Thu, 24 Sep 2026 13:01:48 -0400
webmaster@chnm.gmu.edu (September 11 Digital Archive)
Copyright © 2002–2021, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media and American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning
Zend_Feed
Title
[MAPC-discuss] Fwd: this is so well written (fwd)
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-11-11
September 11 Email: Body
Below find a marvelous piece, especially for anyone feeling a little
beseiged by the swell on mile-long, inch-deep patriotism flooding the
land. BTW, for those of you who haeven't done so, please send me an
e-mail to alruff@execpc.com so that I can switch you address over to my
NEW e-mail location.
-X
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:56:00 -0600
>
> > San Francisco Gate - Oct 19, 2001
> >
> >
>
e
> > s101901.DTL&type=printable>
> >
> > Evil Evildoers Of Evil
> >
> > How to feel calmly patriotic and yet not the slightest bit reassured by
>Bush
> > & Co.
> >
> > By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
> >
> > This much is true: It really is possible to love your country and
> > value your freedoms and still believe the government is full of fools
> > and prevaricators and BS artists and Dick Cheney. Really.
> >
> > It is still possible to feel warmly patriotic in personal and
> > important ways and yet believe the military and the generals and the
> > war machine do not have your best interests at heart and really
> > couldn't care less what those interests are anyway but thank you for
> > sharing now please sit down and do as we tell you and by the way,
> > thanks for all the flags and the money.
> >
> > And it is still possible to feel unified and spiritually connected to
> > all that is good and righteous about your generally nonviolent
> > Americanism -- you know, wine and sex and good music, large dogs and
> > literature and clean water and tongue kissing in the streets -- and
> > still be depressed when our famously nonintellectual president talks
> > to the country like we're all five years old and heavily dosed on
> > Ritalin.
> >
> > When Bush employs phrases like "bring the evildoers to justice" over
> > and over, 17 times in one speech alone, and he furrows his brow like
> > a serious Muppet and offers carefully scripted reassurances
> > deliberately lacking in polysyllabism and detailed explanation
> > because that would be, you know, complicated. When he repeats
> > primitive little maxims like "There are no negotiations" and responds
> > to press-conference questions about the vitriolic anti-US hatred that
> > has blossomed around the globe by saying, "I'm amazed. I just can't
> > believe it because I know how good we are," thus causing a giant
> > global spasm of multinational cringing and openly insulting the
> > intelligence of anyone who can walk and breathe at the same time.
> >
> > When he delivers very earnest speeches he had no part in writing,
> > and when he is forced to speak extemporaneously, sans script or
> > TelePrompTer, and is reduced to simplistic good-guy/bad-guy
> > platitudes and flustered, rapid blinking, and who cannot for the life
> > of him articulate a complex idea, some sort of nuanced elucidation of
> > our nation's motives and positioning, that contains more than one
> > possible level of meaning. But perhaps that's too harsh. Unfair.
> > He's the president, after all. He is a Good Man. He's our leader
> > right now, he's doing his best and he's all we've got. This is our
> > rallying cry, our motto: He's all we've got. There's your bumper
> > sticker. And there he is.
> >
> > Except for Cheney, which isn't exactly reassuring. No one has ever
> > seen this man's mouth actually move. No one can take one look at his
> > oddly spiritless and wan figure and not think, oh dear God, that man
> > is running on fumes. From a bunker. With ropes and pulleys. But
> > you're not supposed to. In fact, you really aren't allowed to
> > criticize the president or the veep right now, not supposed to feel
> > strangely leaderless and adrift, not permitted to look upon the
> > events of the past weeks with much wariness or bitterness or a
> > disquieting sense that we're setting things in motion that have no
> > predictable outcome -- ugly, subterranean, hateful things that could
> > last years and will surely cost billions and will deeply entrench the
> > nation in a bizarre and poisonous shell game with shadowy opponents
> > of largely unknown capability and do you hear that? That soft
> > roaring?
> >
> > That's the sound of the GOP-stroked military machine, quietly
> > cheering. Never mind the staggering multibillion-dollar political
> > mess in Saudi Arabia that fueled bin Laden's network for years, or
> > the enormous oil fields that are desperately vulnerable to terrorist
> > attack at any moment. Never mind the US government's outright
> > rejection of new advancements in alternative fuels to get us away
> > from oil and out of the Gulf entirely. Instead we get: Evildoers. Air
> > strikes. Hundreds of dead civilians. Rumsfeld denials. And Bush,
> > squinting, saying things only small children and GasMaskExpress.com
> > shoppers find comforting and manly. It is, Bush tells us, a war on
> > terrorism. We will eradicate terrorism through largely violent and
> > aggressive means, because that is what we must do and what we always
> > do and everything else takes too damn long. We have to do something.
