BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

leftysergeant said:
In order for people to believe the stupid **** that the fool behind that documentary shoddy PowerPoint presentation is selling, they need never to have heard of a "small cell insurgent organization."

Do the twoofers think I'm as stupid and uneducated as they are?

SHEESH!
Click to expand...

Fixed your post.
 
leftysergeant said:
In order for people to believe the stupid **** that the fool behind that documentary is selling, they need never to have heard of a "small cell insurgent organization."

Do the twoofers think I'm as stupid and uneducated as they are?

SHEESH!
Click to expand...
Are you educated enough to read the "Power of Nightmares" FAQs that have been posted?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Rumsfeld is shown explaining mountain fortress(s) of Al-Qaeda.

The US bombed the crap out of it and found NOTHING.

The Brits with their experience with IRA terrorists were going to find Al-Qaeda. The found no Al-Qaeda members and killed no Al-Qaeda members because there were no Al-Qaeda members to be found because there was/is no Al-Qaeda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Click to expand...

That's part of The Power of nightmares, by Adam Curtis IIRC, run by the BBC but independent, several years old now, It has fascinating unusualB-roll footage, and makes some very good points, but the aQ never existed part is exaggerated, drawing largely on Jason Burkes work. There's something to the playing the enemy up, making it more than it is. Fighting the Taliban for a decade under the guise of hunting bin Laden and/or al Qaeda when he was living safely in Pakistan and they were helping us take over Libya and Syria (like with Yugoslavia previously) is at the very least a bit ironic. But "never existed" isn't quite right.
 
Clayton debunked his own claim when he posted this Wikipedia description of The Power Of Nightmares;
"... it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies."

The documentary argues that radical islamism was disorganised and fragmented but al Quaeda became a rallying point for islamist terrorism because of the publicity it gained in being presented as the bogeyman by Western politicians.

So the Western myth was that radical Islam had one vast, competent, well-organised web of highly-trained terrorist cells, operating under the banner of al Qaeda. The film does not claim that al Qaeda never existed.
 
So, the proof that there was an article where the BBC admits that there is no Al Qaeda is that it's not there anymore?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Rumsfeld is shown explaining mountain fortress(s) of Al-Qaeda.

The US bombed the crap out of it and found NOTHING.

The Brits with their experience with IRA terrorists were going to find Al-Qaeda. The found no Al-Qaeda members and killed no Al-Qaeda members because there were no Al-Qaeda members to be found because there was/is no Al-Qaeda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Click to expand...
You should really watch all of The Power of Nightmares, rather than just someone else's unattributed cherry-picking of bits of it.
 
Garrison said:
You think dealing with urban terrorists is somehow the magic key to locating a bunch of people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan? Martin McGuinness wouldn't have lasted five minutes in the Tora Bora mountains
Click to expand...
The IRA was not purely an urban organisation, and in fact much of it's strength lay in operating both from and in rural Northern Ireland, and the border country.
 
Information Analyst said:
The IRA was not purely an urban organisation, and in fact much of it's strength lay in operating both from and in rural Northern Ireland, and the border country.
Click to expand...

And in a neighbouring country that was, I don't want to say supportive but perhaps turned a blind eye too many times to what the terrorists were doing is the best way to put it.
 
The documentary also indicates that while the neo-conservative movement in the US was busy building up al-Qaeda into a monster, the Islamists in the middle east were doing the same about the crusaders/zionists from the West.
 
So I think we've more or less agreed that several years ago, an independent film maker claimed (not 'admitted') in his rather famous documentary on the BBC that al Qaeda was built up into a catch-all name for islamist terrorism by the West.

And so the claim "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed" is slightly flawed in that "BBC" isn't accurate, "now" is years out of date, "admits" is deceitful and "al Qaeda never existed" is false. Apart from that, it's fine.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So I think we've more or less agreed that several years ago, an independent film maker claimed (not 'admitted') in his rather famous documentary on the BBC that al Qaeda was built up into a catch-all name for islamist terrorism by the West.

And so the claim "BBC now admits al qaeda never existed" is slightly flawed in that "BBC" isn't accurate, "now" is years out of date, "admits" is deceitful and "al Qaeda never existed" is false. Apart from that, it's fine.
Click to expand...

But, maybe someone said "I dunno" which must mean a conspiracy right?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Rumsfeld explaining the al Qaeda high tech city/fortress in a mountain
is cherry picking?
Click to expand...

It is if you are saying "The BBC Admits X" based upon a documentary, and not "One of the many views expressed with in a documentary was X".


Why is the title of the thread not "Rumsfeld thinks there is a city in a mountain" if that was your point?
 
Tomtomkent said:
It is if you are saying "The BBC Admits X" based upon a documentary, and not "One of the many views expressed with in a documentary was X".


Why is the title of the thread not "Rumsfeld thinks there is a city in a mountain" if that was your point?
Click to expand...

Because there is no forum rule against lying.
 
Darat said:
And in a neighbouring country that was, I don't want to say supportive but perhaps turned a blind eye too many times to what the terrorists were doing is the best way to put it.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected it was exactly like Al Qaeda then...
 
Moss said:
So the OP should actually read "Adam Curtis claims Al Queda is a myth in his documentary 'The Power of Nightmares'"?
Click to expand...


Not that its existence is a myth, but that the claim as propagated by the Neocons that it is a powerfull well-organised organisation that is ready to strike and overtrow the west is a myth.

Here's a part of the Q&A to mister Curtis:

“Are you saying that there is no treat?”
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.

“Are you saying it's a conspiracy?”
No. The use of fear in contemporary politics is not the result of a conspiracy, the politicians have stumbled on it. In a populist, consumerist age where they found their authority and legitimacy declining dramatically they have simply discovered in the "war on terror" a way of restoring their authority by promising to protect us from something that only they can see.

“Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?”
No.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/4202741.stm
Click to expand...


I might argue that the documentary is must-see TV.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom