Dubii fata de imaginea Al Quaida ca megaorganizatie terorista facuta de canalele media
Doubts towards the Al Qaeda image as a terrorist megaorganization, made by the media
For English, scroll down
Ideea cum ca Al Quaida ar fi un fel de gigaimperiu al raului, asa cum se spune pe canalele media, este o gogomanie. Nu vreau sa spun ca Bin Laden n-ar fi de fapt terorist, ca nu ar fi omorat oameni nevinovati. Ca reprezentant al mentalitatii clasice asta e rolul lui. Imperiile clasice s-au cladit prin jaf si sclavagism. Chiar si imperiile industriale si digitale ale democratiei contemporane merg tot cam pe aceleasi principii, doar ca sunt ceva mai disimulate, mai camuflate si mai moderate. Abuzurile in fata omului simplu nu au disparut nici in statul de drept, in ciuda propagandei democratiei capitaliste care vinde gogosi despre libertatea si echitatea sociala, pentru a-si convinge sclavii ca sunt de fapt liberi, si spre a-i motiva astfel sa munceasca mai eficient si mai cu entuziasm. Asa ca departe de mine gandul ca Bin Laden nu ar fi fost un terorist detestabil.
Din punct de vedere sociologic, orice organizatie mare si puternica ori este o institutie platita de la buget, ori este o companie care aduce profit. O organizatie mare are nevoie de o ierarhie si de oameni special educati si instruiti sa respecte o astfel de ierarhie. Orice organizatie mare are membri bine platiti; banul este cel ce face pe acestia sa se incadreze ierarhie si sa o respecte. Insa o astfel de presupusa organizatie ca Al Quaida nu si-ar putea plati sistematic membrii pentru ca ea de fapt nici nu produce nimic si nici nu primeste bani de la vreun stat. Ea doar ar distruge. E probabil ca Bin Laden sa fi platit pe apropiati sau pe unii sinucigasi, insa nu ar fi putut plati ani de zile o armata de oameni pentru o activitate care nu aduce venituri. Indiferent de cata sfintenie a incercat el sa mimeze, totusi Bin Laden a fost un afacerist si o astfel de organizatie ar fi fost total neprofitabila. Terorismul sau marginal s-a dorit a fi o cale diferita de creare a unui imperiu financiar cu ajutorul islamului, spre deosebire de imperiile financiare occidentale, cladite pe valori laice, fata de care el era gelos. Nu e in spiritul oamenilor de afaceri sa bage bani in ceva care nu aduce pana la urma tot bani, fie prin reclama fie prin capital de simpatie. Afirmatia cum ca Al Quaida ar fi fost o organizatie cu buget nelimitat este rezultatul unei comenzi politice platita de sus, la care raspund de obicei canalele media. Daca adunam aici si actele teroriste presupuse a fi fost facute de Al Quaida in 10 ani, ele tot nu s-ar ridica la nivelul investitiei intr-o organizatie gigantica.
Terorismul marginal facut de Bin Laden si altii este mai curand o lupta de rezistenta, o lupta de gherila. Putini oameni sint angrenati in ea. Atunci cand gruparea terorista se mareste suficient, nu mai este vorba de terorism marginal, ci de terorism generalizat, adica de razboi.
Razboiul contra terorismului este el insusi o absurditate la fel ca si razboiul contra razboiului deoarece terorismul insusi, asa cum il definesc autoritatile, este un razboi restrans. In aceeasi masura razboiul contra razboiului de fapt il intretine.
La fel ca si Che Guevara, Bin Laden va ramane pentru mine expresia proastei rezistente impotriva imperialismului occidental prin intoarcerea la imperialismul medieval. La Che Guevara se poate vedea un imperialism medieval militar, iar la Bin Laden avem de a face cu un imperialism medieval religios. Cucerirea lumii prin Coran, pe care el si-a propus-o, nu e foarte diferita de cucerirea lumii prin Biblie, pe care curtile spaniola, portugheza sau britanica au facut-o cu America cu cateva secole in urma.
