Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT Interview!

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael Dean <mikedean.com@altavista.com>
  • To: permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT Interview!
  • Date: 23 Nov 2001 04:45:51 -0800




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



  • Re: Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT Interview!, Michael Dean, 11/23/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page