The Power of Nightmares (BBC2 Weds night)

bun-u

Trumpet Police
Has anyone been watching it? Excellent documentary… he perhaps overstates the power of (Leo Strauss')theory over money in US politics, and there are one or two other holes…but good on Curtis for making it (and use if Eno's 'another green world' to boot!)
 

sufi

lala
thoroghly enjoyed
did not beleive 1 single word
very interesting nonetheless
excellent sayid qutb footage also
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
How far the conclusions he reaches are actually 'true' isn't really the point though. It does smell like conspiracy-theory, and he's obviously using the facts to tell a particular story with a particular agenda. What makes it so important however is that he makes clear that the other side is a story too - any interpretation of history is - and that it is one that has gone unquestioned for years. That makes the whole exercise valuable; and on the way he makes some excellent points, even if suspicions remain about his complete thesis. I also like the fact that he hasn't fallen into the trap that if one side is bad, then the other must be good. I sense that he's very ambivalent about Kissinger, even though he represents the opposite to the neocons.

And it's fantastic TV as well - he's pulled out some amazing footage.
 

Greg

Member
is there a DVD release of this fantastic series planned? Better, scarier, funnier and more enlightning than Farenheit 9/11.

prehaps i'm being hyperbolic, but this is the best television I have seen all year.
 
Greg said:
prehaps i'm being hyperbolic, but this is the best television I have seen all year.

You're not joking. I was impressed by the clear-eyed confidence as the conclusion was elaborated amid footage of Tony Blair. As he visibly spun his own peculiar brand of fearmongering, the lack of connection with reality was hammered home by the narrator.

And the demolition of Tora Bora and the organisation of Al Qaeda was masterly.

Probably available for download at somewhere like uknova

HMGovt
 

Sphaleotas

New member
Greg said:
is there a DVD release of this fantastic series planned?

Petition BBC Worldwide. Videogram rights to sourced music and archives are far more expensive than broadcast rights, and they would only be willing to pursue a DVD release if there's a demonstrably broad interest.

BBC Worldwide Limited
Woodlands
80 Wood Lane
London W12 0TT
UK

Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8433 2000
Fax: + 44 (0) 20 8749 0538
 

craner

Beast of Burden
This programme had great footage, but was just plain wrong.

Totally overestimated the neoconservatives and totally underestimated the global jihadi/Islamist/Arab nationalist network. Well of course it's not simply al-Qaeda; yes Burke was right, and misrepresented.

Here's a small example for you to check out in Google or something: the links between Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed in Iraq and the Syrian Ba'athists. And hey, why not Syria and Hezbollah while we're at it. Why not Iran and Hezbollah. Uh, why not Iran and al-Sadr. Um, why not Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria and Hamas.

Oh yeah, because it's all a hoax devised by Osama bin Laden and Paul Wolfowitz. Sorry, I think I was just fucking forgetting myself there.
 

Greg

Member
oliver craner said:
This programme had great footage, but was just plain wrong.

Totally overestimated the neoconservatives and totally underestimated the global jihadi/Islamist/Arab nationalist network. Well of course it's not simply al-Qaeda; yes Burke was right, and misrepresented.

Here's a small example for you to check out in Google or something: the links between Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed in Iraq and the Syrian Ba'athists. And hey, why not Syria and Hezbollah while we're at it. Why not Iran and Hezbollah. Uh, why not Iran and al-Sadr. Um, why not Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria and Hamas.

Oh yeah, because it's all a hoax devised by Osama bin Laden and Paul Wolfowitz. Sorry, I think I was just fucking forgetting myself there.

I suspected that Curtis's focus was on the myth of al-Qaeda and not Islamist terrorism per se. He made little mention of primarily Arab or middle-Eastern based groups, although did say that most of those trained in Afghanistan left to pursue their own localised struggles and had no interest in attacking America.

I don't think he was disputing a wider reach of radical Islam. What he seemed to be attacking was the extent to which these groups were organised against western civilian populations. As a debunking of the Bin Laden group myth, it was effective.

His weakest agruments were definately those of the power of the neo-cons as an equally organised network (another myth), and his argument that Islamism (is that a word?) had died with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - that is grossly underestimated.
 

luka

Well-known member
olivers got a bee in his bonnet about muslims for some reason. i couldn't watch the programme but from what i've heard there wasn't a great deal of conspiracy anything in there just mostly truisms. politicans expolit fear. yes, its true, they really do.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I don't know Greg, it doesn't make sense.

Curtis wasn't disputing the rider reach of Islamic radicalism and yet he was disputing the "myth" of al-Qaida?

But he was using this supposed myth to undermine the very basis of the War on Terror.

Therefore ignoring all links and alliances between various jihadi/Islamist groups and state and private sponsors; in fact his tactic in denying the validity of the war rested on ignoring this extensive, and real, network. (Which doesn't reduce to Islam <em>necessarily</em>, certainly not to all practising Muslims (thank you very much, Luke).)

It was fundametally wrong: as skewed as Moore and Fox.
 

Greg

Member
oliver craner said:
I don't know Greg, it doesn't make sense.

