Stephen Pollard is a cunt. Peter Marshall is a good man.
Oh, and speaking of appalling authoritarian ex-left-wing journalists, this is hilarious.
Stephen Pollard is a cunt. Peter Marshall is a good man.
Oh, and speaking of appalling authoritarian ex-left-wing journalists, this is hilarious.
Amusingly enough, yesterday’s Guardian ran several letters putting the boot into Pollard, albeit for different reasons.
Peter Marshall is a prat. He glosses over reality and loses his rag when he is called on it. He won’t use the T word, but throws the F word round in lieu of rational argument.
All part of the case behind the Times report that MORI has found that most MPs regard the BBC as not balanced. The BBC – a case study in how to subvert and trash a great brand. Time for the BBC to rein back on opinionating by its reporters and presenters.
Fron Fridays Times:
"The trust that MPs had in the BBC has collapsed, with a majority of Conservatives and a large proportion of Labour members now believing that the corporation’s news coverage is biased.
Four out of ten Labour MPs and two thirds of Tories told MORI, in research conducted for the BBC, they did not believe that it was “free from influence and bias”.
The finding has unsettled BBC governors, who revealed the existence of the research in the corporation’s annual report. But it has not surprised MPs, who believe that the BBC is losing its reputation for objectivity.
the BBC is losing its reputation for objectivity
Even if this is true, the BBC still remains infinitely more reliable, onjective, and unbiased than any organisation which Stephen Pollard is associated with.
What proportion of MPs trust The Daily Mail, do you think?
We are not forced to pay for the Mail. The BBC is nder a Royal Charter to be unbiased. It fails its statutory duty.
I have never read the Daily Mail. My own experience is that it does tend to attract people who are racist.
But I do believe that the BBC is also racist. Like many on the left they assume racism exists, but they also assume that it only exists in whites, which is plainly racist. And if it does exist, it must be caused by whites (in partcular America).
I would like to add that I do not consider myself racist and nor does anyone who knows me. I do think one of the driving forces of those four nutters was probably racism. If racism exists in whites, surely it can exist in Muslims?
Like many on the left they assume racism exists, but they also assume that it only exists in whites
What on earth are you talking about?
"We are not forced to pay for the Mail. The BBC is nder a Royal Charter to be unbiased. It fails its statutory duty."
No more rants about the Guardian, the, JiL. You are not forced to pay for that.
And, as your posts over the past few days have demonstrated, the BBC goes to extraordinary lengths to present news in an unbiased manner.
Andrew Bartlett
If you believe that the BBC does not have some agendas, I have some seafront swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Of course I believe it has ‘some agendas’. It is an institution with a near 100 year history and a is conposed of people working on the hinterland of that history in institutional structures. No organisation can be unbiased. No person can be unbiased. But the furore over the word terrorist demonstrates that the BBC goes to extraordinary lengths to present news in an unbiased manner. That is what I said. That you feel the need to argue against something that I did not say is curious. It is a debating tactic that you use time after time.
It is a debating tactic
I think that’s being a bit generous, Andrew.
You concede the BBC has agendas. That is the key point in all of this. We don’t like being forced to pay for news from ANY source with an agenda. For example, the money quote in Nick Cohen’s article in the Observer that sharply attacks the BBC (seems to be a swarm of attacks worldwide now):
"Since the Iraq war, ministers who were previously flattered as models of moderation have been savaged, while isolationists and excuse-makers for tyranny have been presented with QUESTIONS SO SOFT YOU COULD CURL UP AND GO TO SLEEP IN THEM"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1530248,00.html
Nick Cohen – Idiot:
"But the BBC guidelines do not authorise staff to say that ‘the enemies of all mankind’ have massacred commuters in London or children in Baghdad." Quite right. Imagine what our news would read or sound like if they did. Like the news output of a totalitarian state.
"Instead, the censors instruct: ‘We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator, such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent" and "militant". Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audience to make their own assessment about who is doing what to whom.’" Quite right too.
"But with the exception of ‘kidnapper’, none of the BBC’s words is specific or objective. ‘Bomber’, ‘attacker’ and ‘gunman’ allow no distinction between fighters who assault military targets and fighters who assault civilian targets. The leaders of the rail unions are ‘militants’ in the sense they will call out their members in the private rail companies whenever they can. They don’t put bombs on trains." Has Nick Cohen ever heard of sentences, paragraphs, or any other way of arranging words in sequences that shape the meaning of these apparently non-specific words. Words do not have (much) meaning in isolation – they acquire their meaning from the words they are placed alongside – and when and where they are placed alongside these other words.
