The Power of Nightmares

pork99

Very interesting programme on BBC2 right now, "The Power of Nightmares"

aidan_walsh

Thats nice.

SkepticOne

I thought this might have been meant for a different forum but it is about US politics.

Hairy Homer

SkepticOne wrote:

I thought this might have been meant for a different forum but it is about US politics.

Them neocons are a scary bunch of dudes.

Don't get friendly with them.

Look what they did to the Taliban.

A classic case of Aithnionn cuireog, cuireog eile.

SkepticOne

Very good programme, I thought. I liked the story of the neocon picked CIA director who, convinced after reading a book, about how all the terrorist organisations around the world were linked and controlled by the Soviet Union, ordered his subordinates to produce a report on the subject.

The CIA people knew most of it wasn't true because a lot of the book was based on black propagand they themselves fabricated. Yet he still believed the book.

PH01

That programme on the BBC last night was all lies I tell you. Lies. Typical left wing liberalist centralist cowardly propaganda.
Listen guys, the enemy is at the gate! We're surrounded! They want to kill us all. All of us. They want to distroy our cities. Enslave us. They'll rape our women and children. Then torture them and then kill them. They have no respect for life. Our way of life.
We must resist them, come together and fight them. They must not conquer us. And they will if we let them.
WE ARE AT WAR!!!


It's easy isn't it?

p.pete

SkepticOne wrote:

The CIA people knew most of it wasn't true because a lot of the book was based on black propagand they themselves fabricated. Yet he still believed the book.

They even told him that they had made it all up and yet he still persisted in believing (or claiming to believe).

Excellent program, a lot of scary stuff. I feel sorry for Henry Kissinger based on what they showed of him last night, although I've had a quick look and there are websites portraying him as a monster (propoganda?). Getting the Egyptians to have dialogue with the Israelis is a hard task - for the action to then be linked back as the root of Osama Bin-Laden etc is a bit unfortunate.

p.pete

Article relating to the program in The Times

Last night's TV

Kept awake by the politics of fear
Joe Joseph



WATCHING ADAM Curtis’s beguiling new series, The Power of Nightmares (BBC Two), is like swooning over a cover photo of a glamorous actress: you might wonder if her image has been computer-varnished, if blemishes have been airbrushed out, if she’s an assisted blonde, and you might suspect that if you met her she’d turn out to be a pain in the neck. But the sensation of being temporarily seduced is sufficiently pleasurable for you not to focus too clinically on the precise nature of the truth.
If The Power of Nightmares had been drafted as a play, it would be hailed as a dazzlingly thought-provoking drama. As a book, its thesis would become a debating point on talk shows round the world. Even in the form of a here-are-the-facts documentary, it is so artfully crafted, so engagingly argued, so playfully illustrated, that you happily reserve your questions and reservations until the final credits start rolling.



Here is a talented, intelligent film-maker enjoying himself and showing what you can do with an hour of television. It is deliciously spliced together, seasoned with deftly chosen archive footage from an improbale palette of sources: everything from clips from episodes of Perry Mason and Gunsmoke, to American prom dances and Egyptian television commercials.

By painting a portrait of a paranoid America — a country constantly seeking new enemies to justify its muscle-flexing around the world — Curtis’s film offers a sanctuary to those who have grown suspicious of Washington’s geo-political motives, but who find Michael Moore too smug, and too ready to ignore any nuisance facts that put a crease in his anti-Bush invective. In tandem with this, Curtis paints Islamic fundamentalists as extremists so corrupted by their own purist vision that they have successfully persuaded themselves that even killing Muslims (the wrong sort of Muslims, obviously; liberal, democracy-loving ones) is doing Allah’s work.

