Share this story!            

THINKING ALOUD: The art of obfuscation and denial —Razi Azmi

While the best that Muslim analysts can do is obfuscate, their Western allies in the jihad against the “war on terror” are more investigative, making the case that if the Israelis didn’t have a hand in the London blasts, they must at least have known about it

It was my intention this week to write a concluding piece on the subject of nationalism and international borders, but the bombings in London take precedence, and for a different reason than you might think. After all, the bombings didn’t come as a surprise; even the British authorities had said it was only a matter of time before London would be targeted. That the perpetrators are young Muslims, most probably born in Britain of immigrant parents, injected with rage against the West and Jews by sermons and discourses in British mosques, was a foregone conclusion.

That didn’t prevent some commentators from harnessing “facts” and raising hair-splitting arguments in order to directly implicate Israel and Jews in the bombings. I deliberately use the word “direct”, for indirect Israeli and Jewish culpability in the worldwide terror being perpetrated in the name of Islam seems to be a proven fact. It all started with Israeli atrocities in Palestine and the US support of Israel, they say.

One columnist in a well-known Pakistani English daily (“Shock and Awe in London”, The Nation, July 10) asks “the basic question, who did it and why?” Then, after ruling out the IRA and declaring “extreme French nationalists” as “unlikely” culprits, he writes: “Many of the skeptics, war opponents and many Muslims may point to the CIA and/or Mossad as the likely parties, for carrying out such an operation for various reasons”. For balance, he concedes that “the most likely suspects, as already pointed out by the media, are the Muslims... because they have reasons to retaliate”.

While the best that Muslim analysts can do is obfuscate, their Western allies in the jihad against the “war on terror” are more investigative, making the case that if the Israelis didn’t have a hand in the London blasts, they must at least have known about it. Proof: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s hardline finance minister and former prime minister, not only happened to be in London at the time, but also cancelled a scheduled visit and remained in his hotel room.

When the Israelis explained that this was the result of the British authorities informing him of the blasts, the hair splitting began with the help of a “timeline”, analysing in great detail who said what and when. (See: “London Terror Tip-off: Timeline Refutes Israeli Denial”, on www.antiwar.com)

It made a very persuasive case about prior Israeli knowledge of the attacks, if not involvement, except that the case began to fall apart with new revelations, for example, that the three underground blasts occurred almost simultaneously, and that the original claim that the explosions were the result of a power surge was a deliberate ploy to prevent panic before the emergency services had been put in place.

One is reminded of the widespread post-9/11 claims that “the Jews” were responsible for it. Plausible arguments had been presented, backed up by solid “evidence”. The arguments went like this: Only the enemies of Islam benefited from 9/11, hence Muslims couldn’t have done it; it helped Israel and provided the pretext for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq; Muslims lack the skills and technology to pull off such a feat; Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians, etc.

Again, the more substantive “evidence” raising doubts about the official American account of 9/11 originated from Western sources, to be grabbed with a sense of relief by Muslims. For example, Jews had been forewarned not to go to work in the World Trade Center on the fateful day; no Jew died on 9/11; an Israeli TV crew was seen filming the hits on the twin towers. And more: the twin towers couldn’t possibly have collapsed under the impact of planes crashing into them; the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than a plane. It didn’t matter that all the above claims were factually false.

Similar theories are making the rounds regarding the bombings in Iraq. One commentator on a Muslim website writes: “It is alleged that hundreds of Zionist Mossad agents of the Israeli army and an International ‘elimination squad’ in American uniforms are taking part in the massacre”. A prominent Pakistani leader of an Islamist political party recently suggested the same thing on television. Since most victims are Iraqis, therefore, he opined, the perpetrators must be non-Iraqis and non-Muslims. He even hinted that Abu Musab Al Zarqawi must be an American agent.

When Nick Berg, the first Westerner (and a Jew) was beheaded in Iraq, doubting Thomases in the West again produced the “evidence” that reinforced the customary Muslim denial. Together, they pointed to a conspiracy somewhere, alluding to all possibilities but deflecting guilt from those who boasted to have carried it out, even produced a video to corroborate their claim. One analyst, Richard Neville, weaved a very specious tale of dissimulation under the title “Who killed Nick Berg?” Why the big question mark? Here goes:

The timing of the video was brilliant for the West; the face of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the self-confessed murderer, is widely known and he credits himself with the deed, so his wearing a mask in the video was unnecessary; after Fox News and CNN had downloaded the video of the beheading, it disappeared from the site; a leaflet earlier circulated in Falluja had claimed that Al Zarqawi was killed in northern Iraq during a US bombing; a US military report had claimed Al Zarqawi was killed in the bombing of Falluja.

Among the “many curiosities raised on the web” about the five decapitators who appeared on the video, Richard Neville cited the following: They were well-fed, fidgety, and viewers could catch glimpses of white skin; their Arabic was heavily accented; an aside in Russian had been translated as “do it quickly”; one character wore bulky white tennis shoes; the man on the far left stood in the familiar “at ease” military posture; the men’s scarves were worn and tied by people who “haven’t a clue” about scarves; there was even a voice at the end that seems to ask in English, “How will it be done?”

Lest readers thought that he sounded like a top-notch defence counsel for the Al Zarqawi group, Richard Neville pretended to be objective and impartial, concluding his piece thus: “None of this proves a grand conspiracy, but it does raise questions.... I do not know who killed Nick Berg, or how he died. But there’s something fishy about this video. In the end, the question is: who killed Nick Berg, and why?”

Significantly, the author did not ask himself the one question that would have settled the mystery, if any. Why did the Al Zarqawi group not contradict the claim made in the video? After all, if it was a fabrication, Al Zarqawi & Co were free to refute its contents via the Internet or, God bless, Al Jazeera television.

Grand conspiracy is indeed what these journalists and commentators try to prove, a conspiracy against Islam and Muslims hatched in Tel Aviv and Washington, by Jews who control America and crave for world domination. But since there’s nothing fishy about the video, or about 9/11, or Bali, or Madrid, or London, or the mayhem in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq, they introduce obscurity where there is total clarity and insert question marks when there are none.

The writer can be contacted at raziazmi@hotmail.com

Home | Editorial

Share this story!