Bin Laden este un amestec destul de ciudat, dar destul de frecvent inclusiv in lumea occidentala, de fanatism religios cu agresivitate imperiala capitalista. El provine dintr-o familie foarte instarita, o familie care a gustat din beneficiile pacifiste ale civilizatiei, dar care nu s-a desprins de imperialismul clasic. Dar, de fapt, aceasta este reteta capitalismului si a civilizatiei occidentale insasi. Tocmai de aceea spuneam eu in articolul linkat mai sus ca terorismul marginal este o "inventie" occidentala preluata de lumea araba, la fel cum si comunismul insusi a fost, si apoi preluat de Europa de Est.
Bin Laden a gasit putini adepti in lumea araba tocmai pentru ca ea insasi se… civilizeaza din mers, renuntand la imperialismul clasic. Bin Laden ar fi vrut un razboi islamic de cucerire a lumii si creare a unui stat international islamic, cam in aceeasi maniera in care capitalismul vrea un guvern mondial. Nu ca n-ar fi vrut lumea araba initial un stat islamic unic si suprimarea restului religiilor, insa nu se putea lupta cu armele nucleare ale Occidentului. Lupta de gherila a lui Bin Laden atesta mai curand o slaba capacitate politica a sa. Ceilalti lideri arabi au inteles ca nu se pot compara cu Occidentul in materie de forte militare, si ca nu ar avea mari sanse intr-o confruntare pe termen lung cu acesta.
Asa ca presupusa lui organizatie, Al Quaida, este mai mult o inventie a autoritatilor, o exagerare a unei grupari de gherila ce a cuprins cativa fanatici religiosi si cativa mercenari platiti pe care Bin Laden i-a folosit pentru a negocia probabil un pret mai mare pentru petrolul arab importat de americani. La fel ca si Saddam Hussein, si Bin Laden a facut niste afaceri cu americanii in trecut si ambii au fost trasi pe sfoara de ei. Drept rezultat, ambii le-au pus bete in roata in intentia lor de a exploata petrolul arab. Mai vehement decat Saddam, Bin Laden a vrut si razbunare in aceasta negociere generala a petrolului. Numai ca, din nefericire pentru el, majoritatea arabilor au acceptat schimbul propus de americani si l-au rejectat pe Bin Laden. Atunci, cuprins de gelozie si furie, el a inceput razbunarea si pe acestia si pe americani, izolandu-se treptat de toti si inconjurandu-se doar de naivi fanatici.
O astfel de adunatura dezorganizata insa nu ar fi putut insa ajunge vreodata o megaorganizatie. In realitate nu-ti poti face organizatie mare intr-un teritoriu pe care nu-l controlezi si in care nu poti sa comunici. In aceelasi fel, rezistenta franceza, in perioada ocupatiei germane din cel de-al doilea razboi mondial, nu era o organizatie ci niste grupuri dispersate de cunoscuti care luptau pentru aceeasi cauza. Se stiau intre ei in interiorul grupului, dar nu aveau cunostinte detaliate despre alte grupuri similare din alte zone si alte orase franceze. Organizatia mafiota contemporana MS 13 are mai multi lideri locali care habar nu unii de altii. Societatile undergound nu functioneaza dupa principiile centralizarii statului, asa cum pretind autoritatile despre Al Quaida. Ele raman la nivel de hoarda contemporana, cu un manunchi de membrii. Tocmai de aceea, dupa cum insele autoritatile spun, Bin Laden ar fi fost inconjurat de un fiu si alti doi apropiati in momentul atacului din partea trupelor speciale. Oare asa se protejeaza si se ascunde capul unei gigaorganizatii? Nu-si face si el un buncar, nu are sosii? Multe din afirmatiile mass-media despre eliminarea lui Bin Laden lasa semne de intrebare.
Exista un profil psihologic al teroristului sinucigas de genul celor din celula Hamburg care au intrat cu avioanele in turnurile WTC. Acest tip de atentator nu este un revendicator. Acest terorist e fundamental diferit atat fata de razboinic dar si de eroul sinucigas. Teroristul islamic se avanta in actul sau sinucigas din motive de martiriu. El nu vrea ceva anume de la autoritati asa cum, de exemplu, SUA a vrut de la Japonia aruncand bombele asupra oraselor Hiroshima si Nagasaki cu ocazia celui mai amplu act terorist propriuzis din istorie. Acest tip de atentator vrea sa moara si se razbune provocand cat mai mari daune.