Curtis’s argument is so neatly structured that you don’t want anything to threaten its symmetry. It goes like this: Washington’s neoconservatives, who had President Reagan’s ear and now have George W. Bush’s, start scouring the world for a new ideologically flawed, power-hungry bogeyman following the demise of the Soviet bear; and they find an ally for their despair of incontinent liberalism in America’s Christian fundamentalists. At the very same time, various Islamic fundamentalists, repulsed by Egypt’s slide into secularism, resolve to restore Islam to its rightful place as the religious, political and cultural backbone of the Middle East.

You want irony? Try this: Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian schools’ inspector whose ideas fed the minds of those who flew the planes on 9/11, even developed his revulsion for liberal laxity while living as a young man in America. That’s to say, he was reacting to the same liberal laxity that shaped the thinking of neoconservatism’s intellectual godfather, the American political philosopher, Leo Strauss. This parallel quest for moral certainties results in two enemies, born of the same anti-liberal womb, becoming the new Cain and Abel of world politics.

Curtis’s central arguments seem to be that whereas politicians once earned office by promising to make life better, today’s politicians retain power by promising to protect voters from the menacing nightmares that prowl the world looking for easy prey; also that these nightmares are largely fictions confected by politicians to secure their legitimacy and to keep the public under their thumb — fictions that stretch all the way from the former Soviet Union having its finger in every terrorist pie from the PLO to Bader-Meinhof, to al-Qaeda today being a force capable of bringing the West to its knees even though, in Curtis’s view, it lacks the network needed to orchestrate such a logistically demanding ambition.

Moreover, it suits both sides to fuel the myth: it makes al-Qaeda look more powerful than it is, and turns Bush into Superman, roaming the world to save decent-minded people in danger. So far, Curtis doesn’t linger too long on just how 9/11, or the various atrocities and barbarities committed around the world, from Bali to Madrid, in the name of alQaeda fit in to this picture of the fanatic Islamist threat being a largely amateur, largely toothless one. Nor on the fact that just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.

Thought the article a bit condescending myself - Fair enough the program hasn't gone into detail yet on issues such as 9/11, Madrid and Bali Bomb etc. but it did certainly raise a lot of interesting questions - like Donald Rumsfeld making totally unsubstantiated claims against Russian military capability in the 70s. <edit> Especially when paralled with more recent, un substantiated claims of Iraqi military capability.

pork99

SkepticOne wrote:

The CIA people knew most of it wasn't true because a lot of the book was based on black propagand they themselves fabricated. Yet he still believed the book.

Black Propaganda? I think the correct term is "disinformation"

p.pete

More info on this from Al Jazeerah website - although it appears their source is The Guardian.

It's a bit long to paste into this post but I found it very interesting

PH01

If you've missed the first two parts to this excellent documentary you're missing a good one.
Last night it covered the years 1979 to 1999.
Interesting to see how the NeoCons turned on poor old Clinton after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And how infighting within the Muslim extremists nearly lead to their own destruction before Osama and his mates turned their attention upon the US. This made everyone happy on the NeoCon side as they now had a new figure of evil to plot against.

dahamsta

I reminded the mother towatch it last night, and then forgot myself like an eejit. Missed the first half of last week's in similar circumstances. Anyone know where I'd find torrents?

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

http://www.phoenix-torrents.com/index.php?showtopic=126494&hl=nightmares he he! These pesky neo-cons are everywhere...

I've seen both programmes so far (the last is next week) and its fascinating
stuff. Esp how ppl who are on the face of it polar opposites took thier inspiration from two men who dispite being from utterely different cultures saw almost exactly the same "malaise" in the social fabric of the USA. I thought the "Get Clinton" part was the most interesting last night. The irony is that they nearly got him anyway for something he did do - Monica!

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

Any idea if it is being repeated on BBC4 or RTE ?

mike65

I'd lay bets on BBC4 showing it, they tend to pick up the "poshest" stuf from 1 and 2.

Mike.

mycroft

unsuprisingly the neo con's at national review are foaming at the mouth about it

shotamoose

I think it's been an excellent series so far. The archive footage and interviews are well chosen, and it makes such a change to feel like you're learning a lot just by watching the telly.

