Dear cj, This posting wraps up the series on terrorism, at least for the time being. I'd still be interested in statements and forwards on this topic, for use later. I hope you find the material useful. After this will come chapter 2 of the book: "Evolution of political power: from national kingdoms to global corporate rule, via democracy". It is so easy to miss the forest for the trees. Whether or not you feel Clinton's reprisals are justifiable, consider what it means to have a world where the US can launch unilateral missile attacks whenever some President claims to have a reaon. Does this create a world in which we are all safer? rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:27:22 -0500 From: Kathleen Geathers <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#817> responses to GRI/I.1 - "Evolution of Geopolitics" Dear Richard, I read all of your messages, and find them enlightening; however, after missiles were unleashed on two soveriegn nations, like yesterday, I don't think this country respects any boundaries. Peace is not a commodity which enriches the coffers of the arms merchants. The irony is, this country claimed to destroy training grounds for terrorists. At the same time, the School of the Americas is allowed to continue training some of the most vicious killers of the world, and as one of the protesters, we are ignored, unless we get too close and are arrested. What I am trying to say, unless the U.S. respects the rights of all people, hope is lost. Kathleen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 11:24:45 -0500 From: "Charles D. Johnson" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#818> Would the real terrorists please stand up? To: •••@••.••• Dear Richard K. Moore - Thank you for stating so clearly what many of us realize, but are unable or unwilling to articulate so well. Your piece will help many of us to write letters to the ditor with more bite to them than would have been possible without your analysis. I look forward to the next one or two postings with more on terrorism, and to the next chapters of your book. Stop Globalization !!! Charles Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: •••@••.••• (Hugh Keane) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 15:10:02 -0400 (EDT) To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#818> Would the real terrorists please stand up? I have a problem with the factual basis of your statement concerning the so called civilian factory in the Sudan. Although I agree with your animosity towards the economic globilization and corporate control of previously national states, I cannot avoid the fact that there are ideologies that are equally or greater in diminishing the chances for the peoples of the world to achieve democracy. The American People through their goverment should and do have a right to protect its citizens from criminals who under the guise of relgion have taken the lives of innocent people. I don't think siding with fanatics whose only desire is to inflict a totalitarian ideology on their own people, is a method of making a more livable world. Hugh ---------- Dear Hugh, All the reports I've seen identify the factory as being a civilian pharmaceutical plant. "The Observer", a mainstream British paper, includes an interview with a Brit who visited the plant recently, and who said it was strictly civilian. The Observer also claims that Clinton admitted he knew the plant was civilian, and even that he preferred such a target so it wouldn't harm civilians with poisonous substances. What are they saying about the target on US TV? Your concerns about bad ideologies and protecting innocents are of course compelling. That's why the propaganda is so successful -- it contains elements of truth. During the Cold War, we were told that the choice was between "our system" and "Soviet tyranny". Now we're told it's between "our system" and "Muslim fundamentalism". Children are told "Be good or the boogyman will get you." These are false choices, simplistic slogans, no more than means of keeping people suppressed. Do you think the US actions are protecting US citizens? To me, the reprisals seem designed to be as provocative as possible, to inflame passions, and may well bring about new waves of terrorism. This advances the US elite agenda of legitimizing arbitrary US intervention as a means of maintaining its own version of global order. Just as Saddam was carefully preserved after Desert Storm, so Bin Laden has been carefully preserved. Thus there's a boogyman who can be shown on TV and used as a pretext. You said: >I don't think siding with fanatics >whose only desire is to inflict a >totalitarian ideology on their own >people, is a method of making a >more livable world. I couldn't agree more. I don't side with those who plant bombs, nor do I side with those launch missile attacks. In fact I think our Western leaders are "fanatics whose only desire is to inflict a totalitarian ideology on their own people". Neoliberalism (market-forces capitalism) is fanaticism, and globalization is leading rapidly a totalitarian global regime. In looking to the US to be our "protector from terrorism", one must consider the role of the US in purposely creating the conditions out of which terrorism arises. The US has used its power, both overt and covert, and this is a matter of unquestioned record, to create totalitarian regimes all over the world. It is the US (sometimes with help from Britain) who put Marcos and Suharto in power, who installed the Shah, and then insured that he got replaced by the Ayatollah. It is the US who maintains medieval regimes in the oil-producing states, who trained Latin America militaries during the era of "the disappeared", and who brought about the current fanatical regime in Afganistan. The US has no right to create a world of dictatorial regimes and then use the evilness of those regimes as an excuse for its own adventurism. What we need is an end to US intervention in other countries, not an expansion of it. yours, rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 16:06:33 -0500 To: •••@••.••• From: Mark Douglas Whitaker <•••@••.•••> Subject: re: cj#818> Would the real terrorists please stand up? >Or consider the Iraq embargo, with the "end", evidently, of removing Saddam >from power, but which is carried out forcefully against the whole civilian >population of Iraq, primarily by the US. Millions have died, many of them >children, in this massive act of intimidation. This too, is state >terrorism, although it will never be called that in the media. In my comparative urban studies, it is generally assumed that seige warfare--the intentional starvation of a city for force its fall or compliance--ended with the 'feudal' era. All that has changed is that shapes of the military technologies and sizes of states have allowed seiges of whole countrysides, under the name of 'strictly economic' embargos. The way the idea of 'embargo' is framed is that is is solely 'economic,' that it has nothing to do with warfare. Yet an embargo--the intentional economic destabilitation of a nation-state to force political compliance--by any other name is a seige and basically warfare under any other name. And exmaples of seige warfare can drag of for years. United States examples of seige warfare are Cuba and Iraq. Regards, Mark Whitaker University of Wisconsin-Madison ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:35:00 -0700 From: Jeff Jewell <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#818> Would the real terrorists please stand up? The hegemonic domination of the USA as the only terrorist state of any significance rests solidly on its stunning success in selling its citizens on its own propaganda. Apparently some of American propaganda purveyors are even starting to believe it themselves. The epitome of such self delusion was expressed on the ABC Nightline news program [hosted by Ted Koppel] by a spin doctor who suggested that the recent 'retaliatory' bombing of Afhganistan and Sudan might usher in a new and more 'proactive' phase of the American war against terrorism -- which he termed "anticipatory self-defence"! While Koppel was sufficiently objective to note that others might not see it that way, neither he nor the talking-head expert nor presumably the vast majority of the American audience were troubled by the shameful and disgusting reality embodied in this utterly cynical concept. Jeff Jewell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:28:56 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Ruth Cohen <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#819> Parveez Syed: "US embassy bombings analysed" There is nothing factual whatsoever in this piece of garbage and I am truly amazed that Richard would be so prone to rush to the side of people who spew forth this type of so called "analysis" that he would fall in with complete madmen on the grounds that anything anti-American is perforce accurate. What -- is he saying that the Americans did these bombings to themselves so they could run in and take over the Middle East, right after they have taken over ALbainia, no doubt? He obviously wants to believe it, since he says well, on the one hand he doesn't agree with the views expressed by Parveez but on the other hand, well, he does consider him to be a reliable source. I see a distinct problem here of metaphysical speculation taking over from reasoned analysis, and the hurtful thing is that it has an anti semitic basis. Ruth Cohen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:00:45 -0500 From: Kathleen Geathers <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#821> Two more reports on US reprisals The entire situation is tragic. When one country, the U.S., without debate in congress, can unilaterally go into other countries and bomb, no country is safe because international law means nothing to us. Kathleen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:53:42 -0700 From: Jeff Jewell <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#820> Parveez Syed: Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan Richard, re the 'Wag the Dog' notion that Clinton could use military action to distract public attention from his scandals, I strongly believe that you were exactly right that this notion is absurd -- and that he was nothing more than a rubber stamp this decision. Indeed, had he such power and take such action, this would undoubtedly be judged to be a "high crime or misdemeanor" -- i.e. an impeachable offense. While Clinton may have thought it might spin to his advantage, I wouldn't be surprised if his enemies who commanded it may well have realized that, given Clinton's vulnerability coupled with public exposure to the 'Wag the Dog' idea, military action would actually raise further doubts about his integrity -- and, in any case, it was a golden opportunity for an unjustified unilateral action -- where any blame would fall on him. In this light, the fact that Parveez Syed touts the 'Wag the Dog' scenario to me destroys the credibilty of that source. ------------ Dear Jeff, If you require omniscience from all your information sources you won't have many sources. Parveez lives in London, and his grasp of the subtleties of US domestic politics is not his claim to expertise. What he does claim to have is reliable sources in various intelligence services, and that's the part of his analysis that I think is worth paying attention to. I'm not saying to believe it all, but to notice what kind of evidence he cites, and keep that in mind along with other available evidence in evaluating the situtation for yourself. I have a friend whose mode of argument is to dismiss totally anyone when he can find a single statement they've made that he can refute. This makes it comfortable for him to hold on to his existing beliefs, but it mystifies me how he came to those beliefs. Where did he find immaculate sources in the first place? rkm ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share: