• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Topic: Politics of Fear

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Politics of Fear

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    For those of you who are still wondering how the neoconservative movement corralled America and the West, catch Adam Curtis’ film “The Power of Nightmares” It is being screened at Cannes this week, but will be shown in full on al Jazeera today. It is an update of Curtis’ 3 part TV documentary which was screened on UK’s BBC 2 last year.

    It is a much more powerful and credible piece of work than the rather sensationalist Fahrenheit 9/11. It shows how the neoconservative movement in the US developed politics of fear to gain authority and control, by first using the largely illusory threat from a paranoid Soviet Union, and then the threat from Islam terrorism.

    It offers evidence for the views that Al Qaeda as a global organisation of terrorist cells threatening the West, (and pro-western or democratic Eastern institutions) was a myth, created by the Neo-cons, with the help of a small bunch of extremely radical Muslim fundamentalists.

    It is unlikely this will ever be aired in the US. Had the original series been shown on a national network before the election I doubt whether Bush would be president today.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Santa Cruz California
    Posts
    225

    Re: Politics of Fear

    I didn't know we had to watch a movie to realize this..LoL OK, most of the US does...LoL

  3. #3

    Re: Politics of Fear

    The threat posed by the Soviet Union was an illusion!? So all those KGB agents that were uncovered inside our own government, spies on our military bases, etc, that was all just a mirage? As well as those nukes that were aimed at us all that time?

    And the idea of Al Qaeda as a global terrorist organization, that's a myth too? I doubt it. I've met a guy from Pakistan - a Christian - who has dealt with Al Qaeda cells that have recently been kidnapping and assasinating Christians there. According to his experience and those he knows (some of whom were kidnapped, tortured, and managed to escape), these cells' connections are indeed global and much more organized and extensive than any of us in the West have suspected.

  4. #4

    Re: Politics of Fear

    The threat is real. And neo-cons are exaggerating it and milking it for all its worth in order to advance their despicable agenda - just as the Reagan types used the Soviet threat as cover for all kinds of disgusting stuff, especially in South America.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Smile Re: Politics of Fear

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady
    The threat posed by the Soviet Union was an illusion!? So all those KGB agents that were uncovered inside our own government, spies on our military bases, etc, that was all just a mirage? As well as those nukes that were aimed at us all that time?

    And the idea of Al Qaeda as a global terrorist organization, that's a myth too? I doubt it. I've met a guy from Pakistan - a Christian - who has dealt with Al Qaeda cells that have recently been kidnapping and assasinating Christians there. According to his experience and those he knows (some of whom were kidnapped, tortured, and managed to escape), these cells' connections are indeed global and much more organized and extensive than any of us in the West have suspected.
    Steelhed sais that most Americans know you're wrong.

    The fact that most Americans still buy into the portrait of the Soviet Union painted by Reagan ("bear loose", "Evil Empire"), and give his administration (of neocons) the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, suggests they agree with you. This is further illustrated by the fact that Bush was re-elected on a security ticket despite the WDM fallacy.


    The view expoused in the film parallels a book I read in the early 80's called "The Russian Threat". The KGB spies, nukes, arms race global politics from the Soviet Union were all in responce to a paranoid fear of the West, particularly the US. In fact Stalin from the outset feared the influence of capitalism on his society and developed a foreign policy to "protect" the Soviet Union.

    If your not going to see the film I'll sum up some salient points from it.

    Postwar neocons, starting with Leo Strauss were quick to exploit Stalins defensive anti-West policy, and tilted US self-identy towards a bastion of resistance against an evil. Subsequent US foreign policy towards the Soviet Union in turn induced a paranoia into Soviet sensibility that became inherent, and drove foreign and military policy, until Gorbachev. But the Soviet Union never had any plans to strike beyond the iron curtain other than as response.

    The idea of Al Qaeda as a global terrorist organisation is becoming true as an outfall of the Iraq war. Prior to that there were individual local fundamentalist movements each with their own local agenda, (including the Bali and Madrid bombers).

    The training camps in Afghanistan were Muhajedeen facilities. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan left a multinational mixture of these Muhajedeen fighters, armed (US supplied). The Taliban subsequently allowed these camps to thrive, to provide training for fundamentalists interested in fomenting fundamentalist resistance only in their home countries. There was only one small faction, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which developed a radical anti-West ideology, led by al-Zawahiri (forgot his first name), but they floundered in a dispute over ideology after 1996. Al-Zawahiri then linked up with Osama Bin Laden and his money, who had been constructing roads in Sudan. They were allowed to wander around the Afghan training camps to recruit a handful of radicals and hatched the 9/11 plot. But this stretched their ability to the max.

    The term Al Qaeda was first used by the CIA after 9/11. There never was any avidence of any "network", but the notion suited both sides...

    Ironically the Iraq invasion has stirred many of the fundamentalists in the Muslim world. Currently their focus is on preventing Western-style democracies in the Arab world. But their attention may well turn West in the future.

    Even now, the evidence of a cohesive network is slim. The recent Ricin poisoning "plot" trial in the UK shows what a figment that was. Can you figure why there haven't been any significant terrorist attacks in the West since Madrid? How hard can it be?

    See Brady, the Israelite prophets had the wrath of God, the US and UK governments had the Soviet Union and Al Queda.



    What is really a surprise is that none of this was predicted by Daniel

    Jeez you're going to post a link aren't you!

  6. #6

    Re: Politics of Fear

    OK...ready?...I am about to give a Brian Ralston response...everyone together now...
    Regards,
    Brian W. Ralston

    Check out my new FREE iPhone App! Click Here!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Re: Politics of Fear

    Are all Brian Ralston responses so intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate?

  8. #8

    Re: Politics of Fear

    Quote Originally Posted by Beckers
    But the Soviet Union never had any plans to strike beyond the iron curtain other than as response.
    Which is why they tried to annex Afghanistan, infiltrated most of the Mid-East, made terrorist anti-West satellite states out of most of the Eastern hemisphere, stole the atomic bomb designs and subsequently aimed their nukes at us, infiltrated our government and society, the list goes on…

    Now I don’t think the Soviets necessarily planned to annex the United States, but I think they did have plans (some of which they acted upon) for parts of the Easter hemisphere, and at one point, parts of Western Europe. But it is most obvious that they did have plans for Communist revolution world-wide. That’s no secret. And as such, they funded, trained, supplied, and otherwise supported insurgent factions in nations all around the world, including the US. Even if they didn’t plan on having tanks rolling across the Mid-West with “CCCP” painted on the side, the fact remains they did have plans for Communist-aligned forces to nevertheless come to power (most probably through violent means) not only in the US, but in every nation they could get their hands on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beckers
    The idea of Al Qaeda as a global terrorist organisation is becoming true as an outfall of the Iraq war.
    Perhaps… the FIRST Iraq war. (This may be what you meant, but it’s important to note.)

  9. #9

    Re: Politics of Fear

    I should add, there is a kernel of truth in what you're relating with regard to the terrorism scare.

    While I don't for a minute believe that the US government invented the idea of Al Qaeda as a global terror network, I do believe the US government (or rather, elements therein), in a way, created the threat they pose to us. I can cite at least three examples of evidence that elements of the US government clearly allowed (if not aided and abetted) foreign terrorist action on our soil. In this way, they allowed terrorism to become an issue when it could have been stopped. This happened not only on Bush's watch, but also Clinton's.

    So while they didn't invent Al Qaeda as a mythical foe, they did enable that foe to become a factor in the foreign and domestic policy spheres.

  10. #10

    Re: Politics of Fear

    The fact that most Americans still buy into the portrait of the Soviet Union painted by Reagan ("bear loose", "Evil Empire"), and give his administration (of neocons) the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, suggests they agree with you.
    While I believe they were plenty bad, the second and third parts of that are very important points. You're absolutely right - Reagan did *not* have anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union; it imploded by being unable to sustain its empire.

    That's precisely what's happening to us right now with all these wars, and the lesson was clearly lost.

    Brady: Which is why they tried to annex Afghanistan
    Actually, they were induced to do that by Zbigniev Brezhinsky's backing of anti-Soviet Mujadeen. The express purpose was to give the Soviets their own "Vietnam." And evidently it worked - at the expense of the Afghanis. But it was probably the straw that broke the Soviets' back, so I have some mixed feelings about it.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •