[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Fwd: Chomsky and Farrakhan responses to WTC911

Sep 28, 2001 11:15 PM
by leonmaurer

In a message dated 09/28/01 6:59:42 AM, writes:

> wrote:
>> read in the US mass media. The facts will speak for themselves. Knowing and
>> analyzing both sides of the picture is very useful in determining our free
>> choices of action and our ability to be effective in a self governed
>> democracy. (For those of another mindset, just close your eyes and 
>> in the trash.:-)
>> Len
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A) It looks like the the newsgroup software considered this to be a

It was sent as an attached file. 

> B) Considering that Louis Farrakhan preaches a message of hate
>(including that Jews were the result of mating humans and dogs) and Noam
>Chomsky has a specific philosophy that lies and half-truths are
>permissable when used to promote the proper politics, I doubt that it
>would be interesting for anything other than picking apart.
> Bart Lidofsky

You may be right. But since I just sent the editorial picking apart Chomsky, 
you might as well read Chomsky's original interview so you can judge for 
yourself. (Isn't that what theosophists are supposed to do?;-) 

Interview with Noam Chomsky by 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 

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 sel
f-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 perception?

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 

And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this 

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 

Q: Do you expect the U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of 

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, there came fear of what the U.S. answer was 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 

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 

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 

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 the 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. 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 it's 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: THE DISMANTLING OF 

The current "war" on Afghanistani terrorism is a misdirection and a hoax.

As pointed out in the book, Black Gold Hot Gold, the oil expected to flow 
from the vast oilfields under the Russian Caspian Sea, discovered about 20 
years ago remains undrilled and untapped. That field contains about 500 years 
worth of oil at present world consumption rates.

The only possible oil pipeline routes at the present time to handle the 
massive flow of oil from the Caspian Sea region under Chenya is either 
through Kosovo to the Mediterranean Sea or through Afghanistan and Pakistan 
to the Indian Ocean.

Two years ago, the Clinton administration attempted to place Kosovo under 
international control and begin pipeline construction but was unable to 
complete the process.

The normal oil route would have been to move oil from Chenya across the Black 
Sea and through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean. But the narrow Bosporus 
channel is already clogged with oil tankers from the existing Black Sea 
oilfields. The only alternate is to move the tankers from the Black Sea, 
bypassing the Bosporus, up the Danube River and then through a very short 
pipeline across Kosovo to the Mediterranean at Tirana, Albania.

That process was stopped by the Chinese who have supplied and armed the 
Albanians, as a client state, since 1949.

Following the Soviet discovery of the vast Chechen oilfields in the late 
1970's, they attempted to take control of Afghanistan to provide a massive 
pipeline system to allow the Soviets to market their oil directly from the 
Afghan-Pakistan seaport. 

This resulted in the decades long Soviet-Afghan war. The Soviets were stopped 
by the U.S. supplied and armed insurgent groups, including Osama bin Laden, 
who defeated the Soviets in the late 1980's.

The Soviets had massively built up their military in the 1980's, including 
the world's largest nuclear submarine fleet, gambling on the huge profits to 
be made by selling their Chechen oil on the open market. When the Afghans 
under bin Laden, backed by the U.S. CIA stopped the construction of the 
Soviet-Afghan pipeline, the Soviet Union went through an economic collapse 
and ceased to exist in 1991.

The vast Chechen oilfield still remains fallow and untapped.

As identified in Black Gold Hot Gold, the Empire of Energy is now making a 
new attempt to market the Chechen oil by carpet bombing Afghanistan and 
building the Afghan pipeline.

George W. Bush's statement about declaring war on "terrorism" is obviously 
hollow. It strangely does not include the terrorists in Northern Ireland, nor 
even the terrorist suicide bombers among the Palestinians. Instead, it makes 
an instant leap of logic to aim the U.S. military directly at Afghanistan.

The terrain in northern Afghanistan is the arid rugged foothills of the 
Himalayas known as the Hindu Kush and is defended by the large fierce tribal 
armies of the Northern Coalition who are excellent guerilla fighters with 
years of experience fighting Soviets, now backed by the Chinese, and not 
connected with the main Taliban government in Kabul.

The Soviets spent over 10 years at great expense to attack and "carpet bomb" 
Afghanistan, but they found the fortress Himalaya is impenetrable. The result 
was tremendous loss of Soviet lives and the economic collapse of the Soviet 

George Bush is now leading the United States down that same road.

The Empire of Energy has for almost 100 years had as its goal the dismantling 
of the United States of America and amalgamating it into one large global 
energy market. They have found in George Bush a willing partner.

Any war in Afghanistan would pit the U.S. against the Chinese who just last 
week, on the day of the Word Trade Center attack, signed a mutual pact with 
the Afghans.

In the last 50 years the U.S. has fought numerous wars against the Chinese, 
as in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere. In those wars the result was always a 
draw with massive loss of life. 

Even high tech "smart" weapons in Kosovo were unable to defeat the Chinese.

In the upcoming Afghan war WITH THE CHINESE, the U.S. will lose by simple 
attrition. Neither smart bombs nor nuclear bombs work against hidden 
terrorists or against fortress Himalaya. 

There are more Chinese soldiers in uniform than the whole populaton of the 

Numerous recent news stories indicate the attack on the World Trade Center 
was known to the CIA and FBI weeks before the attack. Seemingly nothing was 

As for America, its panzers ran out of gas with the "strange" fraudulent 
election of November 2000. Both G.W. Bush and Al Gore were backed by the 
Empire of Energy, so it didn't matter for whom you voted. 

(end of Chomsky interview - R. P.)

Sorry, but the Farrakhan piece was not sent in the clipped mailing (It was a 
separate download in the original forwarded mailing.) Surprisingly, it was 
not at all anti Semitic, but called for brotherhood and cooperation by 
Christians, Jews and Muslims in the face of the terrorist attacks on America. 
For those interested, the text is at:


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application