SEND AN E-MAIL
"I was glad to see the documentary and appreciate
CBC's airing of news from more than one perspective.
I am not surprised by the information, though
upset that the "Creators of the Nightmare" co-opted
the precautionary principle to address terrorist
threats (note I did not say terrorist network).
As a naturalist, environmentalist, urban planner
and designer I am upset that Nations will use the
precautionary principle to address supposed terrorist
threats and yet not apply the same principle to
the unsustainable and ecologically degrading economy.
An economy that insists that growth is limitless
yet depends on a finite source of energy (oil & gas)
should be making use of the precautionary principle.
Without trying to change our north american consumptive,
unsustainable way of life, I have little hope for
the future.
Perhaps the "terrorist web" "nightmare" is
also meant to divert attention from the real threat
to the "Nation". As world oil production
peaks and world consumption increases our north
american dream (one that I do not support) will
soon crumble, no matter how often George Bush hold's
a Saudi Prince's hand! .
I suppose a positive would
be that the coming economic crash will reduce the
threat of a terrorist incident - real or perceived
and reduce the demands placed on the earth's ecosystems,
though the U.S. will likely use oil and securing
supply whatever the cost as justification to pre-empt
China, India or other countries from accessing
a dwindling supply of fossil fuels!"
-KEN BARTH
"This documentary is a brilliant case study on
the power of narrative thinking in our complex,
polarized, 21st century global village... and,
for me, points to the implicit hope it also contains
for learning how to have power 'with' rather
than 'over'. Thank you, Adam Curtis!
Beyond the debate concerning whether the film
portrays the ‘true’ version, I think
there is a bigger message shining through here...
I think that terror is, at root, most dangerous
in its function as a psychological virus and one
of the main diagnostic indicators is the need to
demonize some 'other' (in the absence of proven
evidence of guilt or immediate threat). I’d
add ‘idolize’ some other here, as well.
With so much data coming at us, it’s as
if we're so desperate to make meaning that we grab
at any story; even if it reduces us to our most
base level, justifies rash and unjust behaviour,
and scares the pants off of us!
To pitch a story to a mass audience is to wield
tremendous power. To hold a position of trust and
authority when doing so infers additional responsibility
- not only for the type of story we preach (as
some will always follow blindly, no matter what,
out of respect for authority) but also for the
one we live - both our talk and our walk impact
the world we co-create.
Narrative digs deep into people - it connects
the past and present, projects into the future,
contains both fact and fiction, and evokes emotion,
meaning-making and spirited action. Someone once
said that not all civilizations had to use the
wheel to thrive, but all had to have stories. Political,
religious and corporate leaders have been intentionally
learning how to tell persuasive stories for a few
years now. So long as we continue to transfer all
responsibility onto them for ‘taking care’ of
our collective story, then we are enabling our
own dependence and disempowerment. Maybe the disillusionment
that so many of us feel with leaders, institutions
and corporations is a result of our NOT taking
enough responsibility for consciously choosing
and speaking our own stories.
From my own experience, the fastest way out of
being dominated is to take responsibility for the
stories I expect, believe in, live out, and hope
for.... I can’t do it alone. I’ll do
what I can. In order to ensure our common good,
we must participate - assuming personal responsibility
for contributing to the collective good and asserting
our collectively held rights. Perhaps we need to
begin acting more like the ones we’re waiting
for… My hope is that together we will co-create
a better story and not rest until there is a happy
ending for all; including the planet in all her
diversity and the plot twists we leave that future
generations will have to contend with."
- GLORY RESSLER
"I don't agree with the Power of Nightmares that
Islamic terrorism is a phantom menace, that Neocon
politicians in the U.S. are using fear mongering
to stay in power and that fear and a strong defense
are inappropriate responses to Islamic terrorism.
OK, so it looks like the US Neocons may have
made up the name Al Qaeda in order to prosecute
terrorists in 1991, and it's possible that the
Islamist terrorists are not a highly organized
structure with Osama Bin Ladin as the supreme leader
planning various terrorist activities, but rather
a loose affiliation of like minded folks living
in different countries.
What difference does any of this really make?
The fact is that Osama Bin Ladin funded Islamic
terrorists in the 1990s to carry out their acts
of murder of innocent people. He also had training
camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s to train Islamic
terrorists. Moreover, there are obviously cells
of Islamic terrorists who have carried out terrorist
acts in the United States, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Spain, and now Iraq and
Saudi Arabia. I am sure that these folks communicate
with each other by e-mail and cell phone and are
aware of one another."
- LOUIS SOLNICKI
"At the end of the documentary series, Curtis
ridicules the use of the precautionary principle
by neo-conservative politicians, and he is right
to do so because those politicians have taken the
principle to a ridiculous extreme.
However, I am
concerned that Curtis also (whether inadvertently
or deliberately) ridicules the use of the principle
in its original ecological context, and thereby
risks encouraging complacency on important environmental
issues. Despite Curtis' presentation of it, the
precautionary principle is not and never was: "Act
without any evidence".
That is a ridiculous extrapolation of the principle,
which is in fact better described as: "Take
precautions against problems that are reasonably
likely but not certain to occur (i.e. those supported
by significant but not conclusive evidence)." This
common sense principle had to be articulated by
environmentalists (and still does) to combat the
commonplace but absurd view that we should only
act when we know what will happen with 100% certainty.
Of course, nothing can ever be predicted with 100%
certainty, and so demands for certainty are simply
coy excuses for inaction. Curtis gives short shrift
to this perspective because he is highlighting
the emergence of the opposite (but equally important)
problem, where acceptance of 0% certainty provides
carte blanche for all actions.
Either extreme is bad: groundless fear or groundless
complacency. Citizens and politicians have to recognize
that rational decisions are not based on certainty
or wild speculation, but on a meaningful assessment
of risk. Unfortunately, our politicians have done
a poor job of indicating to the public which risks
are significant and which are not."
- RICHARD WEHR
"The whole
neo-con nightmare sponsored by the University of
Chicago, Leo Strauss & associates
production was made familiar through the critical
writings found on various Internet websites during
these past years. What I found to be entirely new
was the information that chronicled events in the
Muslim world pinned to the Egyptian man making
a visit/study of the US educational system in 1949.
The political and cultural after affects he is
linked as being responsible for changing in Egyptian
society seem to be huge yet unknown in the West.
What I find troubling is that both narratives
seem too simplistic & tribal to believe as
influential. That academic / philosophical fears
delivered in the dress of traditional desert cloth
or Chicago suits could influence and generate the
huge division inside each and between East/West
societies is difficult to grasp. I expect the techniques
will be shown in the next upcoming hours. Will
the megaphone power of one (?) person like Rush
Limbaugh on the radio be seen for his contribution
to keep the cultural divide as wide as possible
injecting promotions to fighting the US cultural
civil war? It is an interesting formula. I
think the formula works well to create hysteria
and mass desperation in a culture that perceives
itself threatened with extinction. I wonder about
the role of the Holocaust in all of this now."
-CHET
GILBERT
"Leo Strauss died in 1976. It is therefore somewhat
suspect that Strauss "sponsored" and
funded the American adventures in Afghanistan,
Iraq etc - as the blurb on the documentary website
would have us believe. Did the neo-conservatives
remould some of his ideas? Perhaps they did.
And perhaps this too is an illusion created by
someone clever enough to fancy a link between the
philosopher and the hawks in Washington.
One thing
we can say for sure though: Bin Laden did not
leave a corpus of rich philosophical and critical
thought for us to peruse openly to judge as we
will. Leo Strauss did. Could this, in fact, be
the reason why he wrote so many influential books
and essays? Precisely to counter the radical misinterpretations
made by maverick documentary filmmakers and conservative
fanatics alike?"
