The Power of Nightmares

[applecorped]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Quote:

"The Power of Nightmares has been described as "conspiracy theory", anti-American or both."


I have not seen this yet. If anyone has please let me know what you think. Thank you.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by applecorped

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Quote:

"The Power of Nightmares has been described as "conspiracy theory", anti-American or both."


I have not seen this yet. If anyone has please let me know what you think. Thank you.

This was the three part BBC show that alot of woo and specifically the 9/11 guanoists decided proves that al-qaeda is "al-CIAda".

[plumjam]

see them here
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearc...n&sitesearch=#

[applecorped]

So, was it proven?

[volatile]

It's an interesting documentary, particularly in its rendering of the birth of radical Islam with Said Qtub. I haven't seen it for a while, but from what I remember it wasn't particularly "anti-American" at all. It was more anti-terrorist, and anti-media hyperbole.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by volatile

It's an interesting documentary, particularly in its rendering of the birth of radical Islam with Said Qtub. I haven't seen it for a while, but from what I remember it wasn't particularly "anti-American" at all. It was more anti-terrorist, and anti-media hyperbole.

This is the message I got from the series as well.

I thought the entire thing was very well done, though I think it delved a bit into hyperbole itself when it began attributing motives for activities of individuals. I think that assuming the reasoning behind the actions of both the groups who evolved into modern terrorists and the US government entities who oppose them (both of which are covered, and covered quite well) is tricky because there are so many individuals involved and thus there were more factors involved than the series could cover.

However, its overall message that these things the media are in a hurry to portray as nightmarish zero-sum threats are, in fact, a result of the collective cognitive dissonance between western culture, eastern culture, and a backlash in both against what each believes are the sources of all of the evil in the world.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by GreNME

This is the message I got from the series as well.

I thought the entire thing was very well done, though I think it delved a bit into hyperbole itself when it began attributing motives for activities of individuals. I think that assuming the reasoning behind the actions of both the groups who evolved into modern terrorists and the US government entities who oppose them (both of which are covered, and covered quite well) is tricky because there are so many individuals involved and thus there were more factors involved than the series could cover.

However, its overall message that these things the media are in a hurry to portray as nightmarish zero-sum threats are, in fact, a result of the collective cognitive dissonance between western culture, eastern culture, and a backlash in both against what each believes are the sources of all of the evil in the world.

Indeed. I think the overarching message was essentially "fear is useful", be it for politicians in the West or radicals in the Middle East. It was more of an overview of the use of occasionally convergent ideologies in politics from two distinct sets of beliefs. It certainly had an agenda (it was born as a project intended to be critical of the Neo-Con Republicans, after all) but it certainly wasn't woo or a conspiracy. It's perfectly clear that terrorism is a real threat - indeed, a large part of the documentary is devoted to establishing just why that might be the case. It doesn't promote any conspiracy theories that the LCF crowd would subscribe to, and whilst it is critical of the ideologies and politics of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, there's not even any sense that "America deserved 911" or anything like that.

I think those right-wing commentators who saw it as anti-American were coming from the "my country right or wrong" perspective that seems rather common in that line of work.

[GreNME]

Indeed. It had a very "the only thing we have to fear is fearmongering" vibe throughout much of the series. It doesn't claim to provide an answer to the problem, but instead defines the problem as one borne of inflating fear beyond its useful means, and how that results in extremist behavior.

[D'rok]

The biggest issue I have with that series is the very dishonest portrayal of Leo Strauss. The film-makers basically painted him as the Dr. Moriarty of neo-conservatism - to the delight of truthers everywhere. In actual fact, he was explicitly apolitical; he was a professor and a political philosopher, and his project, in broad terms, was the restoration of political philosophy as a counter to the adcendance of empirical social "science" in academia.

Even a cursory reading of his work reveals that the portrayal in PofN is pure fantasy. He had critics within academia, (Drury, for example), but polemicists such as the makers of this series have plainly unaware of his actual work or are willfully misrepresenting it. (And its quite safe to assume that the truthers who assign him such a high position in their NWO pantheon can barely read at all, much less read and comprehend philosophy).

BTW: That film was my first exposure to Strauss and I took it at face value at the time. When I encountered his work as a student later on, it was eye-opening.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Originally Posted by applecorped

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Quote:

"The Power of Nightmares has been described as "conspiracy theory", anti-American or both."


I have not seen this yet. If anyone has please let me know what you think. Thank you.

Yes it is incredibly anti-American. By that I'm using the definition that anti-American is anything critical of US (it's worth x2 points if it is critical of a Republican).

LLH

[volatile]

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

Yes it is incredibly anti-American. By that I'm using the definition that anti-American is anything critical of US (it's worth x2 points if it is critical of a Republican).

LLH

Bear in mind it's also equally (if not more) critical of Islamic terrorists, so the particular accusations of bias don't really hold water. It's also not really anti-American in that it demonises America itself - it is, however, deeply critical of a particular subset of America's political class and their ideologies and strategies. I don't think those types of criticisms can really be labelled "anti-American" in any meaningful way.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by volatile

Bear in mind it's also equally (if not more) critical of Islamic terrorists, so the particular accusations of bias don't really hold water. It's also not really anti-American in that it demonises America itself - it is, however, deeply critical of a particular subset of America's political class and their ideologies and strategies. I don't think those types of criticisms can really be labelled "anti-American" in any meaningful way.

Which ideologies and strategies is it critical of and what evidence do they use to substantiate their illegitimacy?

Do they advocate the ever popular meme that the USA deserved, and still does deserve, any and all terrorist attacks?

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Travis

Which ideologies and strategies is it critical of and what evidence do they use to substantiate their illegitimacy?

Specifically the ideologies collected and currently named the neocon Republicans.

Originally Posted by Travis

Do they advocate the ever popular meme that the USA deserved, and still does deserve, any and all terrorist attacks?

Not even once, if I recall correctly. Quite the opposite considering their treatment of the jihadist movements.

[Par]

I saw it years ago, so my memory might be failing me, but I seem to remember it using a lot of spooky music and imagery to suggest that because Western governments – or neoconservatives in particular – broadly rule through fear (presumably, for example, by propagating false security alerts, etc.), they and Islamist groups are somehow symbiotically connected and thus alike. I also seem to remember one fellow claiming that the concept of al-Qaeda – i.e. its name and notion that it’s a somewhat organised terrorist group – was simply fabricated during the trail of some terrorist or other.

There was, however, a lot of interesting and presumably true stuff as well.

In any event, I might have confused it with something else.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Travis

Which ideologies and strategies is it critical of and what evidence do they use to substantiate their illegitimacy?

Well, you'd need to watch it. The particular focus is the cabal of neo-Conservatives that served under Reagan and then under Bush, and their use of fear tactics to justify policy.

Quote:

Do they advocate the ever popular meme that the USA deserved, and still does deserve, any and all terrorist attacks?

No. I think I said that above. It does explain why Qtub thought the USA deserved to be attacked, but it certainly doesn't apologise for that position at all. As I said - you're probably better of watching it that relying on the hazy memories of it filtered through my commie-pinko America-hating brain...

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by volatile

Well, you'd need to watch it. The particular focus is the cabal of neo-Conservatives that served under Reagan and then under Bush, and their use of fear tactics to justify policy.



No. I think I said that above. It does explain why Qtub thought the USA deserved to be attacked, but it certainly doesn't apologise for that position at all. As I said - you're probably better of watching it that relying on the hazy memories of it filtered through my commie-pinko America-hating brain...

Your a commie? Damn! This whole time I thought you were a disgruntled Libertarian.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Your a commie? Damn! This whole time I thought you were a disgruntled Libertarian.

Libertarians call me commie, and commies call me libertarian and/or "neo-liberal". Honestly - a peer-review of some of my work called me neo-liberal, which I'm sure will come as quite a surprise to The Painter. I must be doing something right...

[Gazpacho]

One of the points made by the series, as I remember it, was that al-Qaeda does not exist as a registered legal entity, so therefore al-Qaeda is merely a bogeyman created by the neo-conspiracy.

There's nothing novel about this, mind you. It's Michael Moore's old "guy in a cave" argument.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

One of the points made by the series, as I remember it, was that al-Qaeda does not exist as a registered legal entity, so therefore al-Qaeda is merely a bogeyman created by the neo-conspiracy.

There's nothing novel about this, mind you. It's Michael Moore's old "guy in a cave" argument.

The point made in The Power of Nightmares was that Al Qaeda was a small organization with informal connections to other jihadist groups. They were dangerous, but not nearly as powerful as our political leaders claimed.

We didn't find thousands of Al Qaeda fighters in massive underground command complexes in Afghanistan because they never existed. They were just figments of Neocon imagination.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by volatile

Libertarians call me commie, and commies call me libertarian and/or "neo-liberal". Honestly - a peer-review of some of my work called me neo-liberal, which I'm sure will come as quite a surprise to The Painter. I must be doing something right...

Wait! That means I'm the commie?

[Par]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

We didn't find thousands of Al Qaeda fighters in massive underground command complexes in Afghanistan because they never existed. They were just figments of Neocon imagination.

The fighters or the complexes?

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

We didn't find thousands of Al Qaeda fighters in massive underground command complexes in Afghanistan because they never existed. They were just figments of Neocon imagination.

What, you mean the over-the-top illustration in the London Times? That's called "selling newspapers."

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

What, you mean the over-the-top illustration in the London Times? That's called "selling newspapers."

That's an extreme example, but many like it, yes.

It's not that al Qaeda isn't dangerous-- the organization is definitely dangerous-- but that the group is not dangerous in the way that our current leadership is attempting to fight it. The first step in defeating an enemy is to have a clearly defined target, and it should be fairly commonly understood (whether you are conservative, liberal, or some mixture) that the Bush administration has done a poor job of keeping goalposts in place. The movie basically says that, though I'd agree that it says as much using quite a bit of negative hyperbole toward the neocon movement.

Without turning this into a political debate, I'll just point out that this is something that not only those with left-wing agendas have been saying. I wrote it off as such until I listened to an interview with Victor Gold, who I wouldn't confuse with being liberal (he's a former speech writer for and a friend to GHW Bush). I mean, jeez, even Pat Buchanan has criticized the Bush administration, and you don't get much more fundamentalist than that. So, yes, the series does take aim at key players in the Bush administration and the neoconservative movement in general. However, to liken it to Michael Moore's BS is over the top.

It doesn't paint al Qaeda as "Arabs in caves" so much as it paints its leaders as charismatic organizers that have worked hard to link several different militant groups into similar purposes and goals. That is what makes al Qaeda dangerous, and the series looks into how these leaders got their start.

The series contrasts that with the neocon movement in that the early neocons similarly organized several similar-but-not-the-same groups toward their own goals, and questions both the rationality of those goals as well as their effectiveness at protecting people from the terrorists. One of the things the series delves into is how they both utilize collective fear of the "unknown" aspects of the perceived enemy, and how that is ultimately detrimental to everyone involved. It's this that I found particularly poignant about the series, because I believe there is a lot of relevance to what they're saying, and because (separate from the series) I think that could be a key aspect of this terrorist organization that could be used to break them down. Like the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem starts looking like a nail, and I think what this series does is highlight how the neocon movement seems mostly equipped with figurative hammers in a time when not every problem we're facing with global terrorism is a (figurative) nail.

[Gazpacho]

Also:

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The point made in The Power of Nightmares was that Al Qaeda was a small organization with informal connections to other jihadist groups.

Al-Qaeda is the connections, which do not need to be formal, whatever that means, to be effective. It is not the personalities, or the ideology, or anything else. It is the coordination among these groups. Calling al-Qaeda "a small organization with connections" is like calling the USA a small district with connections.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GreNME

One of the things the series delves into is how they both utilize collective fear of the "unknown" aspects of the perceived enemy, and how that is ultimately detrimental to everyone involved.

Considering how widely disseminated American Culture is what is there about the US that is "unknown" to those that Al Qaeda uses?

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Travis

Considering how widely disseminated American Culture is what is there about the US that is "unknown" to those that Al Qaeda uses?