Curtis wasn't disputing the rider reach of Islamic radicalism and yet he was disputing the "myth" of al-Qaida?

But he was using this supposed myth to undermine the very basis of the War on Terror.

Therefore ignoring all links and alliances between various jihadi/Islamist groups and state and private sponsors; in fact his tactic in denying the validity of the war rested on ignoring this extensive, and real, network. (Which doesn't reduce to Islam <em>necessarily</em>, certainly not to all practising Muslims (thank you very much, Luke).)

It was fundametally wrong: as skewed as Moore and Fox.

I think it was more of an attack on the way that the powers that be within the west (more specifically the U.K. and U.S.A) have manipulated public opinion using the terror-fear card since September 11. I think Burke made it clear that al-Qaida as a far reaching terror group bent on a consistant and violent struggle against the west simply did not exist.

The systematic reduction of all terror groups into a single element has been a part of the post 9/11 world political/media stage. The complexities of localized terror activities are made null in the rhetoric of the moment - i.e. Chechyan terror is treated as if it comes from the same root as Palestinian terror or terror attacks in post-occupation Iraq.

As for state-terror links, I don't think this was really the point of the film (although he did seem to rubbish the Saddam - "al-Qaida" link. Fair enough, there has been little conclusive evidence of a strong association).

I believe the film had a tighter focus prehaps than you are suggesting. He had to make some simplification in the background perhaps, and a little too much on the role of neo-conservatism (especially ignoring the fact that the neocon movement had little effect on British policy), but I still argue that this was a robust series. Not without its flaws mind you.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Actually, I think the tight focus was necessary to sustain, or even <em>make</em>, his argument, which is why i think it was more than just flawed.
 
Reply to Oliver

Therefore ignoring all links and alliances between various jihadi/Islamist groups and state and private sponsors; in fact his tactic in denying the validity of the war rested on ignoring this extensive, and real, network.

He doesnt ignore this, he demonstrates that it is nonsense. There is no doubt that there is a great edal of share ideology amongt extremeist islamists. But the concept of a network requires channals of cash equipment and detailed information. This is clearly not going on (or at least not yet) not least because many of the groups have very localised goals. The terror threat is total nonsense here in britain we had real terrorism from the IRA in a decade of sustained bombing ni civilian areas. No great fuss was made of this then (should we haved invaded Ireland or more analogously scotland) because it was not politically advantageous to do so. The key point that this series made was that Bush is totally dependednt on the perceived threat for his power. Ironically the islamist fundamentalist are all dependent on Bush for their power. Osama Bin Laden must have celebrated during the invasion or Iraq and then again on the reelection of Bush. With Bin Laden and Bush mutually backing up each others fantasys i suspect tighter networks will emerge on both sides. But until then we should be highly skeptical about these networks if anything to slow down or prevent their formation.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Yeah, look I think the Bush Administration and bin Laden do have some kind of weird symbiotic relationship, as it happens. I don't deny this part of the thesis.

I think he's wrong to reduce to War on Terror <em>just to this</em> however.

The war, which I think is more accurately and usefully termed World War IV, is a vast transnational and proxy set of alliances and backchannels that underpin an extensive conflict between Western Democracy and what Ian Buruma and Avishi Margalit call Occidentalism.

It's a war based on <em>de facto</em> coalitions <em>and</em> schisms, most of which were ignored in the program. The idea that the whole thing reduces to Bush and Wolfowitz and bin Laden and Zawahiri is just absurd, and dangerous.

I explain this fully <a href="http://worldwarfour.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_worldwarfour_archive.html#109898795888817862">here</a>.

If you have a considered and detailed response to what I wrote, I'd be really interested to read it.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Your comparison to Ireland is just pernicious, by the way.

If, however, you think this comparison somehow contradicts the transnational, cynical, promiscuous nature of terrorism I'd remind you of IRA links to organised crime and the IRA dudes arrested in Columbia a few years ago giving training tips to FARC geurillas.
 

Melmoth

Bruxist
oliver craner said:
If, however, you think this comparison somehow contradicts the transnational, cynical, promiscuous nature of terrorism I'd remind you of IRA links to organised crime and the IRA dudes arrested in Columbia a few years ago giving training tips to FARC geurillas.

Also Gadaffi supplying the Provos with semtex and RPGs throughout the eighties.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Oliver:
> It was fundametally wrong: as skewed as Moore and Fox.

Tosh.

You'll be telling us we all need to worry about dirty bombs next.
 
Yes i am preparing for the terror threat cowering under the stairs with my tined food. The war on terror is self propelling like the war on drugs the enemy is created by the war. In a few years we will have wide spread terrorism if people continue to buy into the fantasy. The illegal occupation of palestine and americans fascism lite are what create terrorism. Incidentally it maybe true that the IRA were in contact with various groups but then no one doubts that that was terrorism. If alquaida are such a delveloped network they seem have trouble getting pro active staff.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
The consensus in Dissensus seems to be that America is a fascist superstate, and that a bunch of ex-Ba'athists and Shia Islamists are the world's most eminent freedom fighters. And yet <em>I'm</em> the one with twisted and paranoid thinking.

For what it's worth, I don't live in fear at all.
 
Last edited:
Top