WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

[Guest guest]

Dear ones,In the flurry of e-mail articles and statements that many of us arereceiving and sending about the current crisis, I thought you might want tosee one that I have written, called What Should We Do Now?Here it is...In deep love and prayer,John RobbinsWHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?JOHN ROBBINSSomething truly terrible and tragic took place on September 11th, 2001. If Icould, by giving my life, somehow prevent that from having occurred, I woulddo so in a heartbeat. I know I am not alone in this.But none of us can undo what has been done. The question, now, is how willwe respond?Will we experience both our vulnerability and our unity as a nation as neverbefore? Will we see that even beset by such terrifying death anddestruction we are capable of compassion, courage, heroism, and honor? Orwill we do as the bin Ladens of the world would want us to do, seekingrevenge by retaliating with massive violence in the Middle East, thusproviding them with a new generation of suicidal terrorists, eager to fightagainst "evil America" in this "holy war"?I am no stranger to the desire for revenge. Like President George W. Bush,and most likely like you, I have felt it surge through me in recent days.Contemplating what took place on September 11th, are there any among us whohave not, at least momentarily, felt their blood boil with outrage, and withthe demand that these mass murders and all those behind them pay with eyefor an eye?But at such times, when our hearts are filled with bloodlust and our eyeslook everywhere for revenge, it is extraordinarily important that weremember the awesome truth behind Gandhi's prophetic statement: "An eye foran eye will only make the whole world blind."This is the very truth that bin Laden would want us to forget.Bin Laden and his cronies have set a trap for us. It would serve theirpurposes perfectly for us to mount indiscriminate and ongoing air attacks onAfghanistan, killing enormous numbers of innocent people, thus causingfanatics to flock to their cause. Do you think the civilian population ofAfghanistan would be protected in well prepared underground hideouts? Notlikely. But bin Laden and the Taliban rulers would be. Nothing wouldplease these deranged psychotics more than for us to kill children in Kabul,thus enabling them to raise the armies of terror they've always dreamed of.And even if we killed bin Laden in such a bombing attack, it would onlyrender him a martyr in the eyes of those whose support he craves. He wouldlike to see our efforts cause extensive civilian casualties in Afghanistan,because this would push even moderate Muslims toward hatred of the UnitedStates.There is one thing, though, that Osama bin Laden would like even more thanfor us to mount a reckless bombing attack on Afghanistan. And that would befor us to rush headlong into Afghanistan with ground forces in an effort tocontrol the country, for such an attempt would only demonstrate before thewhole world our impotence and stupidity. Remember that the Soviet army triedfor years, and failed, and they had the advantage of being close at hand,knowing the terrain, and they had numerous people who spoke the nativelanguages.You could hardly think of a more effective way to destabilize thepeace-loving Moslem regimes upon whose support the United States nowdepends. An American invasion of Afghanistan, for example, could easilyignite a civil war in Pakistan, with the distinct possibility that Pakistan's government, with its nuclear arms, would then fall into the hands ofextremists supportive of the Taliban. No American response could betterserve bin Laden's evil purposes.If we are not to fall into the trap set by bin Laden and his cohorts, what,then, are we to do?I believe that we must ask the mainstream Islamic world for advice. We mustgo to them and ask them what they would have us do. And then we must listento them, and deeply.It is not the strength of our military and our ability to punish that willenable us to meet this challenge, but the strength of our hearts and ourability to listen. To form an alliance with peace-loving Muslims, we willhave to understand and take seriously their concerns. This will meanreorienting our policies in the Middle East - not, of course, to pacify binLaden (who does not deserve to be pacified, and could not be in any case),but to bring him to justice in a way that undermines his purposes andretains the support of moderate Muslim states. If we lose this support, weplay into bin Laden's hands, and risk world war.It is critical that we remember that our problem is not with Islam, or withMuslim people. Osama bin Laden no more represents Islam than the Klu KluxKlan represents Christianity. Let us indict this man and his cohorts as themass murderers they are, and then, along with our Islamic allies, bring themto world justice. Ben Laden and his compatriots are not only enemies of theUnited States. They are enemies of true Islam, and of the entire worldcommunity. For what took place on September 11th was more than a crimeagainst the United States. It was a crime against humanity. People from 80nations perished in the World Trade Center. There was a Mosque in one ofthe towers. At the time the first plane hit, 500 Muslims were gathered inthat Mosque in prayer. Many of them are believed to have died.Domestically, it is crucial in these times that we go out of our way totreat peace loving Arab Americans with respect and friendship. A group ofpeople in my local community have made themselves available to ArabAmericans, to go with them shopping if they would like that, or to walk withtheir children on the way to school, or to stand by and with themany time that they might feel unsafe or fear that they might be scapegoated.As we take steps to reduce the risk of further terrorist attacks, we mustproceed calmly and deliberately, bearing in mind the need not to erode theliberties and freedoms that are at the core of the American way of life.The true patriot is not the person who, in the name of anti-terrorism, wouldtarget people because of their race, religion, ethnic background, orappearance. The real American is the person who would have us uphold theessential principals of a democratic society. The American dream can berealized only in a world where liberty and justice prevail for all.Since the day he took office, President Bush has been withdrawing fromalmost every multilateral agreement and international treaty except thosethat enhance American profits and power. This is an administration that hassnubbed the world community and disengaged from treaties attempting to dealwith global warming, nuclear disarmament, population control, trafficking insmall arms, chemical and biological weapons, to name just a few. This is anadministration that has defined American self-interest almost without regardfor the concerns of other nations, and sought to ram genetically engineeredfood and hormone laden beef down the throats of the rest of the world. Butnow, suddenly, this is an administration that desperately needs the help ofthe world. There are signs of hope. As a London newspaper recentlycommented, "Colin Powell, in a stunning and rare display of humility for anAmerican official, now acknowledges that in order to fight terrorismeffectively the U.S. is going to have to be more sensitive to the concernsof other cultures."Might the United States remember in all of this that our national purpose isgreater than pursuing corporate profit, and that we have a deep andparamount responsibility to the wellbeing of all of the world's peoples? Asthe president of the State of the World Forum, Jim Garrison, puts it: "Ifout of the present crisis the United States emerges more connected with therest of the world, more willing to compromise national sovereignty withinthe context of the needs of the larger community of nations, more willing tolive cooperatively within coalitions than outside them, then light will havetruly come from out of the darkness and redemption out of the recesses ofhatred and war. In one of the deepest paradoxes of contemporary history,the present crisis might compel America to. (realize) no country is anisland unique unto itself.and the only solution to hate is to stop theunderlying causes that produce it, working within the community of nationsto achieve goals that benefit the poor as well as the rich, the south aswell as the north, the developing nations as well as those more advanced.Achieving this, America will fulfill the deepest yearning of one of itsfounding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who wrote that he believed the realdestiny of America would not be about power; it would be about light."If we would defeat terrorism then we must not only defeat the individual binLaden and his cohorts, but we must also defeat the systemic injustice,exploitation and cruelty that provides fertile soil for terrorism toflourish. We must take actions that will lead to a thriving, just, andsustainable world for all, for this is the only kind of world whereterrorism can not take root. The bitter historical events that came tofruition on September 11th did not come from nowhere, but developed overdecades and even centuries. Likewise the peace and understanding that weseek, and which alone will make us truly safe, need be nurtured andcultivated over generations of time.It is to the planting, nurturing and harvesting of fruits worthy of all thatis good and beautiful in us that we must now, as never before, dedicate ourlives. Because now, as never before, the world needs our wisdom, ourcooperation, our affirmation of the human spirit, and our understanding thatall humanity is connected.

[Guest guest]

Here's a rational, well-informed bit from Noam Chomsky. You all know

how primo Chomsky is (I hope), so you also know how worthwhile it'll

be to read what he has to say.

 

 

Chomsky interview on Radio B92, Belgrade

 

Interviewing Chomsky Radio B92, Belgrade

 

Why do you think these attacks happened?

 

To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the

crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the

Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the

Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,

doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his

control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your

question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views,

and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has

throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of

information.

 

Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly

reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent

correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who

has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience

over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a

militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of

Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist

extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies

in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians --

quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect --

though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the

CIA is unclear, and not particularly important.

 

Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel

fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to " destroy a

moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly

financed by the Americans " (_London Times_ correspondent Simon

Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These " Afghanis " as they

are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out

terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated

these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which

they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes

against Muslims.

 

The " Afghanis " did not terminate their activities, however. They

joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not

object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex

reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern

for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The

" Afghanis " are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite

possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow

and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his " Afghanis "

turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases

in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the

Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because

of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest

shrines.

 

Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive

regimes of the region, which he regards as " un-Islamic, " including

the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist

regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally

since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these

regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by

long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now

in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and

economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and

destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which

Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to

break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take

control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva

Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes

throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime

responsibility for them.

 

And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for

these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the

civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and

caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam

Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain

right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the

Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners

prefer to forget the facts.

 

These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_

(Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged

Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with

close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views:

resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and

blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for

many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh

and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and

imposing barriers against economic development by " propping up

oppressive regimes. " Among the great majority of people suffering

deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter,

and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide

bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the

facts.

 

The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To

quote the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the

perpetrators acted out of " hatred for the values cherished in the

West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and

universal suffrage. " U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need

not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient

picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual

history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be

completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the

merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

 

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are

praying for " a great assault on Muslim states, " which will cause

" fanatics to flock to his cause " (Jenkins, and many others.). That

too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically

welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a

fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite

only one of many cases.

 

 

What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the

American self reception?

 

US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being

offered a " stark choice " : join us, or " face the certain prospect of

death and destruction. " Congress has authorized the use of force

against any individuals or countries the President determines to be

involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as

ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same

people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine

after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to

terminate its " unlawful use of force " against Nicaragua and had

vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe

international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and

destructive even than this atrocity.

 

As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more

complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual

elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the

answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of

decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and

energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission

to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

 

Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of

the

world?

 

The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that

led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of

support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the

agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased

militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs.

That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating

cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the

authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a

society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this

course.

 

 

 

After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to

be. Are you afraid, too?

 

Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one

that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin

Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of

violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater

scale.

 

The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and

other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and

suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,

unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to

terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has

demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are

themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with

revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The

significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in

passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can

learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual

culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think

we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had

the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be

utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical

precedents.

 

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may

come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If

Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the

government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who

in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect

throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this

point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy

much of human society.

 

Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an

attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts

expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin

Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little

difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed

throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a

martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one

suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove

the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The

opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are

very hard to prevent.

 

 

 

" The world will never be the same after 11.09.01 " . Do you think so?

 

The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new

in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the

target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that

its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's

colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.

During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous

population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the

surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing

hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century

particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the

world. The number of victims is colossal.

 

For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The

same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered

murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering

much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under

attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in

England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally

to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have

an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture.

 

It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not

because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of

the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme

importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their

traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they

will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a

familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome.

Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within

the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a

much more humane and honorable course.

 

 

Note from MN: Reading Chomsky's comment on the CIA-

organized " Afghanis " in Chechnya, it occurred to me to look back at

the campaign of terror bombings in Russia attributed to the Chechen

rebels in 1999. One such report follows. I remember at the time that

the widespread attitude in the US seemed to be something like " The

Russians brought it on themselves, or maybe did it to themselves, "

since the Russian military was playing a brutal role in Chechnya

(which was considered a part of Russia). Those bombings in the run-up

to the Russian elections ushered in the current Putin regime in a

hand-off of power from Yeltsin.--MN

 

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/russia/index.html

[Guest guest]

Noam Chomsky, born 1928, an well-known American linguist who

revolutionalized the study of language with his theory of generative

grammar. Eric, I don't know if you had the same text book for Csci 322,

Formal Model as mine. There were at least half a dozen references of Chomsky

in my text book. I also came upon his name in an artifical intelligence

book.

 

Helen

-

" Eric Scott Farris " <rawseattle

<RawSeattle >

Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:49 AM

[RawSeattle] Re: WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

 

 

> Here's a rational, well-informed bit from Noam Chomsky. You all know

> how primo Chomsky is (I hope), so you also know how worthwhile it'll

> be to read what he has to say.

>

>

> Chomsky interview on Radio B92, Belgrade

>

> Interviewing Chomsky Radio B92, Belgrade

>

> Why do you think these attacks happened?

>

> To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the

> crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the

> Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the

> Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,

> doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his

> control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your

> question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views,

> and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has

> throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of

> information.

