Apparently doubling its bet before the U.S. elections, starting Wednesday, BBC2 will air a three-part "documentary" called "Terrorism, Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." The show focuses on the probabilities and destructiveness of Islamic terrorism in general and so-called "dirty bombs" in particular. Even the left-wing Guardian calls it "controversial", because the BBC show,
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.Here's BBC's "dirty bomb" threat assessment:
[It] 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.So why are citizens still scared? BBC explains:
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.And BBC identifies the real culprits whose differing political philosophies grew to a fight for world domination :
The series tells an epic story, at the heart of which are two groups: the American Neoconservatives and the Radical Islamists. The first film begins in 1949 and traces the lives of two men living in America: Egyptian school inspector, Sayyid Qutb, whose ideas would later directly inspire those who flew the planes on 9/11, and political philosopher Leo Strauss, whose work strongly influenced the Neoconservative movement that now dominates Washington. Both men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together, but both had very different ideas about how to improve the situation.Hmmm. Sayyid Qutb up against Leo Strauss. The first, an Egyptian Koran scholar who founded modern Islamic terrorism to destroy Western civilization; the second a Jew who emigrated to America and taught political philosophy (relying heavily on ancient Greeks) at the University of Chicago. One was civilized; the other anti-civilized. Both of them decades dead (Sayyid: 35 years; Strauss: 28 years) on 9/11. I doubt they ever met. But somehow--in lower Manhattan on 9/11, aboard the USS Cole, in Embassies--the BCC program will tie terrorism to complex social stratification and capped educational opportunities.
I'm sure the upcoming BBC program will be, well, captivating. But it ignores basic, simple facts: Leo Strauss taught philosophy; Sayyid Qutb coached killing. And the best way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists. If the BBC hasn't figured this out by now, it shouldn't qualify for the U.K. per-television "tax" by which it's funded.
1 comment:
Well I watched this last night and it was brilliant. The similarilty between Strauss and Qutb is that they were both triggered as a response to 1950's American liberalism when Qutb was a student in a America. They both believe that the way to restore traditional values and to prevent the nihlism the liberalism tends to was to unite the people towards a higher purpose. For Strauss the purpose was to portray the USA as having a God given mission of defeating evil in the world and spreading democracy. This was for public consumption only though. The political elite, in his view, did not need to believe the same. Indeed, Strauss was an atheist while he supported religion as a means to control the masses. As a result he saw the need for a common enemy to unite against and at the time the USSR would fill that role. In the 1970's Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz (all students of Strauss) guided think tank called Team B to use the absence of evidence of advanced soviet weapons to posit the existance of new, frightening andundetectable weapons. No such weapons programs have ever been discovered even since the collapse of the USSR. This "evidence" was then used to torpedo the growing levels of trust between the USA and USSR which was a result of the diplomacy of Henry Kissinger, and reignite the cold war.
As a response to you allegation that the BBC is pro-arab, it may have merit, expect for the fact that the Israel-palestinian relationship is an asymetrical one. Israel is the powerful modern nation and the palestinians are a poor, occupied, and persecuted people. Hamas has never used an AH-64 gunship, or an F-16, or tanks against Israeli civilians. These things are heinous crimes in their own right and cannot be justifed by moral relativism. All these acts are carried out with the complicity of the US by its constant vetoing of UN resolutions against Israel. Balanced reporting is not characterised by showing both sides of an argument equally, if the argument is not balanced. For example 99.99% of scientists reject creationism, but the American view of balanced journalism requires that each side is given an equal platform and so you end up with 1 scientist against 1 creationist or ID supporter.
Post a Comment