Ce-i drept, teroristul marginal de tip Al Quaida se apropie mai mult de sinucigasul erou, insa se deosebeste de acesta in special prin autoritatea care ii recunoaste martiriul. Sinucigasii japonezi Kamikaze din cel de-al doilea razboi mondial se sinucideau din spirit narcisic, autoapoteotic. Toate autoritatile laice si religioase il recunosteau ca erou pe cel care recurgea la acest gest. Un sistem totalitar clasic, adica un sistem care isi umileste sistematic cetatenii, se poate apoi bucura de serviciile lor, promitandu-le sfintenia, ridicarea la rangul de erou de la rangul de umilit ordinar. Japonia imperiala a celui de-al doilea razboi mondial se afla in aceasta situatie. Insa atunci, pentru recrutarea sinucigasilor Kamikaze contribuiau toate formele de autoritate laica si religioasa a statului, incepand de la imparat si armata, si terminand cu preotii. Cu totul alta era situatia in Orientul Mijlociu. Singurele autoritati care simpatizau cu Bin Laden erau cele afgane, la vremea aceea o picatura destul de insignifianta in lumea araba.
Din punct vedere financiar, o organizatie terorista mare asa cum este prezentata Al Qaida de mass-media (la comanda politica) este imposibil sa existe fara sprijinul tuturor institutiilor sociale. Povestile din jurul acestei propagande media vorbeau despre buget nelimitat la Al Qaida. Insa orice buget nelimitat presupune si o banca prin care banii sa fie virati. Ori, cum sistemul controleaza de fapt bancile, ar fi fost foarte usor ca acest „buget nelimitat” sa fie transformat in 0. Situatia asta exista chiar si inainte de interventia SUA in Irak. Iata ca Al Quaida pare mult mai probabil sa fie mai curand un crez personal al unor extremisti religiosi decat o organizatie de facto.
Terorismul restrans al lui Bin Laden este un terorism al sinucigasului occidental care, de fapt, este un marginal atat ca si stare psihica cat si ca procent. Cu depresia sa mai mare sau mai mica, sinucigasul este incapabil sa se reuneasca intr-o forma largita de razboi. El recurge de fapt doar la un razboi neprofesionist, pasional si unilateral. Sunt foarte multe cazurile de concediati care revin apoi cu o arma in vechea companie si trag la intamplare in vechii colegi. Sunt convins ca acesta este profilul membrilor celulei Hambrug.
Sinucigasul razbunator nu se poate insa incadra intr-o astfel de metaorganizatie (fie ea corporatie sau "imperiu al raului", asa cum este prezentata de autoritati) tocmai din acest motiv. Acesti oameni sunt din start incapabili sa se adapteze si sa se ridice pe scara unei astfel de ierarhii dintr-o companie, la fel ca si sinucigasii concediati. Marile organizatii presupun oameni cu trei mari calitati: 1. docili , 2. capabili, abili in domeniul lor si 3. cu experienta. Nici o organizatie nu poate functiona fara aceste trei repere. Sinucigasul terorist este intr-adevar foarte motivat in razbunarea sa, insa ii lipseste cate ceva din celelalte 2 repere de mai sus. Acea persoana este un fel de drogat apatic caruia nu-i mai pasa de nimic. Tot ce vrea e sa moara mai repede pentru ca nu mai suporta narcisic situatia de marginal social. Iata de ce Al Quaida nu este posibila decat ca o organizatie mica, rasfirata si dezorganizata fata de un centru anume.
Supradimensionarea Al Quaida are rolul tocmai de a porni un razboi de proportii in Irak, asa cum de fapt s-a si intamplat. Asta va fi si subiectul urmatorului articol.
