The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 9-11: treason in the academic comfort zone? > Comments

9-11: treason in the academic comfort zone? : Comments

By Mervyn Bendle, published 11/9/2006

There has been a scandalous lethargy among the Australian intelligentsia in terrorism research.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hi BD,

Most videos released of Bin Laden have come from Al Jazeera. The timing of this video, like the rest, was extraordinary. It came one day after Bush announced the presence of secret CIA prisions in foreign countries, and only a couple of days before the anniversary. Don't be at all surprised if another one emerges just before the mid-term elections.

I wouldn't normally make so much of the timing BD, except that the release of this video fits in with the usual pattern. One or two coincidences I can cop, anymore than that and you've got to wonder.

Regarding the Hijackers, I don't pretent to know who they were, and I don't think you should, the investigation into who was responsible for 9/11 was flawed by impartiality and it ignored crucial pieces of evidence. Oh but hang on, there was the passport of an arab that flew out of a burning building out onto the streets of Manhattan, of course! Proof positive!

Just remember BD my friend, I've never claimed to have all the answers, just a lot of questions
Posted by Carl, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 9:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The academics on the ABC last night (was it the 7.30 report?) seemed to have a pretty good reason for not researching terrorism.

You can't do research about, or involving, humans without conforming to ethical guidelines and those are very strict. If there was any chance that research could involve risk to either the researcher or the researched it's just not on.

The new anti-terrorism laws mean that academics can't research without risk, so they can't research at all
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 2:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many defects in Bendle’s, otherwise passable, essay:

Australian terrorism information and analyses are usually classified. This creates:

- a limited group of current uncommunicative “insiders” at the coalface (ASIO, Police forces). Several Minister’s, DG ASIO and the Police Commissioners speak about their activities but often in a politicised way;

- a second group are former insiders, or people with access to insiders, who may be academics running terrorism courses, consultants still paid by Government or private industries, journalists (eg for The Australian) and the odd writers and bloggers; and

- the much larger group of uninformed “outsiders” including most academics who write about the subject. Bendle is unfair about this group because, compared to the US, security information in Australia remains tightly held. Academics usually find it difficult to say something original and intelligent on Australian terrorism when they don’t have access to intelligence.

Releasing intelligence in the interests of wider academic debate might only increase community tensions while also “telegraphing” delicate information collection efforts to the wrong people.

Rather than trying to convince sociology departments that counter terrorism law enforcement is a greenfields area for study it might be better that the activities of the terrorism studies centres at Monash and Macquarie Unis were expanded.

These centres (and several other university sites eg Murdoch Uni and UQ) already appear well informed - with a sprinkling of former insiders. If they were to take on more academics and graduate students, while extending their scope, this may raise the level of debate about Australian terrorism problems.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 2:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not so much taking notice of practicioners of spin like Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and the neo-Con Zionists behind them - as the Murdoch Press might do, it is the Uni' academics who can give us the most truthful accounts of Middle East history since 9/11, and no doubt the real causes of 9/11.

Regarding the attack on the WTC, it is well to remember a statement by bin Laden not long after the 9/11 attack, not that he admitted organising 9/11, but he did mention his anger about thousands of American troops permanently established in his home state of Saudi Arabia. Further, as if admitting the mistake of having troops there, the Americans immediately withdrew them as they withdrew troops from Lebanon after Lebanese Islamics blew up an American barracks near Beirut, killing a large number of US marines.

If the above historical account can this day be proven to be true, does not this also prove a statement by Mubarek of Egypt a couple of years ago to a British journalist, that the major cause of Arab hatred towards the West, is Western intrusion and injustice in the ME that can easily be proven by history.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 5:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The more fertile ground for academic to study would be the psychology that has driven the reponse to what little terrorism we have been subjected to.

Not with standing the twin towers bali spain and london international terrorism is small fish when compared for example to internal terrorism conducted by the Tamil Tigers for example or in other civil wars over many years - it is a pissy little phenomenon when compared to the AIDs crisis facing Africa for example or hunger for that matter - yet in fear of our some what over valued lives we have spnet squillions to save a few more and reframed our legal system

Any escalation in international anti west terrorism has been primarily a reaction to disproportionate responses by the West to the TT collapse - Howard et al continues to refute that very simple fact for fear of looking like a geese - some one should tell them its too late.

If more rigour was applied to examining the now near universal paranoid psychosis the west is suffering from we might get a better handle on the problem -

the author really took too may words to tell us he was just pissed at the "left".
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 15 September 2006 10:34:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sneekeepete

I agree with most of what you say.

Discourse on security and intelligence issues in Australia is frustratingly based on the inarticulate Westminster tradition (of good chaps doing the unstated Right Thing - forcing me to talk to US "spooky types" instead).

I agree there is room to spread academic study into areas outside the study centres the author identifies. Not only psychology but mainstream politics and law courses could look at the 9/11 phenomenon, place of torture in interrogation and counter-terrorism laws etc.

I think the Western world's interest in al Qaeda style terrorism goes down to the facts that:

- 9/11 happened to America
- it was painted as a foreign attack on American soil, therefore the full force of America's security and defence apparatus was mobilised to fix this "foreign" threat.
- America lead the (largely) English speaking world into an invasion, then occupation, of Iraq and Afghanistan.
- non English speaking forces have largely indicated they want to pull out of these occupied countries. Perhaps most have.
- this leaves the US, UK, Australia, Canada and mercenaries as the main pillors of those occupations.

So I'd say unlike AIDS etc the counter terrorism push is a security and defence business. Its an enormous and growing business under conservative governments in the English speaking countries (let us forget little NZ).

I think the psychological element you point to is the instilling of immediate fear in our population to justify yet another far off venture of Australian forces.

Real reasons like paying a premium on ANZUS and long term government concern about China (with the US defending us from it) are, of course, never mentioned. I wish they were, but, good chaps and their US Republican bosses don't tell the truth.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 September 2006 3:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy