@CB Added that to my watch later list, sounds incredibly interesting and informative.

in 2004 that discusses the historical background in detail. I highly recommend viewing these in order to understand the roots of terrorism.

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear is a BBC television documentary series by Adam Curtis.

Part 1. 'Baby It's Cold Outside'

The first part of the series explains the origins of Islamism and neoconservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, depicted as the founder of modern Islamist thinking, visiting the U.S. to learn about its education system, then becoming disgusted at what he judged as the corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism. When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by westernisation under Gamal Abdel Nasser and becomes convinced that in order to save his own society, it must be completely restructured along the lines of Islamic law while still using western technology. He then becomes convinced that his vision can only be accomplished through use of an elite "vanguard" to lead a revolution against the established order. Qutb becomes a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and, after being tortured in one of Nasser's jails, comes to believe that western-influenced leaders can be justifiably killed to remove their corruption. Qutb is executed in 1966, but he influences Ayman al-Zawahiri, the future mentor of Osama bin Laden, to start his own secret Islamist group. Inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, Zawahiri and his allies assassinate Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat in 1981 in the hopes of starting their own revolution. However, the revolution does not materialise, and Zawahiri comes to believe that a majority of Muslims have been corrupted, not only by their western-inspired leaders, but Muslims themselves have been affected by jahilliyah and thus may be legitimate targets of violence if they refuse to join his cause. They continued to believe that a vanguard was necessary to rise up and overthrow the corrupt regime and replace it with a 'pure' Islamist state.

Part 2. 'The Phantom Victory'

In the second part, Islamist factions, rapidly falling under the more radical influence of Zawahiri and his rich Saudi acolyte Osama bin Laden, join the neoconservative-influenced Reagan administration to combat the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. When the Soviets eventually pull out of Afghanistan, and when the Eastern Bloc begins to collapse in 1989, both the Islamists and the neoconservatives believe they are the primary architects of the "Evil Empire's" defeat. Curtis argues that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapsing anyway. However, the Islamists see it quite differently. In their triumph, they believe they have the power to create 'pure' Islamic states in Egypt and Algeria. Attempts to create such Islamic states are blocked by force. The Islamists then try to foment revolutions in Egypt and Algeria by using terrorism to scare the people into rising up against their leaders. But the people are terrified by the violence, and the Algerian government exploits that fear as a way to hang on to power. In the end, the Islamists declare the entire populations of the countries to be thoroughly contaminated by western values. Finally, in Algeria, they begin to turn on each other, each believing that members of other terrorist groups are not true Muslims.

In America, neoconservative aspirations to use the United States' military power to further destroy evildoers are thrown off track by the election of George H. W. Bush to the presidency, followed by the election in 1992 of Bill Clinton which left them totally out of power. The neoconservatives, along with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonize Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality. To their disappointment, the American people do not turn against Clinton. Meanwhile, Islamist attempts at revolution end in massive bloodshed, leaving the Islamists without popular support. Zawahiri and bin Laden flee to the relative safety of Afghanistan and declare a new strategy. To fight Western-inspired moral decay, they must deal a blow to its source: the United States.

Part 3. 'The Shadows in the Cave'

The neoconservatives use the September 11 attacks, with al-Fadl's description of al-Qaeda, to launch the War on Terror.

The final part addresses the actual rise of al-Qaeda. Curtis argues that, after their failed revolutions, bin Laden and Zawahiri had little or no popular support, let alone a serious complex organisation of terrorists, and were dependent on independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad. However, the film argues that in order to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, U.S. prosecutors had to prove that he is the head of a criminal organisation responsible for the bombings. They find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden is the head of a massive terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda". With the September 11 attacks, neoconservatives in the new Republican administration of George W. Bush use this invented concept of an organisation to justify another crusade against a new enemy, culminating in the launch of the War on Terror.

After the American invasion of Afghanistan fails to uproot the alleged terrorist organisation, the Bush administration focuses inwards, searching unsuccessfully for terrorist sleeper cells in America. In 2003, they extend the War on Terror to a war on general perceived evils with the invasion of Iraq. The ideas and tactics also spread to the United Kingdom, where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority. The repercussions of the neoconservative strategy are also explored, with an investigation of indefinitely-detained terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, many allegedly taken on the word of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance without actual investigation on the part of the United States military, and other forms of "preemption" against non-existent and unlikely threats made simply on the grounds that the parties involved had the potential to become a threat. Curtis specifically attempts to allay fears of a dirty bomb attack, and concludes by reassuring viewers that politicians will eventually have to concede that some threats are exaggerated and others have no foundation in reality. He says, "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."

we left them most of our military equipment when we left Iraq after the status of forces agreement was up.
Then they were attacked by a ragtag force that had inferior weapons, but the Iraqi military ran away and let them capture their equipment. This was the tell that the meme of training Iraq's military was another farce.
How many times did this repeat in not only Iraq, but in Syria too?
Yep. Total bullshit that the military is actually fighting the "terrorists"
They aren't terrorists if our country and our allies are funding, arming and training them.
@CB

in the destruction of Syria. They set the timetable by controlling the type and quantity of weapons that flowed into the so-called "rebels" hands. They knew from the beginning that the FSA was working hand-in-hand with Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and that the weapons would be transferred. But this gave them plausible deniability.

Because there was no faction suitable to take charge of the country and control the border with Israel with the fall of Assad due to extensive squabbles and disagreements between different expats and defecting military leaders, the plan went to option B. Dole out weapons and financial support to warring factions that would literally destroy the infrastructure and very fabric of the country so it would not be capable of projecting power outside its borders for generations to come. The US has an extensive history of doing just this when they can't get a suitable regime into power. This is discussed in the video below.

At the end of the interview there is an implied threat about using WMD's. I believe this was going to be a false flag event in order to force Uncle Sam's hand to take Assad out like what was done in Libya. Fortunately it failed to materialize thanks to Russian statesmanship. This was about the time that Putin understood fully what the US was doing in Syria and that he would have to involve the Russian military to prevent another complete destruction and collapse of Syria like what was done to Libya.

@CB here.
The things he said makes total sense and I wonder if people actually heard what he said, would that change anything about how people view him?

He shamed Obama into finally bombing the ISIS convoys that were miles long and taking oil into Turkey to sell it to Israel.
I'm pretty sure that our government could place restrictions on our allies, especially Israel. All that needs to be done is tell them that if they don't keep buying oil from ISIS, we will cut off the billions we give them every year.
This same thing can be done to the Saudis. If they don't quit their abominable human rights abuses, we won't sell them weapons, continue to refuel their jets for their bombing of Yemen and countless other ways to control our allies. The fact that they don't, shows that they don't care about what they are doing.

If those media people had shown this interview, they would be accused of repeating Putin's talking points. Just like Jill Stein is doing when she said that this Russian interference with the election is a smoke screen for why Her lost the election.
This is a diary on ToP today.
Jill also said that the DNC had been exposed for rigging the primary for Her, but the Herbots say that there is no proof of this in the emails that Wikileaks released.

Sigh. The denial there is very deep. I can't wait to see what happens when this Russian crap explodes.

he understands the real problem. It is that the US that has directly created ISIS with its foreign policies.

Is it no wonder why the US Deep State considers Putin an existential enemy and needs to demonize him? He speaks truth to global power.

@detroitmechworks

So, Yeah, I've probably pissed off quite a few people right now, and I do not apologize and will not apologize for it. This is me. I cannot allow myself to fall into self-censorship again, and won't do it.

Generally, you speak for me.

So, don't self-censor. You're savin' me keystrokes here.

I am sick and tired of being told that my opposition to war is "Racist" and "Sexist".

It comes up over and over again. I can't talk about the Saudis, my experience with the Iraqis or anything else, because apparently my personal experience with a religion is to be ignored in favor of the massaged, focus tested, liberated women who "Choose" to wear burquas, and embrace Islam. Apparently I'm supposed to cheer when my feminist allies shout "Allah Akbar!" because it shows solidarity.

I am tired of it. I honestly do not like Islam. Same way I don't like most Christians. Same way I loathe right wing reactionary Jews who want to kill every Palestinian on principle. Religion can be toxic, and claiming that some are above criticism drives me nuts.

Nothing pissed me off more than watching the "left" and "right" come together to worship at the bedside of McCain the Warmonger. Everything is forgiven because of the random vagaries of genetics. He'll go down in history as a great statesman... because everything is forgiven because of disease. Even my SO disagrees with me on this because of the "Need" to show respect to those with deadly illnesses. I suppose I am supposed to like Pol Pot because he died of a Heart Attack.

So, Yeah, I've probably pissed off quite a few people right now, and I do not apologize and will not apologize for it. This is me. I cannot allow myself to fall into self-censorship again, and won't do it.

@k9disc

The slogans and messaging I've seen so far are neither marketing nor values.

I'd call them obfuscation.

I've been trying to figure it out:

https://caucus99percent.com/comment/281672#comment-281672

Perhaps the Party is trying to hide their values and market generic words.

beltway consultants is not a successful political tactic from the Left.

We're a complete non-starter for the corporate media.

What if Bernie would have given his $228M to 1000 YT Hosts each host would have made $22,800 dollars. That's a minimum wage gig for voicing your values.

The problem with the Left is that we refuse to take money for our political action. That's why Heritage and AEI clobber us. They've got 20 dudes hanging out in DC doing political activism for a living. We don't do that, at all. We donate our time pushing the Sisyphean boulder up the corporate hill - "Nah, I'll do it for free in my spare time..."

A lack of imagination killed Bernie. He was almost there, but he fell into the gaping maw of "respectable" media.

$228M invested and paying out dividends to activists would be still paying off, and most likely would be paying off for years with wise financial managment.

Sad that he gave it away to his nemesis, the corporate media. They used it to pad their pockets and eviscerate his political veracity.

Getting the message out is NOT the problem. The problem is crafting the message.

And I do know that this runs directly into the Democratic Party's excuse machine. Messaging is important, it's the most important thing after declaring your values.

Democrats are in search of a marketing message, not a values message -- there's a huge difference. It's the difference between the pulpit and PR. We all know the score there...

@on the cusp

….in high schools. I just saw a documentary on Reuters about it. Kids brains are softer and easier to program.

I am seeing lots of high school grads joining the military. Imagine being 18 and you have no memory of life without a war on terror.

@Strife Delivery

None of this can be addressed from inside the US. We need more courageous people like Edward Snowden, who are willing to take it to the world and get the ball rolling. Books need to be written and published that propose smart solutions — like base closures, sanctions, and abandonment of the US dollar. An off-shore think tank with great talents who can never return, again. Heros. Humanitarians.

The future is counting on us.

The American people don't give a damn about war. Hell, they often love it. Kill brown people, Muslims, Asians, Communists, scary people, others. The American people are amazingly a fearful people, easily misled to believe everyone is coming to kill them in their bed.

What was our last major war resistance movement? What...Vietnam? And why's that? I'd partially say cause of the draft. If you FORCE people to go to fight the wars, well, people don't seem to like that. So they stopped that. With that, so too does any concern about the actual war. It's not some altruistic concern that America is slaughtering millions of people, it's that people don't want to be forced to go fight it. Once the threat is gone, they stop caring.

Basically you can kill tens of millions of people, just make sure I don't have to go there.