BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


chomsky + friends on the bombings

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:23 / 13.09.01
quote:The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally ­ hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.

- Noam Chomsky


[ 22-09-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:26 / 13.09.01
more cool-headed analysis over at ZNet
 
 
deja_vroom
09:35 / 13.09.01
I just love this guy.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:35 / 13.09.01
from an interview with Phyllis Bennis, again at ZNet:

quote:Ward: Make the case for why the U.S. would be so hated in the Middle East.

Bennis: I think it's hated in the Middle East because, number one, it's uncritical support to the tune of between three and five billion dollars a year in unconditional support to Israeli occupation, including providing the helicopter gunships, the F-16s, the missiles that are fired from the gunships, that are used to enforce that occupation. It's hated, number two, because it has armed these, these, repressive Arab regimes throughout the region, in Saudi Arabia, In Egypt, in Jordan, throughout the region, that have suppressed their own people, that have taken either oil money or arms to build absolute monarchies in which citizens have no rights and where the U.S. claims to support democratization of every government in the world, don't seem to apply when the U.S. seems to think it's fine when one absolute monarch dies and passes on the baton to his son, you see every U.S. official and all of their European and other Western allies flocking to the funeral to say "The King is dead, long live the new King." We see it in Saudi Arabia, we see it in Morocco, in Jordan, throughout the region. And there's enormous resentment of that kind of support. So those two sectors alone, support for the Israeli occupation and the arming of these repressive Arab regimes is enough. Now that doesn't even get to the question of the impact of U.S. imposed sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq, the bombing of Iraq, that's been going on for ten years now, all of these are things that have dropped off the radar screen of the media coverage in the U.S. but are very much front and center in Arab consciousness in the region.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:49 / 13.09.01
quote:Good-hearted Americans will mourn these innocent and horrible deaths with dignity and with respect. Media analysts and politicians, however, will soon use pictures of the rubble to seek increased police and military spending and greater state interventionary and surveillance powers. They will intone that killing civilians is cowardly and warrants swift and merciless punishment. They will however ignore having themselves supported the recent assault on Yugoslavia that terrorized that country’s civilian population to topple its despised government. They will also ignore that the U.S.-led embargo of Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, again to destabilize a hated government. Today’s terrorism was horrendously vile. It arose in a terror-infected world.

People throughout the third world have long had their destiny held hostage by distant rulers. First world diplomats and entrepreneurs year after year pursue power and profit imposing nearly unimaginable third world calamity. Due to our distance from the victims and the endless mass media obfuscation of their plight, we first world citizens fail to realize that when a million people starve because a poor country’s energies are commandeered to benefit multinational capital, it is murder. But, it is murder, and so third world populations have long endured near total dependence on choices made by distant authoritative leaders who are callous to their futures.

- Michael Albert


consider this an antidote to the present idiocies of the mainstream media - and, again, for more, i urge everyone to take a look at the ZNet sit (address above).

a global and historical perspective, even in the midst of this emotional confusion.

at which point i'll stop cut + posting huge swathes of enlightened rhetoric...

i was just so relieved to hear some voices in the media showing genuine wisdom and non-partisan compassion.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
09:50 / 13.09.01
But how can a sane individual even allude to these facts as any kind of justification?

An unconscionable, monstrous act, is an unconscionable, monstrous act.

To suggest that this was the response of a "crushed and humiliated people" is to imply that acts like yesterday's are somehow in the right. That is an untenable argument.

Why not sabotage the military? Why not attack the bases that these helicopters and jets are launching from?

There was nothing preventative about this assault, nor was this any attempt to preserve the safety or way of life of the "crushed and humiliated people". This was nothing but an ugly attempt at vengeance, and it will prove to be a provocation.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
09:53 / 13.09.01
I am glad to hear it, but I am afraid to bring it up with many of my friends, who despite being enlightened, compassionate, sometimes Invisibles-reading folks, have the edge of vengeance in their conversations. Maybe it's just too soon, I don't know.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:53 / 13.09.01
ray: that's not what chomsky's saying.

he's speaking as someone long-used to being marginalised in the cultural and political debates of our times even though he's arguably the greatest mind in his field.

and when he refers to Fisk's words it's an attempt to undermine the partisan good vs. evil slant the mainstream media is trying to push (aiding and abetting the party line).

he's attempting to give some of the backstory that simply will not be mentioned by most conventional sources because it isn't what their readers want to hear.

it's an attempt towards explanation - not justification. he's trying to contextualise the tragedy of 9/11.

though these quotes may seem galling when a US citizen first reads them, what they're actually trying to do is smother the flames of rage & revenge beig stoked by the emotive and loaded language of so much of society right now.
 
 
Irony of Ironies
09:53 / 13.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Ray Fawkes:
To suggest that this was the response of a "crushed and humiliated people" is to imply that acts like yesterday's are somehow in the right. That is an untenable argument.


You missed out the first half of that quote, which I think puts it in a totally different light: "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humliated people."

There's no implication there that this is a justifiable act, merely that it's in some senses inevitable one given the recent history of the middle east. If any group of people are placed in those circumstances, there will be some madman in that group prepared to carry out vile acts like this. Tim McVeigh used what he saw as oppression by the Federal government as justification for the Oklahoma bomb. Someone appears to have used the oppression of the Palestinians as a "justification" for this atrocity.
McVeigh thought has was being a hero; these people saw themselves as martyrs.

No one sane is suggesting this was a justified act. But to fail to explore the reasoning behind this act of madness is to fail to understand how to prevent it ever happening again.
 
 
Irony of Ironies
09:53 / 13.09.01
quote:Originally posted by doubting thomas:
Maybe it's just too soon, I don't know.


Yes, I think it is too soon. A lot of people are suffering badly and to have this kind of conversation now just seems wrong...

On a better note, I found out this evening that the only one of my friends in NYC that was unaccounted for (who works near WTC) is ok.
 
 
Mr Tricks
09:53 / 13.09.01
Does anyone remember when a battered woman cut off her husband's penis & fled tossinf it out of her car window...?

Why didn't she sevor his hands.. which had caused most damage... or his eyes or whatever else?

Putting aside any phalic humor... she, possibly like "they" chose to strike where it would hurt most...

this wasn't a stratigic attack like bombing a bunker... this was much more like a VERY disfunctional outburst...

If this was ment as an attack on "american freedom" why not bomb the statue of liberty. This was an attack on the forces of Money as represented by the "World Trade Center"
 
 
Ray Fawkes
09:53 / 13.09.01
I don't think there is a way to prevent it from happening again, not if we want to live free.

The fact of the matter is that Chomsky, while being an able analyst of media communications, seems to be taking a rather naive ideological standpoint as far as global political interaction is concerned. It's the pacifist's most common fallacy: if you don't do anything to them, they won't do anything to you. If they did something to you, it must be because you did something to them.

It doesn't work in the schoolyard, and it doesn't work on an international scale. His arguments are right-hearted and his hopes for "understanding" are noble, but they are academic. Is that the full extent of his recommendation for going forward?
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:53 / 13.09.01
Ray, in Australia - and I suspect in many places outside the US - the biggest worry is that the US will do something ill-considered and stupidly aggressive, leading to everything getting worse. I understand that in the US, the priorities are probably different for most people. But it seems clear to me that Chomsky is writing in that context of wanting to de-escalate things.

Meanwhile, the US obviously, violently and repeatedly did do something to 'them' - if we're talking about the middle east. You seem to be implying that they did it just cause, and it's simplistic to think it's because of the decades of US-sponsored terrorism people in the middle east have been subject to. That, to me, is the naive ideological standpoint.
 
 
Mr Tricks
09:53 / 13.09.01
quote:It doesn't work in the schoolyard, and it doesn't work on an international scale.

Perhaps... to take the schoolyard anology a bit further... the U.S. was the one bullying everyone else and this just happens to be that moment when the bully is caught tying his shoe-laces...
 
