually referred to simply as an ‘al Qaeda’ linked terrorist organisation or some such.

The fact is the Taliban are not ‘al Qaeda’ and Osama bin Laden is very likely long dead. However, their continued ‘existence’ is required by the US and their allies in order to perpetuate the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ being a terrorist organisation that remains a threat to the West. Once the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ is exposed the US and their allies will then have no ‘enemy’. They would then have to explain what all the wars have really been all about.

The war in Afghanistan has got to the stage now where the invaders have realised that they cannot possibly ever actually ‘win’ the war against the Taliban. They could keep it going forever and a day, but they can’t actually ‘win’ it. The time has come for the two sides to talk. The Taliban realise that the West wants concessions that will make them look as though they’ve achieved something and so the Taliban are happy to play along with the idea that they’ll disassociate themselves from ‘al Qaeda’ in order to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. It works for the Taliban who get to most likely at least play a major role again in the running of their country, and it works for the US and their allies who get to keep the myth of ‘al Qaeda’ going as part of their ongoing ‘Global War on Terror’ elsewhere in the world. It also leaves the options open to reuse the ‘al Qaeda in Afghanistan’ myth if the need arises in the future if things don’t pan out after any settlement there.

Sooner or later though, the world is going to learn that ‘al Qaeda’ was merely a late twentieth-century rag-tag group of disillusioned Jihadists whose numbers probably never exceeded a hundred or so in their heyday but whose continued mythical existence into the twenty-first century was fabricated for the purposes of enhancing US imperial hegemony and neoconservative dreams of Israeli Zionist expansionism and influence in the Middle East.


Anonymous said...

Lies (al Qaeda) of this magnitude are inexcusable, and have caused much harm to millions. The world will never progress to a more peaceful and pragmatic life unless these lies are revealed, and all the corruption associated with the lies. As I understand the Taliban's position regarding peace in their country, they should not agree to anything to protect the corruption racket.

Why now? America is on its last leg. Soon it will default on its debt, and will become a former super power. So why should the Taliban throw in the towel have stood tough for all these years, and you give your captors a reward.

Shame on you Taliban.

Anonymous said...

Exactly...but the mass of people prefer not to know. And its not in the interests of the antidemocratic govts that people do know!


Anonymous said...

The main part of negotiations will consist of opium profit flow. I'm thinking 60/40 Taliban. A pretty good deal considering most of the profit is in refining and distribution anyway. Mission accomplished.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean the (cia/mossad created boogeyman) "al-qaeda" led by a zionist jew from California named adam pearlman-I`m sorry, I meant "adam gadahn"?

Anonymous said...

Good day Mr.Lataan. Im a regular reader of your esteemed blog, & by far this is your best article. You are 1 of the few westerners with the courage & open mindedness to speak the truth.

You have hit the target spot on. No one has ever described the struggle of the muslims in their homeland as simply a struggle for freedom. Rather its infamously portrayed as a terrorist movement led by religious fanatics, by the western media & unfortunately the people are willing to accept that.

No one wants to convert America to Islam as the media would have them believe. All the muslims want is the right to live their lives free from western control, directly or indirectly via puppet governments.

When its ok to bomb another nation as part of a war & then claim that its civilian casualties are regrettable but unavoidable ('but we are tryin to minimize them'), then y are westerners so shocked when they are attacked on their home turf? When the US kills civilians it isnt mentioned (coz arab blood is cheap) or if it is...well OOPS. Unfortunately Muslims cant say that...they are terrorists after all. All their actions are deliberate & part of a larger conspiracy.

I for one dont belive any of the terrorist attacks are conducted by Muslims. Cmon any1 with half a brain can realise that such actions are counter productive & dont achieve anything. Worse, they are used by western propagandists to malign Islam. You would expect that after so many years the heads of the so called Terrorist Organisations, that are so diabolocal & cunning that they run a global operation from caves(as the media would have you believe) would realise that. Yet they continue to terrorise. This leads me to believe, as indeed it should any thinking human, that there is some ulterior force controlling this.

I agree with you about 'following the money'...who stands to benefit. Terrorism is a major industry in the west. Its existance is important for the economy, the arms industry, & of course for propagating western imperialism. Lets not forget Hollywood, which for the past decade has been makin a killing on terrorism based films. Without that what do they have?

'Al Qaeda is the new bogeyman'. I agree with you. Infact the word terrorism has become so cliched. It has lost its meaning. Any1 who opposes western rule is a terrorist. Even you agree on that Mr.Lataan, that the palestinians & others are only sruggling for their freedom, yet you still use the term terrorist. Why? I find the term offensive. How can you call them terrorists. After the 1st gulf war when the west imposed sanctions on Iraq for 10 years & committed the genocide of 200000 Iraqis (that no one seems to mention), I saw on Tv women with dying children in their arms...with real terror in their eyes. Now tell me if that wasnt terrorism. Oh no, of course it isnt...when the west does it its called a Foreign Policy.

Lets call a spade a spade. After all the injustices perpetrated on them, can u even blame the palestinians or Iraqis or their supporters for the attacks they conduct (this is of course assuming that they committed it in the first place...which i dont believe).

All in all Mr.Lataan, an eloquent article. Im lookin forward to more from you. take care.

Anonymous said...

can you believe that resently in england they have expected us to believe that a young white guy with LEARNING DIFFICULTYS !! was brainwashed and recruited by al-qaeda...he then walked into a restaurant with an home made bomb, this bomb accidently went off in the tiolet killing no one, the young guy just got burned, or so they said, this story was on tv for about 5 days..then it was on to the next..nothing more was said about just bowled over by such made up scare mongering, but they get away with it so easily because nobody questions anything if al-qaeda is mentioned.!!

Anonymous said...

One of the highly amusing aspects of the GWOT is the breathless enthusiasm with which special anti-Terrorism legislation was rushed through various Western parliaments by the resident right-wing terrorists and self-deceivers in charge of keeping the myth alive.

Pretty well every 'crime' in this 'new' legislation was more than adequately covered by existing laws such as the Crimes Act in Oz. Thus it can be clearly seen in the cases which make headlines that the anti-terrorism laws are being used to frame suspects when persuasive evidence against them is thin or non-existent.

The Haneef case, a creation of the warped and puerile mind of Kevin Andrews, oafish and infantile religious fanatic, fibber extraordinaire (and moral guardian) springs to mind. And let's not forget David Hicks, the victim of the lies and calculated abuse which are part and parcel of imperial efforts at terrorist creation.
As I write, Jihad Jack's case has been treated with the contempt it deserved by a jury more interested in hard facts than the products of an over-active imagination.

Lord Balfour, and contemporary pro-Israel lobbies in the West, the main proponents of the War on Islam (aka GWOT), have a lot to answer for.