It doesn't have to be completely unknown. Many of the Afghans who have chosen to fight for the Taliban couldn't find New York on a map, nor could they likely tell you the ingredients to a hoagie (sub sandwich). They don't much care who Brad Pitt or Kanye West or A-Rod is. Most of them don't know the debate going on in America about detainee treatment or whether some groups are demanding reasonable fairness in their treatment. It falls completely outside of the realm of relevance to their daily lives. The entity that groups al Qaeda organizes people to fight against in most of their minds is a caricature (at best) of the reality of their perceived target. Dissemination, depending on the part of the world you're talking about, is very selective. That's what these leaders are taking advantage of.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by GreNME

It doesn't have to be completely unknown. Many of the Afghans who have chosen to fight for the Taliban couldn't find New York on a map, nor could they likely tell you the ingredients to a hoagie (sub sandwich). They don't much care who Brad Pitt or Kanye West or A-Rod is. Most of them don't know the debate going on in America about detainee treatment or whether some groups are demanding reasonable fairness in their treatment. It falls completely outside of the realm of relevance to their daily lives. The entity that groups al Qaeda organizes people to fight against in most of their minds is a caricature (at best) of the reality of their perceived target. Dissemination, depending on the part of the world you're talking about, is very selective. That's what these leaders are taking advantage of.

Well, I have heard that many in the Middle East vastly over estimate the Jewish population in America. Some thinking that over 60% of Americans are Jewish. I was wondering if misconceptions like that were contributing to Al Qaeda's cause.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, I have heard that many in the Middle East vastly over estimate the Jewish population in America. Some thinking that over 60% of Americans are Jewish. I was wondering if misconceptions like that were contributing to Al Qaeda's cause.

It would depend on the country. I apologize, using Afghanistan is a bad example because it's so very stark and shocking at how many of these people we're fighting as enemies don't really have a beef with us outside of being angry that their homes and working fields have been bombed. In much of the Arab Middle East (Afghanistan is very little Arab, and almost all the Arabs are of foreign origin), the view you point out regarding Jews and Israel is present in some areas. In others it's more ambiguous and centers around the current presidential administration, whom they often feel the whole of the US supports entirely. Kabul, Amman, Dubai-- in these cities you're going to find less misconceptions of the type that al Qaeda can take advantage of about the US, because they have more commerce, more education, and more discretionary money floating about in people's hands. Unfortunately most of the Middle-East is very much not like these cities, which provides fertile recruiting ground for agencies in support of or directly related to al Qaeda.

Not ironically, Baghdad was one such city as well, but since its decline during the war it hasn't been good for keeping out the militant groups that al Qaeda can take advantage of. Even worse, there are other militant groups (under leaders like al Sistani or al Sadr) who don't seem to like al Qaeda but are also hostile (mostly politically hostile, currently) toward the American presence. One tactic that the US has employed in intelligence wars-- the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-- is far more complex and difficult with our current wars, and on top of that there are very strong arguments that such approaches contributed to our current enemies having the chance to attack us in the first place.

The whole situation with regard to international terrorism is a complex one, and the series covers two entities, one on each 'side', and displayed how both reduce their descriptions of the other to a boogeyman, useful only for inciting more aggression against the other. Lake any other mass-media 'expose' it doesn't quite get all of the characterizations completely accurate, but the ideas it conveys are relevant and, in this case (I think), accurate.

[gumboot]

I would love the day a western leader would have the balls to actually identify what the "War on Terror" is actually against.

It's not about terrorism. Terrorism is not a threat. Terrorism will never threaten the west. Yes, it might kill lots of westerners, and yes it might even influence decisions westerners make, but it will never actually seriously threaten us.

The threat is Radical Islam. No one wants to say it, because it's un-PC, but it's true. Groups like Al Qaeda are merely a product of the threat, not the threat itself.

And Radical Islam is vastly more widespread and vastly more dangerous than terrorism could ever hope to be.

The problem that western governments have got into is they don't want to admit they're fighting a religion, so instead they claim to be combating terrorism, that becomes a place-holder threat, taking the place of the political-suicide "War on Radical Islam". But in order to address the seriousness of the real threat, they have to exaggerate the danger of their place-holder threat. And then they get caught in their lie - not a difficult feat because it's obvious to anyone with a brain that terrorism is not really a threat - and the end result is most people then conclude there's no threat at all.

And all the while Radical Islam grows and spreads and becomes increasingly rooted in the cultures from which it is feeding.