>

> Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly

> reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent

> correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who

> has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience

> over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a

> militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of

> Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist

> extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies

> in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians --

> quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect --

> though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the

> CIA is unclear, and not particularly important.

>

> Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel

> fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to " destroy a

> moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly

> financed by the Americans " (_London Times_ correspondent Simon

> Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These " Afghanis " as they

> are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out

> terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated

> these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which

> they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes

> against Muslims.

>

> The " Afghanis " did not terminate their activities, however. They

> joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not

> object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex

> reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern

> for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The

> " Afghanis " are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite

> possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow

> and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden and his " Afghanis "

> turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases

> in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the

> Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because

> of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest

> shrines.

>

> Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive

> regimes of the region, which he regards as " un-Islamic, " including

> the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist

> regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally

> since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these

> regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by

> long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now

> in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and

> economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and

> destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which

> Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to

> break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take

> control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva

> Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes

> throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime

> responsibility for them.

>

> And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for

> these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the

> civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and

> caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam

> Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain

> right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the

> Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners

> prefer to forget the facts.

>

> These sentiments are very widely shared. The _Wall Street Journal_

> (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged

> Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with

> close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views:

> resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and

> blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for

> many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh

> and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and

> imposing barriers against economic development by " propping up

> oppressive regimes. " Among the great majority of people suffering

> deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter,

> and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide

> bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the

> facts.

>

> The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To

> quote the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the

> perpetrators acted out of " hatred for the values cherished in the

> West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and

> universal suffrage. " U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need

> not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient

> picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual

> history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be

> completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the

> merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

>

> It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are

> praying for " a great assault on Muslim states, " which will cause

> " fanatics to flock to his cause " (Jenkins, and many others.). That

> too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically

> welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a

> fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite

> only one of many cases.

>

>

> What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the

> American self reception?

>

> US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being

> offered a " stark choice " : join us, or " face the certain prospect of

> death and destruction. " Congress has authorized the use of force

> against any individuals or countries the President determines to be

> involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as

> ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same

> people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine

> after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to

> terminate its " unlawful use of force " against Nicaragua and had

> vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe

> international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and

> destructive even than this atrocity.

>

> As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more

> complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual

> elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the

> answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of

> decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and

> energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission

> to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

>

> Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of

> the

> world?

>

> The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that

> led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of

> support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the

> agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased

> militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs.

> That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating

> cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the

> authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a

> society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this

> course.

>

>

>

> After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to

> be. Are you afraid, too?

>

> Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one

> that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin

> Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of

> violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater

> scale.

>

> The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and

> other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and

> suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,

> unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to

> terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has

> demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are

> themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with

> revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The

> significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in

> passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can

> learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual

> culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think

> we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had

> the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be

> utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical

> precedents.

>

> If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may

> come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If

> Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the

> government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who

> in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect

> throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this

> point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy

> much of human society.

>

> Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an

> attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts

> expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin

> Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little

> difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed

> throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a

> martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one

> suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove

> the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The

> opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are

> very hard to prevent.

>

>

>

> " The world will never be the same after 11.09.01 " . Do you think so?

>

> The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new

> in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the

> target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that

> its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's

> colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.

> During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous

> population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the

> surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing

> hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century

> particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the

> world. The number of victims is colossal.

>

> For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The

> same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered

> murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering

> much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under

> attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in

> England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally

> to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have

> an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture.

>

> It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not

> because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of

> the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme

> importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their

> traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they

> will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a

> familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome.

> Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within

> the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a

> much more humane and honorable course.

>

>

> Note from MN: Reading Chomsky's comment on the CIA-

> organized " Afghanis " in Chechnya, it occurred to me to look back at

> the campaign of terror bombings in Russia attributed to the Chechen

> rebels in 1999. One such report follows. I remember at the time that

> the widespread attitude in the US seemed to be something like " The

> Russians brought it on themselves, or maybe did it to themselves, "

> since the Russian military was playing a brutal role in Chechnya

> (which was considered a part of Russia). Those bombings in the run-up

> to the Russian elections ushered in the current Putin regime in a

> hand-off of power from Yeltsin.--MN

>

> http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/russia/index.html

>

>

>

>

>

>