The Power of Nightmares BBC2

#1
The Power of Nightmares
Wed 20 Oct, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

Baby It's Cold Outside

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neoconservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision. They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to 'see the truth'.
Did anyone else see this?

Overall , not bad at all , and pleasantly surprised at the amount of new footage shown.

Nice comparitve analysis ,no screaming finger-pointing, just imagery and the actual players speaking for themselves and some very very scary easily researchable facts.

The former head of the CIA Soviet Desk having his own Black propaganda presented back to him as "Fact" and not being able to get head of CIA to disbelieve it, even after proof was shown.

Zarhawi in that cell in Egypt was wws an eye opener , did they all speak such good English?

It was amazing that Rumsfeld was making almost exactly the same statements about the "Soviet Threat" that he made about Iraq, and they had about the same substance.
I think the scariest part , was the Team B associate admitting they'd made stuff up "For the greater good" or some such 8O

I wish they could have got this in the States.
 
#2
PartTimePongo said:
The Power of Nightmares
Wed 20 Oct, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

Baby It's Cold Outside

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neoconservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision. They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to 'see the truth'.
That sums up the real myth being perpetrated.
The organisation speading that ideal is the organisation who hopes to hold power.
Fear in itself.
 
#3
PartTimePongo said:
The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together.
Leo Strauss and James Burnham?
 
#4
Leo Strauss and an Egyptian! whose name escapes me NWD , I think it gets repeated on Saturday , I'll have another look at it.

The programme showed the compartive rise in Neo conservatism and radical islam, and how they shared a lot of the same "Pure" ideals.
 
#5
The neoconservative movement seems to take its inspiration from Strauss and from, of all people, Leon Trotsky.

"How Neoconservatives Consquered Washington And Launched A War" by Michael Lind. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

The supposedly uplifting effect, on backward nations, of being invaded by a vanguard state, intent on bombing the world into modernity, was derived from Trotsky's idea of "permanent revolution."

I wonder if anyone has told the "compassionate conservative" president that he has been trying to market the foreign policy of the first commander of the Soviet Red Army.

Strauss advocated the view that a small, cohesive intellectual elite (apparently made up of his own students and their admirers) had both the right and the duty to rule the world by deceiving its intellectual inferiors (consisting of everyone else). I suppose that people who could revere Trotsky could find Strauss congenial as well.
 
#6
Quoting an anti-war web site just doesnt make the grade with me sorry. The left has effectively neutered Europe. For me the real nightmare is a Europe that has become pacifist. That is afraid of their own large muslim minorities. These minorities are a built in fifth column and hiding place for terrorists. Sweden for example has a growing muslim minority. If the goal of muslim extremists is to create a muslim world they are off to a great start in Europe. With their birth rate I wonder how long it will be before they reach majority status ?
 
#7
Something I've heard before, go far enough to the left or right in politics and the results look same (I can't remember who stated this idea). Each extreme group had different aims, but results did appear similar, neo cons supporting wars in south america and radical Islamists in Egypt?

(tomahawk6, what a looney.)
 
#8
PartTimePongo said:
Leo Strauss and an Egyptian! whose name escapes me NWD , I think it gets repeated on Saturday , I'll have another look at it.

The programme showed the compartive rise in Neo conservatism and radical islam, and how they shared a lot of the same "Pure" ideals.
Sayed Kutb is the pyramidalist in question
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#9
tomahawk6 said:
Quoting an anti-war web site just doesnt make the grade with me sorry. The left has effectively neutered Europe. For me the real nightmare is a Europe that has become pacifist. That is afraid of their own large muslim minorities. These minorities are a built in fifth column and hiding place for terrorists. Sweden for example has a growing muslim minority. If the goal of muslim extremists is to create a muslim world they are off to a great start in Europe. With their birth rate I wonder how long it will be before they reach majority status ?
You are paranoid, old son. two points

1. Here in the UK we have had mass terrorism at least since 1969 (and going back to Victorian times in the past), we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done. We evaluate the *real* threat and deal with it *proportionalty*. I don't remember the US of A jumping around at that time.

2. We have had a devout immigrant Muslim population from the *third world*in the UK since the 1960's and the vast proportion of them are law abiding citizens. Again *proportion*. The same arguments you use about *swamping* (to use a phrase) were used about the Irish in the UK in the nineteenth century, and the east European Jewish immigrants to the UK in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; both with *alien* religions to the UK and a reputation for large families. What happens two or three generations down the line is affluence and intigration.... and then small families. Continued immigration of antbody at todays rate is another issue, but why are they coming here? To foster mass terrorism, I think not, to better themselves economicaly and get away from numpty third world governments.
 

