RE: Theos-World Fwd: Chomsky and Farrakhan responses to WTC911
Sep 29, 2001 03:50 PM
Any Sources El Barto ?
Narada Orpheus Saccas
Osama Bin Laden is considered to be the best organizer
in the terrorist world. It is doubtful that anything happens in
his organization that he is unaware of; his major value to the
terrorist movement is as an organizer, not as a symbol.
> 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.
All the Afghan resistors were helped by the U.S.
government. And the purpose was not to "cause maximal harm to
the Russians", but because the Russians had embarked on a
genocidal mission to kill every man, woman and child in Afghanistan.
> Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel
> fighters they could mobilize.
There is something that I learned a long time ago.
People have motives and goals. In order to deal with people, it
is important to understand those motives and goals. If one just
assumes that someone is insanely evil, then one will never be
able to deal with that person (except in the very rare cases
where the person IS insanely evil). Chomsky assumes that the
CIA is insanely evil, and therefore it makes sense for him to
ascribe to the CIA characteristics that make no sense whatsoever.
Given the two possible motives of the CIA (the stated
motive of helping the Afghans prevent Soviet genocide or the
goal Chomsky assumes of causing maximal harm to the Russians),
recruiting the most fanatical and cruel fighters is not the
most efficient way to go about it. One needs to recruit
EFFICIENT fighters, and cruel fanatics are NOT efficient.
> 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
Simon Jenkins is defining a regime that deliberately
uses poison gas on civilians to be "moderate".
> 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.
Most people would say "crimes against humanity".
> 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
> elsewhere in Russian territory.
Very often, one is faced with choosing between evils.
The U.S., in the Balkans, took the side of whatever group was
getting slaughtered at the moment, to stop mass slaughter.
Unfortunately, the slaughterers and the slaughterers kept on
changing places. The reason why Chomsky doesn't feel the need
to go over the reasons is because they would go AGAINST his
case, so he casually refrains from giving them.
> 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.
Except that the United States was not dictating policy,
and trying to PREVENT biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons
from being used, and was willing, ready and able to leave any
time the Saudis asked them to.
> Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
> regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic,"
> Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime
> in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its
Saudi Arabia, while being somewhat fundamentalist, is
far from being the most extreme example in the world. Iran and
Afghanistan are two that are worse, just for example. And of
course, Chomsky considers democracy to be corrupt and
repressive. Because the U.S. supports the regimes where the
people have the most freedom, and...
> Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes.
> Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US
> for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th
> 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
> 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
> of the world, apart from the US, which has prime
responsibility for them.
Israel is the ONLY country in the world which is being
taken to task for these "crimes", which, for the rest of the
world, is standard operating procedure. It's so-called
"brutality" is in preventing people from killing Israeli citizens.
> 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
> including the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region
> well, even if Westerners prefer to forget the facts.
And the U.S. actions are to KEEP Hussein from repeating
those atrocities, and their attacks are designed to MINIMIZE
> The Wall Street Journal, (Sept. 14), published a survey 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
> 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
The wealthy Muslims of the region became that way
through oppression of the people. They are against any country
that gives all Muslims equal rights, including (possibly
> Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and
> oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are
> of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly
> understood by those who are interested in the facts.
The suicide bombers are a result of months of
indoctrination (using techniques sometimes referred to as
> To quote the lead analysis in The New York Times, (Sept. 16), the
> perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in
> as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal
> suffrage. U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be
This is the same paper which ALSO seriously printed an
analysis that George W. Bush was behind the bombings. And there
is a difference between editorial analysis and news analysis.
> 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
> and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to
> observe international law.
The U.S. was, once again, helping forces working
against a brutal dictatorship. And the U.N. has been, over the
years, well known to be controlled by the forces of hate and
bigotry (note the recent farcical conference on racism).
> 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.
This is total bull, as events have shown.
Chomsky indulges in what is called "moral equivalency"
(William F. Buckley came up with an excellent definition of
moral equivalency: Saying that pushing an old lady into the
path of a moving car and pushing an old lady OUT of the path of
a moving car were equivalent actions, because in both cases one
is pushing an old lady). He takes the actions, and ignores the
motives and the extended results.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application