[Gary D]

Did anyone else watch this last night have to say i really enjoyed (although the narration was a bit monotone. Shame our American Cousins couldn't watch it - its those names again - Cheny, Rumsfield, Wolfervitz (?) are they really the most dangerous people in the world?

Really looking for to next weeks episode.



Gary

[apul]

missed it. Really wanted to watch it though. Anyone wan to give me a recap?

[Bristol Pete]

Fantastic TV.

Recap - basically, it is a doc telling us how politicians created false nightmae scenarios to attain power. (roughly).

To start with it showed us how the west became to be seen as a great evil and how the western selfish culture would be the undoing of mankind according to an Egyptian radical called Kotb (SP !?!), would do everything in its power to ensure that the Muslim ??? way of life would be maintained, including the assasination of the president of Egypt as he hated the idea of western ideology corrupting his home, something already evident in Egypt with the arrival of many western banks and business. In effect, the fight against Bin Laden started 50 - 60 years ago as he is simply carrying the torch for what these fundamentalists believe.

In late 1970's america, a group of heavy weights called the neo-conservatives used every tactic going to ensure that the cold war was maintained and although this clearly was false as the CIA disputed everything, it worked.

It led to the election of Ronald Reegan who was backed by some of the names listed earlier, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney (clearly the people with power). In the early 80's the US foreign policy changed and it allowed for covert tactical operations to be carried out by the US Army wherever and whenever they saw or felt a threat.

It seems that the irony is that by assissting the Afghans fight against the russians they actually eliminated one of the percieved threats and thus had to create new threats and go on and target the people they once helped(Vietnam anyone) something next weeks episode looks at.

It really was brilliant TV and is so ironic given the current state of play over Iraq and the lies surrounding WMD.

Cap

[apul]

Thanks very much!

Sound like what i was expecting it to be! I'll look for a repeat.

Cheers.

[the_pauley]

Last night's program was pretty scary.

It showed even more closely the links between the Muslim extremists and the American neo-conservatives. How they both came together when the Reagan administration supported them in their war against the Russians in Afghanistan. How the core of both movements are tiny extremist cabals whose ideology is that people need to be galvanized (i.e. brought round to their way of thinking) by the creation of a climate of fear. Both are equally demented.

The Muslim loons for example believe that any Muslim politician who takes part in a democratic political process is against (their version of) Koranic teaching, is corrupt, therefore is no longer Muslim, therefore can be killed. This extended to anyone who voted (the civilian population) or disagreed with this viewpoint. This led at one point to one of their leaders declaring a death sentence on all of Algeria except for the members of his cell!

The upshot of all this was the glut of suicide bombings / attacks in Egypt and Algeria and other Arab countries in the '90s. The idea was that the people would rise up and join the fundamentalists in glorious Islamic revolution. The effect was the opposite - a massive backlash against the terrorists which saw them fall out and start killing each other, which resulted in a tiny group of them (Bin Laden & Co) fleeing to the only Muslim country in the world that would give them shelter - Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. There they had a re-think as to what had gone wrong with their "plan". What was making the Muslim world so "corrupt" that they refused to accept their ideals? Answer - The West. Result - the creation of a new (perceived) threat to Islam - America.

Meanwhile in the USA throughout the '80s, the American Right, in dire need of voters, had infiltrated the Christian Fundamentalist movement which was at its peak. A cynical ploy, as Strauss, the fountainhead of all neo-conservative ideology, saw organized religion as just another useful myth to keep the people pliable and distracted. In tandem with several key Evangelical leaders (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, etc), they persuaded the traditionally non-voting Fundamentalist Christian lobby (a massive demographic), not only to vote, but that God wanted them to vote Republican.

The result was that the religious right took over the Republican Party, and in the lead up to the 1992 election was such an extreme force in the party, that long standing, traditional Republicans were not only shocked by their power and the extremity of their views (the usual stuff - sex, gays, women, abortion, movies, TV, Darwinism, etc.), but in what amounted to a witch-hunt were ousted from positions in their own party and replaced by New Right fundamentalists.

Again in a scary parallel to the Muslim extremists' experience, it all backfired on the neo-conservatives. Traditional moderate Republican supporters were horrified at the power and extreme ideology of the New Christian Right and deserted the party in droves. End result - Clinton sweeps to power in 1992. Like the Al Qu'ida a shocked New Right gathered together in stunned disbelief and decided on a new strategy/enemy, and set out to regain power by undermining the "moral authority" of the Presidency itself.

The program showed how the Whitewater scandal, a murder allegation and a drug smuggling allegation were literally fabricated by the neo-conservatives to destroy the Clintons. But despite the efforts of the investigations led by Kenneth Starr (who - surprise - was/is affiliated to several extreme right-wing "think-tanks") the allegations proved groundless, but so concentrated was the assault that it put the Clintons in the position of having to devote a great deal of time and effort to "prove" themselves innocent.

Particularly damning in Part 2 of the series, was the appearance of the key spokesman for "The Arkansas Project" (the neo-conservative project to "investigate" the Clintons) who was one of the key architects of the plot against the Clintons in the '90s. Now disaffected from the far-right, he sat on camera with the BBC reporter and explained that not only were Whitewater, the murder allegation and the drug smuggling allegation all untrue, but they were known to be untrue / fabricated at the time of the Starr investigations.

After the collapse of the plot to smear the Clintons, the neo-conservatives were handed an unexpected second chance to "Kill Bill" when the Monica Lewinsky affair was uncovered (welcome back Ken Starr), but once again the neo-right campaign to impeach the President failed, simply because the American people didn't think it was that important and reckoned he was doing a good job as President.

Retiring to lick their wounds for a third time, the neo-conservative cabal came to the conclusion that the reason the American public did not back them in their campaign was (another scary parallel with the Bin Laden mob) that society had become morally corrupt. A new enemy / threat was needed to galvanize the people. Having Clinton as a bogeyman failed, and the previous "Phantom Menace" of the neo-conservatives - The Soviet Union - was gone.

But as luck would have it Al Qu'ida's declaration of "war" on the USA handed them the new enemy on a plate. So, once again, as in Afghanistan, two seemingly disparate and extreme ideologies came together in a "mutually beneficial arrangement". All that was needed was an election win to get the Republicans back into The White House to put the politics of fear into action. Still, Dubya's friends and family in Florida could handle that one in 2000, eh?

The above is a very condensed version of the case this programme is constructing over four hour-long instalments, putting the above into a political and historical framework going back to the 1950s.

Much of what the far-right in the USA was up to over the past twenty years or so, is not news to anyone who has followed that particular horror show over the years. What this program does make explicit however, are how the two seemingly opposite sides in the "war against terror" are so inextricably linked and interdependent on each other for their existence. More frightening still is the similarity of mindset and ideologies.

This is the kind of journalism that the BBC was once renowned for and which has all but faded from the airwaves in the rush to make all TV appeal to the monkeymass mentality. This along with the recent BNP expose has justified the licence fee for this year.

Apparently the Yanks are seeing this and it's causing a s**tstorm. The Republicans/conservatives are claiming that it's a tissue of lies (quel surprise) and are branding those that speak against them in the programme (ex CIA, ex FBI, political analysts, Republican whistle-blowers) as the equal of Holocaust deniers.

The fun continues Wednesdays on BBC2.

[Lester]

What an excellent post from the_pauley. (Although I don't much care for the tone of the debate that follows.)

The argument in this programme is beautifully constructed and scarily convincing. You hear this kind of thing from loony conspiracy theorists all the time, but when it's presented in such an intelligent and well researched manner then it's difficult not to be seduced by its power.

I had a brief look to see if there's a book to accompany the series but found nothing. Shame - I'd like to find out more.

[chard]

more left wing hysterical conspiracy nonsence..calm down Guardian readers, not everyone is out to get you ....

I saw the first episode, and have the second recorded.

The first one rambled and twisted to show links and connections and its sounds as though the second does the same.

The central problem with this programme is that they seem to deny that there has been a very real threat over the years. The cold war was very real , in the sense that Communism was an expansionist ideology which spread its creed through mainly violent revolution. To suggest that standing up to that was an unnessary act - simply highlights the left wing political credantials of those spouting off on this programme.

There is a wave of revisionist view at the moment , which (through embarrasement for the undoubted evils of the Soviet empire) seeks to play down the threat they possed. Yes, we know that they were rotten at the core and couldn't run a shoe factory properly - but the facts are that they DID have tens of thousands of tanks on the German border for 40 years !

It is easy now that we have won the cold war, to say that the stand was unnecessary, but without that stand, the downfall of communism was not a certainty.

The programme presumably suggests that the current war against fundamentalist Islam is a fictional construct! nonsense again - the current war is again a very real one, since 9/11.

To suggest similarities between right and left fundamentalists is hardly rocket science - the word 'fundamentalist' is a clue.... this does not support a conspiracry theory and frankly whilst as an atheist I don't support either extreme religious view - I have less fear of the right as they were not the ones flying planes into buildings full of Muslims, nor are christian vicars strapping explosives to their backs and walking into restaurants in Tehran.

This programme does sound like it is in denial over the very real threats we face. Maybe if Al Queda had uniforms then it would be more real for the makers of this programme.

This programme is indicative of the left wing bias on our TV's at the moment, we had the same rubbish with Jon (comrade) Snow's, Whitehouse for Sale documentary earlier in the week - I know people will deny this....but would they please like to list the programmes which they believe balance this left wing party political broadcast ?

[the_pauley]

…more left wing hysterical conspiracy nonsence…

Anyone seeing this programme with an objective eye will see that it is as far removed from “hysterical” in tone as it could get. But of course if you declare it “hysterical” then in your little world it can then be dismissed, can’t it? Nice try, but no prize.

The first one rambled and twisted to show links and connections and its sounds as though the second does the same.

Nothing rambling or twisting about it. It was direct clear, concise and well documented. Overall a taut and well argued piece of journalism. Like documentaries used to be before TV became “bread and circuses”.

The central problem with this programme is that they seem to deny that there has been a very real threat over the years. The cold war was very real , in the sense that Communism was an expansionist ideology which spread its creed through mainly violent revolution. To suggest that standing up to that was an unnessary act - simply highlights the left wing political credantials of those spouting off on this programme.

I suggest you re-watch the program. What you say about the programme is simply untrue. It does not deny anything of the sort regarding Communist expansionism and ideology, nor the initial cold-war threat. Is your stance so weak you need to lob unfounded accusations and untruths against the programme makers, and then chastise them for it? Oldest trick in the book in the arena of forensic debate, and a clear sign of the losing/non-existent argument.

What it does argue is that long after the Soviet Union stopped being a threat to the West, the American right chose to continue depict it as a threat, despite the advice of their own intelligence agencies and some government advisors. I take it you did see that parade of arms experts, CIA, FBI agents, etc, who kept saying that the all their intelligence showed that the Soviet Union was no longer a threat and was in a state of collapse?

Or perhaps you see Republican advisors and the CIA as those sporting "...left wing credentials..."? But on reflection, you probably do. After all they do have a different opinion to you...

It is easy now that we have won the cold war, to say that the stand was unnecessary, but without that stand, the downfall of communism was not a certainty.

The programme does not say anything of the sort that you are suggesting. That’s the third untrue allegation.

