why sudden silence?
Roger Baker
rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:50:29 -0800
--Apple-Mail-1--359857069
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
On Thursday, November 15, 2001, at 08:14 AM, telebob x wrote:
> Gee, what has happened to the usual drumbeat of defeat from Roger, =
Jon,=20
> et al ? Shocking!
> The USA did something right again. And not for the wrong reasons =
either.
>
> tele
>
OK already. You can't bomb your way to security in the modern world.=20
What we have done
in the case of Afghanistan is to create a malignant tumor of misery that=20=
may well topple the
really big dominos of Pakistan, where the population is ten times the=20
size of Afghanistan, or
Saudi Arabia, from whence the terrorists and oil come.
I also reply to Hitchens at the bottom, whose journalistic skirts=20
teleboob is hiding behind,
rather than expressing a sound opinion of his own.
But first, the following bit of sensible perspective on the big picture=20=
from Z mag. -- Roger
=20
*****************************************************
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
The Irish Times
November 14, 2001
=C2=A0
Kabul's fall is no mark of US success
By Vincent Browne
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
The "success" in replacing the Taliban with the Northern Alliance in=20
Kabul, even if followed by the capture of Osama bin Laden and his al=20
Queda associates, almost certainly will make no difference to the=20
security threat to the US and the West from terrorism. It may do the=20
reverse.
=C2=A0
The scale of the threat to America and its allies is documented again=20
and again in a multitude of reports from official US commissions and=20
organizations over the last few years. These reports describe the nature=20=
of the terrorist organizations that pose these threats - the absence of=20=
hierarchical structures, the loose connections between them, the spread=20=
of these organizations throughout the world and within America, the=20
lessening of reliance on state sponsors, and the danger that one or more=20=
of these groups may acquire nuclear or biological weapons. They also=20
emphasize the vulnerability of the US to attack from these =
organizations.
=C2=A0
In Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, a report=20=
by the National Commission on Terrorism, published in June of last year,=20=
the following observation is made: "If al Queda and Osama bin Laden were=20=
to disappear tomorrow, the United States would still have potential=20
terrorist threats from a growing number of groups opposed to perceived=20=
American hegemony."
=C2=A0
The same report stated: "Because groups based on ideological or=20
religious motives may lack a specific political or nationalistic agenda,=20=
they have less need for a hierarchical structure". It says these groups=20=
"operate in the United States as well as abroad. Their funding and=20
logistical networks cross borders, are less dependent on state sponsors=20=
and are harder to disrupt with economic sanctions. Their objectives are=20=
more deadly (than terrorist groups of a decade or two ago)".
=C2=A0
The US Commission on National Security, co-chaired by former US senator=20=
and presidential candidate, Gary Hart, stated in a report published on=20=
February 15th of this year: "Attacks on American citizens on American=20
soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over the next=20
quarter century. These attacks may involve weapons of mass destruction=20=
and weapons of mass disruption."
=C2=A0
A report in January of this year on the US Department of Energy's=20
non-proliferation programmes with Russia, chaired by former US senator=20=
Howard Baker, and former presidential counsellor, Lloyd Cutler, is the=20=
most alarming. It says the old Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal of=20
40,000 weapons, over a thousand metric tons of nuclear materials, vast=20=
quantities of chemical and biological materials and thousands of=20
missiles. The quantity of remaining highly enriched uranium (HEU) is=20
enough to make more than 4,000 additional nuclear weapons.
=C2=A0
The US and Russian governments engaged in what is known as the "contract=20=
of the century" to destroy a great deal of this material and to bring=20
the remainder under secure control. But a great proportion remains in=20
insecure conditions. Worse, those "guarding" this material are given a=20=
strong incentive to give some of it to terrorists because of inadequate=20=
pay - often no pay at all for months on end - and chaotic military=20
control arrangements. The report records a number of scarifying =
episodes:
=C2=A0
In late 1998, conspirators at a Ministry of Autonomic Energy facility in=20=
Chelyabinsk were caught attempting to steal fissile material of a=20
quantity just short of that needed for one nuclear device.
=C2=A0
In early 1998, the mayor of Krasnoyarsk-45, a closed nuclear city that=20=
stores enough HEU for hundreds of nuclear weapons, wrote to the governor=20=
of Krasnoyarsk warning that a social explosion in the city was=20
unavoidable unless urgent action was taken to pay nuclear scientists and=20=
other workers, who had been unpaid for several months.
=C2=A0
In December 1998, an employee of Russia's premier nuclear weapons=20
laboratory in Sarov was arrested for espionage and charged with=20
attempting to sell documents on nuclear weapons designs to agents of=20
Iraq and Afghanistan for $3 million.
=C2=A0
Former US Senator Sam Nunn, who is co-chair of the Nuclear Threat=20
Initiative, told the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on=20
September 5th this year: "I am convinced the threat of a biological=20
weapons attack on the Untied States in as urgent as it is real." He=20
pointed out that the former Soviet Union engaged in a massive programme=20=
of biological weapons manufacture, at one time employing 870,000=20
scientists. They manufactured 22 tons of smallpox, a tiny fraction of=20
which, if unleashed on the United States, would have devastating =
effects.
=C2=A0
A report by the advisory panel to assess domestic response to=20
capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, says:=20=
"The United States has no coherent, functional national strategy for=20
combating terrorism."
=C2=A0
Aside from a single sentence in the Gary Hart report, there is no=20
attempt in any of these documents to decipher why terrorists might want=20=
to attack America and what America might do to address the reasons for=20=
the hostility. This seems all the more surprising given the scale of the=20=
threat and the vulnerability of America to terrorist attack.
=C2=A0
And the reasons appear straightforward: the presence of American troops=20=
in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia; the historic injustice=20
perpetrated on the Palestinian people, an injustice reinforced daily=20
with the might of American arms; the sanctions on Iraq and the frequent=20=
bombings of that country; and above all, the perception that America is=20=
at war with the Islamic world. That perception will have been reinforced=20=
hugely by the bombardment of Afghanistan. Even after the fall of Kabul,=20=
America seems more vulnerable.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 *************************************************
=C2=A0
> Ha ha ha
> by
> Christopher Hitchens
> Wednesday November 14, 2001
> The Guardian
>
> There was a time in my life when I did a fair bit of
> work for the tempestuous Lucretia Stewart, then editor
> of the American Express travel magazine, Departures.
> Together, we evolved a harmless satire of the slightly
> drivelling style employed by the journalists of
> tourism. "Land of Contrasts" was our shorthand for it.
> ("Jerusalem: an enthralling blend of old and new."
> "South Africa: a harmony in black and white."
> "Belfast, where ancient meets modern.") It was as you
> can see, no difficult task. I began to notice a few
> weeks ago that my enemies in the "peace" movement had
> decided to borrow from this tattered style book. The
> mantra, especially in the letters to this newspaper,
> was: "Afghanistan, where the world's richest country
> rains bombs on the world's poorest country."
>
Isn't this true?
> Poor fools. They should never have tried to beat me at
> this game. What about, "Afghanistan, where the world's
> most open society confronts the world's most closed
> one"?
Bush is eliminating civil rights at an appalling rate in the name
of fighting terrorism, is he not? Here are some recent marching
orders for a newspaper:
=C2=A0
" 'Don't Put Civilian Casualties on Page One'
=C2=A0
Per Hal's order, DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian
casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. [Note: "Hal" is News
Herald executive editor Hal Foster.] Our sister paper in Fort Walton
Beach has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening
e-mails and the like.
Also per Hal's order, DO NOT USE wire stories which lead with civilian
casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. They should be mentioned
further down in the story. If the story needs rewriting to play down the
civilian casualties, DO IT."
> "Where American women pilots kill the men who
> enslave women." "Where the world's most indiscriminate
> bombers are bombed by the world's most accurate ones."
> "Where the largest number of poor people applaud the
> bombing of their own regime." I could go on. (I think
> number four may need a little work.) But there are
> some suggested contrasts for the "doves" to paste into
> their scrapbook. Incidentally, when they look at their
> scrapbooks they will be able to re-read themselves
> saying things like, "The bombing of Kosovo is driving
> the Serbs into the arms of Milosevic."
>
> If the silly policy of a Ramadan pause had been
> adopted, the citizens of Kabul would have still been
> under a regime of medieval cruelty, and their
> oppresssors would have been busily regrouping, not
> praying. Anyhow, what a damn-fool proposal to start
> with. I don't stop insulting the Christian coalition
> at Eastertime. Come Yom Kippur I tend to step up my
> scornful remarks about Zionism. Whatever happened to
> the robust secularism that used to help characterise
> the left? And why is it suddenly only the injured
> feelings of Muslims that count?
Starvation in northern Afghanistan should be a primary issue for
those who value human life. Will we now deliver the needed aid on the
needed scale to prevent mass starvation or do we primarily care
about American lives like Bush?
> A couple of years ago,
> the same people were striking pompous attitudes about
> the need to avoid offending Serbian and therefore
> Russian Orthodox sensitivities. Except that those
> sensitive people, or their leaders, were engaged in
> putting the Muslims of Europe to the sword...
>
We are indeed the avenging angels of the world, but is our might used to
promote justice or for expansionist corporate greed? When and where does
the CIA intervene?
> There's no pleasing some people, but as a charter
> supporter of CND I can remember a time when the peace
> movement was not an auxiliary to dictators and
> aggressors in trouble. Looking at some of the
> mind-rotting tripe that comes my way from much of
> today's left, I get the impression that they go to bed
> saying: what have I done for Saddam Hussein or good
> old Slobodan or the Taliban today?
Is terrorism a symptom of deeper problems -- or is it the primary
problem for which bombs are the appropriate cure?
>
> Well, ha ha ha, and yah, boo. It was obvious from the
> very start that the United States had no alternative
> but to do what it has done. It was also obvious that
> defeat was impossible. The Taliban will soon be
> history. Al-Qaida will take longer. There will be
> other mutants to fight.
By bombing enough innocent civilians for it to become known
through the world of Islam and putting the Northern Alliance
in power, we have set the stage for later problems. Do we walk
away from the mess and tell the United Nations to clean it up?
The points of potential vulnerabilty multiply in complex societies,
and these weak points become targets for the disaffected when
the narrow economic interests of the (corporate) empire undermine
the possibility of legitimate democratic opposition (like Bush is
trying to do here).
> But if, as the peaceniks like
> to moan, more Bin Ladens will spring up to take his
> place, I can offer this assurance: should that be the
> case, there are many many more who will also spring up
> to kill him all over again. And there are more of us
> and we are both smarter and nicer, as well as
> surprisingly insistent that our culture demands
> respect, too.
We're good and rich and wise and individualistic while Muslims
with their adamant moral principles are poor and bad? Do we
enough nukes to back that point of view over the long run?
>
> =E2=88=91 Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.
>
Which is a much better source than, say, da Newyawkah.
--Apple-Mail-1--359857069
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=UTF-8
On Thursday, November 15, 2001, at 08:14 AM, telebob x wrote:
<excerpt>Gee, what has happened to the usual drumbeat of defeat from
Roger, Jon, et al ? Shocking! =20
The USA did something right again. And not for the wrong reasons
either.
tele
</excerpt>
OK already. You can't bomb your way to security in the modern world.
What we have done=20
in the case of Afghanistan is to create a malignant tumor of misery
that may well topple the=20
really big dominos of Pakistan, where the population is ten times the
size of Afghanistan, or=20
Saudi Arabia, from whence the terrorists and oil come.=20
I also reply to Hitchens at the bottom, whose journalistic skirts
teleboob is hiding behind,=20
rather than expressing a sound opinion of his own.=20
But first, the following bit of sensible perspective on the big
picture from Z mag. -- Roger
=20
*****************************************************
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>The Irish Times
November 14, 2001
=C2=A0
Kabul's fall is no mark of US success
By Vincent Browne
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
The "success" in replacing the Taliban with the Northern Alliance in
Kabul, even if followed by the capture of Osama bin Laden and his al
Queda associates, almost certainly will make no difference to the
security threat to the US and the West from terrorism. It may do the
reverse.
=C2=A0
The scale of the threat to America and its allies is documented again
and again in a multitude of reports from official US commissions and
organizations over the last few years. These reports describe the
nature of the terrorist organizations that pose these threats - the
absence of hierarchical structures, the loose connections between
them, the spread of these organizations throughout the world and
within America, the lessening of reliance on state sponsors, and the
danger that one or more of these groups may acquire nuclear or
biological weapons. They also emphasize the vulnerability of the US to
attack from these organizations.
=C2=A0
In Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, a report
by the National Commission on Terrorism, published in June of last
year, the following observation is made: "If al Queda and Osama bin
Laden were to disappear tomorrow, the United States would still have
potential terrorist threats from a growing number of groups opposed to
perceived American hegemony."
=C2=A0
The same report stated: "Because groups based on ideological or
religious motives may lack a specific political or nationalistic
agenda, they have less need for a hierarchical structure". It says
these groups "operate in the United States as well as abroad. Their
funding and logistical networks cross borders, are less dependent on
state sponsors and are harder to disrupt with economic sanctions.
