Jihad Watch doesn't exist either; the tooth fairy told me so. From The Guardian, with thanks to Kemaste:
Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, there have been more than a thousand references in British national newspapers, working out at almost one every single day, to the phrase "dirty bomb". There have been articles about how such a device can use ordinary explosives to spread lethal radiation; about how London would be evacuated in the event of such a detonation; about the Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement on terrorism in November 2002 that specifically raised the possibility of a dirty bomb being planted in Britain; and about the arrests of several groups of people, the latest only last month, for allegedly plotting exactly that.Starting next Wednesday, BBC2 is to broadcast a three-part documentary series that will add further to what could be called the dirty bomb genre. But, as its title suggests, The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear takes a different view of the weapon's potential.
"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.
During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."
Adam Curtis, who wrote and produced the series, acknowledges the difficulty of saying such things now. "If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, 'You're completely wrong,' even if the incident doesn't touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational."
So controversial is the tone of his series, that trailers for it were not broadcast last weekend because of the killing of Kenneth Bigley. At the BBC, Curtis freely admits, there are "anxieties". But there is also enthusiasm for the programmes, in part thanks to his reputation. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way."
The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.
Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation.
I've actually expressed skepticism here about the blaming of so many attacks on Al-Qaeda, and I think it's quite likely that it's a looser organization than many assume. However, does that mean that there is no threat? That all this has been exaggerated by cynical Western politicians? I wonder if anyone believed that on March 11, 2004 in Madrid.
The UK is becoming more like the conspiracy theory capitol of Europe similar to those of the glorious Mid-East. Is this the folklore of the future? BBC be damned!
Sadly, you left out the core of the piece, which argued in the Guardian's oblique way that - yes - the Jews are really the ones behind Osama:
"In one sense, of course, Curtis himself is part of the al-Qaida industry. The Power of Nightmares began as an investigation of something else, the rise of modern American conservatism. Curtis was interested in Leo Strauss, a political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s who rejected the liberalism of postwar America as amoral and who thought that the country could be rescued by a revived belief in America's unique role to battle evil in the world. Strauss's certainty and his emphasis on the use of grand myths as a higher form of political propaganda created a group of influential disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz, now the US deputy defence secretary. They came to prominence by talking up the Russian threat during the cold war and have applied a similar strategy in the war on terror.
As Curtis traced the rise of the "Straussians", he came to a conclusion that would form the basis for The Power of Nightmares. Straussian conservatism had a previously unsuspected amount in common with Islamism: from origins in the 50s, to a formative belief that liberalism was the enemy, to an actual period of Islamist-Straussian collaboration against the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan in the 80s (both movements have proved adept at finding new foes to keep them going). Although the Islamists and the Straussians have fallen out since then, as the attacks on America in 2001 graphically demonstrated, they are in another way, Curtis concludes, collaborating still: in sustaining the "fantasy" of the war on terror."
All of this is setting up the British public for the final onslaught of takeover. Islamism is creeping ever so slowly into the fabric of British thought and soon they won't be surprised when the Muslims behind all of this are in charge when they come out into the sunlight as they will have been brought along to think that to be the right and proper course.
FEAR of war and bombing has dhimmis of them. Churchill would b appalled.
Ibn Warraq suggests that Islam will come to dominate Great Britain even before it does so in France. The failure of the main parties and political figures even to discuss the matter of Islam as a belief-system that is, and must be, uncompromisingly hostile to all non-Muslims, the dreamy notion that all one need worry about -- or not -- are terrorist attacks, when Da'wa and demographic trends spell the steady growth of Islamic power, and steadily increasing constraints on the ability, or willingness, of political figures to articulate the threat, is illustrated perfectly by this BBC2 program.
Reruns of Dennis Potter please.
Doesn't the BBC see the irony of a denial of Islamic terrorism while at the same time pulling the ads because of a kidnapping and beheading by. . . Islamic terrorists?
The BBC went into hysterics a few months ago when a "Middle Eastern man" was observed loitering suspiciously around their headquarters building in London. I believe they actually closed up shop while the "Middle Eastern man" was investigated.
Hypocrites!
I wonder how much Michael Moore influenced this trash. This 'hype documentary' was probably well underway before it became clear that Moore's film was heading for stardom, and hundreds of millions in revenues, but there must have been some 'insider' ideas on how to stimulate the marketplace with these kinds of ideological flights of fancy that masquarade as 'the well researched truth behind the scenes which is contrary to what you would think...'
Surprise! KA CHING!
But the BBC is only one venue and dependent on tax dollars at that; this may prove to be a grave error. I won't even say anything about what appears factual wrong about the film, after having read this, nor should any of us. Let the lies fly. The bigger the lies the better. And then lower the boom.
Get ready British friends to vocally denounce BBC pro-Islamic lies, distortions, and bias, with an emphasis on lies. Yes, the BBC lies and British taxpayers have to pay for them.
How does it feel to pay for lies that might end up killing you? How does it feel Britain?
Also, philiph's post is very important. Why single out Wolfowitz as a 'disciple' of Leo Strauss? And what in the hell does this have to do with Islamic jihad?
One obvious thing, repeated day after day in the Arab press, day after day in the European press, the idea that creates the Islamic imperative accepted by even 'moderates' like Mahatir, 'Jews must be defeated', the idea that creates in Europe the prevailing belief that 'Israel is the greatest threat to world peace'.
The old Nazi campaign slogan, I will say it again:
"Die Juden Sind Unser Ungluck" (The Jews are our misfortune.)
Hilter lives.
"I don't think it would kill anybody", says Dr Theodore....MORON!!!
Did this idiot never hear about CHERNOBYL? Sure, the death rate would be nothing compared to a nuclear explosion, but the long term effects is where the damage is done. The good Dr Ted should go look at some of the studies that have been conducted on the citizens of that area over the last 18 years. He just may learn a little something about radiation poisoning and the lasting effects. And BTW, does the BBC also plan to run the story they did on Chernobyl, BBC WORLD REPORT as part of the BBC2 series?
Even I know that radiation poison is lethal.
This is somewhat off-topic but could someone tell me if our legislators will attempt to pass some sort of hate-speech legislation surreptitiously, or will we have the opportunity to express our opposition before the fact, not after?
We can't let this happen. I remember when the hate crimes issue first came up and most people seemed to be opposed to further legislation because it was redundant, superfluous. What difference does it make if hate motivates your crime? Most violent criminals hate society, but who can prove that? Do they get extra punishment if they hate their victims? How is "hate" proven?
Sorry, but I've always wondered about this and maybe somebody knows the answers.
I really got a laugh out of the American websites touting that they have exposed the Government conspiracy to create the 9/11 attack
to justify the wars for oil and invade Iraq.
First it was the Jews because a rumour that claimed 4000 of them didn't go to work at the WTC that day,now it's the "Moron" President Bush that masterminded this intricate scheme based on good weather and "Clone" Airplanes with missiles attached to replace the WTC plane flight numbers.
One site insists that the explosion from the plane hitting the tower was really planned detonations by Fema and the CIA,and of course they avoid explaining where the passengers went that were on the original planes that left the Airport(Including Barbara Olsen).
While one site reports that 7 of the hijackers
are still alive and quoted in newspapers as not being on the planes,they don't have any credible proof these guys actually were interviewed by the media.
Just because a report listed the victims of the hijackers a website posted the planes manifest to prove none of the hijackers appeared on the list,even though it's normal for a suicide killer to be exempt from the news as a victim in the death count. The beslan slaughter didn't list the Jihadists in the total for the victims,so I guess this was another conspiracy by the Jews and Bush.
The sites with out-of-focus VHS frames have no interest to me,it's the clear digital MPEG or JPEG images I want to see,after all,Forrest Gump didn't really meet JFK,Johnson and Nixon,or even go on Dick Cavet with John Lennon or teach Elvis to dance. I amazed at how the beheading video's are denounced as fakes made in Cuba by the CIA,yet a blurred picture or pasted film clips in FRNHT 9/11 are accepted a factual and proof of Government cover-ups and conspiracies by the Illuminati and the Vatican.
I'm still waiting for the Kerry team to produce the 6 live hijackers to show the attack was staged by the Bush campaign and was used to attack Iraq.
Here is a site we should all take a look at:
www.bbcwatch.com
....The BBC’s Charter and its Producers Guidelines state that the BBC shall…
• “…contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world…”
• “…treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality… and…not contain any material expressing the opinion of the corporation…”
• “…Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth…The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences…”
......................................._________________________________
The BBC is an extremely influential news source. It is reputed to provide fair and
unbiased reporting of world political events, both within the UK and internationally.
It broadcasts news through TV, Radio and a much visited Internet site. Its principal language is English, which has established itself as the dominant language of world commerce, politics and education. The BBC World Service broadcasts in a number of other languages. Funded by a public tax the BBC is free from the need to attract advertising revenue. It also claims to be free from Government interference. All these factors combined enhance its credibility as an impartial news source and so increase its influence. However this influence is dependant upon the BBC maintaining its reputation for ‘accuracy and impartiality.’
The BBCWATCH reports demonstrate how the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting. Our systematic, objective and rigorous research points to the firm conclusion that the BBC frequently displays marked and consistent pro-Palestinian bias in their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Their inability to report on this subject in an impartial way raises questions over their ability to report on all other politically sensitive issues.
The third BBCWATCH report examines the BBC’s coverage of the recent war in Iraq.
A comparison of the way in which coalition troops and Israeli troops are reported when dealing with similar military problems provided a rare opportunity to compare like with like in a more direct way than our earlier studies have allowed. Our findings show a disquieting policy of discrimination in the way that Israel is treated by the BBC.
The British public continues to pay for this unfair, partial and inaccurate news service through the licence fee. We wonder whether it is healthy for Britain’s democracy that such huge public funds should be provided to what is an essentially monopolistic and unaccountable body. If the BBC cannot provide impartial news coverage it has no legitimate call on public funds simply to promote its own prejudices.
this documentary by the b.b.c. along w/ michael moore, hollywood's movie about global warming, al-jazeera & conspiracy websites as discussed above are but steps toward the creation of an unreal world whose purpose is to confuse even clear-thinking folks
one more thought: even though the assertion that a dirty bomb would kill no one is based in the idea that the bomb itself is not necessarily massively lethal, one still has to consider the massive panic such a device would cause in an urban area. such panic could lead to casualties. not only that, but government may move to quarantine such an area w/ population intact. not only that, but a dirty bomb attack may be the straw that breaks the nuclear camel's back