honestly, thanks for the grain of salt

it really just looks like a couple of nervy nitwits' "theories" ... with a cultured british accent thrown over that and stock video taken out of context and rather coincidentally rearranged

shouldn't be too hard for me to provide another "grain" for all of us to consider rubbing together with the former...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History_of_the_name

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108588&postcount=9

there you go...

something else just occurred to me from the video's mention of the "military-industrial complex" -- this being that we often don't consider much of the context of that particularly insightful eisenhower speech:

here's a gem that just precedes the now-iconic reference...

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

now *that's* thought-provoking =)

expounding on that in a much-later newspaper editorial is ike's close friend and former naval aide to the president:

"The science community is paralyzed by a phony, egotistical self-
guilt, and the technophobes in academia have had a field day for a
generation, teaching our young people to scorn the sciences and feel
guilty for being Americans. Aided by a couple of administration in
which "social engineering" was more fashionable than science, techno-
logical leadership is passing from the United States to nations who
have struck a more rational balance."

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n09.htm

heh heh, i think something really "got his goat"

anyway, i've always felt that the surest way of losing an argument is to overstate it... i guess i feel that that's exactly what the first video does

here's what we can take from it, at least overwhelmingly so (in the court of public opinion)

- america's "reaction" to the attacks of september 11th made al-qaeda both a household name *and* target #1 of the us government (durr)

- this most likely helped consolidate bin laden's organization, and surely polarized islamic radicalism ever further, thus increasing al-qaeda's magenetism to ends both in funding and recruiting

- prolonged military action in the "war on terror" is CONTINUING to make our "military-industrial complex" lots of money (do you really think that strong ties between "death merchantry" and government didn't exist before 2001... or even long before ike's speech??)

- america's (and the world's) "military-industrial complex" will continue to thrive until (ha) there is peace... and then probably a bit longer

- the "war on terror" probably won't end even if we get every member of al-qaeda into the same denny's restaurant and then nuke it (in a similar fashion as to arresting al capone not ending the fbi's war on organized crime)

- this will continue to make both you and me sad, and the "desth merchants" happy

...

but maybe, just maybe, we should take note of what ike first said we *should* be... STRONG ... and *then* consider our thinking on maintaining the BALANCE he warned us all should be sought in his now-pop-culture reference

Pay no attention to the gigantic mask that bellows about spreading democracy. Look behind the curtain at the man making all the money. War critics make the mistake of assuming that the war creators give a shit. Pleas to feel the pain of the poor Iraqis fall on deaf and confused ears of the people for whom it is going so well. The surge, like the war itself, made no consistent claims about what victory means or what the objectives actually were. Anything that happens can be attributed to the surge simply by its existence somewhere nearby. Cheerleaders go in making every possible claim about what could go well, then they pick whichever one comes true and use that to justify any atrocities that may have been committed. The purpose is to feed you a little candy--"USA #1 The surge is working! Yay me!"--without actually claiming victory, which would put an end to the ongoing glory--"but there's a lot of work left to do!" The point is to engage your enthusiasm while making it seem like the only reasonable way forward is to keep doing the same thing. Which is what they want to keep on doing for whatever reason it is that they keep on doing it. It's all the same strategy that only almost worked the first time. Think back on how many great reasons there were for going in there--ONE of them had to end up being true. But none of them did.

For the US administration and its supporters, the war might be going great for all we know. They probably did, and do, have a VERY good reason for going in there. At least from where they sit. None of the misery or failures affect the matters that concern them. It's expensive? The rich don't pay taxes any more. Soldiers are killed? As good as none of those guys have family in the armed forces. Government is bankrupt? Never much cared for it anway. One thing that obviously was important is for the oil to go out onto the "free" market, where anybody _could_ buy it. Sounds egalitarian and fair, but the likeliest big winners are relatively few and they know who they are. The one thing you will never never hear from the government in Bagdad are calls to nationalize the oil resources. This mission really is accomplished, and Bush may actually consider it a success--he has said and may actually believe that history will exonerate him. All we need now are enough police to keep the business running. We're not quite there yet, and from the administration point of view, this may be the only failure. Therefore, the best solution: more cops. Pulling out, at the very least, means just one thing: fewer cops. Police is always the one public service that Republicans really really like--always looking for that government handout to help them hold on to all their stuff.

SO that's why this video rocks. The final remaining stated and moral claim to support the invasion, the freeing of the poor, long-suffering Iraqi people, is as obvious a distraction as all of the other ones were. This video illustrates that fantastically. (I've gotta go out and see the rest.)

This whole business is criminal, but technically legal. We're probably going to have to accept that all these guys are going to get away with it. I suppose if we need vengeance, we could go after them for some distantly related, but ridiculously lesser crime, such as with Al Capone and tax evasion. But this vengeance would just be a pointless and counterproductive distraction from the problem that so desperately needs to be solved: how can we make sure it doesn't happen again? Until then, it will good-as never stop. What laws--even constitutional updates--are needed? What unfortunate human tendencies is our system encouraging in us, that this has been allowed to happen?

You wanna know who is least likely to fix it? The upcoming Democratic Party cross-government majority. They are next in line, and they've been waiting a long long time.

But maybe all of that is just a bit too conspiratorial. It might have been just stupidity and bigotry the whole way through. Muslims bombed New York. Saddam's Iraq was the least popular and easiest to beat up bunch of muslims that had any milk money for us to steal. So everybody gathered round and cheered while the football captain put his boot in. And, oh yeah, they bombed Afghanistan too.

The Japanese narrator is explaining what happened (news crew is filming the streets where Al Capone's gangs used to do battle, gets attacked by street thugs, black belt cameraman knocks out 13 people before police arrive and is momentarily detained as a suspect before being let go) as if it is a real incident, but obviously the footage is a dramatic re-enactment.

I grew up in Iowa and I can promise you Iowans can't be bought.

Everyone can be bought, its just a matter of price, as Al Capone noted.

The point is, he doesnt have to buy everyone. He only buys the leaders of churches etc and they go "Praise Jesus, God Bless America, and vote Mitt Romney!" These fraudulent scumfucks use precisely the qualities you mention to get support with the masses.

This has nothing to do with Iowans being stupid, corrupt or gullible, In a place full of liberals, you could do the same thing, talk about the evil corporate machine, the little man getting screwed by the military industial complex, and adding "thats why you should vote <whoever>" Of course, those leaders etc are not robots, theyll do it more subtly than that, but its not rocket science. Money can buy votes. And if people are taught from birth to follow a religion that calls its supporters a flock.. Well, this is why people should be taught to think for themselves.

From his emmy-winning days of fightimg for the fair treatment of the Mentally retarded at Willowbrook State, to Al Capone's Vault, to his foot-in-mouth coverage of whateverthehell he fucked up in Afghanistan, This piece-a-work is an insult to every Puerto-Rican Jew and legitamate journalist on the planet.

(legitmate jounalist being the oxi-moronic descrptive phrase that it is)

Oh, did we mention the Gay Biker Moustache? , that never goes out of style?