> >
> > This is the common wisdom. Bush said so. Mr. Rumsfeld told him so,
> > with his black and shiny hawk eyes all a-glimmer. Disagree? You
> > traitorous whiner. This war, it will be just like the War on Drugs.
> > It will be potent and effective and our objectives will be clear. The
> > nation had a nasty drug problem and we declared a war on drugs and
> > spent billions over many years and now you can't buy drugs anymore.
> > It will be just like that.
> >
> > There is more than one way to respond to the horror of Sept. 11. And
> > there is more than one kind of patriotism. We forget this. You do not
> > have to rally around Bush and tolerate Cheney's chthonic creepiness
> > and wave a frantic flag and believe every scripted half-truth that
> > drizzles out of the Pentagon, applaud the nonstop attacks on an
> > already demolished nation. Pro-America does not mean pro-war. Or
> > pro-Bush. Or anti- Afghanistan. Or pro-little-flags-on-SUV-antennas.
> > It means thinking independently and getting better informed and
> > filtering your news very carefully and realizing that just because
> > one version of the American aggro attitude is currently being
> > ramrodded down society's throat doesn't mean you have to swallow.
> >
> > It means you don't have to find Tomahawk missiles really cool or
> > think all those tens of thousands of Europeans and Egyptians and
> > world citizens protesting the US bombings must be commie jerks, or
> > feel sad and morally depleted when you can't seem to draw any
> > intellectual nourishment whatsoever when Bush declaims, "Terrorists
> > want us to stop our lives, stop our flying, stop our buying. But this
> > nation will not be intimidated by evildoers." You don't have to buy
> > into that infantile hokum for a moment. After all, this is America.
> >
> >
> > [Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and
> > Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesday or Thursday, which it
> > almost never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed
> > and very funny daily email newsletter.]
_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
September 11 Email: Date
Sunday, November 11, 2001 8:57 AM
September 11 Email: Subject
[MAPC-discuss] Fwd: this is so well written (fwd)
]]>
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:51:41 -0500
Title
[MAPC-discuss] Friday, in Chicago - RAWA
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-11-07
September 11 Email: Body
A rare Chicago appearance of Tahmeena Faryal, a representative of
RAWA-the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan-will take
place on Friday, Nov. 9, 6 p.m. at Hot House 31 E. Balbo (between Wabash
and State St.). The meeting is entitled: "The Other America Welcomes the
Other Afghanistan: An Evening of International Solidarity with RAWA-the
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan."
The meeting is sponsored by News and Letters Committees(list of
cosponsors is still in formation).
For more information call: 312-236-0799; email: nandl@igc.org
Can we oppose both the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and the U.S.
government's war on Afghanistan by turning a different vision of the
future into a reality-a future of freedom, human dignity, cooperation, and
genuine safety? Who are our allies in helping to realize this vision?
Come listen to and speak with TAHMEENA FARYAL, representative of
RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.
RAWA is an independent, all-volunteer, non-violent organization
that calls for multilateral disarmament and the establishment of a secular
democracy in Afghanistan, where women may once again participate fully in
public life. Since 1977, the women of RAWA have stood up to all native and
foreigner oppressors with courage and principle. They opposed the Russian
occupation of Afghanistan and today they oppose all Islamic fundamentalist
forces, including both the Taliban and those in the Northern Alliance.
On Sept. 14, RAWA condemned the Sept. 11 attacks as a barbaric act
of violence and terror; opposed a U.S. military attack that would kill
thousands of innocent Afghans for the crimes committed by the Taliban and
Osama bin Laden; and expressed its "sincere hope that the great American
people can differentiate between the people of Afghanistan and a handful of
fundamentalist terrorists."
While the Taliban have outlawed education for women beyond the
second grade, and deny them the few social services that exist in
Afghanistan, RAWA secretly-and under the threat of death-provides schooling
for girls and boys, as well as medical care and adult education for women.
In neighboring Pakistan, it provides Afghan refugees with aid, runs
orphanages, and sponsors income-generating projects.
_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
September 11 Email: Date
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:49 AM
September 11 Email: Subject
[MAPC-discuss] Friday, in Chicago - RAWA
]]>
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:51:40 -0500
Title
RE: [MAPC-discuss] WorldFederalistAssociation(WFA)
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-11-05
September 11 Email: Body
Sit down. Take a few deep breaths and relax. Close your eyes
and ask yourself... when is it right to take another person's
life? What did you discover when you listened to that quiet
voice within you? Perhaps vigilantism is as abhorent as the
acts that catalyzed it. Perhaps violence is not a good answer?
>--- Original Message ---
>From: X <X>
>To: madpeace-discuss@madpeace.org
>Date: 11/5/01 5:10:49 PM
>
>...tries to get Bin Ladin dead or alive, killing many more innocents
in the
>process. Is such vigilantism better than nothing? Perhaps.
_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
September 11 Email: Date
Monday, November 05, 2001 5:20 PM
September 11 Email: Subject
RE: [MAPC-discuss] WorldFederalistAssociation(WFA)
]]>
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:51:40 -0500
Title
[MAPC-discuss] Fw: !*CNN: Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-11-04
September 11 Email: Body
Over the weekend, when reporting that the U.S. bombing raids were
intensifying support for the Taliban within Afghanistan, CNN repeatedly
commented that the Afghan people were not sophisticated enough to blame
their own government for the U.S. attacks.
Talk about perversion. More below....
X
----- Original Message -----
From: "X
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:@hera.webcom.com;;;;>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: !*CNN: Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be "Perverse" + More
> FORWARDED MESSAGES
> ====================
> From: "X
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:36 PM
>
> ACTION ALERT:
> CNN Says Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be "Perverse"
>
> November 1, 2001
>
> According to the Washington Post (10/31/01), CNN Chair Walter Isaacson
"has
> ordered his staff to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan
> cities
> with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying it
> 'seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in
> Afghanistan.'"
>
> Post media reporter Howard Kurtz quotes a memo from Isaacson to CNN's
> international correspondents: "As we get good reports from
> Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we must redouble our efforts to make sure
> we
> do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective. We
> must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the
> Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to
5,000
> innocent people."
>
> The memo went on to admonish reporters covering civilian deaths not to
> "forget it is that country's leaders who are responsible for the
situation
> Afghanistan is now in," suggesting that journalists should lay
> responsibility for civilian casualties at the Taliban's door, not the
U.S.
> military's.
>
> Kurtz also quotes a follow-up memo from Rick Davis, CNN's head of
standards
> and practices, that suggested sample language for news anchors:
>
> " 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from
> Taliban-controlled areas, that these U.S. military actions are in
response
> to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the
> U.S.' or, 'We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the
> Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have
> praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent
people
> in the U.S.,' or 'The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying
to
> minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime
> continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11
> attacks
> that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S.' "
>
> Davis stated that "even though it may start sounding rote, it is
important
> that we make this point each time."
>
> The New York Times reported (11/1/01) that these policies are already
being
> implemented at CNN, with other networks following a similar, though
perhaps
> not as formalized, strategy. "In the United States," the Times noted,
> "television images of Afghan bombing victims are fleeting, cushioned
> between
> anchors or American officials explaining that such sights are only one
side
> of the story." In other countries, however, "images of wounded Afghan
> children curled in hospital beds or women rocking in despair over a
baby's
> corpse" are "more frequent and lingering."
>
> When CNN correspondent Nic Robertson reported yesterday from the site of
a
> bombed medical facility in Kandahar, the Times reported, U.S. anchors
> "added
> disclaimers aimed at reassuring American viewers that the network was not
> siding with the enemy." CNN International, however, did not add any such
> disclaimers.
>
> During its U.S broadcasts, CNN "quickly switched to the rubble of the
World
> Trade Center" after showing images of the damage in Kandahar, and the
> anchor
> "reminded viewers of the deaths of as many as 5,000 people whose 'biggest
> crime was going to work and getting there on time.'"
>
> If anything in this story is "perverse," it's that one of the world's
most
> powerful news outlets has instructed its journalists not to report Afghan
> civilian casualties without attempting to justify those deaths. "I want
to
> make sure we're not used as a propaganda platform," Isaacson told the
> Washington Post. But his memo essentially mandates that pro-U.S.
propaganda
> be included in the news.
>
> ACTION: Please tell CNN to factually report the consequences of the U.S.
> war
> in Afghanistan without editorializing. Including a justification for the
> bombing with every mention of civilian casualties risks turning CNN from
a
> news outlet into a propaganda service.
