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(2)3

 
 
Ierne
14:53 / 13.09.01
This is a brilliant thread, an excellent antidote to the rapidly descending quality of "news" we're getting here in NYC. Thanks much.

thinking about
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.

That's a big job, not just because of the sheer mass of variegated humanity that is the US population, but also due to the major, major downslide in education. The schools suck, they've been sucking even since I was a kid, and many communities here really aren't trained to think things out and reason in an intellectual manner. This doesn't mean that Americans are STUPID. We just aren't getting the knowledge.

Last post – just heard there's evacuations in Midtown. I'm in the Flatiron district just below. will try to post once i get back home.
 
 
deletia
16:29 / 13.09.01
Ok, could I suggest that Jade Emperor delete his posts, and Frances deletes that quotation, and we all start over?
 
 
Frances Farmer
17:00 / 13.09.01
Haus, I think I can go for that. I was knee-jerking. How 'bout you, JE?
 
 
deja_vroom
17:22 / 13.09.01
Not a problem for me, frances... but i would... rather have your posts here, and ray's... anyway... i'm not deleting my reply to fawkes. The other ones are going bye bye.

Peace all.

[ 13-09-2001: Message edited by: Jade Emperor ]
 
 
Naked Flame
18:13 / 13.09.01
Chomsky and Fisk both put it beautifully.

how many people are willing to look at this rationally, though? how much pressure on Bush to go to war? how much real resistance to the idea? they've been at war by proxy in the region for a long time, off and on, and nobody made enough of a fuss to make a difference.

There's a dark corner of my pacifist english neo-hippy psyche that's infected with the Make The Bastards Pay (tm) meme. If I can't get that out of me, what hope for Americans who lost friends lovers family innocence?
 
 
YNH
09:59 / 14.09.01
Think of it this way: "The bastards already paid, with their lives."
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:59 / 14.09.01
quote:As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.

Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.

- Simon Milne, The Guardian
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:59 / 14.09.01
quote:In the long run, this could actually help America and all parties in the Middle East by causing them to see that they in fact have a common interest in achieving a fair and comprehensive peace that portends a better life for Arabs and Israelis alike. Tuesday’s events establish quite clearly that no one, anywhere, is immune to such acts, making it incumbent on everyone who values human life to help prevent similar occurrences in the future. America has been made to know the suffering that so many other countries understand all too well. Now it should lead the way in finding solutions to the problems that breed violence and desperation.

- The Daily Star (Lebanon)
 
 
autopilot disengaged
08:12 / 16.09.01
ok: before i post this next one, i just want to reiterate that i'm doing this to contextualise 9/11, not justify it.

just conscious that, in a certain light this could make me look like the counsel for the defence...

quote:Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its victims - principally the victims of US fundamentalism, whose power, in all its forms, military, strategic and economic, is the greatest source of terrorism on earth.

This fact is censored from the Western media, whose "coverage" at best minimises the culpability of imperial powers. Richard Falk, professor of international relations at Princeton, put it this way: "Western foreign policy is presented almost exclusively through a self-righteous, one-way legal/moral screen (with) positive images of Western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence."

That Tony Blair, whose government sells lethal weapons to Israel and has sprayed Iraq and Yugoslavia with cluster bombs and depleted uranium and was the greatest arms supplier to the genocidists in Indonesia, can be taken seriously when he now speaks about the "shame" of the "new evil of mass terrorism" says much about the censorship of our collective sense of how the world is managed.

One of Blair's favourite words - "fatuous" - comes to mind. Alas, it is no comfort to the families of thousands of ordinary Americans who have died so terribly that the perpetrators of their suffering may be the product of Western policies. Did the American establishment believe that it could bankroll and manipulate events in the Middle East without cost to itself, or rather its own innocent people?

It is not only the rage and grievance in the Middle East and south Asia. Since the end of the cold war, the US and its sidekicks, principally Britain, have exercised, flaunted, and abused their wealth and power while the divisions imposed on human beings by them and their agents have grown as never before.

An elite group of less than a billion people now take more than 80 per cent of the world's wealth.