If I have a criticism, it's this idea of each side still fighting an 'imaginary' or 'made-up' enemy. Yes, that's how it started, but each side has now managed to bring into being that which they initially invented to build up their own power: the neocons have helped Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al Qaeda to become potent terrorist masterminds, and the Islamists have helped the neocons to turn into the imperialist Crusaders of fundamentalist fantasy.

Maybe they'll adress this in the third episode. Looking forward to it anyway ...

dahamsta

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Nice one Dave, thanks.

DadaKopf

shotamoose wrote:

I think it's been an excellent series so far. The archive footage and interviews are well chosen, and it makes such a change to feel like you're learning a lot just by watching the telly.

If I have a criticism, it's this idea of each side still fighting an 'imaginary' or 'made-up' enemy. Yes, that's how it started, but each side has now managed to bring into being that which they initially invented to build up their own power: the neocons have helped Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al Qaeda to become potent terrorist masterminds, and the Islamists have helped the neocons to turn into the imperialist Crusaders of fundamentalist fantasy.

Maybe they'll adress this in the third episode. Looking forward to it anyway ...

It looks like this is where the next episode is going to go.

Speaking of invention, I read an analysis of the spectacle of 9/11, which is an interesting read.

Basically, whatever organisation did the 9/11 attacks, they know how the image operates in Western media and how to abuse it. Just like the neocons.

PH01

DadaKopf wrote:

Basically, whatever organisation did the 9/11 attacks, they know how the image operates in Western media and how to abuse it. Just like the neocons.

Speaking about the media, have any of you noticed recently that there is very little in the news about the hostages in Iraq? Like the way that the BBC didn't show the second video tape of Margaret Hussan (don't know if RTE showed it).
Publicity is what the hostage takes want, but now it seems they're not getting it.
Or is it (putting on my tinfoil hat on now) a ploy by the neocons to stop any of the bad news coming out of Iraq that might hinder their baby getting re-elected next Tuesday?

DadaKopf

No, I noticed it, too. I'm not sure why it is. It could be because the public realised that expressing so much concern played into the hands of the kidnappers. Or it could be that the media realised what the public realised and are responding in kind. Or maybe it's a strategic and moral decision made by the press, perhaps in conjunction with the government, to resist the kidnappers' manipulations. Or maybe the media is under pressure from the government. Or maybe people realised Boris Jonsson actually had a point.

However, I feel uncomfortable but a little relieved that Hussan seems to be getting about the same volume of coverage that any average Iraqi or Palestinian is getting. I heard nothing about Hussan on the TV today but heard just a little about the new report out estimating that over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the beginning of the war.

mike65

PH01 wrote:

Speaking about the media, have any of you noticed recently that there is very little in the news about the hostages in Iraq?...

Or is it (putting on my tinfoil hat on now) a ploy by the neocons to stop any of the bad news coming out of Iraq that might hinder their baby getting re-elected next Tuesday?

Ha! neo-cons run BBC/C4/RTE? That'll be the day! They'll give it some initial coverage and when something new happens, but otherwise leave it alone and spend the time giving us wall-to-wall US election coverage. I was watching analyst George Joffey (sic) on Prime Time last night, he reckoned an Irish passport was no help whatsoever.

Mike.

pork99

mike65 wrote:

I've seen both programmes so far (the last is next week) and its fascinating
stuff. Esp how ppl who are on the face of it polar opposites took thier inspiration from two men who dispite being from utterely different cultures saw almost exactly the same "malaise" in the social fabric of the USA.
Mike.

Amazing how the jihadists and the neo-cons mirror each other and seem almost interdependent - but I won't decide whether or not to put my "tinfoil hat" on until I've seen the last program.

CivilServant

Just watched the first episode via the net.

So my question is, who is right? The neocons want to preserve democracy and crush all other forms of political/religous society that does not conform. Jihadists want to remove democratic freedom but see their own people who've been influenced by western society. They believe in personal freedoms and desires as a danger to their religion and correct way of living. Thus validating killing innocent people to reach that objective.