>
> CONTACT:
> CNN, Walter Isaacson, Chairman and CEO
> Phone: (404) 827-1500
> Fax: (404) 827-1784
> mailto:community@cnn.com
>
> As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
> you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your
> correspondence.
>
> For further details, see Howard Kurtz's full Washington Post story:
>
>
> ----------
>
> ACTION ALERT:
> Op-Ed Echo Chamber:
> Little space for dissent to the military line
>
> November 2, 2001
>
> During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading
> dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's
> official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and
policy
> critics.
>
> A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages
for
> the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that
columns
> calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a
> great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international
law
> approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non-existent.
>
> We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times and Post that clearly
stressed
> a military response, against only two columns stressing non-military
> solutions. (Though virtually every op-ed in both papers dealt in some way
> with September 11, most did not deal specifically with how to respond to
the
> attacks, with many focusing on economics, rebuilding, New York's Rudolph
> Giuliani, etc. During the period surveyed, the Post ran a total of 105
op-ed
> columns, the Times ran 79.)
>
> Overall, the Post was more militaristic, running at least 32 columns
> favoring military action, compared to 12 in the Times. But the Post also
> provided the only two columns we could find in the first three weeks after
> September 11 that argued for non-military responses; the Times had no such
> columns. Both dissenting columns were written by guest writers.
>
> The Times' and Post's in-house columnists provided the bulk of the pro-war
> commentary. Two-thirds of the Times columns urging military action were
> written in-house, as were more than half of the Post's pro-war columns.
This
> may say something about which journalists are singled out for promotion to
> the prestigious position of columnist.
>
> In addition, both op-ed pages showed a striking gender imbalance. Of the
107
> op-ed writers at the Post, only seven were women. Proportionally, the
Times
> did slightly better, with eight female writers out of 79.
>
> When critics argue that U.S. news media have a duty to provide a broad
> debate on war, a common response is to ask why-- after all, isn't there a
> political and popular consensus in favor of war?
>
> Perhaps, but there's reason to believe that the extent and nature of that
> consensus has been overstated and distorted.
>
> In polls that offered a choice between a military response or nothing,
it's
> true that overwhelming majorities chose war. But given the choice between
a
> either military assault or pressing for the extradition and trial of those
> responsible (Christian Science Monitor, 9/27/01), a substantial minority
> either chose extradition (30 percent) or were undecided (16 percent).
These
> people had next to no representation in the op-ed debate; in fact, it's
> likely that many people asked to choose whether or not to go to war had
> never seen an alternative to war articulated in a mainstream outlet.
>
> There is also a little-acknowledged gender gap in poll responses about
> military action, a fact that lends new significance to the gender
imbalance
> in Washington Post and New York Times op-eds. In the final two paragraphs
of
> a 1,395-word story titled "Public Unyielding in War Against Terror "
> (9/29/01), the Washington Post pointed out that women "were significantly
> less likely to support a long and costly war." According to the Post,
while
> 44 percent of women would support a broad military effort, "48 percent
said
> they want a limited strike or no military action at all."
>
> Similarly, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (Gallup.com, 10/5/01) showed that
64
> percent of men think the U.S. "should mount a long-term war," while 24
> percent favored limiting retaliation to punishing the specific groups
> responsible for the attacks. In contrast, "women are evenly divided-- with
> 42 percent favoring each option." Noting that "women's support for war is
> much more conditional than that of men," Gallup reports that though 88
> percent of women favored taking retaliatory military action, that number
> dropped to 55 percent if 1,000 American troops would be killed (76 percent
> of men would support a war under these circumstances).
>
> Of course, gender equity on the op-ed pages would not guarantee
proportional
> representation for dissenters-- some of the most virulently pro-war and
> anti-Muslim columns have been written by female commentators (e.g., Mona
> Charen, who called for mass expulsions based on ethnicity--Washington
Times,
> 10/18/01). But given the gender differences suggested by polling, more
women
> on the op-ed pages might well give the lie to the conventional wisdom that
> all Americans have no-holds-barred enthusiasm for an open-ended war.
>
> Even, however, if one accepts the idea that the public overwhelmingly
favors
> war, the task of journalism is to remain independent and to ask tough
> questions of policy makers. After all, American history includes many
> official policies that were popular in their time, but which today are
> viewed as disasters. Wouldn't the country have been better off if
> journalists had provided a stronger, more abiding challenge to the
consensus
> that supported Vietnam, or the internment of Japanese-Americans?
