Re: Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT Interview!

[Michael Dean <mikedean.com@altavista.com>]

Chomsky interview on 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. 
 
  
   
 
Home Search Activities Secretariats InfoServices Forums Participate! About   
 
 
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! 
http://www.shopping.altavista.com 
 
 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95 
Refill any ink cartridge for less! 
Includes black and color ink. 
http://us.click.yahoo.com/E11sED/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/ZtTslB/TM 
---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 
 
	  http://www.SustainableCommunity.homestead.com 
 
	To unsubscribe from this group, send a blank email to: 
 
	  sustainablecommunity-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
 
			
 
	      
  
 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/  

 
 
               
 
 Change message text width in Settings.  
 




About AltaVista | Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Help | Contact Us | Text Only
Submit A Site | Advertise With Us | Jobs | List Your Products | A CMGI Company

© 2001 AltaVista Company. AltaVista® and its logo are registered trademarks of the AltaVista Company. 





On Thu, 22 November 2001, "Lawrence F. London, Jr." wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:41:38 +0100, "georg parlow"
> <georg@websuxxess.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> I think the reason we remember better through oral communication
> >>One way round the problem
> >
> >other ones are:
> >- go and tell a friend about it - youll find you have to grasp it quite a
> >bit in order to relate it well to another
> >- try to put the principle you think you grasped into something visual with
> >your hands - make a sketch, a drawing, model it in clay - it is fun and
> >really does the job to put the abstract info into your long term storage.
> >
> >take care
> >georg
> 
> Well said! Well worth putting into practice.
> 
> 
> L.F.London ICQ#27930345 lflondon@mindspring.com
> http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech  london@ibiblio.org
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: mikedean.com@altavista.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Get the list FAQ at: http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/documents/permaculture.faq


Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.com