X-Inf

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#10
Benjaminw1 said:
tomahawk6 said:
Quoting an anti-war web site just doesnt make the grade with me sorry. The left has effectively neutered Europe. For me the real nightmare is a Europe that has become pacifist. That is afraid of their own large muslim minorities. These minorities are a built in fifth column and hiding place for terrorists. Sweden for example has a growing muslim minority. If the goal of muslim extremists is to create a muslim world they are off to a great start in Europe. With their birth rate I wonder how long it will be before they reach majority status ?
You are paranoid, old son. two points

1. Here in the UK we have had mass terrorism at least since 1969 (and going back to Victorian times in the past), we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done. We evaluate the *real* threat and deal with it *proportionalty*. I don't remember the US of A jumping around at that time.
BJ1 the reason the good ole US of A were not jumping around about the 'Troubles' in NI is that a lot of them were sponsoring it. Should we therefore carry out a pre-emptive strike on the White House?
 
#11
X-Inf said:
Benjaminw1 said:
tomahawk6 said:
Quoting an anti-war web site just doesnt make the grade with me sorry. The left has effectively neutered Europe. For me the real nightmare is a Europe that has become pacifist. That is afraid of their own large muslim minorities. These minorities are a built in fifth column and hiding place for terrorists. Sweden for example has a growing muslim minority. If the goal of muslim extremists is to create a muslim world they are off to a great start in Europe. With their birth rate I wonder how long it will be before they reach majority status ?
You are paranoid, old son. two points

1. Here in the UK we have had mass terrorism at least since 1969 (and going back to Victorian times in the past), we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done. We evaluate the *real* threat and deal with it *proportionalty*. I don't remember the US of A jumping around at that time.
BJ1 the reason the good ole US of A were not jumping around about the 'Troubles' in NI is that a lot of them were sponsoring it. Should we therefore carry out a pre-emptive strike on the White House?
Very true that individuals in the US were supporting it. Still are. in some areas there would be routine door to door canvassing for "contributions"

Similar activity occurred in Canada as well.

Aer Lingus was known to fly out with loads of arms, or attempt to.

But none of these activities was supported, officially or unofficially by the Governments of Canada or the US. (despite the Kennedy's)

Don't think for a moment that HM secret service wasn't operative in Canada or the US......
 
#12
we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done
I think you're NeoCon strategy with too much coherent logic. After all, when they were attacked by a terrorist group predominantly led and manned by Saudis, what did they do? Invaded Iraq.

So, attacked by Irish Republican terrorists, they would have invaded Spain on the basis of alleged and insubstantial allegations that ETA were supplying the IRA with weapons. Or somesuch nonsense.

IF
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#13
IdeasFactory said:
we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done
I think you're NeoCon strategy with too much coherent logic. After all, when they were attacked by a terrorist group predominantly led and manned by Saudis, what did they do? Invaded Iraq.

So, attacked by Irish Republican terrorists, they would have invaded Spain on the basis of alleged and insubstantial allegations that ETA were supplying the IRA with weapons. Or somesuch nonsense.

IF
:D :D :D
 
#14
IdeasFactory said:
we did not, for example, invade the Republic of Ireland, as the neocons would have done
I think you're NeoCon strategy with too much coherent logic. After all, when they were attacked by a terrorist group predominantly led and manned by Saudis, what did they do? Invaded Iraq.

So, attacked by Irish Republican terrorists, they would have invaded Spain on the basis of alleged and insubstantial allegations that ETA were supplying the IRA with weapons. Or somesuch nonsense.

IF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1320448,00.html
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text10-5-2004-60140.asp
http://international.news.designerz...ound-in-eta-arms-caches-french-officials.html
 
#15
Aer Lingus was known to fly out with loads of arms, or attempt to.
Who the hell told you that? Andy McNab?
Maybe you should read the thread on the Irish defence forces and see what the real world situation was.

I loved Tomahawks rant, we dont jump into wars unless we've got a good reason in europe, we're such diehard communist pacifists.
Why I personally didnt kill a man and set his house on fire for cutting a qeue in front of me this morning....order of Lenin here I come.
 
#17
#19
I seem to think at the time it was unveiled there was proof in the press Scalie, but it wasn't a direct contribution it was done through several legal channels first, a bit like pyramid funding
 
#20
Rapierman said:
I seem to think at the time it was unveiled there was proof in the press Scalie, but it wasn't a direct contribution it was done through several legal channels first, a bit like pyramid funding
Cheers Rapierman. The info I received was that it was somebody seeing in America that McD's made IRA contributions and made 2 and 2, five. I'd be interested to see some proof of PIRA contributions.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top