"Martirii teroristi" simpatizanti ai politicii violente a lui Bin Laden sunt niste marginali incapabili de a convinge majoritatea de ideile lor politice si religioase dar si de capacitatile lor personale de patrundere si adaptare in conditiile ierarhiei corporatiste. Ca orice marginal si ei au plecat initial sa se capatuiasca in lumea occidentala si sa iasa din starea de blam specifica marginalului. Sunt convins ca initial ei au plecat cu intentia de a urca in ierarhia sociala, fara intentii de razbunare. Asemenea mari majoritati a emigrantilor catre „tara fagaduintei” occidentale, si sinucigasii din grupul Hamburg, care au deturnat avioanele spre turnuri, au intrat in acea stare de lehamite fata de sistemul capitalist. Violenta de acum cativa ani initiata de marginalii marilor orase franceze, cu vandalizarea de masini si magazine, este un fenomen similar. Dezamagirea fata de promisiunile neonorate ale „tarii fagaduintei” implica acest tip de cinism ce se transforma in apetenta pentru razbunare si terorism marginal, asa cum s-a intamplat cu grupul de la Hamburg. Am scris ulterior un articol pe aceasta tema aici: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2015/01/emigratia-si-problemele-sociale-ce.html . La fel ca si infractiunea sau crima, terorismul marginal este o reactie a omului simplu subprivilegiat la civilizatie. Civilizatia a adus bunastare mai mult pentru cei privilegiati si asta inca de la inceputurile ei. Pentru multi, ea aduce dimpotriva, mizerie, boli, saracie si violenta incat viata salbatica pare chiar un lux. Dar asta e deja o alta discutie si o alta tema de articol.
Acest articol se leaga de urmatorul (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/mitul-lui-bin-laden.html )
Obama versus Osama 2.
Doubts towards the Al Qaeda image as a terrorist megaorganization, made by the media
The idea that Al Qaeda would be a kind of superempire of evil, as it is saying on the media, is a bloomer. I'm not saying that Bin Laden would not actually be a terrorist and he would not have killed innocent people. As a classical mentality person, that is his role. The classical empires were built by plunder and slavery. Even the contemporary democracy industrial and digital empires still go just about the same principles, except that they are somewhat disguised, hidden and moderate some more. The abuses against common person did not disappear in the rule of law, despite the capitalist democracy propaganda that sells illusions about freedom and social equity, and convince the slaves that are actually free, and motivate them to work more efficiently and more enthusiastically. So, the idea that Bin Laden was not a detestable terrorist is far from me.
From the sociological point of view, any large and powerful organization is either a paid from the State budget institution, or is a company that gains profit. A large organization needs a hierarchy and some specially educated and trained people to obey such a hierarchy. Any large organization has well paid members; the money is making its members to join and respect the hierarchy. But such a chimerical organization like Al Qaeda could not systematically pay its members as it actually does not produce anything and does not get money from the State. It would only destroy. Bin Laden is likely to have paid the close ones or some suicide bombers, but he could not pay for years an army of people for an activity that does not produces anything. No matter how much he tried to mimic the holiness, still Bin Laden was a businessman and such an organization would have been totally unprofitable. His marginal terrorism was meant to be a different way of creating a financial empire using Islam, conceived as totally opposed to Western financial empires built on non-religious values, to which he was so jealous. The businessmen do not put money into something that will not eventually bring money back, either through advertising or through sympathy capital. The statement that Al Qaeda would have been an unlimited budget organization is the very result of political paid orders, that media usually responds. If we take into account also the unproven Al Qaeda terrorist acts from the last 10 years, still they would not cover the investment in such a gigantic organization.
The marginal terrorism done by Bin Laden and others is rather a resistance struggle guerrilla. Few people are involved within it. As the terrorist group grows enough, it is not a marginal terrorism anymore but a generalized terrorism, meaning war.
The war against terrorism is itself an absurdity just like the war against the war, as the terrorism itself, as defined by the authorities, is a smaller war. Equally, the war against a war actually maintains it.
Just like Che Guevara, Bin Laden represents the bad expression of resistance against Western imperialism by a returning to medieval imperialism. Che Guevara is the symbol of the medieval military imperialism as Bin Laden is the symbol of the medieval religious imperialism. The conquest of the world by the Qur'an, that he has proposed, is not much different from the conquest of the world by the Bible, as the Spanish, Portuguese or British Court made on the Americas a few centuries ago.