Nick Cohen knows this. So what is he doing? Bashing the BBC with a, quite frankly, utterly stupid argument. Why? Does he want the BBC to be dismantled? Then he should say so, not make these misleading arguments. And why would he want that? So we could have a media exclusivly owned by rich men?
He wants the BBC to stop being biased in its news coverage, and to stop being anal in its choice of words.
So how do you leap to him wanting to break up the BBC ? Freaking paranoia.
If the BBC is to strive towards being unbiased, then it naturally is ‘anal’ in its choice of words.
He is arguing that the BBC’s use of the word ‘bomber’ to describe those who were responsible for the attacks on London could leave the reader/listener/viewer in confusion. This is simply not true. The context of a word is the source of that words meaning. There is no confusion caused by the BBC using the word bomber, as the context, both within the text and within society, makes the meaning of the word bomber plain.
I am assuming that Nick Cohen knows this. Which is why I question his motives in writing this article. Of course, he could be an idiot. Or, he could be writing idiotic shit because he likes the word rate but has nothing intelligent to say. Or, he could be writing shit to further his political ends. Choose one of these. The one option that you cannot take is the ‘Nick Cohen is right’ line. His rant about words betrays an ignorance [perhaps deliberate] of any kind of theory of meaning, yet he fancies being paid plenty of money to bang on about it regardless.
Cohen was attacking egregrious BBC bias on Iraq. And sying that the sort of defence you and the BBC put up to defend aavoidance of the T word is a convoluted load of bollox. Just read your last post out loud. Listen to yourself. Convolted bollox.
The BBC should call a spde a spade. Terrorism is the word all the other media use. Only the obtuse and obstinate try to avoid it.
Why is it bollocks?
Is the meaning of the word ‘bomber’, when found in a story about the attacks on London, in the aftremath of the attacks in London, written in London and read in Britain, imprecise? Will anyone misunderstand the meaning of the word, ‘bomber’?
I do not accept that the answer is ‘yes’. If the answer is ‘no, no person will be confused by the use of the word ‘bomber’, then Nick Cohen is either stupid or disingenous.
In order to strive for impartiality, the BBC has adopted a policy of using the same language to describe similar acts across the world regardless of the actors. The differences, political, legal and ethical, between these acts can be determined by the context these words are used in. The BBC does not simply produce a glossary, but news stories, which, taken together with other news stories and the knowledge that can be expected of readers/listeners/viewers, provides the context that will produce a meaning for the word ‘bomber’ that is appropriate to the situation. Do you disagree with this?
But it has now moved away from its policy. So you are defending not only the indefensible but also a policy like jelly.
No, I am attacking Nick Cohen’s moronic attack on the BBC and I am defending the principle of attempting to strive for objectivity.
Larry
I think that The BBC and many of the left strive for "multiculturalism". “Multiculturalism is the view that all cultures, from the spirits worshipping tribe to that of an advanced industrial civilisation, are equal in value.” It continues: “A culture that values freedom, progress, reason and science is good; one that values oppression, mysticism and ignorance is not.”
Therefore it is not possible to criticise crap views if they are expressed by an ethnic minority, e.g these little cretins who want the return of the Caliphate, as descrobed in OBLs 1996 declaration of war. But it is possible to consistently undermine and attack America. Also you get BBC documentaries on far right groups like the BNP (fair enough) , but no documentaries on Islamic fundamentalists who want to blow up people on the tube. How have we missed these fanatics?
Yup, no documentaries on Islamic fundamentalists whatsoever.
Bob, on which planet do you reside?
Could you provide some links? I would really be interested to learn. And I bet I can point to many more were the real ill of the worlds problems are America.
Go ahead….
Bob,
And I bet I can point to many more were the real ill of the worlds problems are America.
Changing the goalposts a bit aren’t you? There’s a pretty impressive bit of back-pedalling from your transparently ludicrous assertion that the BBC thinks that it is not possible to criticise crap views if they are expressed by an ethnic minority.
Heres something from the BBC about Islamic extremists in Britain. There’s plenty of such stuff on the BBC website.
Larry
How’s your maths, which came first 7/7 0r 12/7. I think that is bolting the stable doors after the horse has bolted.
Try again.
