• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Power of Nightmares (BBC Documentary on the "myth" of organised terrorism)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nemrael

Member
Just finished watching this 3-part documentary series from the BBC. Caught part 3 on TV on Wednesday, and though I missed parts 1 & 2 I was able to pick them up through the miracle that is Bittorrent.

Here's some blurb on the show from the BBC's website:

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 were not true, neither are these nightmares. In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores 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 neo-conservatives 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.

Controversial stuff, but I really thought this was one of the best and most interesting documentaries I've seen in a while, and would recommend it to anyone interested in politics or the current "war on terror". I'm not sure if it's going to be coming to BBC America any time soon, but it's currently available to download from your favourite bittorrent site, and I doubt anyone who takes the time to view it will be dissapointed.

Here's some brief synopsis, with links to the BBC website for more information:

Part 1, Baby It's Cold Outside, traces the origins of the modern neo-conservative and radical Islamist movements in the post-war period, how they both saw modern liberal freedoms as a threat to society and how the Soviet Union was represented as "the evil empire".

Part 2, The Phantom Victory, explores how the two groups with seemingly opposing ideologies, the radical Islamists and neo-conservatives, came together to fight and defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Part 3, The Shadows In The Cave, looks at how in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the neo-conservatives reconstructed the radical Islamists in the image of their last evil enemy, the Soviet Union - a sinister web of terror run from the centre by Osama Bin Laden in his lair in Afghanistan. And asks who benefits from this?

There's also an article on the series in The Guardian.

Has anyone else seen this, and if so what did you think? Interesting stuff, or just another example of the "liberal" media?
 

Doth Togo

Member
I'm not into Bit Torrent, but this series sounds mighty good. I may check this out at the library when it comes out on DVD.

:thumbs up
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
It started off good, but it took it too far, what is it with these liberal reporters? do they not realise that the truth would be far more damaging to their opponents than their obvious exagerations? It did actually spark some comments from some people will a degree of objectivity who gave somewhat overviews of the current situation (somewhere in between the documentary and what the government tell us) so i suppose some good came of it.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
It's one thing to say that the threat of terrorism is being used as a political tool (which I largely agree with, within limits); it's another thing entirely to imply that organized terror networks do not exist despite reams of evidence to the contrary. I didn't read the entire article beyond that first quote, but if they're asserting the latter, then I'll have to respectfully disagree. Actually, not so respectfully-- anybody who thinks that terrorist networks are mere contrivances of radical political factions (neo-cons) and do not exist in reality are themselves operating outside the bounds of reality...and sanity. :D


If they're just stating that the threat these terrorists pose is being exaggerated for political expediency's sake, then that's fine. And mostly true, what with all the fearmongering we saw throughout the campaigns ("don't vote Kerry or the terrorists will nuke your town!!!1" etc. :D) as well as some of the shady laws that they pass and attempt to pass all in the name of "protecting us".
 

Phoenix

Member
While there are terrorists networks, it has often been very difficult to label them as organized - at least to the extent that they are a cohesive organization working with each other for the same goal. In many instances, many terror groups are out for different and often contradictory goals.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Yes, terrorist organizations often have disparate goals, but the fact remains that some have the same/similar goals, and further, they share resources and intelligence within the group or between groups. I'm not saying that they are as orderly and organized as a corporation in the US is, obviously, but many such groups are organized; if this documentary is attempting to say that they somehow aren't (i.e., that terrorist networks don't exist), then I staunchly disagree, as I think any sane person would. Again, this is quite apart from the question of whether the level of oganization or the threat they pose is sometimes exaggerated, which one can take legitimate issue with.
 

Exis

Member
This documentry kinda sucks for me because I am writing a book on the same subject, and was 80 pages in when I came across this-- they interviewed some of the same people I did and touched on many of the same things.

However it is very accurate, and important for people to watch it. The Republican party has been hijacked and they have lied for so many years they buy their own hype as gospel.

PM for a site to get the torrents, they have episode three to boot.