Bin Laden is a rather strange mixture, but quite often seen in Western world also, of religious fanaticism with capitalist imperial aggression. He comes from a very wealthy family, a family that has tasted the civilization peaceful benefits, but still not able to move on out of classic imperialism. But in fact, this is the capitalism and the Western civilization pattern itself. That is why I said in the linked above article that the marginal terrorism is an Western “invention” lately put in practice by the Arab world, just as the communism iself was, and then applied in the Eastern Europe.
Bin Laden found few followers in the Arab world itself because it is just... civilizing naturally, abandoning step by step the classical imperialism. Bin Laden wanted an Islamic war to conquer the world and create an international Islamic State, in much the same manner in which the capitalism wants a world wide government. Not that the The Arab world would want a unique Islamic State initially and suppress the rest of religions, but it could not fight against the Western nuclear weapons. Bin Laden’s guerrillas show rather a poor strategy than being a real threat to Western world. The other Arab leaders have understood that they can not compete against the West in terms of military forces, and would have not a chance in a long-term confrontation with it.
So, his overestimated terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, is more an authorities invention, an exaggeration image of some separated guerrilla groups that included some religious fanatics and some paid mercenaries that Bin Laden has probably used to negotiate a higher price for imported Arab oil to Americans. Like Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden also made some business with the Americans in the past, and both were duped by them. As a result, both have put a spoke in the wheel concerning the intention to exploit the Arab oil. Louder than Saddam, Bin Laden wanted revenge in this oil negotiation engineering. But, sadly for him, the most Arabs have accepted the Americans proposal exchange and have rejected Bin Laden. Then, blinded by jealousy and anger, he started planning revenge on both those Arabs and the Americans, gradually isolating himself from everyone and surrounding by naive fanatics.
Such a disorganized bunch could never ever be a mega organization. In reality you can not build a large organization in a territory which you do not control and can not communicate. In the same manner, the French Resistance, during the German occupation in the Second World War, was not an organization but some scattered acquaintances groups who were fighting for the same cause. They knew each other within the group, but were did not possessed details about other similar groups in other French areas or cities. Today’s MS 13 mafia organization has more local leaders who have no clue about each other. The underground groups do not operate under the principle of state centralization, as authorities claim about Al Qaeda. They remain at stage of contemporary horde, with a bunch of members. Therefore, as the authorities themselves say, Bin Laden was surrounded only by a son and two other close friends when the Special Forces attacked. Is it the way that a mega organization usually protects its leader? Does not this leader have a bunker or some impersonators? Many media statements about Bin Laden's death are very dubious.
There is a psychological profile of suicide bombers like the Hamburg cell that crushed with planes in WTC towers. This type person is not a claimer. This terrorism is fundamentally different from both the war hero and the suicide hero. The Islamic terrorist goes for the suicidal act due to martyrdom reasons. This person does not want anything from authorities, such as the US wanted from Japan, throwing bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus creating the bigger terrorist act in history. This type of bomber wants to die and revenge by causing greater damage.
It is true that Al Qaeda marginal terrorist type is closer to suicide hero, but is different in particular regarding the authority that recognizes its martyrdom. The Second World War Japanese Kamikaze committed suicide due to the narcissistic, self apotheosizing spirit. All the state and religious authorities recognized that who had been doing this gesture as a hero. A classical totalitarian system, ie a system that systematically humiliates its citizens, can then enjoy their services by promising holiness, elevation to the rank of hero from the ordinary humiliated rank. The Second World War Imperial Japan was in this situation. But at that time, for the recruiting the suicidal kamikaze there were contributed all forms of the state secular and religious authority, starting with the emperor and army and ending with the priests. The situation in the Middle East was quite different form that one. The only authorities that were sympathetic with Bin Laden were the Afghan talibans, which was at that time a fairly insignificant drop in the Arab world.
From the financial point of view, a large terrorist organization as Al Qaeda is presented by the media (due to political order) is impossible to exist without the support of all social institutions. The media propaganda presented Al Qaeda as an unlimited budget organization. But any unlimited budget requires a bank so the money to be transferred. But, since the system actually controls the banks, it would have been very easy for this "unlimited budget" to be turned to 0. This situation existed even before the US intervention in Iraq. So we can see that Al Qaeda seems more likely to be a religious extremists’ personal belief than a real organization.
