A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cite the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.

On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.

Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Even in European countries, the majorities that say al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-six percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda. However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the US government, as do 15 percent of Italians.

Publics in the Middle East are especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda. In Egypt 43 percent say that Israel was behind the attacks, as do 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The US government is named by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians. The numbers who say al Qaeda was behind the attacks range from 11 percent in Jordan to 42 percent in the Palestinian Territories.

The only countries with overwhelming majorities citing al Qaeda are the African countries: Kenya (77%) and Nigeria (71%). In Nigeria, a large majority of Muslims (64%) also say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks (compared to 79% of Nigerian Christians).

The poll of 16,063 respondents was conducted between July 15 and August 31, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percent.

Interviews were conducted in 17 nations, including most of the largest nations--China, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the Ukraine.

Respondents were asked "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?" and their answers were categorized into four response groups: "Al Qaeda," "the US government," Israel," or "Other." Any answers that approximated al Qaeda, such as "bin Laden" or "Islamic extremists," were categorized along with those who said al Qaeda. Those who simply characterized the perpetrators as "Arabs," "Saudis," or "Egyptians" (3% on average) were included in the "Other" category.

Respondents in Asia have mixed responses. Bare majorities in Taiwan (53%) and South Korea (51%) name al Qaeda, but 17 percent of South Koreans point to the US government and large numbers in both countries say they do not know (Taiwan 34%, South Korea 22%).

Majorities of Chinese (56%) and Indonesians (57%) say they do not know, with significant minorities citing the US government (Indonesia 14%, China 9%).

A clear majority of Russians (57%) and a plurality of Ukrainians (42%) say al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But significant minorities identify the US government (15% in both cases) and large numbers do not provide an answer (Ukrainians 39%, Russians 19%).

Out of all countries polled, Mexico has the second-largest number citing the US government as the perpetrator of 9/11 (30%, after Turkey at 36%). Only 33 percent name al Qaeda.

Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education are only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda. Steven Kull comments, "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information."

A stronger correlate of beliefs about 9/11 are respondents' attitudes about the United States. Those with a positive view of America's influence in the world are more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%). Those with a positive view of the United States are also less likely to blame the US government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%).

Via: World Public Opinion

Related posts:

• Israel and United States Share Most Negative Ratings in Global Poll
• Global Poll: Majority Wants Troops Out of Iraq Within a Year
• Iran and Israel: Most Negative in Global Poll

New York officials released the latest design for the signature building at the World Trade Center site Wednesday after revising it to make the tower more secure.

Related posts:

• Rana Ghassan: Made In Palestine
• WTC Official Start of Construction
• Vote for Homeless Families in Gaza, Vote for Rachel Corrie

Update: Since you have come that far, this late, I think I know what you are looking for. The photos are here!

I was looking at Al Arabiya website when I came across the story of 'Wafa Bin Laden'. A little search and found few articles about her. Anyway, here is the story from some news clips:

She walks down the street on the Upper East Side, thin and stylish. But no one's asking, "Who's That Girl?"

For, almost all her neighbours know who she is � despite the fact that she has added a twist to her family name. Her uncle is the world's most wanted. And she's probably one of the most unwanted.

Meet Wafa'a Bin Laden (or Wafah Binladin as she like to spell her name), niece of Osama bin Laden who wants to be an Arab version of Madonna. But a friend quoted in the New York Post said, "She wants to be a pop star but no record company will have her."

Wafah blames her infamous uncle � whom she has met just once � for ruining her legal and musical careers.

Pop Idol judge Simon Cowell said, "There's only one worse surname you could have to launch a pop career, and that's Hitler."

"At first, we all had sympathy for her and thought she was a nice girl with an unfortunate family connection. But she's this extremely spoilt wealthy girl," a friend said. "And the way she treats people. Now she is trying to make money by giving French lessons. But if you don't want her French lessons, she will hang up and scream, 'Bitch!"'

Wafa'a was born an American citizen while her father was studying in California. She grew up in Switzerland in a multimillion-dollar mansion. She studied law at Geneva University before going on to Columbia for a three-year doctorate.

In 2001, she lived in a $6,000-a-month loft on Spring Street, just ten blocks from WTC. Shopkeepers knew her as a big spender. A saleswoman at Bigdrop reported that she would spend thousands at a time on designer clothes. But in the months before the 9/11 attacks, she left for London.

Binladin is living on Park Avenue, and frequenting New York's poshest clubs and bars. Some city folk are outraged that she should be living a life of luxury so close to the hole in the ground where the twin towers once stood.

She has left her Muslim background behind and adapted herself to Western culture (with all what that means). She even changed the spelling of her last name to the more Western "Binladin".

�Because of this last name that I have nothing to do with, the western world hates me, and because I�ve chosen American values, the Saudi Arabian world hates me,� the singer lamented.

Her mother, Carmen Bin Ladin, lives in Geneva and has been separated for 15 years from her husband, Yeslam, the half-brother of the terrorist mastermind.

Yeslam Bin Ladin maintains that he has had no contact with Osama for years. He has been accused in a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks of �providing material financial support to international terrorism� through his half-brother, but has vigorously rejected such allegations.

I don�t speak Arabic. I don�t have a Saudi passport. I play guitar, I write and sing music.�

Wafah is known as a party girl, who once danced with President George W Bush�s daughter Jenna at a nightclub in the south of France. (Wow, what a privilage!)

Carmen�s marriage to Yeslam disintegrated when he expected their children to be brought up conservatively. �My husband doesn�t even acknowledge his daughters when he sees them on the street,� she said.

According to Wafah, her mother fears �some fundamentalist will do away with me� because of her new career. She is currently working on an album and demo tape under the name Wafah Dufour (her mother�s maiden name) and describes her voice as �sort of Chrissie Hynde� � a reference to the vocalist with The Pretenders.

She added: �I am not a bimbo. I don�t want sympathy. I only ask that people try to understand.�

Related posts:

• Saudi Arabian Women’s Rights
• Arab Discriminates Against Women. Why Is That So?
• Saudi Writer Sentenced to 275 Lashes

Eye on the Empire
by Alan Bock

Perhaps the most encouraging thing about the terrorist alert first issued on Sunday was the relatively extensive debate it engendered in much of the country, even though the alert was in some ways calculated to be responsive to criticisms of previous alerts. Instead of being a vague and generalized alert about a possible attack somewhere in the vast United States, it was focused on five specific buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. And the authorities told us a little bit about material found on a computer in a raid in Pakistan, and about a 25-year-old Pakistani computer expert named Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan (which might or might not be an alias), who was questioned, and whose interrogation, in addition to the materials on the computer files, might have had something to do with an official sense of urgency.

Of course it came out on Monday that most of the material regarding security systems and procedures at the five buildings was assembled prior to the 9/11/2001 attacks. Surely some security procedures have been changed since then. So government spokesmen were forced to respond to questions about the relevancy and immediacy of the material. "We know this is a terrorist organization that does its homework," Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge said. "Al Qaeda often plans well, well in advance. We also know that they like to update their information before a potential attack."

At the same speech Tuesday, Ridge also insisted that "We don?t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," which is palpably ridiculous. Whether the warnings were intended to deflect attention from the "bounce" in the polls that John Kerry ended up not getting from the Democratic convention I have no real idea. But the warnings are quintessentially political in the sense that the authorities are deathly afraid that a terrorist attack will happen without them having warned us about it and created the illusion that the government?s frenetic activities have some real connection to protecting the American people. So their incentive is to cry "wolf" even if they have only a shred of a hint of a possible attack to make themselves look good if an attack actually occurs. If that isn?t a political motivation I don?t know what is.

All right, all right, I?ll give them one possible benefit of the doubt. It is just possible that one of the intended effects (besides urging Americans in general to be a little more vigilant and more accustomed to having armed government goons on the streets and in subways and tunnels) is to alert terrorists that authorities are onto them so they will abandon these specific plans. It is virtually impossible to know if that has happened in connection with this or other alerts, but it is at least theoretically possible.

OTHER MOTIVATIONS

That said, this particular alert is somewhat different from previous alerts in ways that lead one to hope U.S. government leaders are becoming a little more sophisticated. And it sheds light on other issues as well.

Within hours of the alert being issued, new stories were in circulation suggesting that this alert was based in large part on documents captured in a raid on an alleged al Qaeda cell in Gujarat, Pakistan. Whether the detailed information came from questioning a 25-year-old computer expert identified as Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan (which could be an alias) or from examining two computers and other electronic equipment is still unclear. But the information is described as a "treasure trove" that has offered U.S. intelligence experts much more detailed information than they had before about al Qaeda?s inner workings.

This alert is thus responsive to several criticisms of past alerts. It identifies specific targets (although apparently not a specific time). And it is based on specific intelligence the outline of which officials are willing to share with the public.

The alert demonstrates two other facts. First is that day-to-day, apparently boring and often unrewarding police and intelligence work ? done of necessity in conjunction with governments in other countries ? will be essential to neutralizing terrorists. Military action may sometimes be needed, but relentless grunt work is a key to ultimate success.

It will take years ? if ever ? to develop agents within jihadist terrorist groups who could be instrumental in eventually dismantling them. Meantime it behooves the United States to work with other countries.

A second point it that jihadist terrorists still seem focused on what Homeland Security Tom Ridge called "iconic economic targets." This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the American economy and market economies in general, a misunderstanding shared by many Americans.