>
> More than any other newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington
Post--
> with their unmatched influence in the nation's capitol and in U.S.
> newsrooms-- have a duty to provide readers with a wide range of views on
how
> to deal with terrorism, its causes and solutions. If the purpose of the
> op-ed page is to provide a vigorous debate including critical opinions,
both
> papers failed their readers at a crucial time.
>
> ACTION: Please urge the Washington Post and the New York Times to broaden
> the range of debate on their op-ed pages about the U.S. war in
Afghanistan.
>
> CONTACT:
> New York Times
> Terry A. Tang, Op-Ed Page Editor
> mailto:nytnews@nytimes.com
> Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
>
> Washington Post
> Michael Getler, Ombudsman
> mailto:ombudsman@washpost.com
> (202) 334-7582
>
> As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
> you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your
> correspondence.
>
> ----------
>
> FAIR
> (212) 633-6700
>
> E-mail: fair@fair.org
> ====================================>
> From: X
>
> 1) Afghan Casualty Image:
>
>
> ******************************
>
> 2) US attack kills Afghan children in Kabul
>
> Live television captures scenes of tragedy, and desperation
>
> by Ali Abunimah
>
> October 28, 2001
>
> American warplanes struck civilian dwellings in the Makrurian neighborhood
> of the Afghan capital Kabul on Sunday morning killing a number of people
> many of them children, Al-Jazeera [Qatar-based cable TV network] reported.
>
> In a live report from the city moments after the strike, at approximately
> 9 AM in Kabul, the television showed residents desperately digging through
> the rubble of destroyed houses with small shovels looking for bodies of
> loved ones. The television showed several bodies being uncovered from
> under rubble, including the bodies of two young sisters. The television
> showed their father crying and utterly distraught as his daughters were
> pulled from the rubble and laid out on the ground. As people dug for
> bodies, American warplanes circled overhead, and some people ran for
> cover, apparently in fear of more attacks.
>
> The television showed, in pictures which were extremely difficult to bear,
> bodies of children being laid out inside a building. One of the bodies
> visible was missing limbs. Adults gently laid the bodies out and covered
> them with sheets. In another shot the camera showed a head being revealed
> by a rescuers shovel from a pile of rubble.
>
> The television showed a teenage boy searching among rubble of a house
> possibly for members of his family.
>
> As the report was live, and the events were still unfolding, it was
> impossible to say exactly how many people were killed. The Al-Jazeera
> correspondent Taysir Allouni said that one completely destroyed house had
> had nine occupants, of whom only one had emerged alive. In addition to the
> dead people, the television showed a neighborhood of very simple mud
> houses, which are simply pulverized when bombed, and many dazed, injured
> and distraught residents.
>
> These images, perhaps because they were live and unedited, showed in the
> most direct and shocking way what high explosives do to human beings and
> their homes. These were the most upsetting pictures I have yet seen from
> the war, and at times I found myself having to turn away from the screen.
>
> In other news, Israeli occupation forces have killed at least four more
> Palestinians over the weekend, bringing the number Israel has killed since
> October 18 to near 50. The Israeli government has announced that it is
> postponing indefinitely its announced withdrawal from the towns and cities
> it reoccupied since October 18.
>
> Ali Abunimah
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> This article came from
> naeem_news@yahoogroups.com
>
> News/op-eds from alternate/progressive sources-- focusing on South Asia,
> Third World.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> (end)
>
>
_______________________________________________
discuss@madpeace.org mailing list
September 11 Email: Date
Sunday, November 04, 2001 9:16 PM
September 11 Email: Subject
[MAPC-discuss] Fw: !*CNN: Focus on Civilian Casualties Would Be
]]>
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:51:39 -0500
Title
[MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Q &A on the War - Circulate]
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-12-03
September 11 Email: Body
This is a very useful Q & A series from ZNET.
"The average American is not surprised that corporations and the
government
seek to use fear of terror to redistribute funds upward by means of
regressive
tax reforms and boondoggle military spending, to gut public programs, to
stifle
public debate by calls for patriotism from the media, and to restrict
rights by
draconian legislation. But not as commonly understood is that active
dissent can
curb these trends
and can foster opposite ones on behalf of the poor, of those who work,
and of
those who need civil liberties. And dissenters continuing to dissent and
to make
known the power of dissent, are thus absolutely essential, in this, now
as at any
other time."
