|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-21-2001, 10:53 AM | #1 |
Colloquialist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 75
|
Another one....
Sorry about the "> > >", but I'm not going to delete them by hand.
> > >Interviewing Chomsky (MIT professor of linguistics) > > > > > >Radio B92, Belgrade > > > > > >Q: 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. > > > > > > > > >Q: 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. > > > > > > > > >Q: 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. > > > > > > > > >Q: 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. > > > > > > > > >Q: "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. Its 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. |
09-21-2001, 09:35 PM | #2 |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Note Chomsky's credentials - linguistics. Curious how many books this man has written on history and the underlying philosophies of current events - and yet he is a linguistics professor. His perspectives are always enlightening.
Also recommended is PBS Frontline's report on bin Laden which aired nationally last Monday night and was rebroadcast Friday - at least in Philly. This is also a 'must watch' report to appreciate who is this man bin Laden. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|