How’s your maths
You have no idea how pertinent a question that is.
I don’t see anything in your comments demanding pre-7/7 material. But there’s still no shortage of it on the BBC website, picked more or less at random, try this.
Last year the BBC broadcast The House of Saud, a comprehensive history of Saudi Arabia that also attempted to trace the roots of Islamic fundamentalism (a tricky subject to avoid in this particular context).
In 2002, they broadcast Fundamentalism and Faith, a radio series that covered religious fundamentalism in general, but whose third part was entirely about Islamic fundamentalism.
The investigative journalism slot Panorama has tackled the subject on numerous occasions in such programmes as Who is Osama bin Laden?, Koran and Country (Bin Laden’s Biological Threat, The Hunt for Bin Laden, On Bin Laden’s Trail, Terror – Are We Next?, Al Qaeda Strikes Back and many others (just Google "BBC Panorama Islam" for more). I think everything in that list was produced over the past four years.
Other BBC news slots, notably Newsnight, regularly feature programmes about Islamic fundamentalism – here’s a transcript of one such programme about the Al-Mujahiroun organisation.
And, tangentially, here’s some information about two BBC programmes investigating the treatment of women in Islamic societies. True, these aren’t about fundamentalism as such, but their existence gives the lie to Bob’s charge that "it is not possible to criticise crap views if they are expressed by an ethnic minority".
And of course there’s the much-misquoted The Power of Nightmares, which covers Islamic fundamentalism in considerable detail (and whose producer defends its conclusions here)
This is, of course, a mere smattering of the total – but I think I’ll wait for Bob’s list of counter-examples before researching any more.
"p0wn3d" is, I think, the correct term to use at this point. Good work, Larry & Michael…
Larry
Read your article, Whereas the article does suggest that there is a battle for muslim minds "on the internet", I do not think it says that the battle has been lost and there are bad/racist muslims in Britain. Which there plainly are. You might like to contrast this with the documentary on BBC primetime, on the BNP.
Remember also that the BBC also told us in a three hour series (The Power Of Nightmares) shown in prime time, that the islamic terror threat was a creation of the American (more specifically Jewish) Neocons.
Remember also that the BBC also told us in a three hour series (The Power Of Nightmares) shown in prime time, that the islamic terror threat was a creation of the American (more specifically Jewish) Neocons.
I’ll repeat my link to the producer’s defence of the series – in which he repeatedly says that this is a complete distortion of what the programme was about.
Here’s his specific response to charges along the lines of the one Bob’s making:
"No, the series did not say this. It was very clear in arguing that although there is a serious threat of terrorism from some radical Islamists, the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
As the films showed, wherever one looks for this "al-Qaeda" organisation – from the mountains of Afghanistan to the "sleeper cells" in America – the British and Americans are pursuing a fantasy.
The bombs in Madrid and Bali showed clearly the seriousness of the threat – but they are not evidence of a new and overwhelming threat unlike any we have experienced before. And above all they do not – in the words of the British government – "threaten the life of the nation". That is simply untrue."
And then, arguably more pertinently:
"Extreme Islamist ideas are dangerous, as Madrid, Bali and 11 September showed, but to portray them as a terrifying new viral form of terrorism is also part of the politics of fear.
If one looks at the history of the Islamist movement and its ideas it is clear that its high point came in the late 80s when it seemed on the verge of success across the Muslim world.
But then in the 1990s Islamism failed dramatically in its attempts to create revolutions because the ideas failed to inspire the masses. They did not appeal to the majority of people.
The attacks on 11 September were not the expression of a confident and growing movement, they were acts of desperation by a small group frustrated by their failure which they blamed on the power of America. It is also important to realise that many within the Islamist movement were against this strategy."
Michael
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?
No, just also not by "a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies"
Your persistent stupidity is an affectation, I hope.
That is plainly not what Michael is saying, nor is it the argument made by The Power of Nightmares. The bombings happened, as did Madrid and 9/11. They were committed by real people. These people planned the attacks, and there was a level of conspiracy. None of these are an illusion.
What is an illusion is idea that these attacks are part of a global conspiracy of terrible power and tremendous resources.
This is no more true than a suggestion that David Copeland was part of some kind of pan-European neo-Nazi terrorist group. He was no doubt inspired by fascists from outside Britain. He was a member of the National Front, and this organisation had contacts with far-right groups across europe. But this does not make them part of some globe spanning conspiracy and command hierarchy.