-Exis
 

SFA_AOK

Member
It's funny, a guy at work was talking about this last week after it aired and I couldn't quite believe it. I was going to download it and post a thread here about it, well done for beating me by about 3 weeks :D

Anyway, for those that have seen it - could you go into a little more detail about the "myth" of Al-Qaida? I couldn't quite wrap my head around what this guy at work was saying - either that:

a. Al-Qaida didn't exist until someone labelled it as such and OBL et al thought "That'll do nicely."

b. Al-Qaida still doesn't really exist, it's just a catch-all name given to a collection of terrorists who aren't fighting under the one Al-Qaida banner but have the same goals.

Both of these may be incorrect as I couldn't quite comprehend what he was saying. But yeah, these are definitely MUST downloads for anyone interested in the rise in power of neo-conservatives - IIRC, the second show was about how they went after Clinton, can't quite remember what the first one was about...

Exis - book sounds cool, doesn't matter that this documentary covrs similar ground, books will always be in libraries, TV shows only air once in a while ;)
 

SFA_AOK

Member
Update from another source:

"IIRC the line was that the US authorities wanted to use legislation originally
introduced for mafia prosecutions to try Bin Laden in absentia. Said
legislation allowed prosecution of the leaders of illegal organisations for
the crimes of the organisation, even when they had no proof of their direct
involvement. In order to do this, they had to have a name for the organisation
Bin Laden was said to be leading."
 
Late to the party, and brought Buckaroo instead of alcohol ... ^_^ ... Anyway I bin writin this post all day at work, so here it is:


I caught the last episode of this, and evangelise it quietly wherever appropriate. Two things really made it for me: the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy presentational style (visual, informative and engaging at every turn), and the giddy positive note on which it closed.

I don't recall the exact line on Al Qaeda, as to exactly where the name itself came from. The existence of an organised terror network was basically theorised in an American court as a means of convicting Osama in his absence, as the 'head' of the 'organisation', in a case concerning an Islamist terror attack (apologies but I do not recall which).

Osama was involved in funding such activities, but essentially on a whacko-by-whacko basis rather than as part of any S.M.I.R.S.H. -style axis of evil, and generally targeting the governments of countries that could have potentially been frightened into accepting the rule of Islamism. The US wanted him, and fabricated a convenient lie to give them something to go on. The whackos and the funding were all pretty much true; what wasn't true was that there was any kind of wide-reaching or sustainable network behind it all, or that any of it had too much to do with us.

The point where this goes from passably manipulative to straight up-and-down disgusting is when you get to grips with the weight of emphasis given to this charade, and the reasons for it: ten thousand thundering typhoons bearing before them a magnifying glass and a tiny paper boat. No society should take living free for granted without recognising the importance of self-defence; yet no free society should allow its will to be directed so exclusively, so exhaustively in this direction.

The positive ending, by the way, relates exactly to that: there is no way in hell the veil of irreality can continue to be held down, not without drastic accumulation of the already mounting inhibitions that hem in real freedom. Just as we have matured beyond immediate susceptibility to the power of dreams, overuse will shortly inure us to the gibbering power of nightmares. It is quite funny when you imagine everyone suddenly snapping out of it; a bit like elated cinema-goers coming out of a really good shocker, and grinning at one another afresh.

Every time we approach one of these beach-heads, the choice is given to the men in the tower. One option is to retreat in peace for a while, letting the common man and his champions splash a wellie-shod and gleeful rampage through the still-dripping Next Level of the free worlds cognitive architecture, while the men in the tower get busy plotting and reinforcing the next line of mirrored sandbanks, drawn up in deceptive lines that will lead end-to end, and offer us no purchase on the tower itself.

The alternative is to fight us for the remains of their existing power base. They never win these fights, because to do so would be self-defeating, like a predator extinguishing its food supply. Far better to herd and cull as necessary; the tower generates its permanent thrust by the inexorable consumption of people, and the management of this is so simple a child could do it if given control. Perhaps only a child could be so heartless ...