The programme presumably suggests that the current war against fundamentalist Islam is a fictional construct! nonsense again - the current war is again a very real one, since 9/11.

Once again, the programme suggests nothing of the sort. This is getting tedious! We are talking about the same programme here aren't we? You weren't watching Rambo or something were you?

To suggest similarities between right and left fundamentalists is hardly rocket science - the word 'fundamentalist' is a clue...

And, yes, once again you've guessed it, the programme attempts to do nothing of the sort.

Perhaps your political opinions would be less cause for hilarity were you to be in possession of the basic vocabulary needed for the debate. Newsflash – Islamic fundamentalism is an extreme right wing ideology. It’s as far removed from a leftist stance as one can get. That is why the programme is so chilling in that it highlights the similarities of ideology, worldview and mindset of the US neo-conservatives and the Islamic terrorists.

But then again you haven't watched part two have you? So you wouldn't be in a position to make that judgement would you? But then again judged on what you perceive to have occurred in part one would it make any difference if you see part two or not? You can just invent something that wasn't there and throw stones at it while ranting on about lefty conspiracies and reds-under-the-bed. Tell you what - don't bother watching parts three and four and just come on here and tell us what was wrong with them. Seems to have worked for you with part two.

This programme is indicative of the left wing bias on our TV's at the moment, we had the same rubbish with Jon (comrade) Snow's, Whitehouse for Sale documentary earlier in the week - I know people will deny this....but would they please like to list the programmes which they believe balance this left wing party political broadcast ?

Let me explain to you how a healthy democracy functions and how a free press (hopefully) works within that framework. The press are free to scrutinise, question (with an extremely critical eye) and hopefully make life generally uncomfortable for those in power. It’s called vigilance and questioning. Be that from a left wing, right wing, or (radical concept coming up for you Chard) moderate viewpoint unallied to either political extreme.

If you aren’t fully at ease with that tenet of our political structure might I suggest North Korea or China as two possible places for you to take up residence? Two countries where you won’t be troubled by such questioning of the status quo.

[chard]

the pauley, thanks for your reply, although you did fall into a rant every now and again rather than stick to debating the issues...still the left prefer to label every 'non-believer' as misguided, rather than recognising that there is an alternative to their idealistic chants...

it is as far removed from “hysterical” in tone as it could get.

not so, in that every minor connection was linked to the desire for world domination...
it was rather like the old James Burke series - Connections, getting from the invention of the bread-bin to the atom bomb in 50 minutes...this twisting and turning, was not simple description, but simple one-sided editorial comment the whole way through, from a well known left wing film maker.

What it does argue is that long after the Soviet Union stopped being a threat to the West

my point was, WHEN exactly did the Soviet Union stop being a threat ? perhaps you can find that point with hindsight, however, right up to the end there was a threat of a military coup against Gorbachov - but again your very denial of the soviet threat is an example of the very revisionist point I was making.

I take it you did see that parade of arms experts, CIA, FBI agents, etc, who kept saying that the all their intelligence showed that the Soviet Union was no longer a threat and was in a state of collapse?

hardly a definitive list - and simple individual opinions, there are alternate opinions of these individuals posted on american websites, still the programme was only interested I guess in one type of comment?

Indeed the total lack of alternative comment and explanation is what makes this a political tract, rather than a legitimate documentary.

Let me explain to you how a healthy democracy functions and how a free press (hopefully) works within that framework. The press are free to scrutinise, question (with an extremely critical eye) and hopefully make life generally uncomfortable for those in power. It’s called vigilance and questioning. Be that from a left wing, right wing,

you just couldn't think of a rightwing biased documentary on the BBC recently could you ?

Of course there is room for editorial content - but it should be recognised as such (as with this programme) and there should be the balance as you point out - but where is it? where are the Panarama programmes discussing how many Iraqis would be dead now if Saddam where still in power? or how about a programme about what would have been the cost of NOT helping defenders against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979?

Seriously, please let me know when those right wing biased programmes are scheduled ?

Newsflash – Islamic fundamentalism is an extreme right wing ideology. It’s as far removed from a leftist stance as one can get.

another error there mate - no matter what your teacher told you, there are different opinions and definitions - the drive from Isalmic fundamentalist to reverse capitalism and drive their own form of uniformity shares a great deal with the left.

The programme presumably suggests that the current war against fundamentalist Islam is a fictional construct! nonsense again - the current war is again a very real one, since 9/11.

the narration sought to diminish the threat posed by global terrorism, questioning that it existed to any real extent - tell that to the people in Bali, Madrid et al....

Really this programme was a desperate attempt to link the worlds ills to a mythical group of right wing idealogs who are apparently so bored that after ww2, 'created' bad guys to fight...

Remember, it was the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan - we were right to help the defenders of that invasion - the fact that some of those defenders went on to start their own conflict with the West is NOT ergo the fault of us helping the freedom fighters against the Soviets !! the programme is built on such false premises and supposition. Still one minded Guardian readers will love this programme - shame they won't hear any alternate views watching rubbish like this.

[the_pauley]

the pauley, thanks for your reply, although you did fall into a rant every now and again rather than stick to debating the issues...still the left prefer to label every 'non-believer' as misguided, rather than recognising that there is an alternative to their idealistic chants...

That's really rich coming from someone who was insisting on creating issues that were not raised in the programme and then debating them as if they were. And "... idealistic chants..."?!?! What the **** are you on fella?

You really are a sad paranoid little man, aren't you? Anyone who disagrees with you must be from "...the left..." And of course no alternative opinion can have any validity for you because it's different. And who even hinted at, let alone labelled anyone "misguided"? Like I said - paranoid.

And you really do need to come up with something better than an argument that amounts to this documentary is worthless because it comes from a left-wing film maker.