- ANDREW WARWICK
"This
explains the rationale behind 9/11/2001. What worries
me is that these neo-conservatives are now "world
leaders" (i.e. Paul Wolfowitz - Pres. of World
Bank, George W. Bush - Pres. of U.S.A.). If there
is something we can do to stop this - it is taking
over the media. Without the media on their side,
the neo-conservatives cannot and will not be able
to achieve their goals."
- MAWUBI HARGOE
"As a former Viet vet and ex-60's anti-war protester
I have always mistrusted the establishment. This
doc goes a long way to support my views <grin>.
It is a one sided view but so are the other sides
views (Blair, Bush, Bin Laden etc). Putin must
have even seen this film judging by his latest
pronouncements on the Soviet Union."
- MAJID
"Having watched the first episode of this three
part series, I am more certain now than ever that
my understanding of the true nature of the world
generally (and at this particular moment in history),
is dangerously inadequate.
Though it possesses the appearance of plausibility,
Curtis' thesis lacks substance, and falls apart
under even rudimentary scrutiny. His reasoning
is spurious, and requires that you accept several
dubious premises as fact.
I no more trust the agenda that I know to be behind
this documentary, than I do gonzo Islamic extremists,
or reptilian neo conservatives.
One thing is clear: there is WAY more ugliness
going on in the world than I, an educated and
thoughtful person, have allowed myself to believe
till now. That was a critical mistake that, clearly,
I would be stupid not to rectify."
- KEITH MACDONALD
"Having watched the second of the three part series,
I would like to offer my observations. As
a reasonably intelligent Canadian I believe the
series should have been renamed, 'The Power of
Fantasy.' With regard to importance, it may have
an educational value with regard to exploration
of the genre of European political Left Wing extremism
in film and art but as a real documentary, it has
none of the benchmarks of honest reporting. I think
I will give the last part of this series a miss."
-
ALAN MARKSON
"I must admit CBC has done a wonderful job
selecting and airing provocative and enlightening
documentaries that open my understanding of the
world and its composition. The Politics of Fear
has changed my view of Al Qaeda and its philosophy.
As a fellow muslim I never understood their ideas
and philosophy. Although I don't agree with their
methods, I now understand their logic and reasoning."
- SHAFEEN MAWANI
I only saw part of this series on CBC one night.
But what I did see was almost as skewed a view
as Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. It also affirmed why
I don't bother watching the obviously left-leaning
CBC.
Does anyone nodding their head feverishly in agreement with this series remember
how it's producers, the BBC, misreported how British government's exaggeration
of Iraq's WMD.? Fool you once, shame on them, fool you twice....
Another point that proves the left-wing bias of this series is how it seems to
leave out Clinton's role in this fear-mongering. Is Clinton considered a neo-con?
Yet through the 90's he played a major role in promoting the danger of Al-Qaeda.
In fact many in the U.S. media, criticize Bush for not taking the Al-Qaeda threat
as seriously as did Clinton.
Will this series show that.? Of course not. They're not interested in attacking
a left-wing president. Only the 'neo-con' right-wing one.
Think about that. Of course, since most of the CBC's viewers are left-leaning
and so are of course always right, they won't have to think about it.
- JAMIE HARDY
"Thank you CBC for once again showing another
view of current world affairs. The consequences
of the actions of the Middle Eastern AND American
extremists portrayed in this documentation are
frightening. All one needs to do to "believe" the
neo-conservative agenda is spend a little time
watching the "fair and balanced" news
media in the US or listening to the very scary
talk radio. I don't know how the world comes back
from the brink and lives in peace but the time
is certainly here for a better understanding of
our fellow human beings and a unification of all
peoples to stop the madness we currently live in."
- BONNIE
"I left Ottawa this past December after working
as a consultant to the Department of National Defence
for ten years and as a military Nuclear, Biological
and Chemical Defence Specialist for at least ten
years.