Hypothetically speaking, what is the final outcome if both parties fears are lived out? Neocons are worried that they will have no enemy to fight, thus cannot marshal their country and control the masses. Politicians lose power, power base is spread among the general populous. No central controlling force and many upstart ideologies come into play. US will have a hard time keep itself as one if this happens.

Islamic jihadists fear their society is becoming too western and interable combustion/ social upheaval is inevitable. A social malaise as some call it, will occur. Is that a bad thing? People do what they want to do. Are the jihadists afraid that the people fuelled by their own selfish desires will ultimately destroy their religion. If the people really wanted to live like they do, they would do so automatically, no?

mike65

CivilServant wrote:

Islamic jihadists fear their society is becoming too western and interable combustion/ social upheaval is inevitable. A social malaise as some call it, will occur. Is that a bad thing? People do what they want to do. Are the jihadists afraid that the people fuelled by their own selfish desires will ultimately destroy their religion. If the people really wanted to live like they do, they would do so automatically, no?

Both systems fear the power of individual thought, if we want to be consumed by the pursuit "goodies" so be it. Its our choice. Neo-cons and Jihadists alike are essentially control freaks.

Mike.

Victor

DadaKopf wrote:

Or maybe it's a strategic and moral decision made by the press

Too late for the prisoners in Abu Gharib to have morals though, isn't it?

p.pete

Another excellent episode last night to round off the series. My favourite part was the clip of Bush saying that they can just go into countries and impose their will upon them - contrasted by a clip of his current opinions.

It's a bit scary how people currently detained appear to have done nothing wrong whatsoever - they're being held based on what they might do in the future. Because they haven't done it yet they can't gather evidence to defend themselves (presuming they were given the chance) because it's hard to argue against the hypothetical.

Also the prisoners handed over by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan being of dubious merit (in terms of guilt) and handed over for profit.

PH01

The last show in the brilliant documentary series was on last night. The final programme dealt with the years 1999 to date, and covered the US Embassy bombings up to the war in Iraq.
One of the many interesting things that came up was that the idea that Al Qaeda is a well organised terrorist group headed up by OBL is a myth. OBL only started calling his so called organisation Al Qaeda after 9/11. It did say that OBL funded islamists terrorists but many of these groups took his money for their own gain. And OBL doesn't control these groups and that in fact he is very weak militarily. Sometimes he has to hire guns for the cameras. And the evidence of Al Qaeda sleeper cells has been vastly overstated.
All of this is a myth generated by the NeoCons, and it has been swallowed whole by most in the world including Tony Blair and our Bertie.
At the end of the programme, it theorised that the truth does come out in the end.Like as we all know now that the Soviet Union was never the force of evil as it was built up to be. And that the Neocons will have to dream up a new Evil Force to scare us with.

pearsquasher

I only saw the last episode and enjoyed it a lot.... but..... as with Micheal Moores stuff, if you're going to show a doc. with lots of edited bits and pieces they should lay out all those bits in context. I dunno...have some fatc sscrollingf on the screen about when and where the various statement swere made.

The bit with GWB saying how America shouldn't impose their will pre-9/11 needs to be put in context not just thrown in there. .... a i mean the program maker should make it all as credible as possible to prevent the nay sayers saying "well, its all editing isn't it?" ... as happended with Moore.


At the same time, a lot of the program was believeable enough. They said out of the 600 "terrorists" arrests since 9/11.... 3 were convicted and they for NI related stuff.

I also thought it was extremely amusing and had a sort of dark Kubrick-style use of music and archive footage.....

I wonder will any British MP's put anything to the PM about it today?

DadaKopf

Just so yous know, Jason Burke's books are on Amazon. They're really good.

Al Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror and Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. I'm not sure how much the second book is based on the first, but it's cheaper and probably paperback.