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.
Just to reassure us that it’s not simply down to you misreading the programme (you did actually watch it, didn’t you? You’re using these transcripts as memory-joggers and not as a substitute for the actual programme?), would you care to highlight one or two of these apparent contradictions?
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?
That’s such a silly question that I’m honestly not sure that you’re not trolling deliberately for comic effect. But assuming you’re serious, the answer is yes, the bombings obviously happened – but no, there is no proof that they happened as part of a highly organised global conspiracy.
They were certainly carried out on a slightly larger scale than David Copeland’s one-man effort – but the evidence amassed thus far suggests that it wasn’t that much more ambitious. As with Bali, Istanbul, Madrid and even 9/11, the number of people involved in the planning and execution of the atrocities was relatively small – and considering how terrifying Al-Qaeda is meant to be, isn’t it telling that there have actually been relatively few of these outrages, at least outside the lawless killing fields of rural Afghanistan and Iraq?
Peter Marshall is spot on.
And of course the BBC is biased. But less so than many organisations in my view, and it does try to represent a range of views.
Since leaving the UK I have valued the BBC more – it consistently produces good quality programming.
Perhaps we should examine the agenda of those who attack it so vociferously. Are they unbiased? Well, of course not.
Many of these attackers believe it should be privatised or other changes made. That’s an agenda. Privatisation will not solve the problem of bias, but will simply change the bias.
Those who complain about BBC bias may be correct. But don’t delude yourselves these people want an unbiased BBC.
They just want to change the bias.
Michael
Re: Power Of Nightmares- The particular contradiction I was thinking of:
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.
Michael
The idea of a terrorist network supporting the four murdering little bastards is not too outlandish, in fact it seems typical AQ at the moment. Off to Pakistan, to a religous school, known AQ operative comes in to the country and leaves the day before the bomb. Time will tell.
Sorry, Bob – that’s down to Jason Burke, not the programme: it’s clearly unreasonable to expect Adam Curtis to have cross-checked everything his interviewees said against every single thing they’ve written elsewhere.
If you quote someone approvingly, and it turns out that elsewhere they’ve written something that counters what you quoted, does this mean that you’re the one who’s guilty of being contradictory? Of course not: that’s a ridiculous charge.
So what I was looking for was a clear case of the programme contradicting itself, which you imply happens more than once.
Michael
The program is not short of American talking heads — Harvey Mansfield, Paul Weyrich, and Bill and Irving Kristol are among those taking part — but the editing of the interviews is manipulated to support Curtis’s conspiracy theories. One of the most egregious examples is Curtis’ portrayal of the Reagan-era arms build-up as the fruit of a devious "Team B" plot (supervised by Paul Wolfowitz and the eminent historian Richard Pipes) aimed at misleading the American public about the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. While Pipes is allowed to present his arguments in the sketchiest of terms (he was, in effect, questioning the efficacy of the CIA long before it was fashionable), Curtis proceeds to rubbish him with the help of disarmament expert Anne Cahn, who concludes that the Harvard professor’s claims were "fantasy." Pipes, perhaps the world’s leading expert on Kremlin ideology, is left looking an amiable dunce. British viewers, unaware of his distinguished career, will be none the wiser. Pipes tells NRO in response to it all: "The allegations made by Ms. Cahn and others about Team B are so preposterous that I would be at a loss to answer them: they are similar to those made by the Holocaust deniers. They sort of leave you speechless."
Again, Bob, this doesn’t remotely support your charge that "it makes so many contradictions". Shall we agree that if your very next post doesn’t produce indisputable evidence to this effect, you’ll withdraw the accusation?
The mere fact that you’re so clearly struggling to produce ONE instance (let alone the "so many" that you confidently implied) is revealing enough in itself!
Michael
The program is a Michael Moore style crocumentary, using many deep seated and emotive prejudices. It is the updating of a classic conspiracy theory (shadowy elite take over the world). Curtis did not mention that most of the Neocons are Jewish, but it has been made clear in other BBC documentaries ("The War Party"). In the Arab media (just go to Al JAzeera) you will notice that much is made of the fact that the Neocons are Jewish.
The Power of Nightmares is amongst such classics as:
"Wolfowitz a victory for Wall Street and Israel."
"It was all about oil"
"Mossad assasinated Harrari"
Now if anything is going to inflame young muslims…..