 
Perfect Tommy
09:53 / 13.09.01
I want things de-escalated, but I also wouldn't rule out something military as something I would support -- I am afraid of us doing something rash and aggressive, but I am also not feeling 100% the pacifist at this time. It's the bloodlust and desire for vengeance that is terrifying me, not necessarily the military actions that are almost certain to come. Although I'm not exactly thrilled about those either, maybe I am a pacifist.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:53 / 13.09.01
again, ray: as far as i'm concerned chomsky's comments should be taken as an essential antidote to avoid being swept up into the even more 'naive ideological standpoint' that present, underinformed public opinion seems to be moving toward.

i know he doesn't make any specific comments on what he feels we should actually, physically do - but he's generally a theorist who applies his opinions practically, so i wouldn't be surprised to see him follow this up with more...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:53 / 13.09.01
i don't think anybody's suggesting noaction be taken - but taking a long, hard look at the chain of events that led to 9/11 will hopefully make whatever comes next a wiser and more constructive response.
 
 
Lost Nauth
09:53 / 13.09.01
damn, with the coming u.s. retaliation, innocent people are going to be killed and there's nothing most of us can do about it, unless colin powell or someone is posting secretly here. i'm a little concerned that about half of my friends are now sending me pictures and telling me stuff along the lines of "fuck the towelheads" and that this same half is really gungho for war and waiting for the draft etc. but at least with the other half of my friends today we all passed out white ribbons to wear and had signs for peace and 'make love not war'. *sigh*
 
 
Lost Nauth
09:53 / 13.09.01
quote: taking a long, hard look at the chain of events that led to 9/11 will hopefully make whatever comes next a wiser and more constructive response
i agree, but how long will america wait? the majority of people where i live are pushing to just go ahead and bomb kabul and such, i dunno how things are outside my little corner of the world, but it's probably something like this, though maybe not as extreme.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
09:53 / 13.09.01
I do not mean to imply that the terrorists involved did anything "just 'cause". Nor do I mean to imply that America has not participated in aggression against foreign interests or peoples.

I believe that it is impossible to exist in a political vacuum, and that the actions of America in the past (and present) are being over-simplified in service to a search for understanding. In so doing, the temptation seems to be to vilify the actions of the United States, which is, if nothing else, in extremely bad taste so soon after the event.

I also believe that it is impossible to argue that yesterday's assault is in any way justifiable.

I can't take active part in this discussion any more - not right now, at least. My emotion is threatening to overcome my reason, interfering with rational discourse.

I know that my views are, in general, more conservative than most on this board appear to hold. In most cases, I have found that our differences have led to engaging, and often, illuminating debate. On this matter, though, I don't feel that I can continue to clearly express my sentiments at this time. Hopefully I will make myself better understood later.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:53 / 13.09.01
ray: my apologies if you feel you've been slighted. know that, even if our opinions in this matter don't completely match (though i'm sure they overlap to some extent), i'd hate to use that against you or score points in any way.

i hope when we do continue the debate, the situation out there is a little less crazy, and hopefully beginning to heal.

look after yrself.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
09:53 / 13.09.01
Thanks to all who posted these snippets. I was starting to feel a bit hot-blooded after hours upon hours of mainstream media, and these words have been excellent food for thought. Cheers.
 
 
netbanshee
09:53 / 13.09.01
I was sitting here before...thinking about who's opinons I'd like to be aware of...and thankfully some of it is in the post.

Thanks.

Otherwise, I'm too broken up to consider the death of anyone a way to solving problems...who's not saying that the threat won't escalate on both ends, throttling so many difficult trials clear out the window. This is a very volatile area to be dealing with since everyone there is a constant victim of so many forces, ideas, and beliefs.

Strange...guess I see myself as a pacifist nowadays in an emotional sense towards anything coming out of the media. This doesn't mean that I don't care...just that I don't know how.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
09:53 / 13.09.01
Thanks, autopilot, for posting that article. I'd been waiting for Chomsky's response.

Ray, my answer to your issue about the pointlessness of analysing motivations for the crash attack, is that something like this can't be only thought about on one level. It has many levels. One level is sadness and sorrow and anger at a really traumatic and huge loss of life. Another level is the condemnation of terrorism. But anothe level is knowing the background of political feeling in the Middle East (and understanding that actually, Americn commentators have almost no idea about how the US is seen in the Middle East, except very simplistically). Yet another is understanding the enormous undercurrent of racism that lies under a lot of US policy in the Middle East and also public reactions to the NY/Washington crisis. We still do not know if it really was Middle Easten terrorists who did this thing. And another, which is what I've been thinking about a lot, is how this is a totally mediated event, and the way the media reporting asks for particular responses from an audience in terms of nationalist and retaliatory and emotive sentiment.

I think it's really important for everyone on this board to be able to contribute different pieces of thought on all levels, y'know? Political analysis is going to be really important in the coming months for figuring out what the state of play is. Personally, it's helping me make sense of it all.
 
 
01
09:53 / 13.09.01
quote: But how can a sane individual even allude to these facts as any kind of justification?

Not justification. Just understanding and stating the obvious. I don't think that this attack on the US is a suprise to anyone. Why?
For many people around the world that live with this kind of thing day to day, andmany times at the hands of US agencies, it was only a matter of time until someone got pissed off enough to hit back. I hate to use this phrase but it seems so fitting: DUH?...

Chomsky was just stating the obvious in his usual acedemic-almost-removedfromsociety-theonlywayheknowshowtocopewithitandhasworkedforhimandthankgodforthat-way.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:53 / 13.09.01
autopilot: thank you.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:53 / 13.09.01
the absolute best thing i can see coming from this mess is introducing the broad mass of US society to the real reasons why it happened. though it may be unpleasant, the knowledge that the US Govt has caused a lot of misery.

this should be the moment at which the american public's distorted perception of its country slips away.

i fear this isn't going to happen. the media are not asking why this happened, but what should we do about it - who can we blame...

...opening the way for a US/Nato invasion of Afghanistan?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
11:03 / 13.09.01
quote:For journalists, even those who have literally walked through the blood of the Middle East, words dry up here. Awesome, terrible, unspeakable, unforgivable; in the coming days, these words will become water in the desert. And there will be, naturally and inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt to obscure the historical wrongs and the blood and the injustices that lie behind yesterday's firestorms. We will be told about "mindless terrorism'', the "mindless" bit being essential if we are not to realise how hated America has become in the land of the birth of three great religions.

Ask an Arab how he responds to 20 or 30 thousand innocent deaths and he or she will respond as good and decent people should, that it is an unspeakable crime. But they will ask why we did not use such words about the sanctions that have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children in Iraq, why we did not rage about the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, why we allowed one nation in the Middle East to ignore UN Security Council resolutions but bombed and sanctioned all others who did. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught fire last September - the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession of Palestinians, the bombardments and state sponsored executions, the Israeli tortures ... all these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional reason for yesterday's mass savagery.

Eight years ago, I helped to make a television series that tried to explain why so many Muslims had come to hate the West. Last night, I remembered some of those Muslims in that film, their families burnt by American-made bombs and weapons. They talked about how no one would help them but God. Theology vs technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear power. Now we have learnt what this means.

- Robert Fisk
 
 
autopilot disengaged
11:31 / 13.09.01
quote:I heard no one saying that violence breeds violence or that a massive retaliation may only invite more of the same. The only critical edge to the coverage involved raising the question about why so many official predictions about imminent terrorist threats went unresponded to for so long. These concerns were raised, but quickly sidelined by discussions of national complacency and/or naïveté about the world. How the U.S. intelligence apparatus could have missed this was taken only as evidence that it needs more money, not a different policy. No mention was made of the cutbacks in international news coverage that keeps so many Americans so out of touch with global events.

Missing was any discussion of possible motives by the alleged terrorists, why would they do it and why now? What was their political agenda? There was no mention of September 11th as the anniversary of the failed Camp David accords. There was certainly no mention of the fact that State terrorism by countries be they the U.S., Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel often trigger and harden counterterrorism by guerrilla forces. There was virtually no international angle offered in most of the coverage except a few snatches of file footage of Osama Bin Laden fondling an AK47.