[GreNME]

The only flaw I see in what you're saying is that even were we to completely eradicate radical Islam, someone else would eventually step into that same role. Even if we eradicated religion altogether, people with the same tactics and motivations would pop up, killing people for their self-righteous cause.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by GreNME

The only flaw I see in what you're saying is that even were we to completely eradicate radical Islam, someone else would eventually step into that same role. Even if we eradicated religion altogether, people with the same tactics and motivations would pop up, killing people for their self-righteous cause.

I don't think the threat of radical Islam is that they're killing people and using terrorism. If anything that's the least dangerous of the things they do.

You're quite right that the world will never be free of threats, but that's no argument for addressing whatever the current threats are.

[Par]

Originally Posted by GreNME

The only flaw I see in what you're saying is that even were we to completely eradicate radical Islam, someone else would eventually step into that same role. Even if we eradicated religion altogether, people with the same tactics and motivations would pop up, killing people for their self-righteous cause.

One could presumably say much the same thing about, say, ordinary fascism, however. But we should still recognise and fight fascism. Yes, likely there will always be demagoguery, utopias notwithstanding. But I’m not sure what follows from that fact.

[GreNME]

The point that follows is that it isn't just "Radical Islam" that threatens much of the world. The point is that the threat involves those of all types-- religion, politics, social class, or otherwise-- who would use violence and murder to intimidate others into doing what they want. Yes, one should battle fascism wherever it comes up, and "terrorism" is generally the anarchist version of fascism, with the few influencing the many through means of force. I'm saying that narrowing it down to "Radical Islam" is a constrictive distinction.

My problem with the "War on Terror(ism)" is that it's a solution seeking out a problem, not that its targets aren't defined. The reason I say that is because the "solution" can remain the same (war) indefinitely while the "problem" constantly shifts targets, effectively being a new, less-defined version of the Cold War without the monolithic "Red Menace" to blame as the source.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by GreNME

The point that follows is that it isn't just "Radical Islam" that threatens much of the world. The point is that the threat involves those of all types-- religion, politics, social class, or otherwise-- who would use violence and murder to intimidate others into doing what they want. Yes, one should battle fascism wherever it comes up, and "terrorism" is generally the anarchist version of fascism, with the few influencing the many through means of force. I'm saying that narrowing it down to "Radical Islam" is a constrictive distinction.

My problem with the "War on Terror(ism)" is that it's a solution seeking out a problem, not that its targets aren't defined. The reason I say that is because the "solution" can remain the same (war) indefinitely while the "problem" constantly shifts targets, effectively being a new, less-defined version of the Cold War without the monolithic "Red Menace" to blame as the source.

I don't think "violence and murder to intimidate others into doing what they want" is the problem at all though. I'd agree with your issues on the second point - like I said I don't think terrorism is the problem, and I don't think trying to "wage war" on it is very useful.

It's the ideology of a particular bunch of people, some of whom happen to use terrorism, that is the problem, and

A) You won't defeat an ideology with a war
B) The members of this ideology committing terrorism are IMHO, not the biggest threat

The entire "War On Terror" is a huge, huge mistake.

[Tom Morris]

I've watched it, but I thought it was the weakest of the Adam Curtis documentary series I've seen. I very much enjoyed The Century of the Self and The Trap.

The Strauss-demonising is, as D'rok says, OTT. He was far more political philosopher and less demon than The Power of Nightmares makes out, as a trip to any good academic library or bookshop will tell you. You can't choose your posthumous acolytes after all.

[GreNME]

Well, despite possibly disagreeing on the particulars:

Originally Posted by gumboot

The entire "War On Terror" is a huge, huge mistake.

I can happily say I agree with you wholeheartedly on that mark.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

What, you mean the over-the-top illustration in the London Times? That's called "selling newspapers."

According to Donald Rumsfeld, the London Times illustration was accurate:

Quote:

Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers. This is it. This is a fortress. This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.

Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.

Rumsfeld was not selling newspapers, he was selling fear.

[SDC]

Hmmm.. Here in Manhattan, massive tunnelling projects are going on. Ostensibly, it's for new train lines, but perhaps a Conspiracy Theory can be built from it.

Which is preferred: Al-Qaeda infiltrator sandhogs or Mossad sandhogs?

(Sandhogs = name for the guys tunnelling. Evidently a traditional and honored trade hereabouts.)