CDZ The "War on Terror"

[phoenyx]

Although Obama announced back in 2013 that the United States is no longer pursuing a "War on Terror", a term coined by the Bush Jr. Administration after the events of 9/11, I believe many would agree that this war continues despite the current President no longer calling it by this name. I imagine that delving into whether 9/11 was really as we were told it was might get this thread dragged off to the Conspiracy Theories subforum where I and anyone else holding this view can then be attacked with ad hominems without end, so I won't go there. Instead, I'll focus on a BBC documentary that, while taking for granted that the official narrative of that event was accurate, reviews what happened before and after it, to give us an idea that the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going. Here is the first part of the 3 part series, I'd like to know what people think of it...


For those who can't see the video for whatever reason, below is a link to the transcript of this episode, as well as an excerpt of the introduction:
**VO: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VO: This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Last week's episode ended in the late '90s with both groups marginalized and out of power. But with the attacks of September 11th, the fates of both dramatically changed. The Islamists, after their moment of triumph, were virtually destroyed within months, while the neoconservatives took power in Washington. But then, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists. They created a phantom enemy. And as this nightmare fantasy began to spread, politicians realized the newfound power it gave them in a deeply disillusioned age. Those with the darkest nightmares became the most powerful.**

Source: Power of Nightmares

 

[Holos]

I don't have audio accessible from the computer I am using, so I can't comment on the video.

Is it relevant that I comment on your introduction to the video?

I am interested in the topic.

 

[phoenyx]

I don't have audio accessible from the computer I am using, so I can't comment on the video.

Is it relevant that I comment on your introduction to the video?

I am interested in the topic.

Yes, please do . Sorry to hear about you not having audio :-/

 

[Holos]

the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going.

I don't know if that argument is what I would perceive in the BBC presentation, and the stated argument also seems lacking in fundamental logical precepts to support it.

I acknowledge much of the information I have received on the topic is of a potential positive from a seriously destructive negative, but the conclusion that the parties involved in either influencing or being influenced would be achieving or maintaining power by a non-necessity (of possible or impossible lies) isn't cohesive to the seriousness involved in the threat that continues to be analyzed.

 

[phoenyx]

the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going.

I don't know if that argument is what I would perceive in the BBC presentation,

Fair enough. I have found the transcript of the episode, which means that we can now discuss it without you actually having to watch the video. I will include the opening lines below, please let me know whether you agree or disagree:
**
VO: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VO: This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.**

Source: http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/power_of_nightmares_transcript_1

 

[Holos]

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed.

The presented discourse is a failure, and not the dreams offered by the politicians nor the politicians' dreams.

The reason for my conclusion is in the logical retraction of the first, second, third and fourth sentences - which are building a logical compression to disprove the first proposed axiom/precept.

The logic used then is thus:

First sentence:

-1 (past)
1 (present)
+1 (future)
&7 (politicians)
X (better world)

Second sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = X

Third sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = XX

Fourth sentence:

(-1)&7 = (-1)


So you see, the proposal of the discourse (which refers to the proposal of third parties in the absence of elucidating itself as a first party)isn't complete.

The fourth logical sentence has to prove the first when the whole work derives from those axioms in the attempt to prove yet another maxim that although implied in the extent and continuity of the work, still is made elusive by the requiring of proof for the first logical assumption (freely taken, as any first logical assumption is, requiring proof only by the request of clarification or instruction).

That's not a problem for a single viewer, for the study of a single logician. But since neither of us have already involved ourselves in a dedicated study to collaborate in the completion of the whole video/work as logicians the media/piece under analysis isn't eligible for a logical, continuous debate.

 

[phoenyx]

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed.

The presented discourse is a failure, and not the dreams offered by the politicians nor the politicians' dreams.

The reason for my conclusion is in the logical retraction of the first, second, third and fourth sentences - which are building a logical compression to disprove the first proposed axiom/precept.

The logic used then is thus:

First sentence:

-1 (past)
1 (present)
+1 (future)
&7 (politicians)
X (better world)

Second sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = X

Third sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = XX

Fourth sentence:

(-1)&7 = (-1)

I know algebra, but I don't think what you're doing above qualifies as such. For starters, what is this -1 (past, 1 (present), etc.?