In this time I have personally observed the transition
from threat-based assessments where the intelligence
community relied on three criteria for danger.
These were: Capability, Intentions and Circumstance.
The bad guy had to have the sciences and technologies
to manufacture and deliver the weapons, he had
to have either used or threatened to use the weapons
and then he had to have a real and present reason
to use the weapons. Traditional deterrence consisted
of the threat of massive retaliation if such weapons
were used anywhere and, in my opinion, likely prevented
the Iraqi generals from using these capabilities
during the 1991 Gulf War.
What I see now and have personally witnessed at
meetings of our allies is this shift towards postulation
or conjecture, that either the use of these weapons
is possible and must be neutralized or that the
use of these weapons is inevitable and must be
either prepared for or neutralized before a catastrophe
occurs.
In my opinion, this use of fear as the motivator
and rationalization to deny basic human rights
or to kill thousands of innocents is a war crime.
It will lead to a permanent state of global insecurity
that will last for thousands of years.
We must stop this insanity before it becomes a
permanent scar on mankind."
- MICHAEL JOHN WILLIAMS
"What a wonderful documentary.
I am so glad that CBC decided to air it.
The question I am left with is just how much we
Canadians are subject to these same manipulative
forces. With a federal election looming, some of
our politicians are increasingly resorting to the
same rhetoric, isolationist views, fear mongering,
and disregard for basic civil rights - all legitimized
by the authority of God and morality.
Will we Canadians fall for it? I certainly hope
not. Will our politicians rise above it? I certainly
hope so."
- DEVEN DAVE
"I am not at all sure that I buy into his basic
premises. As far as I have experienced, the threat
of communism was real - it was not manufactured,
perhaps a bit exaggerated. The threat of terrorism
may be more remote. Nevertheless we do not want
to take any chances. I think the author of the
documentary comes from quite a left wing bias with
a decidedly anti-American stance."
- GUNTER BEYSER
I applaud you cbc! Thanks for finally revealing
what I am always telling my friends, family and
colleagues: this post 9/11 fear of terrorists destroying
the west is a figment of Bush's active imagination.
As a Muslim, I cannot comprehend the term, "Islamic
terrorist". Islam is a religion of peace.
Anyone who engages in a terrorist activity is doing
so for a politically, corrupt purpose -- not for
Islam. Muslims greet each other with the phrase,
'Assalamu Alaikum', meaning, peace be upon you.
An enlightening and provocative documentary indeed!
One more thing, cbc, do not use the term, "Islamic
terrorist", as the phrase is an oxymoron.
Terrorists can be from any country, culture, religion.
I have trouble comprehending that any religion
would encourage terrorists. Salam [Peace] to all
humanity.
- HUDA
"Isn't it interesting that all of the death, terror
and mayhem described by the politicians and 'leaders" of
the world, is only really happening on television.
It's all crap. "The Power of Nightmares" and "Michael
Moore-ish" type documentaries may be total
crap. But, it doesn't match the American born-again-religious-right-wing
government. America is not the "fount
of all evil" in the world. But, they they
sure like telling everybody else what they should
be doing. Their arrogance about being "the
defenders of freedom" astounds me. They create
problems for the world in order to step-in and
then say they've fixed everything.
I live in Canada. I do not want what Americans
want nor do I want what Arabs want. I want what
Canadians want. Which is to have the neo-con American
government and radical Islamist groups leave
everybody alone. Canada doesn't want to have anything
to do with the missile defence shield because this
country knows nobody (North Korea, Iran..whoever)
is not going to fire anything at anyone. Only in
your own nightmares do these things happen as frequently
as power-hungry men will lead you to believe.
-SEAN
We would
love to hear what you have to say about this
series.
All fields are mandatory.
Please note that due to the volume of messages sent to us, we are unable to
guarantee a response to any message.
|
