Al Qaida and the Neo Cons, Wizard Award ~ Pandora's challenge entry Options

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Full re-write will follow - please do not crit this as it stands.
Thanks (and sorry)
Fran


*Graphic provided by
Celtic Castle Designs

Al Qaida and the Neo Cons

Born of each other;
existence entwined;
thorny questions
of evolution's offshoots.
Your downfall within sight
ahead brings misgiving:
a formality to take off
the mask of reason -
a casualty of this breakdown;
a monstrous mistake
in your uprising
without which any instinct
for hatred
would be extinct.
Undergo powerful changes
as we break up connections,
overcome Truth:
a new take on history
behind us.

© Toumai, 2005

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi Fran

I'm glad you have posted this for crit as maybe now you can help me get some clarity on what you are trying to say.
I am a bit confused.  My attitude to the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq are somewhat different and my knowledge of the politics of the new cons very hazy.  How much influence did the neo cons have in pushing for the events in Afghanistan?  Retaliation for September 11 seems to me to have been inevitable.

a casualty of this breakdown;
a monstrous mistake
in your uprising
without which any instinct
for hatred
would be extinct.
I'm not sure that I agree with this statement.  Firstly are you referring to Al Quaida's attack on the US or the attack on Afghanistan?  Secondly with or without an uprising, hatred would still exist on both sides and within Afghanistan.

Undergo powerful changes
as we break up connections,
overcome Truth:
a new take on history
behind us
I don't understand what you mean by overcome truth.  Is it possible?  Overcome propaganda maybe.

As I say, my understanding of the politics is vague.  

Nina

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Good morning, Nina

You are very brave indeed to tackle this dense linguistic tangle.  

I'm glad you have posted this for crit as maybe now you can help me get some clarity on what you are trying to say.

LOL, I had a feeling that it didn't make good sense.

I am a bit confused.  My attitude to the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq are somewhat different and my knowledge of the politics of the new cons very hazy.  How much influence did the neo cons have in pushing for the events in Afghanistan?  Retaliation for September 11 seems to me to have been inevitable.

I was more thinking of the genesis of both the US neo con movement and Al Qaida, several decades ago. There was a fascinating BBC2 series on the origins of terror a few months ago.

a casualty of this breakdown;
a monstrous mistake
in your uprising
without which any instinct
for hatred
would be extinct.
I'm not sure that I agree with this statement.  Firstly are you referring to Al Quaida's attack on the US or the attack on Afghanistan?  Secondly with or without an uprising, hatred would still exist on both sides and within Afghanistan.

I think (lol - I have trouble with this now! ) I was using uprising (one of the set words) as growth - increase in power - and if one side didn't grow there would be nothing for the other side to hate and it might also shrivel.

Undergo powerful changes
as we break up connections,
overcome Truth:
a new take on history
behind us
I don't understand what you mean by overcome truth.  Is it possible?  Overcome propaganda maybe.

History is always re-written from the viewpoint of the winner, even if only subtly. Anyone who writes a history book - or a current account as a journalist - has their own viewpoint, their own baggage, their own agenda. Unless the two groups allow cross-communication we shall have a very one-sided account to diseminate.

As I say, my understanding of the politics is vague.  

I am no political expert, either - just very interested in how people and politics mix.

Thanks, Nina. I think this might be one for a complete re-write at some future time. Howeverm I did think that the use of the comp words gives it a suitably govt-speak obfuscation ...  

Fran

[Guest__*]

Dear Fran,

Thank you for that explanation to Nina.

Now, what does it mean ? I'm glad to realise that it comes from the opposites challenge, I suppose I knew that when I first read it in Pandora, but I understood it so little then that I forgot.

Perhaps I had better ask "What is a neo-con ?" anyway ?

Love
Alan

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi Alan

Another brave soul.  

Neo Con is the name of the extreme right-wing 'new conservative' somewhat paranoid group which grew out of American politics in the fifties onwards - during the same period the movement which spawned Al Qaida was also forming in the middle East. Both groups were worried by the 'degeneracy' of their cultures and the threat of communism. Both tried to 'purify' and 'imporve' their people. Both used religion and fear - of others - to cement their paranoid influence.

I cannot recall all the details from the BBC series, or a fascinating book I read (memory like a seive) but one wonderful story does spring to mind:

The CIA (?) were involved in propaganda to increase patriotism in the States. Best way to do that? Identify a threat to the country. But communism was failing - the Berlin wall had fallen (or was about to) so they invented a new enemy, a Muslim threat, and wrote a long report with (fabricated) details.

A new regime at the Whitehouse (Regan, perhaps?) were shocked by the report - believed it - and called the CIA. 'We must get evidence!' 'But we created this.' 'Get evidence!' So they did...

Escalation of mistrust and hatred are inevitable where both sides wilfully create myths about the power and evilness of the opposition ... thus we come, eventually, to 911 and the subsequent war on terror.

Fran

[Siren]

Dear Fran,

It takes a brave heart to tackle such an issue. Politics is such a hard entity to decipher. The rules are there, the need to better the world is there but the hunger to be the strongest eats up all good intentions...

Fran in your response to Nina you said such wise words:
History is always re-written from the viewpoint of the winner, even if only subtly. Anyone who writes a history book - or a current account as a journalist - has their own viewpoint, their own baggage, their own agenda. Unless the two groups allow cross-communication we shall have a very one-sided account to diseminate.

How true that is and though it is always good to know what goes on in the world I have stopped watching the news and getting involved in anything poilitical because in my eyes nothing will change. Even if our awareness of the mistakes our politicians are making grows, the answers known, nothing will be done to amend them. I just hope I raise my kids with an openmindedness and no descrimination towards others. Believe me, it's a hard task in this day and age.

In your repsonse to Alan,

Neo Con is the name of the extreme right-wing 'new conservative' somewhat paranoid group which grew out of American politics in the fifties onwards - during the same period the movement which spawned Al Qaida was also forming in the middle East. Both groups were worried by the 'degeneracy' of their cultures and the threat of communism. Both tried to 'purify' and 'imporve' their people. Both used religion and fear - of others - to cement their paranoid influence.

Thanks for the explanation. Religion and fear are still being used and I have seen it personally. Fran, This is a delicate subject and to me it reaches so deep inside. I do hope you polish this. I for one would love to see it in clearer light. :)

Sorry for yammering.

Dani

[Guest_Perrorist_*]

Fran

I also had difficulty with the poem, and I suspect it's because you were responding to a challenge to include certain words.

If you want to posit opposites, instead of using NeoCons, use fundamendalist Christians. They are the more logical opponents of fundamentalist Muslims. In both cases, they have an absolutist view of good and evil (i.e. black and white with no greys). They're also equally to be feared.

The NeoCons is a nationalistic group that believes that the US should exploit its dominant power to its advantage (no surprises there) now that the Soviet Union has ceased to be the countervailing power it once was. It manufactures reasons for intruding in the affairs of other countries whenever it suits American commercial interests to do so. Hence, the invasion of Iraq. (This is fairly simplistic, as the Jewish involvement in the NeoCons is to protect the Israeli state.)

Perry

[Guest__*]

Dear Fran,

Thank you for this. There is one problem with the sequence as you describe : The whole story is filtered through the minds/pens/cameras of the BBC, which is recruited majorly from the pages of the Guardian (Gruniad), thus both can be said to be soft-left propaganda houses.

If every word you utter, in total communicated certainty, is tinged with pink, it would not be hard to imagine that history is written by the "victors" is replaced with "commentators".

Thus I would not trust any political judgements or even info from the BBC without keeping a beady eye on what they say AND on how they say it. As an example, when the Tories were starting the process of working thru their policies a few years back, they would announce them one by one. The BBC political woman would give a fairly straight report on the new polocies, then end with "But is it enough ? ", which to the unaware listener would throw a wet blanket over the whole thing, make it seem useless/hopeless.

My point is that IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE ENOUGH, just one of many steps due, but the pinkness (not Billydo's kind) tinged it to prejudice.

It is also interesting to see them always saying "But the Americans" did so and so years ago - failing to mention that the Americans, like us, have 2 opposed political parties, and that the condemned acts were done by their socialists (Democrats), but they still blame the "neo-cons" or right-wing extremists etc etc. What is a right-wing extremist ? Anybody you don't agree with. Josef Goebbels would have been proud of his acolytes here. I think he even said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. (He was Hitler's "Minister of Propaganda)

Love
Alan

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi Fran

You are very brave indeed to tackle this dense linguistic tangle.  
you know me.  I leap out of the aeroplane feet first, only to realise half way down that I have forgotten the parachute.

I agree with Alan's viewpoint of BBC reporting.  It does tend to be somewhat biased.

think (lol - I have trouble with this now! ) I was using uprising (one of the set words) as growth - increase in power - and if one side didn't grow there would be nothing for the other side to hate and it might also shrivel.
I think that each side would have found something else to hate, after all the neo cons hate Iraq and Saddam Hussein and if not them, then someone else.  I'm sure the same is true for Al Quida.  They want to hate.

History is always re-written from the viewpoint of the winner, even if only subtly. Anyone who writes a history book - or a current account as a journalist - has their own viewpoint, their own baggage, their own agenda. Unless the two groups allow cross-communication we shall have a very one-sided account to diseminate.
I think history is written from the viewpoint of the side writing it, whether winner or loser, the truth is always skewed to show that side in the best light.

Nina

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Dear Dani,

I am so happy to see you on MM after your worry week with your Anna. Sorry to greet you with such an impenetrable and depressing poem, but thanks for taking time to read and comment.

It is very depressing to watch the news when we have so little power to change anything. Many people here don't even bother to vote, because they feel it achieves nothing. My grandmother was born before women won the right to vote, so I cherish mine and always use it. Sometimes it makes a difference just to know that there really are other people in the country - in the world - with similar concerns.

Hugs,

FRan

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Dear Alan,

Thank you for this. There is one problem with the sequence as you describe : The whole story is filtered through the minds/pens/cameras of the BBC, which is recruited majorly from the pages of the Guardian (Gruniad), thus both can be said to be soft-left propaganda houses.

Ah, but now you are talking about that snippet in my reply - certainly very left filtered (yet more so coming from me, lol). However, I think my poem is based on somethign more fundamental: the way that governments ahve to pick an outside influence as 'the enemy' in order to strengthen their own power.

If every word you utter, in total communicated certainty, is tinged with pink, it would not be hard to imagine that history is written by the "victors" is replaced with "commentators".

Thus I would not trust any political judgements or even info from the BBC without keeping a beady eye on what they say AND on how they say it. As an example, when the Tories were starting the process of working thru their policies a few years back, they would announce them one by one. The BBC political woman would give a fairly straight report on the new polocies, then end with "But is it enough ? ", which to the unaware listener would throw a wet blanket over the whole thing, make it seem useless/hopeless.

I quite agree - all news sources have their own biases. Fox news springs to mind - they could do with some of that rabies vacine, lol.

My point is that IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE ENOUGH, just one of many steps due, but the pinkness (not Billydo's kind) tinged it to prejudice.

I'm not quite sure what 'was never intended to be enough' here, Alan.

It is also interesting to see them always saying "But the Americans" did so and so years ago - failing to mention that the Americans, like us, have 2 opposed political parties, and that the condemned acts were done by their socialists (Democrats), but they still blame the "neo-cons" or right-wing extremists etc etc. What is a right-wing extremist ? Anybody you don't agree with. Josef Goebbels would have been proud of his acolytes here. I think he even said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. (He was Hitler's "Minister of Propaganda)

LOL, don't I recall the commies always being blamed for everything, too? I think any shaddowy group with disproportionate power will always - quite rightly - be treated with suspician by those not blessed with its confidences.

Love,

Fran

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi Nina

I agree with Alan's viewpoint of BBC reporting.  It does tend to be somewhat biased.

Yes, I'm also inclined to agree.

I think that each side would have found something else to hate, after all the neo cons hate Iraq and Saddam Hussein and if not them, then someone else.  I'm sure the same is true for Al Quida.  They want to hate.

Indeed. By building up an enemy they also aim to strengthen their own internal power. In 1984 Orwell parodies this by having the 'enemy' change apparently arbitrarily, thus Winston is constantly re-writing history from his ministry office.

I think history is written from the viewpoint of the side writing it, whether winner or loser, the truth is always skewed to show that side in the best light.

Yes, providing the loser has access to some means of saving that history. Most histories are written by accademics/scholars/authors and require the aid of a publisher ... so tiny minorities are unlikely to get any say. Are histories of Romanies in Europe by the gypsies themselves (not anthropologists) well known for example? I doubt it.

Fran

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi, Perry

Sorry, I mislaid your reply - this has sparked some interesting debate.

I also had difficulty with the poem, and I suspect it's because you were responding to a challenge to include certain words.

Yes. You are quite right. But without the challenge pushing me I wouldn't have tackled such an issue, I think. I may well come back to this theme - but not for a while  

If you want to posit opposites, instead of using NeoCons, use fundamendalist Christians. They are the more logical opponents of fundamentalist Muslims. In both cases, they have an absolutist view of good and evil (i.e. black and white with no greys). They're also equally to be feared.

Many people are very religious. I do not think that religion itself would be such an issue in the world if it were not manipulated by political leaders to their own ends. Truely religious people really believe in their Gods. The neo cons, for example, abused that belief by linking it to their manipulations of power in an utterly cynical accademic excercise. Thus my disgust is for that political use of others' beliefs.