In defence of this power and privilege, known by the euphemisms "free market" and "free trade", the injustices are legion: from the illegal blockade of Cuba, to the murderous arms trade, dominated by the US, to its trashing of basic environmental decencies, to the assault on fragile economies by institutions such as the World Trade Organisation that are little more than agents of the US Treasury and the European central banks, and the demands of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in forcing the poorest nations to repay unrepayable debts...

...imperialism is being rehabilitated. American forces currently operate with impunity from bases in 50 countries.

"Full spectrum dominance" is Washington's clearly stated aim.

Read the documents of the US Space Command, which leaves us in no doubt.

What has this to do with this week's atrocities in America? If you travel among the impoverished majority of humanity, you understand that it has everything to do with it.

People are neither still, nor stupid. They see their independence compromised, their resources and land and the lives of their children taken away, and their accusing fingers increasingly point north: to the great enclaves of plunder and privilege. Inevitably, terror breeds terror and more fanaticism.

Their distant voices of rage are now heard; the daily horrors in faraway brutalised places have at last come home.

- John Pilger
 
 
autopilot disengaged
08:20 / 16.09.01
quote:...war is most emphatically not a game. And perhaps after Tuesday, it will never again be treated as one. Perhaps September 11, 2001 will mark the end of the shameful era of the video game war.

Watching the coverage on Tuesday was a stark contrast to the last time I sat glued to a television set watching a real-time war on CNN. The Space Invader battlefield of the Gulf War had almost nothing in common with what we have seen this week. Back then, instead of real buildings exploding over and over again, we saw only sterile bomb’s-eye-views of concrete targets – there and then gone. Who was in these abstract polygons? We never found out.

Since the Gulf War, American foreign policy has been based on a single brutal fiction: that the U.S. military can intervene in conflicts around the world – in Iraq, Kosovo, Israel – without suffering any U.S. casualties. This is a country that has come to believe in the ultimate oxymoron: a safe war.

The safe war logic is, of course, based on the technological ability to wage a war exclusively from the air. But it also relies on the deep conviction that no one would dare mess with the U.S. – the one remaining superpower -- on its own soil.

This conviction has, until Tuesday, allowed Americans to remain blithely unaffected by – even uninterested in -- international conflicts in which they are key protagonists. Americans don't get daily coverage on CNN of the ongoing bombings in Iraq, nor are they treated to human-interest stories on the devastating effects of economic sanctions on that country's children. After the 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (mistaken for a chemical weapons facility), there weren't too many follow up reports about what the loss of vaccine manufacturing did to disease prevention in the region.

The era of the video game war in which the U.S. is always at the controls has produced a blinding rage in many parts of the world, a rage at the persistent asymmetry of suffering. This is the context in which twisted revenge seekers make no other demand than that American citizens share their pain.

A blinking message is up on our collective video game console: Game Over.

- Naomi Klein
 
 
agapanthus
08:28 / 16.09.01
Thanks, auto - p . . .for posting these balanced (historically) voices of proportion, reason and dissent. It's good to know that alternate messages and voices are getting through the cracks of the US media, megalith.

Great work.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
08:46 / 16.09.01
quote:What is bad about all terror is when it is attached to religious and political abstractions and reductive myths that keep veering away from history and sense. This is where the secular consciousness has to try to make itself felt, whether in the US or in the Middle East. No cause, no God, no abstract idea can justify the mass slaughter of innocents, most particularly when only a small group of people are in charge of such actions and feel themselves to represent the cause without having a real mandate to do so.

Besides, much as it has been quarrelled over by Muslims, there isn't a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futiley tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly. Yet history is far more complex and contradictory than to be represented by demagogues who are much less representative than either their followers or opponents claim. The trouble with religious or moral fundamentalists is that today their primitive ideas of revolution and resistance, including a willingness to kill and be killed, seem all too easily attached to technological sophistication and what appear to be gratifying acts of horrifying retaliation. The New York and Washington suicide bombers seem to have been middle-class, educated men, not poor refugees. Instead of getting a wise leadership that stresses education, mass mobilisation and patient organisation in the service of a cause, the poor and the desperate are often conned into the magical thinking and quick bloody solutions that such appalling models pro vide, wrapped in lying religious claptrap.