-Danny Schechter
 
 
moriarty
11:44 / 13.09.01
Yesterday I kept turning the TV on and off repeatedly, trying to stay away but failing. During one of my weaker moments I caught one of the news channels actually discussing the motivations and conditions of people in the Middle East should they have been the ones who attacked the WTC. I changed the channel. Funny enough, it seemed that at least a few of the stations were carrying similar footage at the same time. So, it has been discussed. I can't say for how long, or to what depth, but the topics that have been igmored thus far were touched upon.
 
 
deja_vroom
12:35 / 13.09.01
quote: From Guy Fawkes:
The fact of the matter is that Chomsky, while being an able analyst of media communications, seems to be taking a rather naive ideological standpoint as far as global political interaction is concerned. It's the pacifist's most common fallacy: if you don't do anything to them, they won't do anything to you. If they did something to you, it must be because you did something to them.

It doesn't work in the schoolyard, and it doesn't work on an international scale.



You are right, Fawkes. In a perfect world you wouldn't get in trouble with any nation if you didn't messed with it first.

This is why it must have been a real surprise when the palestinians saw that Israel was being backed by the U.S. in commiting those atrocities during the occupation in the first place.
They must have thought: "Why is Amerikkka doing this to us? We never did anything to them!!"
The fools, they just too barbarian and dirty to understand international politics.

And Chomsky, he's just this academic, cold and reasoning observator, and everybody knows that the best observations are made when you're emotionally involved and with your judgement blurred by short-sighted feelings of anger and revenge. He's just a softy, I tell ya...

Yes, Fawkes, I was going to say that I wished we could have people like you with the fingers on the buttons, but - oops, we already have!
 
 
deja_vroom
12:36 / 13.09.01
Sorry, it is Ray Fawkes, not Guy. It slipped from my mind...
 
 
moriarty
12:43 / 13.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Ray Fawkes:
On this matter, though, I don't feel that I can continue to clearly express my sentiments at this time. Hopefully I will make myself better understood later.


Jade, back off. Many people are in pain right now, and at least Ray has seen fit to explain that he cannot fully relate his ideas because of overwhelming grief and anger. I wish men like Ray had their finger on the button, because it seems obvious that he would back away and wait until his rage has subsided. Much like he has done in this discussion.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
12:58 / 13.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Ray Fawkes:

I also believe that it is impossible to argue that yesterday's assault is in any way justifiable.


I think perhaps, Ray, a way to look at the sudden analysis of America's foreign affairs is not so much to justify what happened in New York and Washington, but as an attempt to explain it. I don't think anyone could call such an act justifiable, save those who committed it, but we are right to try to explain why it was possible.

Take care, eh?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
14:29 / 13.09.01
quote:Sept. 12, 2001 | As the Pentagon and World Trade Towers crumbled on television, so too did a grand construct of the American psychology. Shattered is the sense that ordinary U.S. citizens are immune from the ruthless rage of any enemy of America. Gone is the disconnect Americans have been encouraged to feel between the overseas actions of their leaders -- their politicians, diplomats, CEOs, generals -- and the personal safety of their neighbors and loved ones.

This psychology of immunity, this imagined cocoon, has been woven over the years from various threads. One assumption is moral: Given the basic goodness of American democracy, no enemy with popular support could stay mad at the U.S. for long. A second is technological: No enemy but a madman would take on Fortress America's high-tech security apparatus. A third rests on a cultural assumption: So sophisticated are America's "best and brightest" technocrats, they could never be outsmarted by wild-eyed peasants living in the world's still-medieval hinterlands.

- David Beers, salon.com


this is an illusion that needed to go (though, obviously i'm not condoning the manner it which it happened).

foreign policy can only profit from a more realistic view of the world, just as reconnecting the citizens of the US to the actions of their leaders will hopefully restore some sense of accountability.

that's the best case sceario, anyway.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply