Crisis and Opportunity
Ali A Minai September 13, 2001
#65 Posted by rsridhar on September 15, 2001 7:47:48 pm
Re:Reply #: 61
hobbyty,
The only things from your list that seems feasible is 1 and possibly 2. USA is not going to infuse any extra money from its coffers than what IMF gives. It has sustained tremendous damage and has to rebuild. You may however see the following happen:
1. Pakistan`s nuclear program scrapped. Western democracies have always been wary of an islamic nation being nuclear. This will definitely happen with or without Israel`s help.
2. Pakistani army de-talibanised. This will have to happen when US goes about the task of destroying Taliban. If this does not succeed, one may see Musharraf overthrown and someone else take over. Needless to say, the newcomer will not be sympathetic to US as he will be pro-Taliban.
3. General elections held under some kind of international supervision and a people`s democracy installed in Pakistan. This may be part of the deal. Musharraf has a good chance of becoming president if he is popular at the end of it all. US, when it is finished with Taliban and Pak would like to leave a country friendly to India (for economic reasons, India being a huge market)which brings me to the next point
4. Kashmir will be resolved if Pak has a democracy and successfully destroyes Taliban and eschews Jehad as a state policy. Anything short of this will not have India`s cooperation.
Sridhar
hobbyty,
The only things from your list that seems feasible is 1 and possibly 2. USA is not going to infuse any extra money from its coffers than what IMF gives. It has sustained tremendous damage and has to rebuild. You may however see the following happen:
1. Pakistan`s nuclear program scrapped. Western democracies have always been wary of an islamic nation being nuclear. This will definitely happen with or without Israel`s help.
2. Pakistani army de-talibanised. This will have to happen when US goes about the task of destroying Taliban. If this does not succeed, one may see Musharraf overthrown and someone else take over. Needless to say, the newcomer will not be sympathetic to US as he will be pro-Taliban.
3. General elections held under some kind of international supervision and a people`s democracy installed in Pakistan. This may be part of the deal. Musharraf has a good chance of becoming president if he is popular at the end of it all. US, when it is finished with Taliban and Pak would like to leave a country friendly to India (for economic reasons, India being a huge market)which brings me to the next point
4. Kashmir will be resolved if Pak has a democracy and successfully destroyes Taliban and eschews Jehad as a state policy. Anything short of this will not have India`s cooperation.
Sridhar
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#66 Posted by Molko on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Religion`s misguided missiles
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
#67 Posted by sherdil on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
FerozeK - I have just been browsing through the posts and came across yours (# 51).
Can you tell me more about the Mossad`s assessment that it may have been Iraq? The reason why I ask is that I had been thinking along the same lines and had just put a post on the Chowk thread. I am re-posting it here again - in case you are interested:
As I arrived in Karachi, and then to the northern areas, Pakistani seems to have a curious blend of hope and cynicism. Gone is the past belief in the Americans. Everyone seems to know that America is out to use Pakistan again. There is more of a business-like approach now, which is a hopeful sign. We know from bitter experience. The hope of course comes from the belief in President Musharraf. What a incredible position for him to be in! But for him to deliver, the Americans must be politically calculative as opposed to the emotionally charged atmosphere of the past week. Only by doing this can some additional scenarios be included, such as: Pakistan`s own internal terrorists. And what if it is not Bin Laden?
The hijackings and crashes required preparations and resources of the kind that include involvement of a state (visas, papers, support cells). While some of these are within the capabilities of Osama Bin Laden, the nature of the support required points to a state being involved. Which state would be so inclined? Very clearly, that state`s leader is someone that simply did not care about reprisals, in fact would welcome them because they would give it a chance to play the victim. A state whose leader did not care about its people, because again obviously, it is the ordinary people who will bear the brunt of the reprisal. A state whose leader has no compunction about the nature of the terrorist act. And most importantly, that leader had to have a personal vendetta against the US. What if Laden was a secondary player? What if it is Saddam? Saddam fits the bill in every respect. He has the state resources, he has the connections and above all he has a powerful motivation: he is craving revenge for the Gulf war. As far as reprisals go, he is in control of a country whose citizens he himself has executed, unlike Bin Laden, and has been able to play the victim when attacked. He has been able to elude the US and been able to garner support for the Iraqi people at the same time.
The Taliban, condemned as they are for what they are doing to their own people, are easy moral targets. What if it is Saddam all along? In the eagerness to find the perpetrators, I wonder if what is being done is just a settlement of a score for the earlier embassy bombings, and not a clear, deliberate look at the intelligence.