We may never know if Osama bin Laden expected the entire American economy to collapse or to be irreparably damaged by the attacks on the World Trade Center. But there is little doubt that he and others have an essentially hierarchical understanding of the U.S. economy, a vague belief that it depends on orders from a few oligarchs at the top to function.

Fortunately, a market economy ? which the United States does not have in a pure form given the extent of government intervention ? is more a bottom-up than a top-down affair. Economic coordination results from millions of decisions and transactions undertaken voluntarily rather than from orders from the top.

As the 9/11 attacks, which damaged but hardly destroyed the economy, demonstrated, such a decentralized structure is more resilient than a top-down hierarchy. This implies that one defense against terrorism is further decentralizing authority structures rather than gathering more power at the center.

We hope the attacks the alert anticipates never occur. It may be small comfort but it should be some comfort to know that even if they do, they will damage America but not destroy it.

Related posts:

• Do You Have Your I Am Not A Terrorist Card?

One of the first things I did when I got back from vacation was to go see Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s a brilliant piece of propaganda, entertaining and funny, and it skewers the president deliciously. But am I the only one to notice that in one critically important way, it entirely misses the boat and gets nearly everything wrong? Maybe this has been said before—I’ve hardly read all of the criticism of Moore—but if so, I haven’t seen it. Moore totally avoids the question of Israel.

Not only that, but the opening polemic of the movie ties President Bush and company mightily to Saudi Arabia. In one sequence, what seems like several dozen images flash by showing Bush and his advisers shaking hands and chumming it up with leading members of the Saudi royal family. Moore says outright that while Bush is paid $400,000 by U.S. taxpayers in salary, Saudi Arabia has supported Bush and his family with more than $1 billion in business-related subsidies. (That amount, it seems to me, is ridiculously inflated and must be nonsense.) The stated implication is that Bush is more loyal to the Saudis than he is to America.

Huh? Here are some questions for Moore: If Bush is so “in the pocket” of Saudi Arabia, why is he Ariel Sharon’s strongest backer? Why, when he had Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah down at the Texas ranch a few years ago, did he flip off the Saudi’s peace plan? And most important, why did he invade Iraq—since Saudi Arabia was strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why did he launch his Iraqi adventure over Saudi objections, with many of his advisers chortling that Saudi Arabia would be “next”? Why did he stock his administration with militant neocon crusaders who see Saudi Arabia as the main enemy? Why, Michael?

I have to conclude the Michael Moore is either blind, or a coward. Blind, if he can’t see Bush’s craven ties to Israel, driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists and Bible-thumping fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, who consider Israel Jesus’ next stop and see Saudi Arabia as Satanic. Or cowardly, because he knows it and decided not to mention it. Is that because attacking Israel is too hard? Moore’s photo-montage of Saudi princes borders on the racist, showing Bush & Co. clinging to grinning, Semitic-looking Arabs in flowing white robes one after another. Would we stand for a similar, racist-leaning montage of Bush palling around with grinning, Semitic-looking Jews in skullcaps? 'Course not. More important, Moore completely misses the political boat. Perhaps that’s because he relies so heavily on Craig Unger and his book, House of Bush, House of Saud , which makes the same “error.”

And more for Moore. Yes, Bush 41 and his advisers—the Carlyle Group-linked James Baker, et al.—were (and are) connected to Saudi Arabia. Did Moore notice that Baker, along with Brent Scowcroft, and other former advisers to Bush 41 (including Colin Powell) were against the Iraq adventure? And that there were reports that Bush 41 himself thought it was a stupid idea? I can’t believe that Moore can be so stupid. So I can only conclude that he produced this movie the way he did on purpose. Then I read that he didn’t bother inviting Ralph Nader to the Washington, D.C., premiere of the film, and (according to The Washington Post ), Nader called Moore “fat.” Well. Moore is fatheaded.

Source: www.tompaine.com

Related posts:

• Israel’s Slap Reagan in the Face
• Israel Stab Americans in the Back
• Coca-Cola, the CIA, the Courts Coke and Cocaine

STAR-SPANGLED START FOR WTC.

Nearly three years after the Twin Towers fell, a 20-ton block of granite will be set in place tomorrow to mark the official start of construction on the 1,776-foot tower that will rise on the site of the World Trade Center.
The cornerstone-laying is "an incredible step for the rebuilding of Ground Zero," said Daniel Libeskind, the designer who conceived the site's original master plan.

The Freedom Tower is set to rise in a corner of the site that still holds the ruins of a parking garage, and will be the tallest skyscraper in the world. It will be five years until it is completed.

Source: AP

9/11 Key articles: Truth, Lies, and The Legend

No related posts.