OK, Bob – I’ll take that as a withdrawal of your "contradictions" charge, since you so clearly can’t support it with any evidence.
Weren’t you the guy who made an equally silly charge to the effect that the BBC never tackles Islamic fundamentalism? (Sorry – can’t check myself as I’ve got to get to work)
I can’t help but notice that you’re coming up short on the contradictions front there Bob.
Michael
I was writing my second point before seeing your request to see the contradiction(s). I think the one I provided is pretty good don’t you, that the main source of the accusation (JAson Burke) contradicts the main thesis.
I have also provided an interview with another of the talking heads (Richard Pipes) who says the claims made by Curtis that he is apparently supporting.
Two of the main sources of the program contradict what Curtis claims. Do you not think that is enough?
The theme of PoN was that Western policy is paranoid and false because :
1 there is not a single worldwide many-tentacled Al Q network, with local cells etc. But Western policy is based on opposition to a more generalised Islamist terrorism, with common aims and similar methods. Loosely linked rather than under a single military-style command. Anyone who denies that is blind. 7/7 appears to lead straight back to Pakistan, for example. The Islamist suicide bombers in Iraq are part of the pattern, as were the Bali and Madrid terrorists and various others, for example in Africa. One common factor linking the groups was training in terrorism at camps in Afghanistan and latterly Pakistan. In short, there is a worldwide ideology of terror.
2 PoN suggested that whatever the scale and coherence of the terrorist "organisation", there was no risk of major catastrophe. The whole risk was exaggerated – in order to support foreign policy objectives. That is the worst aspect of PoN. The flavour that there might be the odd incident, but not to worry. But what about the 600lb London bomb case ? What about the ricin case ? And what about all the plans that are claimed have been foiled in various European cities ? All a myth ? And atv a time when every intelligence agency in the world believed in WMD, was there not a legitimate fear that there would be a crossover ?
I saw PoN as a propaganda piece aimed at Bush aand his advisers the neocons. There is clear evidence that it skewed some of what the contributors had said, or downplayed their authority.
It is all a bit similar to the underlying pattern of BBC news coverage. If the today programme want a view on whether coalition troops should pull out of Iraq, they always seem to be asking a known war-stopper. They sidestep stating that the elected government of Iraq wants the troops to stay. Anything to bash Bush. And we had yet another example this morning in the 7.30 interview with John Reid by James Naughtie. The BBC has had a relentless agenda on Iraq. Power of Nightmares was just an element of that agenda. Would the BBC commission a counter-series to directly contradict PoN ? Would it hell. That is the measure of BBC bias on Iraq.
"Two of the main sources of the program contradict what Curtis claims. Do you not think that is enough?"
Not to back up your claim about the programme itself; "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."
You haven’t pointed out a single contrdiction within the programme itself, so why did you claim that you had such a problem understanding what it was on about? You have launched rhetorical attacks claiming that the Power of Nightmares argues that terrorist attacks themselves are myths. You have been utterly unable to support this claim, or your claim designed to excuse this erroneous and duplicitious debating tactic, that it was not your fault you misunderstood tPoN, as the programme itself was contradictory.
Bob,
your last-but-one post (the one that ends "Now if anything is going to inflame young muslims…..) was conclusive proof (if more were needed) that you are not someone to be taken seriously.
You clearly mean to imply that PoN is a no better than crude antisemitic propaganda, whilst simultaneiously acknowledging that Curtis did not mention that most of the Neocons are Jewish.
The opinions you have expressed on this thread fit neatly with such wingnut classics as:
"Anyone who dislikes Paul Wolfawitz is an anti-semite"
"Anyone who dislikes Ariel Sharon is an anti-semite"
"Anyone who dislikes George W Bush is an Al Qaeda apologist"
"The BBC should call a spde a spade." What is a "spde" apart from very difficult to pronouce? And why should they call it something different?
Andrew Bartlett
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.
Well Bob, the fact that you said that you couldn’t understand what the argument of the programme was due to the contradictions.
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.
Bob: Two of the main sources of the program contradict what Curtis claims. Do you not think that is enough?
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.
Larry
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.
Andrew Bartlett
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?
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."
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.
"the Soviet Union was the source of all evil in the world."
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.
Dave Easman
Well done, no I cannot explain why Jason Burkes two quotes seem contradictory. But they are don’t you think?
"I cannot explain why Jason Burkes two quotes seem contradictory. But they are don’t you think? "
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.