Eight Questions on the Direction the US
"War on Terror" is Taking
More Q & A On Terror and War
By Michael Albert & Stephen R. Shalom
1. You have expressed skepticism that Osama bin
Laden was
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Are you still skeptical?
Actually, what we and other advocates of democratic judicial values
argued was not bin Laden's innocence, but that evidence regarding
his involvement was not presented. On November 14 -- more than
five weeks after the bombing began -- British Prime Minister Tony
Blair declared that the evidence "now leaves no doubt whatever"
that bin Laden was responsible. But isn't the evidence supposed to
precede, not follow, the punishment? In any event, however, Blair's
evidence even at this point is not decisive -- the only real addition to
Blair's earlier dossier are quotes from an unpublicized bin Laden
video -- that Britain doesn't have a copy of, but has knowledge of,
reports the Los Angeles Times (15 Nov. 2001) --
that are not given in context and fall short of an admission.
Bin Laden's guilt seems very likely, but the point is not to
convince
Blair or one allied government or another or even us, but public
opinion in the Muslim world. Despite Washington's initial promise to
present evidence publicly, it has yet to do so.
Not only did we never dispute the possibility that bin Laden was
involved in some way, we instead offered an explanation of why he
might very well have been involved, what he was seeking, etc. We
suggested that his motive, were he responsible, was probably to
draw the U.S. into a massive response, destabilizing the region, a
result that still may occur.
More to the intent of the question, if, when a vigilante mob tries to
lynch someone, it turns out that their suspect actually was guilty, that
doesn't make the mob's actions any less vigilante. And this is true
even if the mob doesn't kill a great many people (mostly victims, not
culprits) in the process of going after their suspect, as has been
occurring in Afghanistan.
2. Critics of the war have warned about mass
starvation, genocide,
and catastrophe. Weren't these warnings exaggerated?
No. Opponents of U.S. policy, ourselves included, indicated that
human rights and aid organizations warned that the bombing could
lead to a million or even millions of deaths. And we pointed out that
ignoring this warning, regardless of whether the horror came to
pass
or not, was an absolutely devastating commentary upon our
ruling
and media elites, and on others as well. That remains exactly the
case. We also urged that it was a priority to pressure the U.S. to
stop the bombing, stop the war, and aid in averting this catastrophe.
That is still the priority, in fact.
As to what damage has already been done, no one knows. What has
happened, for example, to the large fraction of the population that
has fled to the heavily-mined countryside? And many harmful
consequences of U.S. policy will not be felt until later. What will be
the future effects, for example, of losses in grain planting that was
disrupted in October? When eyes turn away, who will be there to
assess it?
That a country embarks on a policy that puts a million or more
innocent civilians at risk for political purposes is mass-scale
terrorism. If -- and it remains a big if, regrettably -- the catastrophe
is
averted that will certainly be a reason to celebrate, but it will not be
not reason to laud those who aggravated the prospects of disaster in
the first place. Playing Russian Roulette is stupid -- even if you don't
end up blowing your head off. Shooting a gun with a bullet in a
random chamber at someone else is immoral, whether or not you
end up committing murder.
At the current time prospects are still very unclear. Yes, the U.S.
could cease hostilities and assist food distribution, thereby reducing
the prospect of catastrophic starvation. But the U.S. seems intent on
rejecting any military let-up, and any pressure we can bring to
bear
urging this course of action is no less a priority now than it was
yesterday or last week. Aid agencies warned that the crucial factor
was how much food could be gotten in place before the winter snows
and that the bombing interfered with getting the food in. Whether
enough time now remains and whether the necessary effort is made
before the snow arrives remains the critical question.
3. Some have been critical of the U.S. food drops. But
weren't these
helpful until the war provided a means to get food in by
land?
No. The food drops were pure PR, perhaps doing more
harm than
good.
And while left critics of the war certainly argued this, they did
so by quoting the World Food Program, the Red Cross, and others
aid agencies, and even the Financial Times, all of whom issued
scathing denunciations of this propaganda tool. Nothing has
changed about that. What has now occurred is that the Northern
Alliance has occupied Kabul, and what's left of the Taliban has
retreated, it appears, to the mountains, virtually without a fight,
under the weight of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs ever
created, perhaps with the intention of waging an ongoing guerilla war
from outside the main cities.
The end to major fighting in the north may well have welcome
humanitarian consequences. But what does that lead us to conclude
about the morality of U.S. actions? Suppose the Taliban were to
release, tomorrow, a proclamation declaring "we left the cities for the
mountains so that the bombing would halt -- not having us as a
target -- and the way would be clear for food aid to get to our fellow
citizens. We have sacrificed our hold on power, to avert starvation
among our people."