The world is just "right" and "left" for you isn't it? So much easier to pigeonhole, then you can just resort to cliched sloganeering rather than, perish the thought deal with something a tad more complex than your black or white mindset can handle. Much easier if individuals are lumped together as "...the left..." then you can indulge in generalizations rather than recognize or address independent opinion. Oldest political snowjob in the book. Once again, no prize...

...this twisting and turning, was not simple description, but simple one-sided editorial comment the whole way through, from a well known left wing film maker...
...Indeed the total lack of alternative comment and explanation is what makes this a political tract, rather than a legitimate documentary...

I find it really difficult to debate with someone who indulges in such systematic dishonesty. Extremely frustrating, but it speaks volumes to the weakness of your position.

"...total lack of alternative comment and explanation...".? You're doing this way too often to have any benefit of the doubt extended to you. Put simply Chard you're a liar. It's in the programmes for all to see. Repeated interviews with the neo-conservatives giving their version of events.

my point was, WHEN exactly did the Soviet Union stop being a threat ? perhaps you can find that point with hindsight, however, right up to the end there was a threat of a military coup against Gorbachov...

Well the CIA and British Intelligence were able to say when for definite - sometime in the 1980s. You'd have seen that in the programme if you'd being paying attention. And gee, guess what? With the benefit of 20 years historical hindsight we can see they were right!

- but again your very denial of the soviet threat is an example of the very revisionist point I was making.

Only one teensy thing wrong with that - I didn't "deny" or express my opinion of anything of the sort. This is the very revisionism you are accusing me of. A revisionist view of the programme - to the point of being divorced from reality - and now a revisionist view of my last post! You really are incredibly dim if you think you can fool people with this repeated dishonesty.

The reason is simple:

PEOPLE READING THIS CAN LOOK BACK THROUGH THE POSTS TO SEE WHAT ONE DID OR DID NOT SAY!

Duh!

...hardly a definitive list - and simple individual opinions...

I'd say pretty definitive in that they were on the record statements (not "opinions") to camera, made by individuals directly involved and responsible for the intelligence briefiings and reports that the programme was discussing. How much more "definitive" could it be? Perhaps you think a cleaning lady at the White House might offer additional gifted insight, that CIA and Federal officials directly responsible at the time cannot? Get real!

you just couldn't think of a rightwing biased documentary on the BBC recently could you ?

The answer to that question is no. And shocking as it may seem to you, many (sane) people would see that as a good thing, not something to complain about. However - once again NEWSFLASH - the BBC is not the only broadcaster - plenty of right-wing bias as regards Bush, Iraq, etc, available from other sources, Fox and CNN are two that spring immediately to mind.

Of course there is room for editorial content - but it should be recognised as such (as with this programme) and there should be the balance as you point out - but where is it? where are the Panarama programmes discussing how many Iraqis would be dead now if Saddam where still in power?

There have been many programmes made over the years showing the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam. Some of them made when the Regan administration was arming and training his regieme while turning a blind eye to his gassing of the Kurds. Sorry that's not the answer you were hoping for I know, but it's the answer to your question.

another error there mate - no matter what your teacher told you, there are different opinions and definitions - the drive from Isalmic fundamentalist to reverse capitalism and drive their own form of uniformity shares a great deal with the left.

There are myriad frightening parallels between extreme right wing and extreme left wing ideologies - too many for comfort - which is why many of us feel an afilliation with neither extreme (much as it upsets your little pigeon-holing theories to hear that).

But in this case it's a moot point as once again you're talking out of an area somewhere south of the coxyx. Fact - whether you like it or not - Al Qu'ida (formerly Islamic Jihad) are regarded by the media, political commentators and indeed other Muslims as a hard line right wing movement. Again, not an error at all. Mate.

Indeed, the only people we don't hear refering to them as "right-wing" are - surprise, surprise - the current right-wing US administration. Probably a little uncomfortable for them to contemplate, eh?

The parallels between their ideals and the American neo-conservatives are frighteningly apparent, as they always have been. This aspect of the series is not big news to some of us.

Really this programme was a desperate attempt to link the worlds ills to a mythical group of right wing idealogs who are apparently so bored that after ww2, 'created' bad guys to fight...

This just about sums up your inability to digest anything you have seen or heard not to mention an inability to deal in anything other than the broadest of generalizations and simplifications. It also speaks volumes to your closed mindedness. You've watched (albeit, not very attentively) one programme of a four part work and you've reached your opinion on the conclusions / evidence that you and the rest of us have yet to see broadcast.

Let me tell you the difference between you and me as regards watching a programme of this type. I come to it with the attitude "OK - show me what you got." I'm cynical, as it's a product from the idocy that is 21st Century television, but I'm open minded enough to hear what has to be said and then I'll make up my own mind and draw my own conclusions.

As you've demonstrated above you come to it with your mind made up and conclusions already drawn. It's an alternative political viewpoint to your own, therefore ranting, hysterical, incoherent, unbalanced and not to be taken seriously.

But hey, to be fair - you have watched one part out of four, and heard a quarter of the case before concluding it was all BBC leftie b******s.

[Gary D]

Pauley =

Chard =


Gary

[STOWITBELOW]

My tupence - people are basicly good, & in my experience muslem, Christian whatever. They have their own agendas, but the majority of us want to live in a peaceful world, & see our children prosper. How we go about it may cause arguement. I don't believe all Germans are Nazis because of the world war, but were seduced by a charismatic leader who emerged at 'the right' time. Sometimes people are mislead or misdirected or ill-informed. I believe sometimes they are evil, but not always.Thus far the theory the program is expounding seems pretty solid. I shan't be missing the next parts.

[chard]

the Pauley,

really do appreciate you taking the time to reply, although it would be better if you once again stick to the issues at hand rather than name calling others who hold a different opinion to yourself - still Garyd likes your work , so thats nice....

The key here is OPINION, you seem to be shocked that there are alternate opinions, you do seem to genuinely believe that you and only you are carefully weighing things up - the true cynic, the measured response...and yet you live in this denial that there may be an alternative view.

Yees, you may be in agreement with the majority anti war view at the moment - certainly that which is expressed in the media at present, but that my friend does not make you any more correct. It does mean that you do sound like every other anti war chanter, the same old conspiracy theories which can be summarised as...'Bush is bad', its getting boring.

I have criticised the first two episodes of this programme, not the one as you suggest, and frankly if it does fall into the simple criticism of being one-sided, left wing, biased, then ....lets say so! and it does. Greg Dyke gave direct support and a mandate to the programmes maker, Adam Cutris, to make editiorial 'explaining pieces' knowing this guys political leaning (left wing is as good a description as any, and correct) - therefore Curtis has delivered yet another left wing biased programme - this is what he does !!! his last programmes have been in the same vien.

So why jump up an ddown at me when I simply point out that this is a personnal editorial piece fom one man - and that it should be seen as a critical one-sided piece at that !?

It is NOT documentary, there were NO alternate views or theories shown...let me explain this one...

Put simply Chard you're a liar. It's in the programmes for all to see. Repeated interviews with the neo-conservatives giving their version of events.

the interviews included in the programme from so-called neo-conservatives, were only included if they helped with Curtis's story of conspiracy - ie he didn't include an interviewee who said, 'Mr Curtis you have totally gone of the deep-end on this one mate and there was no conspiracy to create false enemies - we had plenty of real ones !!'...
thats balance in a documentary the Pauley, where does that appear in the programme !!? as for calling people liars....keep control mate okay ? its a different opinion from yours, and one which I have just supported with evidence - don't repeat the liar claim.

The answer to that question is no. And shocking as it may seem to you, many (sane) people would see that as a good thing, not something to complain about. However - once again NEWSFLASH - the BBC is not the only broadcaster - plenty of right-wing bias as regards Bush, Iraq, etc, available from other sources, Fox and CNN are two that spring immediately to mind.

you really did struggle with that one - didn't you ?

there just aren't the opposite type of balancing programmes on British TV....you couldn't name just one...could you? Of course I don't want to see right wing or left biased programming - however, when left leaning programmes are the only ones appearing, then that is a real point of concern for anyone supporting a free media.

I'm cynical, as it's a product from the idocy that is 21st Century television, but I'm open minded enough to hear what has to be said and then I'll make up my own mind and draw my own conclusions.

you see I really do think you believe that don't you...?

you are simply expressing your opinion, however, do not be surprised when someone else expresses a differing one - yours is nothing different from the majority herd mentality of the anti war brigade, your case would be strengthened by showing any areas were you had an individual opinion which cannot be found in the editorial of The Mirror.

I supported the war, but I also agreed that Blair was very wrong and deceptive and should be impeached. I do not find any variation in your opinions from those of the maker of the programme or any other anti war ranter on the forum.....not too cynical of you is it ?

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by the_pauley

Put simply Chard you're a liar.

MOD NOTE
the-pauley you can disagree with anyone’s opinion as much as you want but please refrain from calling them a liar. Remember calling other member on the forum is not allowed.

[the_pauley]

yours is nothing different from the majority herd mentality of the anti war brigade, your case would be strengthened by showing any areas were you had an individual opinion which cannot be found in the editorial of The Mirror.

To begin with point me to the part of my post where I claimed to be "anti-war". Just show me, huh? Secondly, I haven't read the Mirror in about 15 years - it's a worthless rag as far as I'm concerned. You do a make a hell of a lot of assumptions that instantly become transmogrified into unassailable fact in that rather "unique" mind of yours, don't you? Now, run along and try to stereotype me in another way, why don't you? It seems to be the only way in which you can comfortably function.

The key here is OPINION, you seem to be shocked that there are alternate opinions, you do seem to genuinely believe that you and only you are carefully weighing things up - the true cynic, the measured response...and yet you live in this denial that there may be an alternative view...
...you are simply expressing your opinion, however, do not be surprised when someone else expresses a differing one...

Truly pathetic, and indeed too late - I've already given you that particular lecture. Once again you seem to be unable to grasp a key concept of the forums - OTHER PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ALREADY!!! They can see that I was the one who already has chastised you for this attitude re. intolerance of alternative opinion. Now you try to claw some credbility, and a degree of moral altitude by sanctimoniously slapping my wrists for what I've already laid into you for. Do you really think the people on here are so stupid, that they won't notice such blatant deceptiveness? In forensic debate it's known as "gain-saying", using an argument or idea already postulated by the opposing side and attempting to claim it for oneself. A playground tactic that is as shoddy as it is transparent, and guaranteed to get you booed of the platform in disgrace.

Get it through your "less than thin" skull - people can go back and read what has or has not been said. All you are achieving is to make yourself look increasingly deranged...

Nowhere in my posts to I state anything that could lead a (sane) person to the conclusion that I "...live in this denial that there may be an alternative view..." Just stop and contemplate the sheer stupidity of that statement. I'm dealing with an alternative viewpoint right now aren't I? Duh????

you really did struggle with that one - didn't you ?

there just aren't the opposite type of balancing programmes on British TV....you couldn't name just one...could you? Of course I don't want to see right wing or left biased programming - however, when left leaning programmes are the only ones appearing, then that is a real point of concern for anyone supporting a free media.

Once again you attempt to assuage your insecurities in this debate by convincing yourself that I "struggled" to answer you. But once again (this is so easy) - completely wrong. The clue to the fact that I did not struggle is in the direct, unambiguous, one-word reply I gave to your question. "No."

Let me try and explain the simple, but seemingly for you elusive, concept again. The press and media should scrutinise, question and hopefully make life generally uncomfortable for those in power. It’s called vigilance and questioning, be that from a left wing, right wing, or moderate viewpoint.

The government has taken us into a war and given us a set of reasons for doing so. This series is exactly the "...type of balancing programme..." you mention, that should be produced, in that it questions and offers an alternative viewpoint to those in power. Had we an extreme left-wing Government led by the likes of Arthur Scargill (perish the thought) then I would hope that there would be an opposite viewpoint stated by the media, questioning the key decisions made by those in power. This is exactly the kind of programme you are asking for Chard a "balancing" one. It questions the viewpoint of the incumbent power. What you seem to want is another programme to balance a programme that you don't agree with. That is a totally different question altogether.

The bulk of television today is made by independant producers for the TV companies. Anyone is free to go out and make a programme to answer the points made by "The Power of Nightmares" and submit it. If and when they do I'm sure we'll discuss that too.

I have criticised the first two episodes of this programme, not the one as you suggest...

Er, sorry no, but I suggested nothing of the sort. This is becoming tedious! What I took you to task for was for criticising two programmes, while not having seen one of them.

and frankly if it does fall into the simple criticism of being one-sided, left wing, biased, then ....lets say so! and it does. Greg Dyke gave direct support and a mandate to the programmes maker, Adam Cutris, to make editiorial 'explaining pieces' knowing this guys political leaning (left wing is as good a description as any, and correct) - therefore Curtis has delivered yet another left wing biased programme - this is what he does !!! his last programmes have been in the same vien.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of bias - it is simply a predisposition to a viewpoint. It does not automatically indicate dishonesty, disreputability, or immorality of any sort, so please stop trying to imply that a "left-wing bias" is somehow automatically bad or morally suspect. As to one-sided, again you are totally wrong. How can a programme that allows participants from two opposing sides to have their say be one-sided? Bias and one-sidedness are two completely different concepts, a fact that seems to elude you.

Just consider this simple point as an example of how your own argument (re. the programme maker's "bias") disappears up its own arse. You contend (however wrongly) that the Islamists portrayed in the programme lean to the left, and on the other hand we have the US neo-conservatives, Straussians, etc, who doubtlessly lean to the right. The programme to date has been equally critical and questioning of the Islamists and the Straussians, so left (by your definition) and right are being treated even handedly. Therefore you've got a fair and balanced film-maker. Unless of course you'd like to move the goal posts again by dreaming up something else that isn't contained in the programme, pretend that it is and and proceed to dissect it?

Which leads us neatly to the masterpiece of paralogism that is...

the interviews included in the programme from so-called neo-conservatives, were only included if they helped with Curtis's story of conspiracy - ie he didn't include an interviewee who said, 'Mr Curtis you have totally gone of the deep-end on this one mate and there was no conspiracy to create false enemies - we had plenty of real ones !!'...

So let me get this absolutely clear. You are now going back on your original statement regarding "...the total lack of alternative comment and explanation ..." in the programme. So now that I have called you a (word that I am not allowed to use anymore) re. this totally false allegation, "...total lack..." has now become - Well yes there was alternative opinion, BUT...

Consistency doesn't loom large in your oeuvre does it Chard?

as for calling people liars....keep control mate okay ? its a different opinion from yours, and one which I have just supported with evidence - don't repeat the liar claim.

No, the point I was taking you to task for was not an "opinion", but rather a completely false statement (that you have since gone back on - see above) and supported by no evidence whatsoever. Even if a false statement is supported by "evidence" then the evidence itself must ipso facto be false. Logic. Something you could do with accquainting yourself with before attempting to take on the grown-ups in a debate.

An don't worry - you'll never see me call you a liar on these forums again. I have been forbidden by a moderator to use such terms.


Now let's examine the logical train-wreck that passes for reasoned argument within your latest screed.

...the interviews included in the programme from so-called neo-conservatives, were only included if they helped with Curtis's story of conspiracy..."

So to take one example (there are many others), the theory put forward in the programme that there was a neo-right conspiracy to smear the Clintons with Whitewater, a murder allegation and a drug-smuggling allegation.

The programme shows TV footage from the '90s of the spokesperson for "The Arkansas Project" (the right-wing think-tank that was established to smear the Clintons) on a US talk show making the above allegations, loud and clear.

Flash forward to 2004 and that same person is now being interviewed by Curtis (and I paraphrase):

Curtis: So were the Whitewater corruption allegations against the Clintons true?

Arkansas Project Spokesperson: No, quite the opposite, in fact the Clintons lost money on the deal.

Curtis: And the allegations of murder?

APS: Completely untrue. The man concerned committed suicide.

Curtis: And the drug smuggling allegations.

APS: Completely false.

Curtis: And were all of these allegations known to be untrue at the time?

APS: Yes. But we didn't care. All that mattered was that we had to get Clinton.

And somehow you see this as some sort of deviousness or lack of journalistic integrity on Curtis' part to use these comments? If the interviewees are damned by their own words, that is not a failing on the part of the film-maker. Indeed it would be a gross dereliction if he did not use such footage. once again Chard - get real!

As to "...he didn't include an interviewee who said, 'Mr Curtis you have totally gone of the deep-end on this one mate and there was no conspiracy to create false enemies - we had plenty of real ones !!!"

Quite simply - wrong, wrong, wrong. Once again Chard you demonstrate your complete inability (or is it unwillingness?) to digest what you have seen and heard. Practically every one of the Straussians interviewed in the programme said exactly that! They insisted that the threats they perceived were real, and not fantasy constructs.

Your assertion that no such statements were made is therefore (yet again) totally false.

(See how deftly he skirts the "L" word! )

Well, I make that a resounding 2-0 to me so far. What do you reckon GaryD?

[chard]

Get it through your "less than thin" skull - people can go back and read what has or has not been said. All you are achieving is to make yourself look increasingly deranged...

why are you so concerned what other people think? your posts and tone are apparently based upon positioning yourself in the eyes of others rather than the direct issues....witness the above and following statements...

Well, I make that a resounding 2-0 to me so far. What do you reckon GaryD?

seriously, don't worry on that score, I suspect your 'friend' Garyd still loves you.....

back to the issue at hand which I see as the relative merits of such a programme as 'Nightmares'.

It strikes me that the very title prejudices the conclusions of the editorial. The maker, makes this programme to support his hypothesis, that the current political structure is a deliberate conspiracy and design in order to further a particular political interest be that right wing or left wing revolutionism.

The problam that I still see with this programme is that is lacks any real discussion. Th edirector has a view of the relationship as to left to right - and uses interviews from willing subjects to back this up. He does NOT include the many people who would dispute that a synergistic or even parasitic realtionship exists between the two protaginists, because if NO such conspiracy exists then he has NO programme.

I regret that this view point is seen by the pauley as lying, it is simply a different to his and Mr Curtis. I have questioned Mr Curtis's motives, I do believe that his view is actually a pretty twisted and tenuous one - in questioning this rather than simply buying this arguement lock stock - I am perhaps being a little more cynical than the-pauley......a position which he again gets personal by accussing me of plagarism - well sorry but if the shoe fits....

There is no balance in this programme and as witnessed by ANY other example by the-pauley here...there is little or no balance from opposing right wing stances on TV.

The programme to date has been equally critical and questioning of the Islamists and the Straussians, so left (by your definition) and right are being treated even handedly. Therefore you've got a fair and balanced film-maker.

I disagree, the interviews with these extremes were supportive of the central hypothesis - a real opposing balance would be with someone who disputed that there was any conspiracy by either or the right or left (my definition). The lack of this discussion underlines that this was a simple old fashioned editorial.

Thanks again for the factual content of your posts, I have adressed the specific issues above - I really am not interested in your personal deragatory remarks against myself...I do appreciate you have fans (or fan) to keep happy....

still trying to think of a right wing biased programme ? I know you waved Fox and CNN in the air - but still no specific programme eh? its okay, stop struggling, I can't think of any either....we live in an age where the electronic media is left leaning, whilst the written word is split along partisan lines...the difficulty is that we can choose to buy a specific paper - whilst our choices of news broadcasts is seriously limited.

The BBC whilst it has criticised Blair, is not balancing such programmes as this one with right wing programmes - it is simply going FURTHER left in complaining that Blair is too right wing !! again this is my central criticism of this programme that is lacks balance and takes us futher away from an informed electorate.

[the_pauley]

Well this one's easy and won't take long to answer.

Anyone who cares to read your previous post and then re-reads your current post will see that you have quite simply re-written the same post.

You raise the same points, make the same accusations, and proceed merrily along, blithely ignoring the fact that the points and questions have already been addressed and answered in my last reply too you. You are either too dense to notice that the points have already been more than adequately addressed, or you simply don't like the answers and choose to ignore them. Pick one...

Again, your attitude is patronising toward the readers on this forum in that you hope they'll be too stupid to notice such a transparent tactic. That if you keep hammering on at the same points over and over again, pretending that they haven't been answered, that someone reading these exchanges will be dim enough to think that your questions aren't being addressed.

Pretty much the same tactic used in the previously discussed right-wing attempt to smear the Clintons. Accusations were made, which were satisfactorily rebuffed. The rebuttals were igonored and the same accusations hurled again, forcing yet another reply, and so on ad infinitum, in the hope that observers would be dim enough to think "Hmm, this Clinton guy sure is on the defensive - maybe there is something to all these accusations".

Didn't work then because people saw it for the shoddy, transparent tactic that it was, and doesn't work here for the same reason. Consequently, I intend to waste no further time going over the same ground only to have you blithely ignore my responses and carry on as if they have not been given.

People have seen the responses above, and several have indeed watched the programs and can see exactly what they do or do not contain despite your witterings to the contrary. You've fooled no one.

All rational points are welcome for discussion. Further rantings, fictions, fantasies, blatant untruths and re-ploughing of the same furrow from your good self will be ignored - they simply aren't worthy of the thorough, detailed responses I have given them thus far.

Besides you must have better things to do - aren't there "Reds Under the Bed" or something that you could be looking for? Eternal vigilance, eh?

And one final point when you see remarks such as...

Well, I make that a resounding 2-0 to me so far. What do you reckon GaryD?

...and they're followed by this - - or something like it, well that usually indicates to folks on the planet Earth that something was said jokingly or somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

An absence of a sense of humour is yet another trait the far-right and far-left seem to have in common.











So - whaddaya reckon Gary? 3-0 or what?

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by the_pauley

So - whaddaya reckon Gary? 3-0 or what?

More like 5-0 innit?

[the_pauley]

Ah, but I wasn't counting the own-goals!

[STOWITBELOW]

Well, although it galls me to say, I agree with the thrust of the pauleys' argument. However when someone disagrees with him, the verbose, pedantic, & rather aggressive nature of his inevitable response, irritates. I'm happy to read his posts, but feel he either doesn't like others disagreeing, or just enjoys the argument. Fine if both parties are happy with that, but on occasion does cause offence. The result, an interesting post over what I found an interesting program becomes a none too interesting on-going argument

[the_pauley]

Stowit - I've no problem with a contrary opinion whatsoever, and you are right to say that I enjoy the argument. I enjoy a good, reasoned debate, nothing wrong with that at all. But I do not really enjoy the type of argument indulged in on this thread. Hence my resolve in the last post not to rise to more of the same. One simply ends up debating the debate - not the topic.

