The monster is US

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Sep 21 2001 - 05:30:50 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Dawkins View"

    Received: by id FAA11191 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 05:34:48 +0100
    Message-ID: <002001c14256$33765be0$b888b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: The monster is US
    Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:30:50 -0700
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C1421B.85863580"
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Here's a few excerpts from an interview with Chomsky. He's really in top form here.


    Interviewing Chomsky

    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_ cor-
    respondent 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.


    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

    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 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.

    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.


    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.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 21 2001 - 05:39:45 BST