The battles are a means of stalling for time, and are fought purely amongst ourselves; between those staring up at the tower and striving to grasp that one elusive principle (the ring which binds them all, no matter its limitless capacity for corruption), and those magnetised to the base of the tower, the foot soldiers of the status quo, drawn by circumstance to know nothing but prevention of access. And so we fight ourselves, seeing in one another the manifest pain and unfairness of our overall situation, instead of having the wit to raise our glances sideways and talk to one another about the game we are, that is being played. The most anyone gets out before the tide crashes over them seems to be: "Wait ... "

^_^;

OK, enough. I hope you like my little story there, I just made it up for fun on the basis of the positive note on which the power of dreams did end. One way or another, the future has to have some sort of flavour to it … unless, as is entirely possible, circumstances are removed from the control of our flabby, corn fed mitts, and everything is simply on the very last verge of collapse.

Or I could have just gone mental, like Bomb'ead :D

(Poor Bomb'ead! O_O)
 

FnordChan

Member
I haven't seen the first part, but my roommate and I sat down and watched parts two and three this weekend. Brilliantly made, compelling, and more than a bit thought provoking. I'm looking forward to seeing this extensively fact-checked online; if the argument holds water - and I suspect it does - this will be crucial viewing.

Ghost, if you can peg any particular exagerations, I'd like to hear 'em. I'm not saying they aren't there, mind you, but I'd prefer to know of specific problems before automatically assuming that they must be wrong.

Doth Togo, I'd love to see a DVD release of this, but as far as I can tell none of Adam Curtis' films are available on home video, in the UK or otherwise. As a BBC America showing doesn't seem to be a sure thing you may want to suck it up and check out the program via BitTorrent.

So, yeah, everyone get your BT on and check this out. Three hours (two in my case, though I'm hoping to go back and catch the first hour before long) very well spent. It's also worth mentioning that the style of the documentary is first-rate, with excellent use of archival visuals and a steady streak of black humor throughout.

FnordChan
 

Nemrael

Member
It's well worth checking out the first part as one of the documentary's main contentions is the similarity between the fear of the Soviet Union in the past and the fear of terrorism today - both fears seemingly being exaggerated by, and for the benefit of, the Neocons. Both are portrayed by the governments of the time as hidden forces ready to strike at any moment which the US must conquer if it is to survive.

It is helped in making this connection by some of the people that were in power in the 70's still being in power today - the main examples being Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This enables the documentary to show footage of Rumsfeld at a press conference in 1976 telling reporters that the Soviets have been busy in expanding their arsenal and with the purpose of attacking the US in part 1, and then show Rumsfeld again in part 3 takling about one of Al Qaeda's subterranian Tora Bora lairs worthy of a James Bond villain, complete with hydroelectric power plants and truck depots (I don't know how he kept a straight face). The documentary informs us that these were both exagerations, telling us that the CIA labelled Rumsfeld's information on Russian military buildup as "complete fiction" in the 70's, and shows that nothing was ever found in Tora Bora.

It's interesting to see that Rumsfeld and pals were disagreeing with intelligence information way back in the 70's. For example saying that Soviet air defences, which the CIA described as being in a state of collapse, as being in perfect working order, their apparent decrepitude merely a cunning ruse. His group apparently also changed simple things, such as translating the title of a Russian military manual "The Art of Winning", into "The Art of Conquest".

I'd also agree that the documentary is presented very well. It's never dull to watch and doesn't have the dry, distant atmosphere that documentaries can sometimes have, instead I found it to be quite gripping. Plus any documentary that periodically uses the title track from John Carpenter's "The Thing" can't be bad...
 

FnordChan

Member
Nemrael said:
Plus any documentary that periodically uses the title track from John Carpenter's "The Thing" can't be bad...

Oh, thank god. I knew I recognized at least one of the songs used in the soundtrack, but I couldn't remember exactly what it was and this was driving me insane. Thank you.

Thanks for the breakdown of Part 1. I'll be sure to watch it.

FnordChan, definately hoping for a DVD release
 

SFA_AOK

Member
Cheers for the post Bomba...

B-B-Bomba! said:
Or I could have just gone mental, like Bomb'ead :D

(Poor Bomb'ead! O_O)

Man, where are they pulling shit like that storyline from?


Nnngh, musn't derail thread!
 

Exis

Member
Yeah, I am gonna write it anyhow... just gonna take a break. The BBC was able to touch on the middle east more than I was able to anyhow... although I do focus on the 'Plan B' team more than they did <shrug>

I will have an article in High Times about this in two months, re-editing it now to mention the documentry.

-Exis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom