Metropol

johnnyboy wrote:

Marcus wrote:Fair enough. I think we probably agree on many things. I just wish you would accept that the is a possibility that such intelligent and well researched journalists like Frank Gardner and Peter Taylor do actually know what they are talking about.

Nice one. I'm becoming a cynical and over-analytical bugger as I get older, Marcus - it may be connected with that! And I apologise for the name-calling earlier on - I'm pretty mature most of the time and I should know better.

*offers hand*

*shakes hand* and don't worry. I have a very limited effect on the output

What a beautiful moment! I'm almost in tears here.

I agree with what you say Johnny about last night's programme. It made for interesting viewing, but didn't have some of the jaw-dropping revelations I've come to expect in Peter Taylor's programmes. Nice to see the blindfold trick working for him again though!

I watched it last night and quite enjoyed it.
You was right Johnnyboy, no real revelations came from it. I will be following the series anyway as i quite like his documentaries.

Spencer For Hire wrote:What a beautiful moment! I'm almost in tears here.

I agree with what you say Johnny about last night's programme. It made for interesting viewing, but didn't have some of the jaw-dropping revelations I've come to expect in Peter Taylor's programmes. Nice to see the blindfold trick working for him again though!

It was a little "terror-porn" for me - it seemed design to frighten as much as it did inform. The camera angles were terrible too.

I did think it virtually towed the Bush administration line in large parts of it. If "Power of Nightmares" did an outstanding job in debunking the whole myth of Al Qeada, this certainly did nothing (in my view) to provide evidence to the contrary.

As with most documentaries supporting this train of thought, I believe it was low on the evidence and high on the rhetoric. I am not familiar with Peter Taylor's previous work, but it had to be better than this scare-mongering rubbish, surely?

johnnyboy wrote: It was a little "terror-porn" for me

*chuckle* Osama's here to fix the fridge..

babyben wrote:

johnnyboy wrote: It was a little "terror-porn" for me

*chuckle* Osama's here to fix the fridge..

I wish I still had a copy of it, but a couple of weeks after 9/11, there was a viral email going around with a picture of Osama and Dubya in a compromising position. The touching-up of the photo was amazing - it looked absolutely genuine.

johnnyboy wrote:

Spencer For Hire wrote:What a beautiful moment! I'm almost in tears here.

I agree with what you say Johnny about last night's programme. It made for interesting viewing, but didn't have some of the jaw-dropping revelations I've come to expect in Peter Taylor's programmes. Nice to see the blindfold trick working for him again though!

It was a little "terror-porn" for me - it seemed design to frighten as much as it did inform. The camera angles were terrible too.

I did think it virtually towed the Bush administration line in large parts of it. If "Power of Nightmares" did an outstanding job in debunking the whole myth of Al Qeada, this certainly did nothing (in my view) to provide evidence to the contrary.

As with most documentaries supporting this train of thought, I believe it was low on the evidence and high on the rhetoric. I am not familiar with Peter Taylor's previous work, but it had to be better than this scare-mongering rubbish, surely?

Well he is a highly respected expert on terrorism, and I thought the programme's facts were pretty solid... or are you telling us these websites and those who contribute to them don't exist?

I didn't see any of The Power Of Nightmares I'm afraid, but the fact is people around the world are being killed... and there is a movement trying to whip up hatred against 'the West' in the name of Muslim fundamentalism, call it Al Qaeda or whatever you like. Perhaps last night's programme didn't fit in with your view of the situation, but I'd rather believe someone who has researched the matter for over a year than draw inferrences from a number of minor coincidences and reporting errors.

In previous posts, you seem to accept that the war on Iraq has made us a greater target for terrorists, so I don't see why the idea that we're being targeted by terrorists is such a strange idea.

This programme didn't tell me anything i didn't already know or suspect. The underlying message was never underestimate your enemy, now that would be okay if you knew who your enemy was.
Maybe the next 2 parts will tell us something new.
This is a totally different war we are fighting. I am naturally cynical and like to look at things from all angles. I've never seen the " Power of nightmares". If the beeb repeat it i will certainly give it the benefit of the doubt.

Spencer For Hire wrote:Well he is a highly respected expert on terrorism, and I thought the programme's facts were pretty solid... or are you telling us these websites and those who contribute to them don't exist?

The websites definitely exist, no doubt about it. But, in and of itself, it doesn't prove anything.

I'm trying to think of a comparison to draw. Take for example survivalist sites in America. There are hundreds of them, and tens of thousands make up their numbers. They are all heavily armed and have a rabidly anti-government stance on almost anything, especially on the UN, foreign policy and Christian stuff (for example, gays, abortions, etc etc).

The only thing that links these groups is a common ideology, and that will vary to quite an extent to.

Whether you think he was guilty or not, Timothy McVeigh, executed for the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, was a member of the survivalist movement. Or to be more precise, one particular group within that movement.

Just as with all these terrorist/militant groups supposedly representing Islam, there is little linking them except an ideology. They do not act in concert - they do not take orders from anyone, generally. There is an international supply chain of illegal guns and explosives, and these individual, unconnected groups simply buy from the same suppliers.

Inventing "Al Qaeda" to describe these disparate groups and pretending it is an organisation, no matter how loose the connections, is logically absurd. One could argue it is a "movement", but not an organisation. This difference is crucial - a "movement", without central organisation, manpower or purchasing power, can't really do that much. An organisation can. This is why I and apparently lots of others believe that, even despite this month's bombings, the threat is completely overblown.

In the same way it would be logically absurd to come to a conclusion that there is an "Al Qaeda" organisation with survivalists.

Spencer For Hire wrote:I didn't see any of The Power Of Nightmares I'm afraid, but the fact is people around the world are being killed... and there is a movement trying to whip up hatred against 'the West' in the name of Muslim fundamentalism, call it Al Qaeda or whatever you like. Perhaps last night's programme didn't fit in with your view of the situation, but I'd rather believe someone who has researched the matter for over a year than draw inferrences from a number of minor coincidences and reporting errors.

Spencer, if you go onto some of the P2P systems, like Emule, you should find "Power Of Nightmares" pretty easily. I would recommend it - it's a fascinating documentary with very tight commentary and reasoning (in my opinion).

I don't doubt that last night's reporter has studied the subject for a year, but look at who he's been talking to. The vast majority of the people in last night's programme agreed with the Bush administration. Just for shock value (and the lone Muslim voice, iirc), he got a radical cleric in to demonstrate his belief. That radical cleric has no army, no financing, no advanced communication system, nothing - the threat he poses is not comparable to what Tony Blair called "an existential threat to our existence".

Both Adam Curtis in the "Power Of Nightmares" and the guy last night each had their own opinion and sought to justify it in the programme. That's what documentary makers generally do, especially on political subjects and there's nothing wrong with that. From a personal point of view, I found Curtis's way of dealing with the subject intellectual and evidence-based. Last night's programme did not display that to anywhere near the same degree in my opinion.

Spencer For Hire wrote:In previous posts, you seem to accept that the war on Iraq has made us a greater target for terrorists, so I don't see why the idea that we're being targeted by terrorists is such a strange idea.

Terrorism definitely exists - that's for certain. I'd never deny that.

What I disagree with is the nature of the threat we are facing. To re-iterate, is "Al Qaeda" a worldwide network of terror with 60,000 operatives spread around the world, or is it an idea, unproven after years of supposed existence (for example, try to find out how many terror suspects have been arrested, whether they were charged, and if they were convicted, what it was for)?

So, if the suspects for the London bombings were the guilty party (and that's far from proven), were they a few lone nutcases (probably imo) or foot soldiers in Islam's war again the west (highly unlikely imo)?

johnnyboy wrote:

Spencer For Hire wrote:Well he is a highly respected expert on terrorism, and I thought the programme's facts were pretty solid... or are you telling us these websites and those who contribute to them don't exist?

The websites definitely exist, no doubt about it. But, in and of itself, it doesn't prove anything.

I'm trying to think of a comparison to draw. Take for example survivalist sites in America. There are hundreds of them, and tens of thousands make up their numbers. They are all heavily armed and have a rabidly anti-government stance on almost anything, especially on the UN, foreign policy and Christian stuff (for example, gays, abortions, etc etc).

The only thing that links these groups is a common ideology, and that will vary to quite an extent to.

Whether you think he was guilty or not, Timothy McVeigh, executed for the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, was a member of the survivalist movement. Or to be more precise, one particular group within that movement.

Just as with all these terrorist/militant groups supposedly representing Islam, there is little linking them except an ideology. They do not act in concert - they do not take orders from anyone, generally. There is an international supply chain of illegal guns and explosives, and these individual, unconnected groups simply buy from the same suppliers.

Inventing "Al Qaeda" to describe these disparate groups and pretending it is an organisation, no matter how loose the connections, is logically absurd. One could argue it is a "movement", but not an organisation. This difference is crucial - a "movement", without central organisation, manpower or purchasing power, can't really do that much. An organisation can. This is why I and apparently lots of others believe that, even despite this month's bombings, the threat is completely overblown.

In the same way it would be logically absurd to come to a conclusion that there is an "Al Qaeda" organisation with survivalists.

You're actually reiterating one of the first points I made in this thread about the nature of 'Al Qaeda', so in that sense I agree with you about the nature of the 'movement' (call it what you will). However, to say there are no connections between like-minded people in an age of mass-communications would be extremely naive. Clearly some groups and individuals will form connections, others won't.

Personally, I find the idea that the threat comes from a disparate collection of semi-autonomous, and relatively unconnected groups and/or individuals much more concerning than if it was from a known, established singular group. The threat from an unknown enemy has to be greater than that from a known enemy which can be tracked and traced by intelligence services.

johnnyboy wrote:

Spencer For Hire wrote:I didn't see any of The Power Of Nightmares I'm afraid, but the fact is people around the world are being killed... and there is a movement trying to whip up hatred against 'the West' in the name of Muslim fundamentalism, call it Al Qaeda or whatever you like. Perhaps last night's programme didn't fit in with your view of the situation, but I'd rather believe someone who has researched the matter for over a year than draw inferrences from a number of minor coincidences and reporting errors.

Spencer, if you go onto some of the P2P systems, like Emule, you should find "Power Of Nightmares" pretty easily. I would recommend it - it's a fascinating documentary with very tight commentary and reasoning (in my opinion).

I don't doubt that last night's reporter has studied the subject for a year, but look at who he's been talking to. The vast majority of the people in last night's programme agreed with the Bush administration. Just for shock value (and the lone Muslim voice, iirc), he got a radical cleric in to demonstrate his belief. That radical cleric has no army, no financing, no advanced communication system, nothing - the threat he poses is not comparable to what Tony Blair called "an existential threat to our existence".

It wasn't a question of agreeing with the Bush administration or not. The programme was about the nature of the terrorist threat we are facing, not the rights and wrongs of the Bush administration's policies. I should also point out there were plently of other Muslims in the programme last night including the first interviewee (sorry, can't remember his name) and those connected with the man who was fighting extradition.

johnnyboy wrote:Both Adam Curtis in the "Power Of Nightmares" and the guy last night each had their own opinion and sought to justify it in the programme. That's what documentary makers generally do, especially on political subjects and there's nothing wrong with that. From a personal point of view, I found Curtis's way of dealing with the subject intellectual and evidence-based. Last night's programme did not display that to anywhere near the same degree in my opinion.

Clearly I can't compare the two having only watched one. I'm not sure my download limit will allow me to watch all of the Power of Nightmares via the web at the moment... but I'll certainly watch it if and when it's repeated.

johnnyboy wrote:

Spencer For Hire wrote:In previous posts, you seem to accept that the war on Iraq has made us a greater target for terrorists, so I don't see why the idea that we're being targeted by terrorists is such a strange idea.

Terrorism definitely exists - that's for certain. I'd never deny that.

What I disagree with is the nature of the threat we are facing. To re-iterate, is "Al Qaeda" a worldwide network of terror with 60,000 operatives spread around the world, or is it an idea, unproven after years of supposed existence (for example, try to find out how many terror suspects have been arrested, whether they were charged, and if they were convicted, what it was for)?

So, if the suspects for the London bombings were the guilty party (and that's far from proven), were they a few lone nutcases (probably imo) or foot soldiers in Islam's war again the west (highly unlikely imo)?

I agree the possibility that they were a few lone nutcases is quite likely, although isn't it also quite likely they were influenced by a funamentalist 'movement' spread via the internet and other means? Either way, the result is the same - innocent people were killed. Whatever the nature of the terrorist threat, it appears to be here, and it appears to be real. Whether bombers have a direct connection to Osama Bin Laden is an irrelevance really.

Spencer For Hire wrote:You're actually reiterating one of the first points I made in this thread about the nature of 'Al Qaeda', so in that sense I agree with you about the nature of the 'movement' (call it what you will). However, to say there are no connections between like-minded people in an age of mass-communications would be extremely naive. Clearly some groups and individuals will form connections, others won't.

Agreed, but the crucial point is the strength of those connections and the size of benefit they would bring. My contention is (based on what I've read and the fact, that if there are 60K 'terrorists' waging war against us for whom death is glory, why are they all so lazy?) is that the connections are very loose and bring no benefit whatsoever. Thus, to call them a group, to name them as an enemy, as it were, is a logical fallacy. I think we actually agree on that though, as you say.

Spencer For Hire wrote:Personally, I find the idea that the threat comes from a disparate collection of semi-autonomous, and relatively unconnected groups and/or individuals much more concerning than if it was from a known, established singular group. The threat from an unknown enemy has to be greater than that from a known enemy which can be tracked and traced by intelligence services.

Worrying, it certainly is.

The flip side of the coin, the silver lining as it were, is that as there is no central strategy department, no reliable means of communication, no real manpower and certainly no purchasing power (I would imagine that terrorism costs quite a lot), the threat level posed by each individual group is small. Perhaps this explains why the 60K terrorists alleged to exist in the 'group' don't actually really do that much - they simply don't have the logistical capability.

Spencer For Hire wrote:It wasn't a question of agreeing with the Bush administration or not. The programme was about the nature of the terrorist threat we are facing, not the rights and wrongs of the Bush administration's policies. I should also point out there were plently of other Muslims in the programme last night including the first interviewee (sorry, can't remember his name) and those connected with the man who was fighting extradition.

I missed the other Muslim guys - my mistake. I was flicking between that and another programme at the time.

Although you're absolutely right that the programme was not a Bush-inspired piece of propoganda and that the reporter came to his own conclusions, it just happened to agree with a lot of what the current US administration think.

Given that an awful lot of his source material eminated from the administration and organisations sympathetic to it, and given that these groups have lied constantly about Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc etc over the last 20 years, I *personally* don't accept their conclusions as reliable unless there is some independent evidence supporting it. In last night's documentary, flicking between channels aside, I saw little to convince me.

Spencer For Hire wrote:Clearly I can't compare the two having only watched one. I'm not sure my download limit will allow me to watch all of the Power of Nightmares via the web at the moment... but I'll certainly watch it if and when it's repeated.

I'd definitely recommend it, Spencer. You seem to have an interest in the subject, like me, and I think you'd like it, even if you disagree with the conclusions. If you were to download one of the three programmes, may I recommend that last? The first two concentrate on the history of Islamic fundamentalism and the NeoCon movement, and a short re-cap is given at the beginning of the third episode.

Spencer For Hire wrote:I agree the possibility that they were a few lone nutcases is quite likely, although isn't it also quite likely they were influenced by a funamentalist 'movement' spread via the internet and other means? Either way, the result is the same - innocent people were killed. Whatever the nature of the terrorist threat, it appears to be here, and it appears to be real. Whether bombers have a direct connection to Osama Bin Laden is an irrelevance really.

Agreed - it is all very worrying.

They may have got their ideas from the Internet, however the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine and the West's support for repressive dictatorships in the Middle East have been a sore for decades. Whilst technology would have helped in disseminating the ideas, it is definitely worth debating whether it is that much of an influence at all.

However, what is more worrying to me is the way that this threat has been greatly overblown and exaggerated and has been used as justification for an aggressive foreign policy by the US (and of course, we follow). That's why I believe whether the bombings are connected to Bin Laden or "Al Qeada" or not, our and the American governments will use it to pursue what has been a disasterous course of action over the last four years and more. IMO, that's what is making these times particularly dangerous (let alone the huge welling-up of anti-Muslim feeling - I get jittery about that because of the example of the last "great enemy" within - the Jews in Germany)