On the other hand, immense military and economic power are no guarantee of wisdom or moral vision. Sceptical and humane voices have been largely unheard in the present crisis, as 'America' girds itself for a long war to be fought somewhere out there, along with allies who have been pressed into service on very uncertain grounds and for imprecise ends. We need to step back from the imaginary thresholds that separate people from each other and re-examine the labels, reconsider the limited resources available, decide to share our fates with each other as cultures mostly have done, despite the bellicose cries and creeds.

'Islam' and 'the West' are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly. Some will run behind them, but for future generations to condemn themselves to prolonged war and suffering without so much as a critical pause, without looking at interdependent histories of injustice and oppression, without trying for common emancipation and mutual enlightenment seems far more wilful than necessary. Demonisation of the Other is not a sufficient basis for any kind of decent politics, certainly not now when the roots of terror in injustice can be addressed, and the terrorists isolated, deterred or put out of business. It takes patience and education, but is more worth the investment than still greater levels of large-scale violence and suffering.

- Edward Said
 
 
autopilot disengaged
10:17 / 16.09.01
quote:If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?

There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.

Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.

- Richard Dawkins
 
 
autopilot disengaged
10:33 / 16.09.01
quote:This is war without the warfare. A battle without an army. Death without an occupying force.

The missile was one of America's own civilian planes, turned against herself. Passengers were hurled at stockbrokers and military clerks working at their desks. How could Mr Bush's missile shield have stopped that?

As George Bush says, this is the first war of the 21st Century. No border has been transgressed. No enemy troops swarm in the streets. Instead, this city of my home for the last four years looks just the same - a mosaic of green trees and cool white marble.

Everything is standing. Except, that is, part of the Pentagon - the world's safest office block, which is now in ruins.

...I see a glint in the eyes of the Pentagon. If I was Mr Bush, I would be worried. Paul Wolfowitz, the under-secretary of defence was almost licking his lips at Congress's promise of $20bn to fight this war.

And that, said Mr Wolfowitz, puffing his chest up, is only the down-payment.

The warriors, who have been pacing the corridors of the Pentagon like unquiet ghosts ever since the cold war ended, have found their new role.

And, of course, this time it's personal. The Pentagon itself has been attacked, and the warriors are out for revenge.

But if they thought the Viet Cong were an elusive enemy, they haven't seen anything yet.

A successful war needs a beginning, a middle and an end. But in this war there will be no targets to fix on, no land to occupy and conquer, no enemy to come out at the end waving a white flag.

One of the wiser heads in the Pentagon said: "I realise we cannot extinguish religious fanaticism with missiles." But I'm afraid that some in the Pentagon are now about to try

- Tom Carver, BBC
 
 
agapanthus
10:56 / 16.09.01
Great Stuff Autopilot, particularly enjoyed reading from Said, one of my intellectual heroes.
Thanks.
 
 
Seth
13:33 / 16.09.01
Autopilot: you are fantastic. Keep up the good work.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:54 / 16.09.01
thanx ag, 'less (well, you try and shorten it): i think i'm kind of compulsive at the moment - seeking out the voices of doves wherever i can. if things get as insane as it looks they might, i really want to know there's an existing network of peaceniks out there: that not everybody believes the hype.

horrific though the events of the last week have been, there's the slightest seedling of hope that some good may come of it.

quote:Which corporation is now going to invest trillions in something that can be destroyed by terrorism? So globalism takes a blow. Star Wars takes a blow. Those are the two ironies I can withdraw from this with some feeling that it has not been a total disaster.

- Norman Mailer


and while there are these strong voices, stronger for their compassion and, better, directed to all - i'm happy to be the in-house Barbelithian ventriloquist's dummy.

while i'm here though, i would like to note that the sudden turnaround in the global situation also reverses the role of the activist - from anger to compassion, direct action to what? collective enlightenment?

right now, we can only hope.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:04 / 16.09.01
quote:Islamic Fundamentalists will kill anyone and anything in the name of religious JIHAD.

Capitalist Fundamentalists will kill anyone and anything in the name of MONEY.