The NeoCons is a nationalistic group that believes that the US should exploit its dominant power to its advantage (no surprises there) now that the Soviet Union has ceased to be the countervailing power it once was. It manufactures reasons for intruding in the affairs of other countries whenever it suits American commercial interests to do so. Hence, the invasion of Iraq. (This is fairly simplistic, as the Jewish involvement in the NeoCons is to protect the Israeli state.)

Yes. A shady organisation with great political power and a very dangerous, greedy agenda.

Thanks, Perry

Apologies to everyone for all the (extra) typos this morning; my 10-year-old keyboard died and so I am getting used to a new model (but at least it works).

Fran

[Guest_Perrorist_*]

Fran

It's not religion that I'm commenting on, but religious extremism - in fact any kind of extremism is dangerous. This is what's driving the world towards a crisis point. In a few years, probably sooner, there is going to be a serious conflagration - not in the traditional sense (world wars) but by the use of sophisticated technology allied with more prosaic methods of waging war, including WMD. Its seeds are the actions of the West today.

Alan

You may believe the BBC is biased and perhaps it is, but its charter requires it to be as even-handed as possible and thus it is accountable and subject to correction. This, unfortunately, is not the case for most of the other news media, which have moved inexorably to an uncompromising right-wing position that influences the majority of the population. The UK, US, Australia, and many European countries are affected by this phenomenon as well.

Perry

[Siren]

Fran,

Thanks for the sweet words. When I get depressed over the political issues of our world knowing full well I wont be able to change it I only have to look at the little accomplishments I have made in my life and that is reaching out to people who are of different cultures and opening my mind to their minds and revealing parts of mine too... That alone makes my personal world much more worthwhile.


Perry,

You are so right in your depiction of the future. I too feel there will be such a major upheaval to our world, with the help of technology. It's of "Tsunamic" proportions. I tend to not dwell on it though, and focus on now and leave that till then. :)


Dani

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, et al.

I was going to post my crit here. However, it is now later in this tile. Sorry. J.

I entirely disagree about the BBC. I find it to be by far the fairest-best news organisation I know. (The UK's Sky News and ITN are equally fair but less good; Sky News's US partner station, Fox News is more right-wing I'm told). I can’t tell you how angry I become with the UK Tory party forever spitting its extreme right-wing poison at the BBC. If the newspapers had their way we’d have even more Tory policies than we do now - just so the rest of the UK could kow-tow to SE England belief in a neo-free market economy. The BBC acts as a stalwart protector from all the newspaper lies.

I think to say the BBC is staffed by Guardian types is unfair, Most of the UK print media is very right-wing and the BBC only looks left wing because it is being as fair as possible, whereas the print media are often rabidly right. We must remember how far the UK has shifted to the right since the Furher took office in 1979.

Perry, apart from agreeing with you on the BBC, I also agree with you on the following:

>>It's not religion that I'm commenting on, but religious extremism - in fact any kind of extremism is dangerous. This is what's driving the world towards a crisis point.

For me the two (three) danger centres are Islamic fundamentalism and US Christian fundamentalism (possible Israeli Jewish fundamentalism, too). The Neo-Cons and US Christian fundamentalists are really synonyms. (We can argue shades but we have to have some categories).

Fran - as I mentioned I do have a crit started. When it's finished I'll post it above these in this posting.

J.

[Guest_Perrorist_*]

James

The Neo-Cons and US Christian fundamentalists are really synonyms. (We can argue shades but we have to have some categories).

I have to take issue with that statement. The Neo-Cons were not religiously motivated - their aim was the spread of the US empire. The Christian Right on the other hand has a different mission: a theocratic USA.

The confluence of the two streams is what makes the current situation so disturbing. The Administration is strongly influenced by both and moderate Republicans are finding it very hard to maintain any ground, while the Democrats are dismissed as unAmerican whenever they criticise US policy.

The US is in jeopardy. All the things we used to admire the US for (individual liberty, the right to free speech, due legal process, etc) are being undermined and replaced with an intolerant, moralistic ethic. Many Americans feel this way, but also feel powerless to turn things around. The same is true in Australia and probably in Britain too.

Perry

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, Perry,

>J>The Neo-Cons and US Christian fundamentalists are really synonyms. (We can argue shades but we have to have some categories).

>P>I have to take issue with that statement. The Neo-Cons were not religiously motivated - their aim was the spread of the US empire. The Christian Right on the other hand has a different mission: a theocratic USA.

I accept that. However, the Neo-Cons have hi-jacked the US religious right to give them a political power base - George W being the embodiment of that. At the same time, the US Christian right has jumped into bed with the neo-cons to establish greater control over the US people (a theocratic USA, as you rightly say). So, though, intellectually and by origin, the two groups are very different, they have come together to form the same problem. It is that problem which worries me - which is why I regard them as synonymous.

>P>The confluence of the two streams is what makes the current situation so disturbing. The Administration is strongly influenced by both and moderate Republicans are finding it very hard to maintain any ground, while the Democrats are dismissed as un-American whenever they criticise US policy.

Yes. 100% agreement. The current US administration is, in my opinion, at least as bigger threat to the World (and probably bigger) than Al Qeada itself.

>P>The US is in jeopardy. All the things we used to admire the US for (individual liberty, the right to free speech, due legal process, etc) are being undermined and replaced with an intolerant, moralistic ethic. Many Americans feel this way, but also feel powerless to turn things around. The same is true in Australia and probably in Britain too.

Moralistic - just to note that is the perverted neo-con / religious right morals. Perverted that is from the previous reliance on the things which you mentioned (rule of law etc).

Britain has tendencies but I think back-lashes might well stop us. The Liberal Democrats did well in recent elections and Blair is very deeply unpopular within hi s own party and the country - because of the Iraq invasion. Those waiting to take over from Blair are more to the left than he is (though I'm not sure I really accept left / right any more). The UK Tories have been pulled leftwards too. Also, in the UK religion is of trivial importance - except, perhaps, the emergence of Islam amongst British Muslims.

So I think we agree in basis Perry but, I accept that my language was sloppy - yes they are two separate strands in origin but I now see them as the same enemy.

The USA is one of Britain's best friends and it is a friend's duty to help. The US needs rescuing from this evil before it destroys the US then everyone else. George W - however offended one is by him, is simply the face - all the problems lie very deeply in US right wing Neo-Con / religious Right psyche and activities.

J.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran,

Unusually, I have read through many other comments - but especially your replies - before posting this. I needed to understand better.

I mentioned to you I had par-critted this previously. Not only cannot I find that but I cannot remember doing it. As I wasn’t lying I must have been thinking of something else, sorry.

>F>I was more thinking of the genesis of both the US neo con movement and Al Qaida, several decades ago. There was a fascinating BBC2 series on the origins of terror a few months ago.

Brilliant tv series. - all about making-up nightmares. I didn’t agree with it all but its central thesis was excellent - the Neo-Cons needed a bogeyman to replace the dying USSR. The old thing - create an enemy so that people turn to you for help. Also a good measure of cock-up as well as conspiracy in it.

>F>The CIA (?) were involved in propaganda to increase patriotism

Let’s call it blind stupidity, not patriotism. Patriotic Americans, one hopes, would oppose all this nonsense if they could see behind it.

>F>History is always re-written from the viewpoint of the winner, even if only subtly.

Subtly is worse. If ham-fisted far easier to identify and argue against.

Yes, always true because the losers are dead, repressed or vanquished.

Al Qaida and the Neo Cons

Born of each other; (This is certainly true)
existence entwined; (ditto)
thorny questions
of evolution's offshoots. (clever use of language)
Your downfall within sight [-]
ahead brings misgiving: (clever juxtaposition of downfall / ahead)
a formality to take off
the mask of reason - (mask indeed)
a casualty of this breakdown;
a monstrous mistake
in your uprising
without which any instinct
for hatred
would be extinct.

(I don’t know about any - many reasonable people hate - the emotion of hate can live with reason)

Undergo powerful changes
as we break up connections,
overcome Truth:
a new take on history
behind us.

Fran, I have to admit that I am still struggling to understand what you are saying, sorry.

I think you have used language cleverly - but, perhaps, too cleverly. You have ducked and weaved round words and the challenge and tried to make important statements fit them.

I would recommend a re-write. Omit the competition words - all of them - and put your ideas down afresh. If any competition words fit so be it. However, your downfall here is not your poetry; it is the jigsaw you have had to cut.

I feel guilty because it may have been my urging that convinced you to put this to crit and then I can’t remember or find what I was going to say - very sorry indeed. However, if you’re willing to re-write this somewhat I’ll feel smug because inside that straightjacket of the competition words is a great poem struggling to escape - look at all the debate it has given birth to.

I would love to see a re-write on this issue from you. You DO understand politics; such is obvious.

J.

[Cleo_Serapis]

Hi Fran.

I'll try to pop in again once I'm home from work to see if I can offer a critique on this poem.

It is generating ALOT of discussion. I count 18 replies thus far.

Food for thought!

Cheers!
~Cleo