If someone argues in a reasoned civilized manner, I'll argue in the same manner. But there is a tendency on these forums for some when their argument is failing, to resort to a standard catalogue of cheap diversionary tactics many of which have been outlined in the above exchanges. Most irritating of these is when the opposition attempts to put words into one's mouth to completely skew what one has said, or just resorts to plain ol' fiction in an attempt to win the argument.

This is doubly irritating in that 1) it's dishonest and 2) it's insulting in that they think that you (and everyone else) will be too stupid to notice. Hence the sharpness of response.

Equally, when the tone adopted is patronising or sarcastic (viz, the opening line of Chard's first post), that does tend to rankle too. Call me human. If patronising and sarcastic is the way they choose to go then fine - I do patronising and sarcastic much better than most. Like for like.

I can point you to threads on here where my exchanges have been good humoured and civilized, and you'll notice that the people I'm debating with are behaving in a like manner. Granted people tend to remember the big, bloody epic brawls, but that's human nature. But if you study those threads closely, you'll see that I respond in kind, but I'm never the first to put on the boxing gloves.

One exception - when I've been dealing with posts from the neo-Nazi scum of the BNP - I'll admit then that it's straight in with the steel-toe-capped verbal boot with them. Thoroughly satisfying!

[chard]

the-pauley, you have refused again to reply to the specific points re the programme and the principles I have discussed regards the differences and merits of editorial v's documentary. My last post reiterated and summarised my points - you continued to argue your own worth or otherwise, once again for the benefit of others - you really do seem overly concerned about the opinions and approval of others, speculation as to the reason for this is, is a private matter for you and your own self-esteem at the end of the day....

You have a completely closed mind as to the nature of debate - seeing it as a battle to prove a point - when it is also and more importantly an opportunity to share opinion. You shouldn't confuse opinion and fact - opinion as expressed in this programme, doesn't become fact just because you agree with it !

The world is not black and white , left or right, but you seem quick to want to label and see others as such. You have choosen to see only good in this programme and have been unquestioning in its content and intent.

Congratulations in the approval of your friends for your comments, I would have personally valued them more if you had not shown yourself up by calling people liars when personal opinion was being expressed.

I would welcome your future replies and posts but not if they are to be simple grandstanding or vitriol.

PS - Garyd sends his love and a big hug !!

[Garrett]

Closing thread for the time being till the_pauley and chard cool down.

[Gary D]

dont want open the whole can of worms again In best Mr Burns voice "unleash the pauley".

it finished last night and i have to say it was an excellent programme (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm)

I think my colours are firmly nailed to the cross already on various threads accross general chat. I'm not sure having read through the posts that Chard was watching the same program (but he does seem to on a different planet anyway - any chance you can emigrate? ). He certainly was completly out of his depth and therefore chose not to argue about the programme. which was a shame as it would have been good to have a good discussion about it.

The bottom line is Chard that the programme doesnt fit with your world view and therefore you turn off you brain. Its a pity because we only grow as humans by taking on other views (and sometimes accepting that we may be wrong (how embrassed am i that i supported Maggie during the miners strike being young and believeing her Or believeing what my father told be about Blacks and Asians - he was a racist pig!!!! - when i grew up i made up my own mind.)

I thought The programme was fantastic and makes far more sense than anything the govenment has told us. i slept safe in my bed last night knowing that the world is safe (or as safe as it ever has been) Bush was again as always and Blair was just as funny.

Our American cousins may think that terrorism is new that until the attacks in africa in the late 90's and of course 9/11 no one ever bombed anyone else. (It must have been a real shock when the effects of US foreign policy came home to roost) well we in Europe know different. I took from the last program that the entire threat is no worse than it ever has been before, we are no more likely to get blown up today than we were 30 years ago. I grew up watching people getting blown up (birmingham pub bombings 1974) so the threat has always been here and always will be - buts no worse - despite the best efforts of "the chimp"


Gary


Oh and Pauley Its like the Munich 5-1 or the Euro 96 4-1 all over again!

[Garrett]

I watched it for the first time with an open mind well I say that, I strongly believed in the opposite view that was shown last night. The only thing I have always thought was there were no WMD. But after last night it looks as though we need not bother about other things too much and that the big bad monsters are really ones made up by those in power in the US and UK.
There are terrorist out there but not on the grand scale as what they would have you believe.

Warning to camcorder owners make sure you never get a waste paper bin in shot, accidentally leave it running or take night time shots. You may get charged with being a terrorist.

Maybe we should have a debates section

[superhuman]

Managed to catch this series on video a few days ago and have to say it really opened my eyes to whats been going on lately, was one of the best documentaries i've seen in quite a while, and indeed is quite scary to think that fear feeding of that nature actually happens in republican politics. While i did find the tone of the pauley's arguments in the above debate somewhat overly agressive and hostile at times it did seem to me the more coherent and accurate depiction of what ideas the program was canveying, mr chard were you actually watching the same program?

Anyway, after i saw the series i then happened to read "Dude, Where's My Country" by Mike Moore which retread some of the same ground while in my opinion still presenting valid arguments to support those given in the documentary, granted some of what he says may not be so easy to agree with at times (Oprah Winfrey for president anyone?), it is still what i would describe as required reading for anyone who found the series as eye opening as i did. Makes me wanna catch farenheight 9/11 even more now.

Nick

[Gary D]

its being repeated tonight on BBC 2 - after newsnight.





gary

[the_pauley]

Think I read that all three parts are on this week. Tue, Wed and Thu night.

This is a must see guys.