I came across this 2005 BBC documentary a couple of days ago.

I checked the archives and Littlsongs linked to it a couple of times last February, but there was not much discussion about it then, and I totally missed it.

It tracks the parallel rise of the Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east, and American neo-conservativism. And how it led us to where we are today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

This documentary is a 3 part series.
And is well worth a look.

Each episode is broken into 6 parts on YouTube.


I have linked only to the first part of each.
Be sure to locate the remaining 5 parts in the related video list.

Part 1 "Baby it's cold outside" (1 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAUDcmaJNWQ&mode=related&search=

Part 2 'Phantom Victory' (1 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny0RPMmDmZ8&mode=related&search=

Part 3 "The Shadows in the Cave" (1 of 6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYH8eM910fs&mode=related&search=

Edit (Duplicate)

A friend burned this to DVD for me, and I watched the first parts of it. Here's what I wrote to him after that:

I have some basic problems with the documentary (so far). For one, it seems like the filmmakers tried too hard to shoehorn the events leading up to 9/11 into a neat premise ("The Neocons and the Islamic terrorists were two sides of the same coin.") The Filmmakers' understanding of American politics also is either naive or purposely stretched to satisfy the film's premise. For example, they suggested that Clinton won the 1992 election because of Americans' outrage about the rise of the religious right, whereas most people will tell you that Bush lost in 92 because of the economy and the perception that he was out of touch with their lives. Also, the filmmakers tend to see everyone opposing Clinton or in the Republican party as a "Neocon" but that's way too simplistic an approach and not always true.

I never did finish watching it. To be honest, I just lost interest due to some of the things I mention. I have read a bit about this subject, and I think the filmmakers were stretching too much to fit a premise.

Andrew

Kinda like Michael Moore.

Watching his stuff is like reading the National Enquirer or any other of the supermarket rags.

Amus, thanks for the thread and the credit.

Andrew, I agree with your appraisal based on what you saw of the documentary. However, I do not think that simplifying the causes of 9/11 was the point of the series. In fact, I think it simply shows a singular root cause of many root causes in a very complex series of events.

The documentary has a distinctly British flavour and that does give room for some error and generalisation -- as they would spell it. Still, with a grain of salt, it is a great show that gives you many paths to research -- especially if you take notes. It is certainly not the last word, but when it was shown, it was one of the first. A brave effort in a dark world.

I think anyone seriously interested in the lead-up to 9/11 should read about it and not rely on documentaries like this. Read more than one source. I can recommend "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright and "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steve Coll for starters.

Andrew

"I think anyone seriously interested in the lead-up to 9/11 should read about it and not rely on documentaries like this."

Andrew, it goes without saying that television is a very poor substitute for an education. However, for someone -- unlike us -- who is unfamiliar with the nether reaches of Powell's and the library, this was a good spot to gain a bit of insight on the manipulation of believers everywhere. Yes, it trips the nerd alarm for me too, but so does every other show on the tube. The Beeb is not immune from simplification or balderdash, in fact, every network feels compelled to spoon feed the viewers.

I do not know why I feel compelled to defend a television show, but in the context of the time, although recent, it was a breakthrough in Western media. We the people were talking about much of it already. Still, it dared to challenge extremism on both sides and that was brave. It backed it up with a simple, but somewhat accurate history of two fundamentalist movements.

Yes, the Wright book is awesome and a better resource by far, but should be part of a pile. I agree with you that one should read as much as possible and make up your own mind. There are an abundance of books about 9/11, but many are sensational malarkey. Even the 9/11 Commission Report omits details found in the public record.

Many facts remain here and there -- and thanks in part to George Washington University -- more are being brought to light every day. Here is a short read that might interest you kind folks. It is a memorandum from the National Security Archive dated January 25, 2001:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

We need to talk about your TPS reports. Yeah. Did you get that memo? Ah. Yeah.

“I think anyone seriously interested in the lead-up to 9/11 should read about it and not rely on documentaries like this.”

Good Grief Andrew!
Who said anything about relying on this or any other single source for information?