- Grant Morrison


and thanks to LMG for the link. why not go over and peruse his thread in conversation?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:18 / 16.09.01
quote:The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy. Osama bin Laden may be a primitive "figurehead" -- or even dead, for all we know -- but whoever put those All-American jet planes loaded with All-American fuel into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did it with chilling precision and accuracy. The second one was a dead-on bullseye. Straight into the middle of the skyscraper.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force.

Good luck. He is in for a profoundly difficult job -- armed as he is with no credible Military Intelligence, no witnesses and only the ghost of Bin Laden to blame for the tragedy.

- Hunter S. Thompson
 
 
agapanthus
17:22 / 16.09.01
Good to see the old 'crazy' - Hunter.S.THompson -still havin' a go!!
 
 
autopilot disengaged
20:31 / 16.09.01
quote:What should Bush do?
"He should say that the United States will no longer be the world's largest seller of weapons, that we will begin to decrease our extravagantly wasteful military budget, which runs now at about $9,000 a second."

What will Bush do?
"Within the week, we will be bombing somebody somewhere," McCarthy says. "This is what his father did, this is what Clinton did."

"In the past 20 years, we have bombed Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. There are two things about those countries -- all are poor countries, and the majority are
people of dark colored skin."

Are you saying that we should just turn the other cheek?
"No, that's passivity," McCarthy says. "Pacifism is not passivity. Pacifism is direct action, direct resistance, refusing to cooperate with violence. That takes a lot of bravery. It takes much more courage than to use a gun or drop a bomb."

How to break the cycle of violence?
"The same way you break the cycle of ignorance -- educate people," McCarthy responds.

"Kids walk in the school with no idea that two plus two equals four. They are ignorant. We repeat over and over -- Billy, two plus two equals four. And Billy leaves school knowing two plus two equals four. But he doesn't leave school knowing that an eye for an eye means we all go blind."

"We have about 50 million students in this country," McCarthy says. "Nearly all of those are going to graduate absolutely unaware of the philosophy of Gandhi, King, Dorothy Day, Howard Zinn, or A.J. Muste."

Instead of bombing, we should start teaching peace.
"We are graduating students as peace illiterates who have only heard of the side of violence," McCarthy laments. "If we don't teach our children peace, somebody else will teach them violence."

- FAIR interview with Colman McCarthy


[ 16-09-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]

[ 16-09-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]
 
 
autopilot disengaged
20:55 / 16.09.01
quote:Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: That's bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose; that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong -- in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean -- but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours.

Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

- Tamim Ansary


(gulp) sorry 'bout this: not doing it to give anyone nightmares, but - whatever happens - let it not be this...
 
 
sumo
14:04 / 17.09.01
brilliant work autopilot - thanks. one question: where did you get the Edward Said information? i've been looking for comments from him, but hadn't yet found anything.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:36 / 18.09.01
sumo; the Said original can be found at Guardian Unlimited - there's also a really good selection of his recent esays over at ZNet - in the MidEast section, somewhere.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:17 / 18.09.01
quote:If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even President Bush's missile defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile technology. Now he has become the personification of evil required to launch a crusade for good: the face behind the faceless terror.
The closer you look, the weaker the case against Bin Laden becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound may have been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence that they were instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt appears to rest on the supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.

Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision would have been front-page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive proliferation of plutonium, and a high probability that some of it will find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which would be unacceptable at any other time.

For these reasons and many others, opposition has seldom been more necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable. The right is seizing the political space which has opened up where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.

Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a whole new generation of Bin Ladens. The British government is considering the introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're likely to be treated as such.

The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday, the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to voice.

- George Monbiot
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:21 / 18.09.01
quote:There could hardly be a worse place for military action. Draw up a list of the world's most volatile regions and the Pakistan-India-Afghanistan triangle would be at the top or close to it. Add the Middle East and, as the foreign secretary Jack Straw said yesterday, there are the makings of "the most frightening situation since the Cuban crisis in the early 1960s."

read the full, frightening story here
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:30 / 18.09.01
quote:Today, as a Muslim, I have been shattered by the horror of recent events; the display of death and indiscriminate killing we've all witnessed has dented humanity's confidence in itself. Terror on this scale affects everybody on this small planet, and no one is free from the fallout. Yet we should remember that such violence is almost an everyday occurrence in some Muslim lands: it should not be exacerbated by revenge attacks on more innocent families and communities.

