38 of 73 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Paperback)
In his War on Truth, Ahmed attempts to satisfy the demands of truth and political correctness, both at the same time. No such miracle occurs, rest assured. What you get instead is a poor compromise: buying the nonsense theory of "government negligence," while bowing down to the official demonology of Arab terrorism.
No thinking person can continue in Ahmed's illogical parallel universe of the bungling incompetence theory while looking, say, at the controlled demolition of WTC 7, which makes it crystal-clear that 9/11 was a black op, that the "hijackers, Al-Qaeda," etc. were redundant - just decoys set to trap public opinion. They should not be his centerpiece.
Ahmed excuses himself that physical theories (his word for hard evidence) are simply not the remit of his thesis, which he sees as the "symbiotic ties between Western power and international terrorism." Symbiosis is a fine thing, but it requires an independently acting other. Does such an other in fact exist?
This is the crux. As long as Americans and Britons believe a foreign entity really attacked the US on 9/11, and London on 7/7, they are going to support dire acts of "patriotic" war and legislation. No one will stop to listen whether or not there were helpers in the US-UK.
So if Ahmed really claims to be anti-war, he should come out of his PC closet and leave the banality of his "symbiotic liberation army." This kind of work can't help stop the war, it is only a distraction.
Who says physical evidence is not in his remit? Has he taken it on himself to ignore it to sell more books ("buy it, send copies to your representatives") by pandering to "mainstream" orthodoxy? He has attended conferences on 9/11 which featured forceful audio-visual proofs of the WTC demolition - yet he remains as immune to the truth as the politicians. Such studied ignorance of troublesome facts after more than three years of research leaves a scholar open to the charge of dishonesty and opportunism.
It disappointed this reader, at any rate. What we have here is a compilation of redacted half-truths from the "mainstream," whatever that is. You might build a house by doubling the number of half-bricks, but you can't get the whole truth from a pile of half-truths.
It's not that hard to accumulate 1,000, who knows, maybe 10,000 sources about 9/11 off the Web - and among them are images worth 100,000 words, too, although you won't find a single picture in this book. Real authors don't just cut and paste off the Web, they give it meaning.
As for the boast that his "superb, lucid narrative consistently outclasses every other 9/11 author," in this he exceeds them only in presumptuousness. He may pride himself on his "unprecedented, courageous confrontation;" but to be frank, it's quite the reverse: too much patter, too little point, too old hat - and too cowardly.
Under his two cloaks of "negligence" and "al-Qaeda," Ahmed is actually playing the role of whitewasher and polite apologist for the elites he ostensibly criticizes, and not their finger-pointing accuser.
I'm very curious what Ahmed would say about the awful bombings in his neighborhood this week. Will you tell us what you think, Mr. Ahmed? Was it Al-Qaeda, or Her Majesty's Secret Service? But no symbiosis, please, and you can go ahead and post it under your own name.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 27, 2009 5:05:08 AM PDT
Glidd of Glood says:
The whole strength of Ahmed's book is that it avoids the outlandish conspiracy theories and indeed refuses to state one, athough the mass of evidence accumulated invites you to form your own. The favourite theory of the planned demolition of the towers can be easily debunked with a little web research - as can probably most of the others. They are also unnecessary and Ahmed doesn't go there. There is easily enough conspiracy in this book to suit any rational person - no need to look for more. The books leads you to believe that either 9/11 was a probability that the Bush administration failed to stop for reasons of its own, or that a part of that Administration actively connived in planning it. How much more of a momentous conclusion do you want?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2011 10:51:02 AM PDT
Arthur T. Hu says:
There are actually two conspiracy theories. The correct one is that the US was backing the islamists would pull off 9/11. The disinformation one is is the Americanized version of "the jews, not muslims did 9/11" pro-muslim conspiracy theory. Ahmed appears to be no fan of Israel, but the fact that he is being attacked the anti-israel 9/11 truthers indicates he might be right.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›