Would we take that seriously? It would be true that their having left
the field of battle created the conditions mentioned in the question. It
would be true that it was a choice on their part, and that they could
have instead fought on, leading into the winter, etc. Nevertheless,
we would deduce based on our knowledge of their past policies that
they made the choice out of their own strategic concerns, not out of
concern for those suffering hunger. When the U.S. claims to care
about the Afghan poor, we should not relinquish our critical
faculties,
just as we wouldn't were the Taliban to make the claim.
Note, incidentally, that it was not the case that U.S. planners "knew"
they could force the Taliban out of the northern cities before winter.
Every indication suggests that the Taliban retreat was as much a
surprise to the Pentagon as to everyone else. Just two days ago
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was warning that though victory
wouldn't take years, it would take months (which, he observed,
meant that he had 23 months in which to operate).
4. Do you still think we're targeting civilians in our
bombing?
We never thought or stated that the bombing was targeting civilians
per se. We did say that the direct violent affects on civilians were
predictable. U.S. military planners know how often their smart
bombs, not to mention their dumb bombs, miss, and how often their
cluster bombs fail to detonate, thereby spewing future death traps
across the land.
But the real issue, from the beginning, was not the hundreds of
civilians killed by bombs, horrible as that is, but the tens or
hundreds
of thousands, or maybe more, who might succumb quietly out of
camera range.
Some will be victims of the destruction of what little
civilian infrastructure there is in the country: for example, electrical
transmission from the power station at the Kajaki Dam has been
knocked out, creating (according to UN officials) the risk of massive
flooding and crop failures (Independent, 8 Nov. 2001). Some will be
driven into the landmine-infested countryside. But the potentially
most disastrous effect of the bombing -- as we always maintained,
and as various aid agencies have warned -- has been to put huge
numbers of people at risk of starvation. And this remains the case.
And we said that the latter was the most abominably heinous aspect
of the project -- beyond that it [the War] was undertaken outside
the law,
indeed specifically to delegitimate the law, and to maintain
military
credibility, and to propel a "war on terrorism" whose purpose to
no
small degree is to organize domestic fear in pursuit of elite
agendas
of financial redistribution from poor to rich and draconian social
reaction against civil liberties.
5. There's been lots of criticism of the Northern
Alliance. But haven't
they proven pretty effective?
Criticism of the Northern Alliance has been not that they are
incompetent soldiers, but social monsters, slightly different in kind
from the Taliban, but small improvement morally. Nothing in the
past few days changes the historical record of the Northern Alliance,
and indeed, the first sketchy reports of executions and looting in
cities newly fallen under their control suggests that their thuggish
practices continue.
As RAWA, perhaps the foremost organization
fighting for the rights of women in Afghanistan, announced as the
Northern Alliance entered Kabul, "The retreat of the terrorist Taliban
from Kabul is a positive development, but the entering of the rapist
and looter Northern Alliance in the city is nothing but dreadful and
shocking news for about 2 million residents of Kabul whose wounds
of the years 1992-96 have not healed yet. Thousands of people who
fled Kabul during the past two months were saying that they feared
coming to power of the NA in Kabul much more than being scared
by the US bombing."
Moreover, while they are no doubt capable warriors, what has
occurred has little or perhaps even nothing to do with their battlefield
abilities, since there was no battle. The Taliban essentially withdrew
without a fight, apparently choosing to cede the cities to continue
the
struggle from the mountains, depending on how much there is left to
them, under the onslaught of the bombing.
6. Since the anthrax probably has a domestic source
and since the
crash of American Airlines Flight 587 probably was
accidental, don't
your concerns about creating more terrorists seem a
little alarmist?
Not at all -- unfortunately -- since people who are newly pushed to
desperation by current policies, by the starvation, by the other
continuing policies in the region, all now highlighted and aggravated,
do not overnight manifest their commitment via terrorist attack, of
course.
The assessment of this miserable and depressing prediction
against actual outcomes is in the future, not the present. It is not
unlike when critics warned back in the 1980s that supporting bin
Laden and the Mujahideen would have horrible future blowback
ramifications. To say a week or two, or even a year or two after that
prediction that it was proved false would have been a bit premature,
obviously.
