It's all an illusion

Did anyone catch this one on SBS tonight?

Should we be worried about the threat from organised terrorism or is it simply a phantom menace being used to stop society from falling apart? This three-part documentary series explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

Of course, it's all an illusion. That terrorist business was just a bad dream. What a relief. It must give great satisfaction to the post-modern geniuses who think this stuff up to know that you can serve up any old crap and it will get an airing. We must go and tell the victims of Netanya and Bali and London and Madrid that it was all an illusion. They'd be so relieved. If they weren't dead.


boy_fromOz said…
I haven't watched the show yet, but from the reviews I've read it doesn't argue that terrorism is an illusion. Rather the claim is that the idea of a monolithic organisation waging war on the West is a false picture - an assertion which corresponds with a lot of recent analysis - and one that serves a political agenda.

Will comment more after I've seen episodes one and two tonight.
Jim Woodcock said…
They were accused of playing it for all it was worth, to the point of exaggerating the threat as much as possible. A pretty standard accusation, I thought (although I only saw the second half).

It is the first time, though, that I’ve heard the accusation that it was the neo-cons who allied the Republican Party to the evangelical Christians. But the neo-cons are generally socially progressive, and I thought they didn’t emerge as a political force until some time later.

It looks like the documentary maker doesn’t realise that (as with any political movement) there are ordinary people who are neo-cons, and that the term cannot be used as a byword for Paul Wolfowitz.
Anonymous said…
You're an intelligent bloke, Ari Smarter than me and most I know. So it never ceases to disappoint me as to the size of your blind spot on this whole issue.

Can you not see that it doesn't matter who started it anymore? Demonising these people, refusing to engage with them in any way, while running the invasion and destruction of their country as prime time ratings fodder is bound to make them angry.

You were probably a bit young to recall the full media blitz that was the first gulf war. There were some shots broadcast from the cameras beneath the bombers. The ground below was lit up like a pinball machine.

It was just the most disgusting thing I could imagine being shown on the news, because it was so impersonal and cold.

Now define terrorism for me in such a way as this isn't included.

Ari, no one is denying the acts are evil. It's just the west's response is so thoroughly disproportionate. And the mixed messages between action and words only leave these people feeling further isolated and helpless.

Hate to sound kitch and cute, but if the palestinians were to "do a gandhi" Israel would be screwed, my friend, absolutely screwed!
NahumAyliffe said…
Ari, you know my thoughts on this issue.

1. Governments make hay while the sun shines on terrorism. It's not rational for Westerners to fear terror attacks due to the limited impact of the individual attacks. But they do. And Western governments make political headway by appearing 'tough on terror.'

2. Terrorists are like B grade actors. They are media tarts and their cause only exists whilst it is given airplay. Every time Western governments respond disproportionately to terrorists, we legitimize the terrorists cause, and give them further rationale for hating us. We should ignore them.

3. Shouldn't a conspiracy theorist have just as much right to express their opinion as you or I? Why shouldn't we question the motivation of Western governments. In case you haven't been following it, their solutions are NOT working!

Popular posts from this blog

Thanks for all the fish

Welcome to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

A place to rest my head