How could the US intelligence not see this coming or at the very least have an idea of SOME operation in the making? The CIA has an entire facility whose sole purpose is the monitoring and pursuit of Bin Laden. When you monitor this closely, I guarantee you SOMETHING is uncovered. If you can come up with cellphone conversations, you surely can come up with messages that led up to the disaster - they have entire teams monitoring him for months. I don`t believe this ``lapse of intelligence`` for one moment. Why did they not do something? I won`t say what I believe, because I find the possibility of it too sick. If you can extrapolate, it is a rather obvious answer.
One thing for sure, they did miscalculate, and miscalculate badly. With the war presently being undertaken, Pakistan will support the US, as they definitely should. We also need to remember that Pakistan`s interests are merely a convenience for the Americans, as they were during the Afghan war.
We have one path to take here: That is to keep in focus the ordinary Afghanis (I am differentiating here between them and extremists within the Taliban). I have met people from the world over, but remain deeply, deeply impressed and moved by the big, open hearts of the Afghans. I do not know if the Americans will differentiate those Taliban from the ordinary Afghan - but we Pakistanis need to.
Can you tell me more about the Mossad`s assessment that it may have been Iraq? The reason why I ask is that I had been thinking along the same lines and had just put a post on the Chowk thread. I am re-posting it here again - in case you are interested:
As I arrived in Karachi, and then to the northern areas, Pakistani seems to have a curious blend of hope and cynicism. Gone is the past belief in the Americans. Everyone seems to know that America is out to use Pakistan again. There is more of a business-like approach now, which is a hopeful sign. We know from bitter experience. The hope of course comes from the belief in President Musharraf. What a incredible position for him to be in! But for him to deliver, the Americans must be politically calculative as opposed to the emotionally charged atmosphere of the past week. Only by doing this can some additional scenarios be included, such as: Pakistan`s own internal terrorists. And what if it is not Bin Laden?
The hijackings and crashes required preparations and resources of the kind that include involvement of a state (visas, papers, support cells). While some of these are within the capabilities of Osama Bin Laden, the nature of the support required points to a state being involved. Which state would be so inclined? Very clearly, that state`s leader is someone that simply did not care about reprisals, in fact would welcome them because they would give it a chance to play the victim. A state whose leader did not care about its people, because again obviously, it is the ordinary people who will bear the brunt of the reprisal. A state whose leader has no compunction about the nature of the terrorist act. And most importantly, that leader had to have a personal vendetta against the US. What if Laden was a secondary player? What if it is Saddam? Saddam fits the bill in every respect. He has the state resources, he has the connections and above all he has a powerful motivation: he is craving revenge for the Gulf war. As far as reprisals go, he is in control of a country whose citizens he himself has executed, unlike Bin Laden, and has been able to play the victim when attacked. He has been able to elude the US and been able to garner support for the Iraqi people at the same time.
The Taliban, condemned as they are for what they are doing to their own people, are easy moral targets. What if it is Saddam all along? In the eagerness to find the perpetrators, I wonder if what is being done is just a settlement of a score for the earlier embassy bombings, and not a clear, deliberate look at the intelligence.
How could the US intelligence not see this coming or at the very least have an idea of SOME operation in the making? The CIA has an entire facility whose sole purpose is the monitoring and pursuit of Bin Laden. When you monitor this closely, I guarantee you SOMETHING is uncovered. If you can come up with cellphone conversations, you surely can come up with messages that led up to the disaster - they have entire teams monitoring him for months. I don`t believe this ``lapse of intelligence`` for one moment. Why did they not do something? I won`t say what I believe, because I find the possibility of it too sick. If you can extrapolate, it is a rather obvious answer.
One thing for sure, they did miscalculate, and miscalculate badly. With the war presently being undertaken, Pakistan will support the US, as they definitely should. We also need to remember that Pakistan`s interests are merely a convenience for the Americans, as they were during the Afghan war.
We have one path to take here: That is to keep in focus the ordinary Afghanis (I am differentiating here between them and extremists within the Taliban). I have met people from the world over, but remain deeply, deeply impressed and moved by the big, open hearts of the Afghans. I do not know if the Americans will differentiate those Taliban from the ordinary Afghan - but we Pakistanis need to.
#68 Posted by semipreciousme on September 16, 2001 6:32:57 am
September 11 Was a Day of Sadness, Anger and Fear
Copyright: http://www.iviews.com
Published Wednesday September 12, 2001
By Robert Jensen
Like everyone in the United States and around the world, I shared the deep sadness at the deaths of thousands.
But as I listened to people around me talk, I realized the anger and fear I felt were very different, for my primary anger is directed at the leaders of this country and my fear is not only for the safety of Americans but for innocents civilians in other countries. It should need not be said, but I will say it: The acts of terrorism that killed civilians in New York and Washington were reprehensible and indefensible; to try to defend them would be to abandon one`s humanity. No matter what the motivation of the attackers, the method is beyond discussion.
But this act was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states.
If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or Iraq, or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists. Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country`s infrastructure.
So, my anger on this day is directed not only at individuals who engineered the Sept. 11 tragedy but at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic. That anger is compounded by hypocritical U.S. officials` talk of their commitment to higher ideals, as President Bush proclaimed ``our resolve for justice and peace.``
To the president, I can only say: The stilled voices of the millions killed in Southeast Asia, in Central America, in the Middle East as a direct result of U.S. policy are the evidence of our resolve for justice and peace. Though that anger stayed with me off and on all day, it quickly gave way to fear, but not the fear of ``where will the terrorists strike next,`` which I heard voiced all around me. Instead, I almost immediately had to face the question: ``When will the United States, without regard for civilian casualties, retaliate?`` I wish the question were, ``Will the United States retaliate?`` But if history is a guide, it is a question only of when and where.
So, the question is which civilians will be unlucky enough to be in the way of the U.S. bombs and missiles that might be unleashed. The last time the U.S. responded to terrorism, the attack on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, it was innocents in the Sudan and Afghanistan who were in the way. We were told that time around they hit only military targets, though the target in the Sudan turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory.
As I monitored television during the day, the talk of retaliation was in the air; in the voices of some of the national-security ``experts`` there was a hunger for retaliation. Even the journalists couldn`t resist; speculating on a military strike that might come, Peter Jennings of ABC News said that ``the response is going to have to be massive`` if it is to be effective.
Let us not forget that a ``massive response`` will kill people, and if the pattern of past U.S. actions holds, it will kill innocents. Innocent people, just like the ones in the towers in New York and the ones on the airplanes that were hijacked. To borrow from President Bush, ``mother and fathers, friends and neighbors`` will surely die in a massive response.
If we are truly going to claim to be decent people, our tears must flow not only for those of our own country. People are people, and grief that is limited to those within a specific political boundary denies the humanity of others.
And if we are to be decent people, we all must demand of our government -- the government that a great man of peace, Martin Luther King Jr., once described as ``the greatest purveyor of violence in the world`` -- that the insanity stop here.
___________________________________________
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas.
Copyright: http://www.iviews.com
Published Wednesday September 12, 2001
By Robert Jensen
Like everyone in the United States and around the world, I shared the deep sadness at the deaths of thousands.
But as I listened to people around me talk, I realized the anger and fear I felt were very different, for my primary anger is directed at the leaders of this country and my fear is not only for the safety of Americans but for innocents civilians in other countries. It should need not be said, but I will say it: The acts of terrorism that killed civilians in New York and Washington were reprehensible and indefensible; to try to defend them would be to abandon one`s humanity. No matter what the motivation of the attackers, the method is beyond discussion.
But this act was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states.
If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or Iraq, or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists. Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country`s infrastructure.
So, my anger on this day is directed not only at individuals who engineered the Sept. 11 tragedy but at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic. That anger is compounded by hypocritical U.S. officials` talk of their commitment to higher ideals, as President Bush proclaimed ``our resolve for justice and peace.``
To the president, I can only say: The stilled voices of the millions killed in Southeast Asia, in Central America, in the Middle East as a direct result of U.S. policy are the evidence of our resolve for justice and peace. Though that anger stayed with me off and on all day, it quickly gave way to fear, but not the fear of ``where will the terrorists strike next,`` which I heard voiced all around me. Instead, I almost immediately had to face the question: ``When will the United States, without regard for civilian casualties, retaliate?`` I wish the question were, ``Will the United States retaliate?`` But if history is a guide, it is a question only of when and where.
So, the question is which civilians will be unlucky enough to be in the way of the U.S. bombs and missiles that might be unleashed. The last time the U.S. responded to terrorism, the attack on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, it was innocents in the Sudan and Afghanistan who were in the way. We were told that time around they hit only military targets, though the target in the Sudan turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory.