7. And your worries about uprisings throughout the
Arab and Muslim
worlds (including nuclear-armed Pakistan) -- weren't
these too rather
exaggerated?
We and other critics said that the policies undertaken in
Afghanistan
and proposed for the rest of the world risked such
destabilization.
They did, and they still do. Does anyone think that Pakistan's
stability is assured as the battle moves to the southern Pashtun
region of Afghanistan, a region with many cross-border ties to
Pakistan? And if the U.S. decides to expand the "war on terrorism"
to some new defenseless venue, say the Sudan, or perhaps a not
entirely defenseless venue, say Iraq, the prospects of general social
dissolution in the region will enlarge, again.
Numerous surveys in Arab and Muslim nations show extremely
high
levels of opposition to the U.S. war, even in supposedly friendly
states. Most people are not inclined to heed bin Laden's call to holy
war, but as the U.S. pushes its dictatorial allies to join Washington's
holy war, instability is likely to spread.
8. Isn't it time to celebrate the demise of the Taliban
and return to
healing our country, setting aside all the negative talk
about U.S.
criminality, and all the opposition to U.S. policies?
If the Taliban were finished as a social force, that would be
something worth "celebrating" in that the Taliban is a horrendously
reactionary and violent organization impeding justice by its very
existence and practices. But, regrettably, it is quite possible that
they
are off planning their next actions, not disintegrating.
As to setting aside criticisms of the U.S., nothing could be less
constructive.
First, to continue to criticize and more importantly raise dissent to
pressure an end to bombing and undertaking food aid in all
endangered regions is paramount. The alternative is too horrible to
even entertain.
Second, addressing the just grievances of people throughout the
Middle East and the world regarding U.S. foreign policies is
necessary both on behalf of those who suffer the impact of those
policies, and also to eliminate the cause of support for terrorism
against the U.S.
And third, the events in NYC, Washington, and Afghanistan, we are
told by our government, auger a larger project, a war on terrorism,
whose character, as we can already see, is to be quite like that of
the Cold War. It will, if it actually transpires as intended, marshal
hate and fear through manipulation and misrepresentation into
support for policies that further enrich and empower the already rich
and powerful.
Everyone, at some level, knows this. The average
American is not surprised that corporations and the government
seek to use fear of terror to redistribute funds upward by means of
regressive tax reforms and boondoggle military spending, to gut
public programs, to stifle public debate by calls for patriotism from
the media, and to restrict rights by draconian legislation. But not as
commonly understood is that active dissent can curb these trends
and can foster opposite ones on behalf of the poor, of those who
work, and of those who need civil liberties. And dissenters
continuing to dissent and to make known the power of dissent, are
thus absolutely essential, in this, now as at any other time.
September 11 Email: Date
Monday, December 03, 2001 2:56 AM
September 11 Email: Subject
[MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Q &A on the War - Circulate]
]]>
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:51:39 -0500
Title
Re: [MAPC-coord] International/National Solidarity/Networking
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Created by Author
yes
Described by Author
no
Date Entered
2001-11-15
September 11 Email: Body
Possibly we need a name...
There are currently 9 prospective members and 3 folks who asked to be kept
informed. We are meeting Tuesday 11/20 at 6:45 at a place to be determined.
Our agenda will consist of naming ourselves, selecting an outie and innie,
and setting up a workplan for ourselves. Many of the prospective members
(including myself) are parents, and have expressed cautiousness about our
ability to commit to too many meetings. We might be an unusual group. I
think we might be a email-based working group.
I have a concern for discussion by the CC. Since joining the MAPC, I
scarcely have time for peace work. I am not alone in expressing this.
Between email overload, the general meeting, committee meetings, and CC
meetings for outies, it's a lot. I know that some of you are doing it, and
doing it incredibly well. And I understand and support the need for a great
deal of communication and process in a new organization. But we need
structural niches persons with less time available. I don't have a
solution to suggest just yet, and I will keep thinking about this, but I
wanted to bring this up for discussion as well.
Finally, I am very pleased to see the push for outreach. I think this the
most critical thing for us right now - for all the right political reasons,
but also because I am beginning to get faint wiffs of toast at every level
in the organization. Which is not to say we are not doing absolutely
amazing things - the fast, the rallies, the art stuff, the teach-ins and
tabling, the policy and website development, the fact the we already have a
budget and money to fund it - it's all pretty astonishing. But we could
certainly use more person-power.
PeaceLoveDove, (an old hippee)
Norah
_______________________________________________
coordination@madpeace.org