That’s why I brought them up.
My conjecture is that things changed between the dates they were made. In fact I said so up there. The alternatives are that Burke is an idiot or a liar.

Well done, no I cannot explain why Jason Burkes two quotes seem contradictory. But they are don’t you think?

They do teach English comprehension. So you assertion that ‘all’ the evil in the world was the product of the Soviet Union is laughable. When the Soviet Union fell was there no more evil in the world?

Incidentally, you wrote: "I have to admit, that I have read the transcipts from "Nightmares" a few times and it makes so many contradictions, that I am not exactly sure what it is on about. // However, I have only a simple mind, aside from the inacuracies of the documentary, are you saying that the bombings of 7/7 were carried out by an illusion?"

This makes no reference to confusion caused by a failure of tPoN to conform to evidence to external sources. This only mentions the transcripts of the programme, and alledges that they "make so many contradictions, that I am not exactly sure what it is on about." If you were referring to a failure of tPoN to corroborate arguments made outside these transcripts, then the quoted writing reflects badly not on my comprehension, but on your ability to express yourself in writing.

Did Burke complain about being misquoted, or quoted out of context, Bob? If not, and you respect Burke, maybe he was telling the truth both times, just that the truth in 2005 isn’t the truth in 2003 – or whenever he wrote it, as it takes ages to get from being written to being read by us.

As for "the Soviet Union was the source of all evil in the world" surely Ayatollah Khomenei was alive in the Cold War Era? As was Mao, Sukarno, Verwoerd, Salazar, Franco, goodness there’s never been a shortage of sources of evil.

Do they not teach English comprehension at school now. I could not follow the Power Of Nightmares because I had read Jason Burkes book beforehand. So I could not reconcile the statement:

Burke tells Curtis: "The idea…that bin Laden ran a coherent organization with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organization. There is no international network with a leader; with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe."

However, in his 2003 book, Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Burke is less dismissive of the idea that Al Qaeda was an organization than this soundbite suggests. Burke wrote that while the "al-Qaeda hardcore" consisted of relatively few people, "by late 2001, bin Laden and the men around him had access to huge resources, both symbolic and material, which they could use to project their power and influence internationally"–that sounds suspiciously like a "coherent organization" to me.

Also I have read a little on Cold War history and the description of "an exaggerated and distorted vision of the Soviet Union as the source of all evil in the world." Seems a little bizarre, since the Soviet Union was the source of all evil in the world. Perhaps this is why people of the left are so easily taken in by "Nightmares", it is a left wing propaganda piece?

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to criticise any member of any race. Therefore, do not think criticising Wolwowitz is automatically anti- semitic.

The point I was trying to make, is that if you do produce clearly one- sided pieces, that fits with the prejudices of many people, in particular those who believe that there is a zionist plot to take over the world, were the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is taught as historical fact, then you are playing with fire and I think you are being highly irresponsible. All I urge you to do is go to the Al Jazeera website and see the review of the Power of Nightmares. It is clearly mentioned that the Neocons are all jews. Whereas Curtis did not mention the jews, other BBC documentaries (e.g The War Party) mentions that the Neocons are "all jews".

In my opinion, the BBC is no better than the Daily Mail, in playing upon peoples prejudices, whether it is Israel or America. Just different demons.

No, for the reasons I gave above. Investigative journalism is primarily about contradicting established "truths", so I suspect Adam Curtis would regard your accusations as a compliment.

It would clearly be much more damning if the programme contradicted itself, which is why I’ve been so keen for you to come up with a specific example. You claim to have access to a full transcript, so why are you finding this so difficult?

JohninLondon: Would the BBC commission a counter-series to directly contradict PoN ? Would it hell. That is the measure of BBC bias on Iraq.

Why on earth should they commission "a counter-series" when the whole purpose of The Power of Nightmares was to present an alternative viewpoint in the first place? Pretty much any BBC Panorama documentary on Al-Qaeda – and they’ve made loads over the past four years – could stand as a counter-argument.

Now, if I saw a peice of propaganda that was contradicted by evidence, these contradictions would not cause confusions as to the argument of the propaganda.

If I saw a peice of propaganda which was internally contradictory than I can imagine being confused as to the actual message of the propaganda.

Now, you claimed to be confused as to what tPoN was arguing. You did not claim, initially, that tPoN was wrong. You claimed that you [confusedly] understood tPoN to be making the argument that terrorism itself is an illusion. This is an inaccurate characterisation of the argument made by tPoN. When challenged on this, you argued that you could not be expected to understand tPoN as it was a contradictory programme.

Bob, you’re a fucking idiot. Or a liar.

Whereas, this is getting, a little pedantic, what made you think I was referring to contradictions within the program as opposed to contradictions between what was said in the program and what the main sources have said outside the program. Which was my point that Curtis sought to skew the views of his sources, a la Michael Moore.