Along with most British Muslims, I feel it a duty to make clear that such orchestrated acts of incomprehensible carnage have nothing to do with the beliefs of most Muslims. The Koran specifically declares: "If anyone murders an [innocent] person, it will be as if he has murdered the whole of humanity. And if anyone saves a person it will be as if he has saved the whole of humanity." British Muslims feel nothing but sympathy for those families who lost loved ones. I know people who were directly involved in the tragedy; my own brother, who lives in New Jersey, was going to fly out from Newark last week. In that respect we all feel the same.

The Koran that our young pupils learn at Islamia is full of stories and lessons from the history of humanity as a whole. The Gospels and the Torah are referred to; Jesus and Abraham are mentioned. In fact there is more mention in the Koran of the prophet Moses than of any other. It acknowledges the coexistence of other faiths, and in doing so acknowledges that other cultures can live together in peace. "There is no compulsion in religion," it states, meaning that people should not be compelled to change their faith. Elsewhere it states, "To you, your religion; to me mine." Respect for religious values and justice is at the Koran's core. The Koranic history we teach provides ample examples of interreligious and international relationships; of how to live together.

But some extremists take elements of the sacred scriptures out of context. They act as individuals, and when they can't come together as part of a political structure or consultative process, you find these dissident factions creating their own rules, contrary to the spirit of the Koran - which demands that those recognised as being in charge of Muslims must consult together regarding society's affairs. There is a whole chapter in the Koran entitled Consultation; in Arabic the word for that is Shura.

- Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens!)
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:33 / 18.09.01
quote:When America speaks from its heart, it retreats into a language that none but its true-born citizens can begin to understand. At the root of this is an overwhelming need to control meaning. America can't let the world speak for itself. It was taken unawares last Tuesday and part of the trauma of that event was the shock of being forced to listen to a message that it hadn't had time to translate. The subsequent roar of anger was, amongst other things, the sound of the US struggling to regain the right to control its own narrative.

It did this by declaring war. By this means, Bush ensured that America only had to sit with the inexplicable for a couple of anxious days. After that, the sense, so unfamiliar to them, of not knowing what had happened or what it meant was replaced by the reassuring certainties of John Brown's body and calls for national unity. By turning what should have been a criminal manhunt into an all-out war, Bush was asserting his right to define America's reality. Instead of submitting to the reality, he created the situation he wanted, fashioning a plausible, beatable enemy that bore only a passing relation to the ragbag of loons in Bin Laden's camp. They weren't a worthy enemy of America, so rather than confront what this might mean, Bush has made one up. "International terrorism" has been talked up in the past week to the point where it almost looks like an ideology. Much as the US might want this to be the case, it isn't. Saying you're going to "eradicate" it is like pledging to defeat shooting.

Rather than run the risk of seeing what might happen if it listened to the rest of the world, America is going full square into a war that doesn't exist. It would rather have a virtual victory than submit to someone else's agenda. While understandable, this tendency is one of the reasons why some people still have issues with it.

- Charlotte Raven, The Guardian
 
 
autopilot disengaged
22:53 / 18.09.01
now this is an interesting website. 'intelligence for individuals', anyone? used to be a think-tank?

quote:In some ways Sept. 17 was a bad day for American strategists. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others have made it clear the United States intends to prosecute the coming campaign against terrorism as it did in the Kosovo and Iraqi wars: with a broad, international coalition's backing.

Following the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the spirit of most of the world, and certainly most American allies, was one of solidarity and willingness to strike back at the enemy. Yesterday, however, there was a subtle but important shift that may impact America's ability to wage covert war.

Several key countries, including Germany, France and Egypt, made it clear that although they condemn the attacks and support a strong American response, they would not welcome a campaign that costs massive civilian casualties. With Germany and France taking such a position, the rest of NATO will also likely follow suit.