 

[Holos]

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed.

The presented discourse is a failure, and not the dreams offered by the politicians nor the politicians' dreams.

The reason for my conclusion is in the logical retraction of the first, second, third and fourth sentences - which are building a logical compression to disprove the first proposed axiom/precept.

The logic used then is thus:

First sentence:

-1 (past)
1 (present)
+1 (future)
&7 (politicians)
X (better world)

Second sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = X

Third sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = XX

Fourth sentence:

(-1)&7 = (-1)

I know algebra, but I don't think what you're doing above qualifies as such. For starters, what is this -1 (past, 1 (present), etc.?

Logical precepts.

Consider every aspect of the world measurable and patterned (given any and all mathematical analysis beginning from pure mathematics and proceeding into all branches of applied mathematics; algebra, arithmetic, calculus, statistics, geometry, and possibly others of which I am not familiar with).

Then when those aspects happen to be presented without evidence for having been measured, we can attribute measurement to them to perceive their partially neglected causal relations along with their process relations.

The aspects can range from being as small as ink points and segments of lines to as big and dense as stars.

It's logic.

The algebra I know, perhaps the same you know, is an operational system of arithmetical symbols. Variable through logical axioms or maxims (the patterns of operative relational and representative symbols; 2+1=3 has {2,1,3} as number representatives, and {+,=} as relational operatives).

Logic is the assessing or analysis of those relations of operatives and representatives to verify their procedure which goes beyond numbers and symbols, in this case being attributed to words.

 

[phoenyx]

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed.

The presented discourse is a failure, and not the dreams offered by the politicians nor the politicians' dreams.

The reason for my conclusion is in the logical retraction of the first, second, third and fourth sentences - which are building a logical compression to disprove the first proposed axiom/precept.

The logic used then is thus:

First sentence:

-1 (past)
1 (present)
+1 (future)
&7 (politicians)
X (better world)

Second sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = X

Third sentence:

&7(-1)(1)(+1) = XX

Fourth sentence:

(-1)&7 = (-1)

I know algebra, but I don't think what you're doing above qualifies as such. For starters, what is this -1 (past, 1 (present), etc.?

Logical precepts.

A precept is a general rule, so you're saying that they're logical rules. To me, though, it seems like approximations of meanings that don't quite hit the mark. I'll give you an example:
In the first sentence in the 4 sentences you marked, it states: "In the past, politicians promised to create a better world". You break this sentence down into 5 concepts: past, present, future, politicians and better world. The past, politicians and "better world" were mentioned, but the present and the future weren't. And that's just the starting point of where your breaking down of the sentence starts to break down. You then attempt take these words and convert most of them into numbers (-1, 1, +1). I'm not saying that words can't be broken down into numbers, computers certainly do this, but we're not computers and even computers wouldn't break them down that way.

 

[Tehon]

Although Obama announced back in 2013 that the United States is no longer pursuing a "War on Terror", a term coined by the Bush Jr. Administration after the events of 9/11, I believe many would agree that this war continues despite the current President no longer calling it by this name. I imagine that delving into whether 9/11 was really as we were told it was might get this thread dragged off to the Conspiracy Theories subforum where I and anyone else holding this view can then be attacked with ad hominems without end, so I won't go there. Instead, I'll focus on a BBC documentary that, while taking for granted that the official narrative of that event was accurate, reviews what happened before and after it, to give us an idea that the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going. Here is the first part of the 3 part series, I'd like to know what people think of it...


For those who can't see the video for whatever reason, below is a link to the transcript of this episode, as well as an excerpt of the introduction:
**VO: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VO: This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Last week's episode ended in the late '90s with both groups marginalized and out of power. But with the attacks of September 11th, the fates of both dramatically changed. The Islamists, after their moment of triumph, were virtually destroyed within months, while the neoconservatives took power in Washington. But then, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists. They created a phantom enemy. And as this nightmare fantasy began to spread, politicians realized the newfound power it gave them in a deeply disillusioned age. Those with the darkest nightmares became the most powerful.**

Source: Power of Nightmares

Thanks for posting this video which provides an interesting look at the ideological roots of the war on terror. Unfortunately I think it attempts to whitewash neoconservatives and attributes more benevolence to their ideology than they deserve.

This 2003 video documentary by John Pilger exposes the lies behind neocon ideology while also avoiding the 9/11 trap.

Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror

 

[phoenyx]

Although Obama announced back in 2013 that the United States is no longer pursuing a "War on Terror", a term coined by the Bush Jr. Administration after the events of 9/11, I believe many would agree that this war continues despite the current President no longer calling it by this name. I imagine that delving into whether 9/11 was really as we were told it was might get this thread dragged off to the Conspiracy Theories subforum where I and anyone else holding this view can then be attacked with ad hominems without end, so I won't go there. Instead, I'll focus on a BBC documentary that, while taking for granted that the official narrative of that event was accurate, reviews what happened before and after it, to give us an idea that the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going. Here is the first part of the 3 part series, I'd like to know what people think of it...


For those who can't see the video for whatever reason, below is a link to the transcript of this episode, as well as an excerpt of the introduction:
**VO: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VO: This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Last week's episode ended in the late '90s with both groups marginalized and out of power. But with the attacks of September 11th, the fates of both dramatically changed. The Islamists, after their moment of triumph, were virtually destroyed within months, while the neoconservatives took power in Washington. But then, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists. They created a phantom enemy. And as this nightmare fantasy began to spread, politicians realized the newfound power it gave them in a deeply disillusioned age. Those with the darkest nightmares became the most powerful.**

Source: Power of Nightmares

Thanks for posting this video which provides an interesting look at the ideological roots of the war on terror.

You're welcome

Unfortunately I think it attempts to whitewash neoconservatives and attributes more benevolence to their ideology than they deserve.

In some ways, yes.

This 2003 video documentary by John Pilger exposes the lies behind neocon ideology while also avoiding the 9/11 trap.

Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror

Just finished watching it, very well done . I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares? Part 2 delves into the Afghan war against the Soviet invasion, and ends just a bit before the events leading up to September 11. It can be seen here:

 

[Tehon]

Although Obama announced back in 2013 that the United States is no longer pursuing a "War on Terror", a term coined by the Bush Jr. Administration after the events of 9/11, I believe many would agree that this war continues despite the current President no longer calling it by this name. I imagine that delving into whether 9/11 was really as we were told it was might get this thread dragged off to the Conspiracy Theories subforum where I and anyone else holding this view can then be attacked with ad hominems without end, so I won't go there. Instead, I'll focus on a BBC documentary that, while taking for granted that the official narrative of that event was accurate, reviews what happened before and after it, to give us an idea that the forces that created the event benefit those who would have the populations have politicians on both sides of this war gain power not by building dreams, but by claiming they can protect people from nightmares, and who aren't necessarily above spinning lies in order to keep this power base going. Here is the first part of the 3 part series, I'd like to know what people think of it...


For those who can't see the video for whatever reason, below is a link to the transcript of this episode, as well as an excerpt of the introduction:
**VO: In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VO: This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Last week's episode ended in the late '90s with both groups marginalized and out of power. But with the attacks of September 11th, the fates of both dramatically changed. The Islamists, after their moment of triumph, were virtually destroyed within months, while the neoconservatives took power in Washington. But then, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists. They created a phantom enemy. And as this nightmare fantasy began to spread, politicians realized the newfound power it gave them in a deeply disillusioned age. Those with the darkest nightmares became the most powerful.**

Source: Power of Nightmares

Thanks for posting this video which provides an interesting look at the ideological roots of the war on terror.

You're welcome

Unfortunately I think it attempts to whitewash neoconservatives and attributes more benevolence to their ideology than they deserve.

In some ways, yes.

This 2003 video documentary by John Pilger exposes the lies behind neocon ideology while also avoiding the 9/11 trap.

Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror

Just finished watching it, very well done . I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares? Part 2 delves into the Afghan war against the Soviet invasion, and ends just a bit before the events leading up to September 11. It can be seen here:

I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares?

I watched this series a number of years ago. I am finding it interesting to watch now as time seems to have given me a new perspective on it.

The one theme that is emphasized and that I do not quarrel with is the mythical nature of the war on terror with 9/11 as the pretext .

The way in which the myth is sold to the American public is dealt with in another of Adam Curtis's documentaries called The Century of Self. I imagine you have seen it but if not I would highly recommend it.

Watch Century of Self: Episode 1 Online - FreeDocumentaries.Org

 

[phoenyx]

I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares?

I watched this series a number of years ago. I am finding it interesting to watch now as time seems to have given me a new perspective on it.

Cool

The one theme that is emphasized and that I do not quarrel with is the mythical nature of the war on terror with 9/11 as the pretext .

The way in which the myth is sold to the American public is dealt with in another of Adam Curtis's documentaries called The Century of Self. I imagine you have seen it but if not I would highly recommend it.

Watch Century of Self: Episode 1 Online - FreeDocumentaries.Org

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't seen any of them. I got to work on it shortly thereafter, and have now seen the first episode. Very interesting. I don't agree with everything he says, but it certainly has a lot of interesting points worth discussing .

 

[Tehon]

I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares?

I watched this series a number of years ago. I am finding it interesting to watch now as time seems to have given me a new perspective on it.

Cool

The one theme that is emphasized and that I do not quarrel with is the mythical nature of the war on terror with 9/11 as the pretext .

The way in which the myth is sold to the American public is dealt with in another of Adam Curtis's documentaries called The Century of Self. I imagine you have seen it but if not I would highly recommend it.

Watch Century of Self: Episode 1 Online - FreeDocumentaries.Org

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't seen any of them. I got to work on it shortly thereafter, and have now seen the first episode. Very interesting. I don't agree with everything he says, but it certainly has a lot of interesting points worth discussing .

It's long but I find it very interesting. It has a tie in with The Power of Nightmares.

I watched the final video of TPoN. The last episode is really good. Al Qaeda is shown to be a complete fabrication of the US government.

 

[HenryBHough]

In Obama-speak there are no terrorists.

Only culturally different new friends to whom we must adjust.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares?

I watched this series a number of years ago. I am finding it interesting to watch now as time seems to have given me a new perspective on it.

Cool

The one theme that is emphasized and that I do not quarrel with is the mythical nature of the war on terror with 9/11 as the pretext .

The way in which the myth is sold to the American public is dealt with in another of Adam Curtis's documentaries called The Century of Self. I imagine you have seen it but if not I would highly recommend it.

Watch Century of Self: Episode 1 Online - FreeDocumentaries.Org

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't seen any of them. I got to work on it shortly thereafter, and have now seen the first episode. Very interesting. I don't agree with everything he says, but it certainly has a lot of interesting points worth discussing .

It's long but I find it very interesting. It has a tie in with The Power of Nightmares.

I watched the final video of TPoN. The last episode is really good. Al Qaeda is shown to be a complete fabrication of the US government.

Yeah, part 3 was good stuff .

Here's an excerpt from an article I just found that lays out a lot of interesting information regarding Obama leading up to and shortly after 9/11:
**
During the period 4-14th of July, 2001 (only two months prior to the 9/11-WTC terror attacks), Bin Laden was in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the United Press International (Oct 31, 2001), Bin Laden underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr. Terry Callaway. According to both the French “Le Figaro” & the “Radio France International”, Bin Laden was visited by a top US-CIA agent. This report and the one below are further substantiated by CBS anchor Dan Rather, Peter Bergen, investigative journalist Barry Petersen and Prof. Michel Chussodovsky.
More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to the September 11 attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself (Le Figaro – Jan 28, 2002). So both the Pakistani Military establishment and the ISI as well as the CIA were more than aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

A few days later Dr. Sanjay Gupta (a highly respected Indian-American within the Medical fraternity) gave his assessment that both due to the heavy US bombing of the Taleban areas as well as the fact that kidney dialysis requires a special environment, it is impossible for a patient to survive beyond a week.

