The Cellar - 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.