The Bin Laden small Terrorism is a Western suicide terrorist which, in fact, is a marginal attitude both as a psychological state and as a population percentage. Its easier or severe depression makes the suicide terrorist unable to reunite in an extended form of war. The war that this person is able to make is actually passionate, unprofessional, and unilateral. There are many cases fired people that lately returns with a gun in the former company and randomly shoot former colleagues. I am convinced that this is the Hamburg cell members’ profile.
The vengeful suicide terrorist can not fit such a big organization (no matter if corporation or “evil empire”, as presented by the authorities) for this very reason. These people are unable to adapt and advance in such a company hierarchy, just like the fired suicides. Large organizations involve three main qualities people: 1. docile, 2. capable, skilled in their field and 3 experienced. No organization can function without these three items. The suicide terrorist is indeed very motivated to revenge, but fails in the other two markers above. That person is a kind of apathetic junkie who does not care about anything. All it wants is to die faster because can not narcissistically stand anymore the social marginal situation. That is why Al Qaeda is possible only as a small organization, scattered and disorganized to a particular center.
The Al Qaida over dimensioning is designed precisely to start a proportions war in Iraq as actually happened. This will be the subject of the next article.
The “terrorist martyrs” that sympathized with Bin Laden's violent politics are social excluded people, unable to convince the majority with their political and religious ideas, but also with their personal capacities of penetration and adaptation in of corporation hierarchy conditions. Like any marginal, they also first tried to make a living in the Western world and get out of marginal specific blame statute. I am convinced that initially they left with the intention to climb up on the social hierarchy, without intentions of revenge. Like the vast majority of immigrants to the Western "promised land", the suicides Hamburg group who hijacked the planes into the towers, gradually came into that disgust state against the capitalist system. The few years ago violence initiated by the major French cities marginalized ones by vandalizing cars and shops is a similar. The disappointment towards the "Promised Land" unfulfilled promises implies this type of cynicism that is transformed into appetite for revenge and marginal terrorism, as happened with the Hamburg group. I subsequently wrote an article on this topic here:
http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2015/02/migration-and-its-social-issues.html . Like the offense or the crime, the marginal terrorism is a simple underprivileged person reaction to civilization. Civilization has brought more wealth for the privileged ones since its very beginnings. For too many it brings, on the contrary, misery, diseases, poverty and violence so that the wildlife seems to be a luxury. But this is already another discussion and another article topic.
Pentru limna romana glisati in sus
+ comentarii + 2 comentarii
Danootzu.Draga fratica, sunt de acord in mare parte cu tine. Nu ai specificat in articol un lucru important, doar l-ai invelit si anume despre masonerie. Aceasta organizatie proorocita de catre profeti, cei 70 de intelepti ai Sionului, conduc deja o parte din Asia si Africa, toata Europa, America si Australia. Razboiul islamic, adica a celor care vor sa impuna islamul in lume, este de fapt un razboi cu masoneria care vrea sa impuna o noua religie in care Dumnezeu sta deoparte si isi vede de treaba, nu se amesteca in treburile noastre. Ca sa dovedesc acest lucru amintesc ca deja acest papa al romei, reprezentul "infailibil" al celor mai multi crestini, a lansat o carte de curand prin care incearca sa demonstreze ca nu evreii l-ar fi ucis pe Hristos. Oare de ce?
Danootze... nush ce sa zic. Eu nu prea stiu despre masonerie mare lucru. N-am o parere prea buna despre ea dar nu stiu daca s-a bagat in mizeria cu razboiul aniterorist. Vad insa ca borgii sociali au inscenat aceasta cacealma si despre asta am scris.
Nici despre divergentele catolicism-ortodoxie nu ptrea ma pricep. Stiu insa ca la ce mizerii au facut capitalistii, razboialele religioase si cruciadele mi se par mici copii.
Kestia cu "evreii l-ar fi ucis pe Hristos" mi se pare exagerata. Sa fim seriosi. Civilizatia il ucide in fiecare secunda pe Hristos. Nu evreii in mod particular. Savonarola, profetul rensacentist cum a patit-o? Preotii martiri torturati de totalitarismul comunist cum au patit-o? Asa se comporta civilizatia cu dizidentii care refuza statutul de sclav.