According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden’s voice could not be detected beyond December 14, 2001.
Reports of Bin Laden’s death have been so widespread that it is a wonder as to how the myth of OBL has been kept alive. Now consider the following reports:

Dale Watson, the FBI chief of counter-terrorism said on BBC that he thought that OBL was dead.
In fact the announcement of OBL’s death and the funeral as well, appeared in the Egytian newspaper Al-Wafd on December 26, 2001. Also refer to an article by Robert Burns (26/04/02) on this matter.**

Source: Osama Bin Laden Was CIA Agent Tim Osman – The Modern Gnostic

History Commons articles backing up the above article:
Context of 'July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Receives Lifesaving Treatment in Dubai, Said to Meet with CIA While There'

Context of 'December 26, 2001: Bin Laden Allegedly Dies of Lung Problems'

 

[phoenyx]

In Obama-speak there are no terrorists.

Only culturally different new friends to whom we must adjust.

Unlike Bush, Obama had the wisdom to avoid saying such banalities such as "You're either with us or against us", but the fact of the matter is in some ways, he actually escalated the "War on Terror". Some articles to consider:

Obama Ordered Ten Times More Drone Strikes than Bush | Global Research

Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians | The Guardian

 

[Tehon]

I'm curious, have you seen Part 2 The Power of Nightmares?

I watched this series a number of years ago. I am finding it interesting to watch now as time seems to have given me a new perspective on it.

Cool

The one theme that is emphasized and that I do not quarrel with is the mythical nature of the war on terror with 9/11 as the pretext .

The way in which the myth is sold to the American public is dealt with in another of Adam Curtis's documentaries called The Century of Self. I imagine you have seen it but if not I would highly recommend it.

Watch Century of Self: Episode 1 Online - FreeDocumentaries.Org

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't seen any of them. I got to work on it shortly thereafter, and have now seen the first episode. Very interesting. I don't agree with everything he says, but it certainly has a lot of interesting points worth discussing .

It's long but I find it very interesting. It has a tie in with The Power of Nightmares.

I watched the final video of TPoN. The last episode is really good. Al Qaeda is shown to be a complete fabrication of the US government.

Yeah, part 3 was good stuff .

Here's an excerpt from an article I just found that lays out a lot of interesting information regarding Obama leading up to and shortly after 9/11:
**
During the period 4-14th of July, 2001 (only two months prior to the 9/11-WTC terror attacks), Bin Laden was in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to the United Press International (Oct 31, 2001), Bin Laden underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr. Terry Callaway. According to both the French “Le Figaro” & the “Radio France International”, Bin Laden was visited by a top US-CIA agent. This report and the one below are further substantiated by CBS anchor Dan Rather, Peter Bergen, investigative journalist Barry Petersen and Prof. Michel Chussodovsky.
More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to the September 11 attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself (Le Figaro – Jan 28, 2002). So both the Pakistani Military establishment and the ISI as well as the CIA were more than aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

A few days later Dr. Sanjay Gupta (a highly respected Indian-American within the Medical fraternity) gave his assessment that both due to the heavy US bombing of the Taleban areas as well as the fact that kidney dialysis requires a special environment, it is impossible for a patient to survive beyond a week.

According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden’s voice could not be detected beyond December 14, 2001.
Reports of Bin Laden’s death have been so widespread that it is a wonder as to how the myth of OBL has been kept alive. Now consider the following reports:

Dale Watson, the FBI chief of counter-terrorism said on BBC that he thought that OBL was dead.
In fact the announcement of OBL’s death and the funeral as well, appeared in the Egytian newspaper Al-Wafd on December 26, 2001. Also refer to an article by Robert Burns (26/04/02) on this matter.**

Source: Osama Bin Laden Was CIA Agent Tim Osman – The Modern Gnostic

History Commons articles backing up the above article:
Context of 'July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Receives Lifesaving Treatment in Dubai, Said to Meet with CIA While There'

Context of 'December 26, 2001: Bin Laden Allegedly Dies of Lung Problems'

Yes I am familiar with the narrative. I'm not invested in it though, it's kind of irrelevant.

 

[Toronado3800]

Governing through fear is not new.

For a semi-recent American perspective we can think of Dwight Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address.

The debate I suppose is more which candidates are trying to govern through fear more?

 

[Tehon]

Governing through fear is not new.

For a semi-recent American perspective we can think of Dwight Eisenhower's warning in his farewell address.

The debate I suppose is more which candidates are trying to govern through fear more?

No it is not, but your comment about Eisenhower's farewell address is out of place. Think more along the lines of the fear created by the perceived threat of communism. It's asking a lot but you should probably watch the video.