As I monitored television during the day, the talk of retaliation was in the air; in the voices of some of the national-security ``experts`` there was a hunger for retaliation. Even the journalists couldn`t resist; speculating on a military strike that might come, Peter Jennings of ABC News said that ``the response is going to have to be massive`` if it is to be effective.
Let us not forget that a ``massive response`` will kill people, and if the pattern of past U.S. actions holds, it will kill innocents. Innocent people, just like the ones in the towers in New York and the ones on the airplanes that were hijacked. To borrow from President Bush, ``mother and fathers, friends and neighbors`` will surely die in a massive response.
If we are truly going to claim to be decent people, our tears must flow not only for those of our own country. People are people, and grief that is limited to those within a specific political boundary denies the humanity of others.
And if we are to be decent people, we all must demand of our government -- the government that a great man of peace, Martin Luther King Jr., once described as ``the greatest purveyor of violence in the world`` -- that the insanity stop here.
___________________________________________
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas.
#69 Posted by Urstruly on September 16, 2001 11:27:41 am
WHY THEY HATE US SO MUCH?
That is the question every sane mind in US is asking these days. One must keep in mind as well that the first impulsive reaction throughout the Third World in general and Middle East in particular, when this tragedy happened, was that of jubilation. People looked with awe the demise of the myth of invulnerability of United States. The myth is no more. The beast can be brought down to its knees. Soon the compassion for the innocent lives took over and grief sunk in. The US and Western media is desperately trying to tone down this initial impulsive reaction of the Third World. Because US government does not want to face the question “why they hate us so much?” at this time.
US media is also trying to tone down the hate crimes against the people of Middle East and South Asian origin. The wave of hate has spread across the continents; lives and properties of colored people are being destroyed; and their places of worship are being set on fire. The tragedy has unleashed the inherent racial hatred in these societies. US media has failed to bring these crimes in the light because the last thing that US government wants is people asking “why they hate us so much”
One may assume that this time it wont be easy for US government to dodge this question. But that is not true. The power of propaganda and media will again be used to exploit the situation. Lets admit it that FBI and CIA have utterly failed in preventing this tragedy to happen. But with in hours they were able to find their bogeyman. The main brunt of American indignation has already been directed towards Taliban and OBL. Warnings have been issued to the nations who ``support” the terrorists. “Pakistan will be given one opportunity to prove where it stands” are the words of GW Bush. The arrogance of this nation knows no bounds. Is this the protocol to address a sovereign nation who has already pledged its support?
Lets face it, the American leaders are no visionary. America desperately needs a war to prove its leadership to the world. It is abundantly clear that US will delay or prevent the handing over of Osama Bin Laden. It is clear that US will impose some impossible conditions on Taliban to do so.
A couple of months ago I was ridiculed at Chowk for hypothesizing a scenario where US will be threatening Pakistan with “our way or the highway”. The dreaded time has come rather quickly. US is parked in the Arabian sea right now, off the coast of Karachi, threatening the whole region, including Pakistan. So the hypothetical scenario based on the contention that US will excess anywhere whenever it will like, has come true. The arrogance of this nation is once again threatening the world peace.
Whether or not OBL did it; whether or not Taliban knew or not, US has no right to slaughter innocent Afghans to prove its leadership. The Afghans are as innocent as the people in the WTC were. We must speak up to prevent this circle of violence from revolving again. It is amoral. Period.
Pakistan and Taliban must understand that US will stop at nothing. They must forget about asking for the “credible evidence” crap, because there wont be any. No reasoning will work here because the main purpose of this aggression is not to prevent terrorism, its main purpose to make a statement that US is still the leader.
The best course of action for Pakistan and Taliban at this stage is to hand over OBL to a neutral European country (which is an oxymoron) as soon as possible-Pakistan must involve China and make full use of media to prevent US from creating hurdles in this hand over.
In the end I would request all to SPEAK UP against any aggression against people of Afghanistan. Because the next country facing the cruise missiles would be yours. It is time that Americans learn to live in this world with peace and resolve their issues peacefully.
SPEAK UP IF YOU BELIEVE IN “HUMANS FIRST”
That is the question every sane mind in US is asking these days. One must keep in mind as well that the first impulsive reaction throughout the Third World in general and Middle East in particular, when this tragedy happened, was that of jubilation. People looked with awe the demise of the myth of invulnerability of United States. The myth is no more. The beast can be brought down to its knees. Soon the compassion for the innocent lives took over and grief sunk in. The US and Western media is desperately trying to tone down this initial impulsive reaction of the Third World. Because US government does not want to face the question “why they hate us so much?” at this time.