Germany's Social Democratic government, whose leaders were shaped by the anti-Vietnam war movement of the 1960s, are viscerally opposed to broad bombing campaigns and remain uneasy about the air campaign against Kosovo. The French are unwilling to write a blank check to the Americans under any circumstances, and after a graceful interval, are making clear the limits of their support.


look for yrself. they're called STRATFOR - and they appear to be spooks for hire...

(psst...over here...)
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:52 / 19.09.01
quote:I just think we're a little bit of an arrogant nation, and maybe this is a bit of a humbling experience... it raises the question in my mind, What has our government done to evoke or provoke this action, that maybe we don't know about?
- The Backstreet Boys (sorry, I don't know which one - Kevin, I think?)
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:56 / 19.09.01
quote: 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.

and

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.
- Noam Chomsky (again)
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:56 / 19.09.01
quote: i would like to note that the sudden turnaround in the global situation also reverses the role of the activist - from anger to compassion, direct action to what? collective enlightenment?

I don't really think it 'reverses' the activist role. It will certainly - hopefully - take the emphasis of western activists of spectacular and largely ineffective blockades (no offence to anyone whose taken part or organised em, I have too). But direct action is definitely going to be an important part of any antiwar campaign, don't you think? And I don't think it's helpful to put that in opposition to education and grassroots organising - "collective enlightenment" - activism is always supposed to strike a balance of both, isn't it?

Besides, there is a huge history of peace activism to draw on. Some of the first reactions I heard were people, quasi-ironically, taking up old slogans - "make love not war" and "fight war not wars". It seems at least plausible that activists will work around this with a better historical grounding than usual.
 
 
Opalfruit
08:56 / 19.09.01
An interesting arguement of words is coming into play as well. I heard this on Radio 4, Muslims are protesting against the use of the words 'Fundamentalist' and 'Terrorist' being used in the same breath, especially by the media - they're arguing that 'Extremist' rather than 'Fundamentalist' is a more appropriate word.

It was interesting that the interviewer kept butting in and not letting him state his point. It has also struck me that in all the mention of a united stand against terrorism by Tony Blair and George Bush none has (to my knowledge)mentioned anything about terrorist organisations in the west.
 
 
Opalfruit
08:56 / 19.09.01
An interesting arguement of words is coming into play as well. I heard this on Radio 4, Muslims are protesting against the use of the words 'Fundamentalist' and 'Terrorist' being used in the same breath, especially by the media - they're arguing that 'Extremist' rather than 'Fundamentalist' is a more appropriate word.

It was interesting that the interviewer kept butting in and not letting him state his point. It has also struck me that in all the mention of a united stand against terrorism by Tony Blair and George Bush none has (to my knowledge)mentioned anything about terrorist organisations in the west.
 
 
Opalfruit
10:40 / 19.09.01
Stumbled upon this here - http://organart.com/ it's a music fanzine but... well read on.

quote:
THE AMERICAN LEFT UNILATERALLY DISARMS - What good is a Bill of
Rights when influential organisations aren't willing to stand up for their constitutional rights during a time of crisis and danger? The AFL-CIO, International Rivers Network, Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, the Ruckus Society and Friends of the Earth are among the many liberal organisations that have announced that they are cancelling protests and even suspending entire campaigns because of the September 11 terror attacks.
It's bad enough that the mass media is leading the drum beat for war and the public towards a deadly embrace with fascism in the wake of the tragic attacks. Now much of the left is engaging in what amounts to unilateral disarmament at a time when the Bill of Rights needs as many defenders as
possible. There is much justified fear about a suspension of constitutional rights and marshal law. But what government needs to ban demonstrations if there isn't anybody willing to hold them? Perhaps the most disturbing
example of this is an internal Sierra Club memo circulated among the organisation's leadership and staff secured by the D.C. political newsletter Counter Punch. The memo explains that "in response to the attacks on
America we are shifting our communications strategy for the immediate future. We have taken all of our ads off the air; halted our phone banks;removed any material from the web that people could perceive as anti-Bush,
and we are taking other steps to prevent the Sierra Club from being perceived as controversial during the crisis. For now we are going to stop aggressively pursuing our agenda and will cease bashing Bush."