Their objectives are more deadly (than terrorist groups of a decade or
two ago)".
=C2=A0
The US Commission on National Security, co-chaired by former US
senator and presidential candidate, Gary Hart, stated in a report
published on February 15th of this year: "Attacks on American citizens
on American soil, possibly causing heavy casualties, are likely over
the next quarter century. These attacks may involve weapons of mass
destruction and weapons of mass disruption."
=C2=A0
A report in January of this year on the US Department of Energy's
non-proliferation programmes with Russia, chaired by former US senator
Howard Baker, and former presidential counsellor, Lloyd Cutler, is the
most alarming. It says the old Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal of
40,000 weapons, over a thousand metric tons of nuclear materials, vast
quantities of chemical and biological materials and thousands of
missiles. The quantity of remaining highly enriched uranium (HEU) is
enough to make more than 4,000 additional nuclear weapons.
=C2=A0
The US and Russian governments engaged in what is known as the
"contract of the century" to destroy a great deal of this material and
to bring the remainder under secure control. But a great proportion
remains in insecure conditions. Worse, those "guarding" this material
are given a strong incentive to give some of it to terrorists because
of inadequate pay - often no pay at all for months on end - and
chaotic military control arrangements. The report records a number of
scarifying episodes:
=C2=A0
In late 1998, conspirators at a Ministry of Autonomic Energy facility
in Chelyabinsk were caught attempting to steal fissile material of a
quantity just short of that needed for one nuclear device.
=C2=A0
In early 1998, the mayor of Krasnoyarsk-45, a closed nuclear city that
stores enough HEU for hundreds of nuclear weapons, wrote to the
governor of Krasnoyarsk warning that a social explosion in the city
was unavoidable unless urgent action was taken to pay nuclear
scientists and other workers, who had been unpaid for several months.
=C2=A0
In December 1998, an employee of Russia's premier nuclear weapons
laboratory in Sarov was arrested for espionage and charged with
attempting to sell documents on nuclear weapons designs to agents of
Iraq and Afghanistan for $3 million.
=C2=A0
Former US Senator Sam Nunn, who is co-chair of the Nuclear Threat
Initiative, told the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on
September 5th this year: "I am convinced the threat of a biological
weapons attack on the Untied States in as urgent as it is real." He
pointed out that the former Soviet Union engaged in a massive
programme of biological weapons manufacture, at one time employing
870,000 scientists. They manufactured 22 tons of smallpox, a tiny
fraction of which, if unleashed on the United States, would have
devastating effects.
=C2=A0
A report by the advisory panel to assess domestic response to
capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction,
says: "The United States has no coherent, functional national strategy
for combating terrorism."
=C2=A0
Aside from a single sentence in the Gary Hart report, there is no
attempt in any of these documents to decipher why terrorists might
want to attack America and what America might do to address the
reasons for the hostility. This seems all the more surprising given
the scale of the threat and the vulnerability of America to terrorist
attack.
=C2=A0
And the reasons appear straightforward: the presence of American
troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia; the historic injustice
perpetrated on the Palestinian people, an injustice reinforced daily
with the might of American arms; the sanctions on Iraq and the
frequent bombings of that country; and above all, the perception that
America is at war with the Islamic world. That perception will have
been reinforced hugely by the bombardment of Afghanistan. Even after
the fall of Kabul, America seems more vulnerable.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =
*************************************************</fontfamily><fontfamily>=
<param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>
=
</bigger></bigger></fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><par=
am>0000,0000,6666</param><bigger><bigger>=C2=A0</bigger></bigger></color><=
/fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>
</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<excerpt>Ha ha ha
by
Christopher Hitchens
Wednesday November 14, 2001
The Guardian
There was a time in my life when I did a fair bit of
work for the tempestuous Lucretia Stewart, then editor
of the American Express travel magazine, Departures.
Together, we evolved a harmless satire of the slightly
drivelling style employed by the journalists of
tourism. "Land of Contrasts" was our shorthand for it.
("Jerusalem: an enthralling blend of old and new."
"South Africa: a harmony in black and white."
"Belfast, where ancient meets modern.") It was as you
can see, no difficult task. I began to notice a few
weeks ago that my enemies in the "peace" movement had
decided to borrow from this tattered style book. The
mantra, especially in the letters to this newspaper,
was: "Afghanistan, where the world's richest country
rains bombs on the world's poorest country."
</excerpt>
Isn't this true?=20
<excerpt>Poor fools. They should never have tried to beat me at
this game. What about, "Afghanistan, where the world's
most open society confronts the world's most closed
one"?=20
</excerpt>
Bush is eliminating civil rights at an appalling rate in the name=20
of fighting terrorism, is he not? Here are some recent marching=20
orders for a =
newspaper:<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><color><param>0000,0000,0000</p=
aram>
=C2=A0
<underline>" 'Don't Put Civilian Casualties on Page One'</underline>
=C2=A0
Per Hal's order, DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian=20
casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. [Note: "Hal" is News=20
Herald executive editor Hal Foster.] Our sister paper in Fort Walton=20
Beach has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening=20
e-mails and the like.
Also per Hal's order, DO NOT USE wire stories which lead with civilian=20=
casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. They should be mentioned=20
further down in the story. If the story needs rewriting to play down
the=20
civilian casualties, DO IT."
</color></fontfamily>
<excerpt>"Where American women pilots kill the men who
enslave women." "Where the world's most indiscriminate
bombers are bombed by the world's most accurate ones."
"Where the largest number of poor people applaud the
bombing of their own regime." I could go on. (I think
number four may need a little work.) But there are
some suggested contrasts for the "doves" to paste into
their scrapbook. Incidentally, when they look at their
scrapbooks they will be able to re-read themselves
saying things like, "The bombing of Kosovo is driving
the Serbs into the arms of Milosevic."
If the silly policy of a Ramadan pause had been
adopted, the citizens of Kabul would have still been
under a regime of medieval cruelty, and their
oppresssors would have been busily regrouping, not
praying. Anyhow, what a damn-fool proposal to start
with. I don't stop insulting the Christian coalition
at Eastertime. Come Yom Kippur I tend to step up my
scornful remarks about Zionism. Whatever happened to
the robust secularism that used to help characterise
the left? And why is it suddenly only the injured
feelings of Muslims that count?=20
</excerpt>
Starvation in northern Afghanistan should be a primary issue for=20
those who value human life. Will we now deliver the needed aid on the=20
needed scale to prevent mass starvation or do we primarily care=20
about American lives like Bush?
<excerpt>A couple of years ago,
the same people were striking pompous attitudes about
the need to avoid offending Serbian and therefore
Russian Orthodox sensitivities. Except that those
sensitive people, or their leaders, were engaged in
putting the Muslims of Europe to the sword...
</excerpt>
We are indeed the avenging angels of the world, but is our might used
to=20
promote justice or for expansionist corporate greed? When and where
does
the CIA intervene?
<excerpt>There's no pleasing some people, but as a charter
supporter of CND I can remember a time when the peace
movement was not an auxiliary to dictators and
aggressors in trouble. Looking at some of the
mind-rotting tripe that comes my way from much of
today's left, I get the impression that they go to bed
saying: what have I done for Saddam Hussein or good
old Slobodan or the Taliban today?
</excerpt>
Is terrorism a symptom of deeper problems -- or is it the primary
problem for which bombs are the appropriate cure?
=20
<excerpt>
Well, ha ha ha, and yah, boo. It was obvious from the
very start that the United States had no alternative
but to do what it has done. It was also obvious that
defeat was impossible. The Taliban will soon be
history. Al-Qaida will take longer. There will be
other mutants to fight.=20
</excerpt>
By bombing enough innocent civilians for it to become known=20
through the world of Islam and putting the Northern Alliance
in power, we have set the stage for later problems. Do we walk=20
away from the mess and tell the United Nations to clean it up?
The points of potential vulnerabilty multiply in complex societies,
and these weak points become targets for the disaffected when
the narrow economic interests of the (corporate) empire undermine=20
the possibility of legitimate democratic opposition (like Bush is=20
trying to do here).=20
<excerpt>But if, as the peaceniks like
to moan, more Bin Ladens will spring up to take his
place, I can offer this assurance: should that be the
case, there are many many more who will also spring up
to kill him all over again. And there are more of us
and we are both smarter and nicer, as well as
surprisingly insistent that our culture demands
respect, too.
</excerpt>
We're good and rich and wise and individualistic while Muslims=20
with their adamant moral principles are poor and bad? Do we=20
enough nukes to back that point of view over the long run?=20
<excerpt>
=E2=88=91 Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.
</excerpt>
Which is a much better source than, say, da Newyawkah.
--Apple-Mail-1--359857069--