US media is also trying to tone down the hate crimes against the people of Middle East and South Asian origin. The wave of hate has spread across the continents; lives and properties of colored people are being destroyed; and their places of worship are being set on fire. The tragedy has unleashed the inherent racial hatred in these societies. US media has failed to bring these crimes in the light because the last thing that US government wants is people asking “why they hate us so much”
One may assume that this time it wont be easy for US government to dodge this question. But that is not true. The power of propaganda and media will again be used to exploit the situation. Lets admit it that FBI and CIA have utterly failed in preventing this tragedy to happen. But with in hours they were able to find their bogeyman. The main brunt of American indignation has already been directed towards Taliban and OBL. Warnings have been issued to the nations who ``support” the terrorists. “Pakistan will be given one opportunity to prove where it stands” are the words of GW Bush. The arrogance of this nation knows no bounds. Is this the protocol to address a sovereign nation who has already pledged its support?
Lets face it, the American leaders are no visionary. America desperately needs a war to prove its leadership to the world. It is abundantly clear that US will delay or prevent the handing over of Osama Bin Laden. It is clear that US will impose some impossible conditions on Taliban to do so.
A couple of months ago I was ridiculed at Chowk for hypothesizing a scenario where US will be threatening Pakistan with “our way or the highway”. The dreaded time has come rather quickly. US is parked in the Arabian sea right now, off the coast of Karachi, threatening the whole region, including Pakistan. So the hypothetical scenario based on the contention that US will excess anywhere whenever it will like, has come true. The arrogance of this nation is once again threatening the world peace.
Whether or not OBL did it; whether or not Taliban knew or not, US has no right to slaughter innocent Afghans to prove its leadership. The Afghans are as innocent as the people in the WTC were. We must speak up to prevent this circle of violence from revolving again. It is amoral. Period.
Pakistan and Taliban must understand that US will stop at nothing. They must forget about asking for the “credible evidence” crap, because there wont be any. No reasoning will work here because the main purpose of this aggression is not to prevent terrorism, its main purpose to make a statement that US is still the leader.
The best course of action for Pakistan and Taliban at this stage is to hand over OBL to a neutral European country (which is an oxymoron) as soon as possible-Pakistan must involve China and make full use of media to prevent US from creating hurdles in this hand over.
In the end I would request all to SPEAK UP against any aggression against people of Afghanistan. Because the next country facing the cruise missiles would be yours. It is time that Americans learn to live in this world with peace and resolve their issues peacefully.
SPEAK UP IF YOU BELIEVE IN “HUMANS FIRST”
#70 Posted by SameerJB on September 16, 2001 12:28:30 pm
Molko #70: Thanks for posting Richard Dawkinn`s article. Where did it appear? Ihave read some of his books and they are great. Read it and beat the chest at the dark side of middle eastern religions. They are worthless and totally opposite to science and logic. Does anybody know the logic of 72 houris? Kaballah? Numerology? With 72 houris, one can see a houri only 5 days per year.
#71 Posted by arjun_m on September 16, 2001 1:39:09 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#72 Posted by hobbyty on September 16, 2001 1:59:47 pm
arjun_m
``p1gs will fly``
Or Till you can think past your prejeduces.
Rsridhar
You say you are a physician. This requires a great deal of education and training, to see things as they are, not as you wish they were.
``Pak Army will be de-Talibanized.`` What does this mean? Have you set the stage to make the assertion that the army is Talbanized?
General elections - a schedule for these has been announced August 14 2001.
Pak nuclear program is the product of assistance of powers other than US or Israel. It`s roll back is wishful thinking.
Pakistan will have better relations with India, when Hindu fanatics have been put back into their box and Indian elites realize only a negotiated settlement can bring peace. It takes goodwill and compromise on both sides to allow for friendly relations.
Pakistan has taken a strategic decision, after consultation with China; clearly, this is not a situation that it looked forward to being in. Pakistani leadership is frameing it`s behavior, it`s response, in terms of UN authorized, actions. That said I find it hard to believe that all other considerations of the Pakistani state, especially restructuring and redefining the terms of politicial competion, economic compulsions and the need for the resulotion of the Captive Kashmir,is going to be put on the back burner. Pakistani statements with regard to the terms of cooperation have made this clear.
In any case, the focus on Osama is misplaced and is precisely as Terrorists would have liked. The intelligence is unclear, level on emotion high. People can see the danger is allowing the situation to be defined in terms of a civilizational clash. Look for a renewed interest in the possible interest of Mr. Emad Mughniyeh, with tangents leading locations, what will upset a few apple carts.
``p1gs will fly``
Or Till you can think past your prejeduces.
Rsridhar
You say you are a physician. This requires a great deal of education and training, to see things as they are, not as you wish they were.
``Pak Army will be de-Talibanized.`` What does this mean? Have you set the stage to make the assertion that the army is Talbanized?
General elections - a schedule for these has been announced August 14 2001.
Pak nuclear program is the product of assistance of powers other than US or Israel. It`s roll back is wishful thinking.
Pakistan will have better relations with India, when Hindu fanatics have been put back into their box and Indian elites realize only a negotiated settlement can bring peace. It takes goodwill and compromise on both sides to allow for friendly relations.
Pakistan has taken a strategic decision, after consultation with China; clearly, this is not a situation that it looked forward to being in. Pakistani leadership is frameing it`s behavior, it`s response, in terms of UN authorized, actions. That said I find it hard to believe that all other considerations of the Pakistani state, especially restructuring and redefining the terms of politicial competion, economic compulsions and the need for the resulotion of the Captive Kashmir,is going to be put on the back burner. Pakistani statements with regard to the terms of cooperation have made this clear.
In any case, the focus on Osama is misplaced and is precisely as Terrorists would have liked. The intelligence is unclear, level on emotion high. People can see the danger is allowing the situation to be defined in terms of a civilizational clash. Look for a renewed interest in the possible interest of Mr. Emad Mughniyeh, with tangents leading locations, what will upset a few apple carts.
#73 Posted by shammi on September 16, 2001 2:36:16 pm
Re: Urstruly, Sherdil
Both of you have commented at length on the failure of the US Intelligence -- a failure it certainly was. However, we all have 20/20 vision in hindsight, don`t we? There have been equally grave intelligence failures in the past -- the failure of the US navy to predict the attack on Pearl Harbor, the failure of the Soviets to predict Hitler`s attack in 1941, the failure of the French intelligence to predict that Hitler would invade through neutral countries in 1940, the failure of Indians regarding Kargil, the failure of the US to predict the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, etc. The list goes on. While the failures are dramatic, the successes are not, and for obvious reasons, are not published.
As regards attributing these attacks to Mossad, I just do not buy it. There are many reasons that the Israelis will not do it, not the least of which is that should it ever be uncovered and the Israeli role revealed, that would be the end of Israel, and the US` support for it.
Both of you have commented at length on the failure of the US Intelligence -- a failure it certainly was. However, we all have 20/20 vision in hindsight, don`t we? There have been equally grave intelligence failures in the past -- the failure of the US navy to predict the attack on Pearl Harbor, the failure of the Soviets to predict Hitler`s attack in 1941, the failure of the French intelligence to predict that Hitler would invade through neutral countries in 1940, the failure of Indians regarding Kargil, the failure of the US to predict the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, etc. The list goes on. While the failures are dramatic, the successes are not, and for obvious reasons, are not published.
As regards attributing these attacks to Mossad, I just do not buy it. There are many reasons that the Israelis will not do it, not the least of which is that should it ever be uncovered and the Israeli role revealed, that would be the end of Israel, and the US` support for it.
#74 Posted by shammi on September 16, 2001 2:36:16 pm
Re: Urstruly
One of the reasons that the US is also targeted is because it is the world`s most powerful nation and antagonists want to drag it in their problems and take sides, with the belief that US support for their cause will make the crucial difference. When the US refuses to be dragged in, it is made a target. The reasoning goes that if the US is made to `feel the pain`, it will be more willing to play an `active` role. There is a cynical calculus in this --- unfortunately, that is how our world is made to work.
One of the reasons that the US is also targeted is because it is the world`s most powerful nation and antagonists want to drag it in their problems and take sides, with the belief that US support for their cause will make the crucial difference. When the US refuses to be dragged in, it is made a target. The reasoning goes that if the US is made to `feel the pain`, it will be more willing to play an `active` role. There is a cynical calculus in this --- unfortunately, that is how our world is made to work.
#75 Posted by shammi on September 16, 2001 3:20:06 pm
Re: Hobbyty
I understand why you would want a quid pro quo on Kashmir for Pakistan from the US. Having read my previous post, I also believe that certain elements in Pakistan will not be averse to making the US `feel the pain` if the US, for its own reasons (and they are many), refuses to get involved. Should the latter happen, it will only further harden US attitutes. By the same token, there is potential of an anti-US sentiment in India gaining ground in India, if the US pushes too hard.
I understand why you would want a quid pro quo on Kashmir for Pakistan from the US. Having read my previous post, I also believe that certain elements in Pakistan will not be averse to making the US `feel the pain` if the US, for its own reasons (and they are many), refuses to get involved. Should the latter happen, it will only further harden US attitutes. By the same token, there is potential of an anti-US sentiment in India gaining ground in India, if the US pushes too hard.
#76 Posted by veegee on September 16, 2001 5:35:46 pm
Brad Cruise Reply #69
First of all there is no need to call somebody who does not agree with your views an idiot. This is opening the door to hostility which is exactly the point I am trying to make. If anybody disagrees with Islam or Mohammed or Muslims immediately the Muslims become angry and want to resort to violence and start calling them names. This is childish behavior and it does not matter whether you believe in God or not. If you are childish then you need to grow up. I do not know how you came to the conclusion I am an atheist or that I am not proud of my personal beliefs. All religions including yours have limitations. Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to you if you stop believing in your own religion? I recommend that you read the scriptures of all religions before you jump to any further conclusions. And please stop calling people names if you do not agree with them. And why do you end your reply with ``We Muslim will not kill you?`` Why not say ``I, as a Muslim, will not kill you?`` Why say ``WE``. You don`t hear others say ``We atheists`` etc. You are trying to speak for all the Muslims in the world and I am not sure all of them will agree with you. May God bless us and may we all learn to love each other and help each other. Best wishes my friend.
First of all there is no need to call somebody who does not agree with your views an idiot. This is opening the door to hostility which is exactly the point I am trying to make. If anybody disagrees with Islam or Mohammed or Muslims immediately the Muslims become angry and want to resort to violence and start calling them names. This is childish behavior and it does not matter whether you believe in God or not. If you are childish then you need to grow up. I do not know how you came to the conclusion I am an atheist or that I am not proud of my personal beliefs. All religions including yours have limitations. Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to you if you stop believing in your own religion? I recommend that you read the scriptures of all religions before you jump to any further conclusions. And please stop calling people names if you do not agree with them. And why do you end your reply with ``We Muslim will not kill you?`` Why not say ``I, as a Muslim, will not kill you?`` Why say ``WE``. You don`t hear others say ``We atheists`` etc. You are trying to speak for all the Muslims in the world and I am not sure all of them will agree with you. May God bless us and may we all learn to love each other and help each other. Best wishes my friend.
#77 Posted by aminai on September 16, 2001 9:41:33 pm
First, let me thank all those who appreciated my article. It does appear that the points I made reflected the views of many on this forum.
Of course, I am just as conflicted and confused by the situation as everyone else, so it was also good to see several critical comments on my piece. It would be too tedious to respond to individual comments, so I will briefly address what I took to be the main criticisms.
``Afghanistan and Pakistan are not Germany and Japan``
Indeed, they are not, and even stable international support is not going to turn them into industrial powers. However, that is not the point. What we must ask is whether international economic support (note that I do not use the much more limited term ``aid``) would change them into something appreciably better than what they are now --- or threaten to become. I think that the answer is `yes`. Then we must ask whether the answer was `yes` in 1989 when the US walked away from the region. Could the dangerous Afghanistan and unstable Pakistan of today have been avoided if the US had stayed engaged and helpful? I believe that the answer again is affirmative. However, by this I do not mean that the US should simply have propped up Zia`s successors. By ``engaged and helpful``, I mean that the US should have actively promoted economic growth, institution-building and the stabilization of enlightened attitudes, just as it did in Germany and Japan. That would not have produced competitors for Toyota or Zeiss, but it would have avoided ben Laden and the Taliban. Of course, this is just my opinion, and talk is cheap.
``Pakistanis have no right to complain given what their government has done``
Individual Pakistanis do not necessarily support the policies of their government(s), and even those who have occasionally done so surely merit the right to express their opinion when they do dsagree.
``America paid for Pakistan`s help in the 80`s, and had no obligation to help long-term.``
This may be so in a legal sense, but the issue is whether it would have been smarter for the US to help create a stable society. I believe that it was then --- and is now --- in the world community`s self-interest to defuse conflicts and promote economic growth *everywhere * in the world. Leaving behind ``husk states`` after Uncle Sam has bled them dry for his project du jour is not only bad for those states and their neighbors, it is also dangerous for Uncle Sam and the rest of the world.
``American presence is a mixed blessing at best``
I agree with this, but would make two points. First, sudden American absence following American presence is usually an unmixed disaster! Second, I do not advocate that the US take over Pakistan --- only that it help the more enlightened forces in the country to stamp out the scourge of intolerance. And, before someone accuses me of intolerance for the intolerants, I will freely admit to it. This is a conflict between two world views, and I am definitely taking sides.
I was quite pleased by Maleeha Lodhi`s interview on CN today. She came out in strong support of the anti-terrorism effort, but made it very clear that Pakistan needed the international cmmunity`s help now and in the future to overcome the consequences of this decision. True, mst of Pakistan`s problems are of its own making, but if it finally wants to address them, why not help it?
My biggest fear is that things will not work out, and that the pace at which things deteriorate on the Pakistani street will exceed the rate at which international support is provided to address the problem. The US will work on its own timetable once again, and Pakistan will pay the price. I hope that Bush has the wisdom to let Colin Powell run this operation rather than handing it over to the Cold Warriors in the administration.
Ali
#78 Posted by kafir K Khan on September 16, 2001 9:41:33 pm
When Salman Rushdie`s book came out, the whole muslim world supported and applauded Khomieni for passing of fatwa. There were six of us, all muslims. When I suggested let us buy the book and see what exactly is written, people around me got very angry and agitated. They suggested there is no need to purchase the book. To my surprise I found out that thousands like me never read the book but took it for granted on rumours what was said. I was threatend that I will be reported to local Mullah and would be taught a lesson. The so called local Mullah was an illigal immigrant who was sponsored by the local mosque for green card. In Pakistan he was a cobbler but became a religious leader with no religious training. He thrived on preaching intolerance. It is the intolerance of Mulims which is the issue and caused the problem in the world just like communism. It is not Islam but the Islamists like Khomieni, jehadis and the Mullahs.
#79 Posted by hobbyty on September 17, 2001 2:42:50 am
Shammi
I do take your point. Are we agreed that had it not been for the hardliners in India coalition, a workable framework could have been presented to the peoples of Pakistan and India? Or is Musharraf is a liar?
The resolution of Kashmir, especially a negotiated resolution is a priority. Thus far, little media attention has been directed to other, potentially larger, more easily exploitable problems, within the Indian polity. A realization of this fact, should be sobering.
The longer this conflict continues unresolved, the more extreme views will find acceptance.
#80 Posted by babu on September 17, 2001 2:42:50 am
``Indeed, they are not, and even stable international support is not going to turn them into industrial powers. However, that is not the point. What we must ask is whether international economic support (note that I do not use the much more limited term ``aid``) would change them into something appreciably better than what they are now --- or threaten to become. I think that the answer is `yes`. ``
Pakistan has received more aid on a per captia basis than most of the third world. Probably 3-5 times than that of India. You have no basis for complaints.
``Then we must ask whether the answer was `yes` in 1989 when the US walked away from the region. Could the dangerous Afghanistan and unstable Pakistan of today have been avoided if the US had stayed engaged and helpful? ``
Taleban is ruling Afghanistan because of Pakistani government support. Taleban did not exist in 1989. They are a creation of the Pakistan establishment. You cannot provide me with the photos/biographies of the top 50 Taleban leaders. They are puppets installed by the Pakistani establishment. It won`t be the first time masters have lost control of their puppets.
Pakistan controls the supply of fuel and weapons for the Taleban. In fact they subsidize it. So direct your fire on the Pakistani establishment. I am sure that there are plenty of articles in the Pakistani English media on that topic.
There is a saying that god helps those who want to help themselves. Americans cannot do anything for people who cannot govern themselves.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MaheshG: Re: # 126 Goldfinger. You... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahir: Re: # 9 And the... Karachi Riots! Who is
- alakshyendra: #371 by Goldfinger Yaar GF,... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- banneditem: Agha/Pavo, Very well written and... The Future of Indo
- Bhayee: Dr. Hoodbhoy always speaks... Salam, Science and Secularism
- Laboob-e-Kabir: Ayesha, This incident should be... I Am A Pakistani
- borivili_express: actually mush was better... Pleas For Sanity as
- Goldfinger: Re: # 89 MajeshG...now... Pleas For Sanity as