Imagine if Martin Luther King had spouted similar tripe in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech. In that great speech given a year-to-the-day before he was assassinated on April 4, 1967,
King denounced the U.S. war against Vietnam and called the U.S. government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. How forgetful that speech would have been had King urged advocates for social justice to now say anything "too controversial" about the Vietnam War and not to say anything that could be perceived by people as being anti-Johnson." King's sentiments weren't popular among much of the general public but he wouldn't be remembered as the great activist he was if he didn't have the courage to express his convictions.

Among the groups calling off participation in the upcoming IMF/World Bank demonstrations is Friends of the Earth. FoE President Brent Blackwelder wrote in a message to the organisation's board and membership that "it is also time for us to not lose heart, nor to set aside our steadfast commitment to protecting the planet in every way possible" He then justifies FoE's pullout from the IMF/World Bank demonstration by stating
that it is "out of respect for those who lost their lives and out of concern for the safety of protesters, we have chosen to demonstrate our commitment to peace and justice by not demonstrating." Now let me get this straight.
According to FoE's reasoning those demonstrators who do show up in DC on
September 29 will be engaging in violence instead of expressing their own commitments to peace and justice. FoE's reasoning for pulling out of the IMF/World Bank demonstrations is in harmony with the FBI's classification of Reclaim The Streets! as a "terrorist" organisation. RTS! is a movement that advocates holding unpermitted block parties in urban areas. Yes, with an army of DJ's armed with an arsenal of CD's and LP's, RTS! will be terrorising an urban area near you. WHAT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! Is a lobotomy a
requirement for becoming a leader of a liberal organisation!? David Brower must be rolling over in his grave right now!

A more honest, and reasonable, explanation for pulling out of the IMF/World Bank demonstrations would be to explicitly state fear of police violence. Blackwelder never once mentions this possibility in his message, leaving the impression that it is protesters, not police, who would be the cause of violence if they were to show up and
demonstrate. The only thing he needed to write was something like "we're afraid the police are going to shoot demonstrators." That would be a fair enough reason for not wanting to hold a protest. Instead he wrote a confusing sentence that reads like it is comparing holding a peaceful demonstration
with blowing up a building. And I'm really tired of hearing "we're cancelling our
demonstration out of respect for those who lost their lives." Yeah, what a fine way to honour the September 11 victims. Let's unilaterally give up our constitutional rights and join the flag wavers at the Sierra Club in helping the war makers usher in fascism. The great environmental warrior David Brower would certainly not be expressing the above mentioned nonsense and he most likely would be endorsing the International Action Center's (IAC) call for
an anti-war rally at the White House on September 29 instead of the planned
anti-IMF/World Bank rally. Holding an anti-war rally on S29 would be a bold
and potentially hazardous action. Such a demonstration could be met with both police and counter-demonstrator violence. However, with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming the ACLU, People for the American Way, gays lesbians, atheists, pagans, feminists and abortion doctors for the terrorattacks and pogroms against Arabs and/or Muslims underway, now is not the time to back down from defending the Bill of Rights. There is no better time to stand up for principles than when they are deeply unpopular. If anti-Vietnam war protesters had postponed demonstrations until it was convenient and safe to hold them, then that movement would have never gotten off the ground. Also, and most importantly, by not pulling out of a planned and already permitted demonstration, the IAC will force the government to try to cancel it. This way an organisation like the ACLU can make an issue out of the demonstration being cancelled in court.
This can't happen though if individuals
or organisations are insisting on not upholding their constitutional rights. Even
if a march doesn't happen, organising for one right now is far better than the unilateral disarmament the above mentioned liberal organisations are engaging in. Let's not let the September 11 terror attacks be remembered as an American Reichstag Fire. Here in Seattle the Church Council of Greater
Seattle is organising to protect mosques from violent attacks. An attempted arson against a Seattle mosque has already been reported.
Meanwhile, Seattle peace activists are considering holding demonstrations and teach-ins in as little as a week. They should follow through on these plans. Staying at
home and not demonstrating isn't going to prevent fascism
www.iacenter.org

by Rick Giombetti


[ 19-09-2001: Message edited by: Opalfruit ]
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply