The Looming Tower - Lawrence Wright

[greyl]

"The Evolution of Al Qaeda and the Intertwining Paths Leading to 9/11"

Mr. Wright’s book, based on more than 500 interviews — ranging from Mr. bin Laden’s best friend in college, Jamal Khalifa, to Yosri Fouda, a reporter for Al Jazeera, to Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief — gives the reader a searing view of the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, a view that is at once wrenchingly intimate and boldly sweeping in its historical perspective.

Though the broad outlines of his story have been recounted many, many times before, Mr. Wright fleshes out the narrative with myriad new details and a keen ability to situate the events he describes in a larger cultural and political context. And by focusing on the lives and careers of several key players on the “road to 9/11” — namely, Mr. bin Laden; his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal; and the F.B.I.’s former counterterrorism chief, John O’Neill — he has succeeded in writing a narrative history that possesses all the immediacy and emotional power of a novel, an account that indelibly illustrates how the political and the personal, the public and the private were often inextricably intertwined.

Mr. Wright’s book suggests that “the charisma and vision of a few individuals shaped the nature” of the contest between Islam and the West. While “the tectonic plates of history were certainly shifting,” promoting a period of conflict between those two cultures, he contends, the emergence of Al Qaeda “depended on a unique conjunction of personalities” — most notably, Mr. Zawahri, who promoted the apocalyptic notion that only violence could change history, and Mr. bin Laden, whose global vision and leadership “held together an organization that had been bankrupted and thrown into exile.”

The book also suggests that the events of Sept. 11 were not inevitable.
More

[greyl]

1. Kicking for any CT person to respond.

I am all ears if any CT would attempt to give it a shot.
Until then, why are we not in the streets demanding answers? - anon

[canetoad]

3. Certainly not 'anon'

That line was written by HuskerDU, post No. 35 in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x106319

[greyl]

4. I was being discreet, canetoad. Way to go. nt edit:

But, thanks for getting my point, and for the cross-reference.

[canetoad]

6. Why the phoney discretion?

Do you think Husker has something to hide?

[greyl]

7. Any comments on the OP are welcome. nt

[HuskerDU]

17. Yes it was thank you very much.

The only person to attempt to address my concerns in that thread was greyl. And he cited a morality tale which basically said, 'Be skeptical.' I am.

[salvorhardin]

2. Sounds like a fascinating book

That outrage, of course, was 9/11. Though American forces would not become bogged down in Afghanistan — at least not immediately in the fall of 2001 — another, longer war was on the horizon. On March 19, 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the start of the war against Iraq; more than three years and more than 2,500 American deaths later, the United States is still there, fighting just the sort of asymmetrical war Mr. bin Laden so fervently desired.

The bolding above is mine. That statement reminds me so much of what William McCants, Fellow with West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center and translator of The Management of Savagery says about what al-Qaida wants.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/10/aiding_and_abetting

[greyl]

5. Yes, and thanks for adding your interesting link:

...this illusion many people have, this myth, that al-Qaida operatives are ill-educated barbarians that merely got lucky on September 11, 2001. Actually there are many who doubt that 9-11 was carried out by al-Qaida and instead think that 9-11 was a plot by our own government to bring about the PNAC vision of a "new Pearl Harbor". A principal belief among such conspiracists is that such an operation was too big to be carried our by "19 Arabs armed with box cutters" (a phrase echoed a great deal among "9-11 Skeptics" and the "9-11 Truth" movement). Such beliefs are of course predicated on...
www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/10/aiding_and_abetting

[mirandapriestly]

9. strawman alert, I never see people say "it was too big"

for the "hijackers". There are usually more specific issues, such as : How did they get by Norad and the US Air Force and the airlines security?
Does the article mention that "al qaeda" was created by the CIA to combat Russia in Afghanistan? Does it mention that Al Qaeda literally means "the database" and refers to the database of Mujahedeen recruited to fight said Russians? Does it mention that even Tony Blair said there was no such thing as Al Qaeda?

[salvorhardin]

11. Taking a paragraph from another post at DU

The chances that the purported Arab hijackers did it alone is infinitesimal to none. They just didn't have the mental, physical, or political capabilities to pull this off, as in disable US air defenses, fly planes accurately at unbelievably high speeds and make extremely complicated maneuvers.

Leaving aside the moronic phrase about disabling US air defenses, the bolded text is typical of what I have seen repeated here and elsewhere many times. It is a form of bigotry.

Also, I think the last sentence in my paragraph that greyl quoted is an important one.

We would all do well to remember that the brains of al-Qaida operatives are no smaller or less clever than the brains of most Americans -- and no less deadly when driven by religious fears and hatreds.

[Artdyst]

13. It wasn't moronic to disable US air defenses, it was absolutely necessary

to allow the events to unfold per plan. Otherwise, the perps would have been caught and we wouldn't have had the BIG show and think of all those Homeland Security jobs. Those people might be unemployed today and their bosses wouldn't have been in a financial position to get even more contracts. THINK, salvorhardin. THINK.

[greyl]

14. Please read for comprehension.

Nobody said "it was moronic to disable US air defenses".

[salvorhardin]

15. And that is a perfect example of why 'Cui bono?' fails as a worldview

Back in high school I used to sing in choir. The night before this large concert at a nearby college one of the soloists came down with a nasty bout of the flu and couldn't sing the next day. I was asked to take over the soloist's part. So the soloist coming down with the flu on short notice clearly benefited me. Did I wage biowarfare against this soloist? If you predicate your entire worldview on conspiracy theories you might think so, and you'd be wrong. That's the problem with asking "Cui bono?" It presumes guilt where none might exist while overlooking complex, interdependent forces. The question itself biases the questioner to a conclusion. Conspiracists start with "Cui bono?" and look for "evidence" to fit their preconceived view of the world.

[Grateful for Hope]

16. Good point

I never thought I would agree with you, but on this point, I do.

I think 9/11 should be approached in the same way that a criminal investigation is approached. Such investigations look at 'cui bono' as only one possible reason for the crime.

Also, I sang in a high school choir also. Loved it.

[Contrite]

22. Not me.

I started by looking at the preposterous story and worked from there. Means, motive and opportunity came later, as did cui bono.

[greyl]

25. You began with the assumption that "it" was a "preposterous story"?

What story?

[Contrite]

26. The OCT. n/t

[dailykoff]

8. This was state of the art thinking in 2002.

Maybe he's a slow writer.

[Make7]

12. .

[DemInDistress]

10. you might want to check out "Power of Nightmares" by Adam

Curtis. Baby it's cold outside.

The birth of the Neocons and the Rise of the Islamo Fundamentalists.

The Power of NightmaresThe Power of Nightmares - Part I. Baby It’s Cold Outside”. In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us ...
www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm


here at this site are all 3 parts.. http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

on the left side of the page..

[greyl]

18. kick

Another thread here linking to the Diane Rehm show with the author.

[Tim Howells]

19. I have not read the book, but ...

... it sounds quite similar to two I have read recently -
"The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global" by Fawaz A. Gerges:

http://www.amazon.com/Far-Enemy-Cambridge-Middle-Studies/dp/0521791405

and "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al
Qaeda's Leader" by Peter Bergen:

http://www.amazon.com/Osama-bin-Laden-Know-History/dp/0743278925/sr=1-1/qid=1169051132/ref=sr_1_1/102-2489451-2341764?ie=UTF8&s=books

Both of these books have great merits in terms of scholarship and
presentation of a complex subject. They both have a complete
blind spot when it comes to understanding the penetration and
exploitation of "al-Qaida" by Western intelligence agencies.
From your description, Wright's book suffers from the same
disability. This is by no means true of all scholarly works
on the subject. Probably the most hardly regarded reference
on political Islam is is "Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam"
by Giles Kepel:

http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Trail-Political-Gilles-Kepel/dp/0674010906/sr=1-1/qid=1169051919/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2489451-2341764?ie=UTF8&s=books

This book covers this aspect in detail, and strongly
suggests that both September 11 and the 1995 WTC bombing were
provocations engineered by Western powers.

For my own review of Kepel's book see:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/576ffba738219805/87cee3058eb08497?lnk=st&q=%22Tim+Howells%22+political+islam+on+the+trail&rnum=1#87cee3058eb08497

I'll append a collection of review excerpts.

One notable source for the three other books (including Wright's
apparently) is Jamal Khalifa, who you identify as Bin Laden's best
friend in college. He was a lot more than that! He was a major
financer of al-Qaeda ops world-wide. He was arrested in the
US, and the FBI began an investigation which was canceled due to
the intervention of then Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
See:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=alate94zawahirivisit

Anyway - the book sounds worthwhile - I may even read it - but
if the author takes a hear-no-evil see-no-evil approach to the
matter of al-Qaeda's penetration by multiple Western intel
agencies, that of course proves nothing.

Tim Howells

==============================================================================

Reviews of Kepel's book:

In Jihad Gilles Kepel offers a masterly display of scholarship that
describes how a radical idea spread through large segments of the Islamic
world in the 1970s and 1980s...Mr. Kepel leads us on a breathtaking
excursion. He trails the Islamist movements that have traversed Europe in
recent years, founding radical communities in France, Britain, Germany and
Belgium.
--Adrian Karatnycky, Wall Street Journal


An early and most perceptive student of Islamism was Gilles Kepel a
French political scientist who has traveled widely through the Muslim
world and has written about fundamentalism in both the East and the West.
He is also the best-known commentator on Islamic affairs on French
television, and he has advised international leaders at the Davos
conferences. In short, Kepel is not only a leading scholar but also a man
of the world...Jihad is probably the best introduction to Islamism
currently available.
--Walter Laqueur, Atlantic Monthly


Kepel is one of the world's leading experts on the Islamic resurgence:
He began doing fieldwork among fundamentalists in the Middle East in the
1970s, and he has remained attuned to their world ever since. Only a
handful of scholars can command as much authority, and none of these is as
bold as Kepel...Kepel's willingness to investigate the entire Muslim world
in a single volume helps us greatly in our attempt to understand al Qaeda,
whose tentacles extend into almost every Islamic country. The combination
of scope and expertise puts this book in a league of its own. Kepel
grounds his argument in a sophisticated analysis of inter-Muslim
relations. Given all the stale talk of a clash of civilizations, there is
a freshness to Kepel's focus on the international Muslim debate. We have
never been sufficiently aware that the primary architects of the Islamic
revolt against the West have regarded their struggle as a tool for gaining
power over fellow Muslims.
--Michael Scott Doran, Washington Post


Islam's radical politicalization had peaked long before September
11th...Kepel argues provocatively in a landmark book. So devastating and
unexpected was the September 11th attack on America that many people
concluded that Islamic extremism had become a threat of monstrous and
mushrooming proportions. That idea is deftly countered in this brilliant
and provocative book by a leading French specialist on modern Islam.
Gilles Kepel argues that the attack can only be understood in the light of
the rise and fall of political Islam, or Islamism as he calls it, over the
past quarter-century.
--The Economist


The author of several influential books on Islam, spent
the last five years writing Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. September
11 gave him a new framework, but he sees that event in a way that will
surprise (and please) many who have lately been trying to comprehend the
meaning of Islamic politics...An usual commentator on recent events,
Professor Kepel is a messenger carrying good news.
--Robert Fulford, Toronto National and Financial Post


There are few comprehensive and analytically sound books in the
Euro-American world that explain the recent ascendance of militant Islam
to the Western audience. This book by Kepel, a professor at the Institute
for Political Studies in Paris and a leading European specialist on
contemporary Islamic movements, is a welcome addition to the growing
literature on this topic. Meticulously researched and written in a
jargon-free narrative style, the book covers the trials and tribulations
of political Islam throughout the world...A standout in the field of
current books, this is a sophisticated and timely work that places the
events of September 11 in historical and sociopolitical context and sheds
greater light on the influence of Osama bin Laden and his movement. Highly
recommended.
--Nader Entessar, Library Journal


Jihad...will be a welcome respite for anyone who fears the fury associated
with militant Islam. Despite the terrorist attaches of September 11 and
the Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, Gilles Kepel argues that the
trend is, in fact, now on its last legs. The violence is merely a
reflection of the movement's failure, not its success... comes to
this conclusion in a thoughtful and expansive chronicle of the
contemporary Islamist movement from Cairo to Kabul, from Kuala Lumpur all
the way to "Londonistan"...This book is a compelling read that makes an
appealing case.
--Robin Wright, New York Times Book Review


http://www.hup.harvard.edu/reviews/KEPJIH_R.html

[KJF]

29. Looming Tower is so-so

Wright is maybe better than, say, McDermott. It's not typical MSM stenography, more "stenography plus", but he's not in the same league as Lance and Trento. For example, he claims the CIA received the Phoenix Memo, which the CIA has denied over and over (including in its OIG report), but he doesn't mention the CIA denies receiving it, so the significance of this is lost on the reader. If Wright's claim is correct (apparently it's based on an interview with Mark Rossini, an FBI detailee to Alec Station), it begs the question of how the CIA received it (my guess: one of Rossini's former collagues in the I-49 squad sent it to him) and why it subsequently denied receiving the memo. Wright obviously spent a lot of time working the "CIA was notified by the GID about Almihdhar and Alhazmi" story and this gets in, but he doesn't really go anywhere with it. If the CIA are lying about it, and Wright thinks they are, then why are they lying? He knows half the agents in the FBI don't buy the OCT (for example, they think the CIA was trying to turn Almihdhar and Alhazmi into double agents, they don't buy "we lost them in Thailand"), but this just gets a mention and then he leaves it. So he gets points for breaking the "CIA received the Phoenix Memo" story, but loses them again for failing to realise its significance.

[LARED]

20. I recently read the book

Informative, well written, and well documented book that was difficult to put down. It really is a must read for anyone interested in how we got where we are.

[Kingshakabobo]

31. I think I'll give it a go. n/t

[G Hawes]

21. Thanks

I haven't read it yet but I will now.

[Contrite]

23. The book starts from the premise that Al Qaeda "did" 9/ll

Let him prove that

[greyl]

24. What page? nt

[Contrite]

27. The title page

"...the path to 9/11"

At issue is the veracity of the official story. As it turns out, not even the most basic premise of the Official Story is doubt-proof. We are told by the Bush administration, and reminded by the 9/11 Commission, that 19 Arab hijackers under the purview of al-Qaeda, pulled off the most technically demanding terror incident ever, right under the noses of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc.?

[LARED]

28. Did you read the book? (n/t)

[Contrite]

30. No.

Read the synopsis and some lengthy reviews.

Have you read this?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/1438234

http://www.internetwritingjournal.com/dec06/lance5.htm

Peter's latest book, Triple Cross: How bin Laden's Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him (Regan Books), contains the most stunning revelation yet -- that al Qaeda had a top-notch operative named Ali Mohamed who infiltrated U.S. intelligence agencies, and instead of disclosing this information to the public the U.S. government chose to intentionally bury it in a major cover up. The book also contains a fascinating, illustrated timeline about Ali Mohamed and his relation to the events leading up to 9/11. You can see part of the timeline here and you can download the full timeline from Peter Lance's website.