the brain of Roger

[Roger Baker]

Michael Eisenstadt wrote:
> 
> > Our basic problem is that any reasonable definition of terrorism
> > condemns the previous and current foreign policy of the US government
> > just as much as Osama bin Laden. Therefore...
> 
> Roger so sayeth. Imagine being the brain of Roger.


Mike:

"let us pray now that few Americans will die but lots
and lots of Arab warriors will. remember what Patton
told his troops, Im not asking you to die for your
country Im asking you to make the other guys die for
their country. everyone of these volunteer Arab 
warriors in Afghanistan is our implacable enemy and 
must be killed or imprisoned for life. said to be 
less than 1000".

          
So Mike makes it quite clear where he stands. Kill 1000 Arabs living 
in Afghanistan, never mind the side effects implications for the millions 
of Afghan innocents on the verge of starvation there and the messy details 
and where that is all likely to lead in terms of Arab and islamic opinion. 
Kill, kill, kill!


Lets call that Exhibit A.

(Here's a good followup link: http://www.gopteamleader.com/ )


            *********************************************

On to exhibit B -- Roger Baker's brain-droppings. I'll cite what I think is a 
legitimate and thoughtful point of view from:

http://www.zmag.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html


The issue at hand is whether the US is terrorist and on what relative scale. Mike
apparently defines terrorism so as to automatically exclude the USA. 

For the more thoughtful, however, it is difficult to come up with a logical 
definition of terrorism that does not include the US government for the following 
reasons:


"...Is the U.S. government terrorist?

When the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their 
governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. Regrettably, this is not uncommon 
in our history. Most recently, imposing a food and drug embargo on a country - Iraq - 
with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they 
will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the 
weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure 
in Kosovo and Serbia, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was 
terrorism. And now, attacking Afghanistan (one of the world's poorest countries) and
hugely aggravating starvation dangers for its population with the possible loss of 
tens of thousands, or more lives, is terrorism. We are attacking civilians with the 
aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them - in this case hounding bin Laden 
and toppling the Taliban..."

                ******************************************************

Lots more good analysis from the same source follows:
 
1. What is Islamic fundamentalism?

The term "fundamentalist" is used in a number of different ways. One definition is 
someone who interprets the texts of his or her religion in a literal way or who adheres 
to the original, traditional practices and beliefs of the religion. Another definition 
is someone who is intolerant of the views of other religions or sects. These two 
definitions often overlap -- traditional religions tend to be authoritarian and 
misogynist, which lend themselves to intolerance -- but they are not the same. 
(For example, some pacifist religious sects might be fundamentalist in the first 
sense, but not the second. ) Every religion has its fundamentalists -- Muslims, 
Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on -- and some of these engage in terrorism.

Fundamentalists in the second sense have been on the rise worldwide. One reason has 
been the absence in so much of the Third World of a meaningful Left. Without a left 
alternative to the oppression and alienation of modern capitalism, many have sought 
solace in the easy explanations and promises of intolerant religion. Left organizations 
in many Arab and Muslim nations have either been smashed by right-wing forces (often 
backed by the major Western states) or discredited by ruthless dictatorships (as in 
Iraq) or Soviet-style parties. In this void, fundamentalism flourished. Fundamentalism 
was also supported by the opportunism of various states (for example, the United States 
backed reactionary fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden, against the Soviet Union 
in Afghanistan and aided mullahs against the left in Iran; Israel gave early backing to 
Hamas in an effort to provide a counter-weight to the secular PLO).

The Taliban, the rulers of most of Afghanistan, adhere to a particularly extreme and 
intolerant variant of fundamentalist Islam. They came to power out of the in-fighting 
among the various Mujahedeen (religious warriors) groups following the Soviet withdrawal. 
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the principal international backers of the Taliban

Pakistani intelligence maintained extremely close ties to the Taliban and Pakistani troops 
assisted their rise to power. Most Taliban leaders and many of its foot-soldiers were 
trained in the madrassas -- religious schools -- in Pakistan set up with funding from 
wealthy Pakistanis, Saudis, and others in the Gulf, which taught a version of the 
fundamentalist Wahhabism that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. Despite the 
anti-American and generally reactionary teachings of these madrassas, Pakistan has 
been a U.S. ally and Saudi Arabia has been one of Washington's closest allies

 

2. What is the attitude in the Arab and Islamic worlds to (a) the Sept. 11 attacks, and 
(b) the current US war in Afghanistan?

Every government in the region other than  Iraq condemned the September 11 attacks, and 
even Iraq sent its condolences to the victims. The enormity of the slaughter horrified 
many people in the region, and there were many deeply felt expressions of sympathy for 
those who lost their lives. But a large reservoir of anti-Americanism led many people 
to feel that the United States was finally getting back some of what it deserved, or 
to believe one of the idiotic conspiracy theories so common in the Middle East (the 
Israeli Mossad did it, the CIA did it). Among Palestinians, a poll in early October found 
that two-thirds considered the attacks to violate Islamic law, while a quarter thought 
them consistent with it. The poll showed Palestinians angry about U.S. foreign policy, 
but not at Americans.

But even among those who were horrified by the September 11 attacks, most people in the 
region seem to oppose the war on Afghanistan. (The same Palestinian poll found 89 percent 
criticizing a U.S. attack on Afghanistan, with 92 percent believing that it would lead 
to more attacks on the United States.) Many pro-U.S. governments were tactfully silent 
when the air strikes began, sensing the popular opposition. The unilateralism of the 
U.S. response was especially criticized; Iran -- which had indicated its willingness 
to support a UN action -- sharply condemned the U.S. attacks



3. What grievances fuel hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East?

Anti-American sentiment is widespread in the Middle East, not just among Islamic 
fundamentalists. This anti-Americanism has a variety of sources. Some comes from 
specific U.S. policies in the region -- backing Israeli oppression of Palestinians, 
enforcing devastating sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq, supporting 
authoritarian governments, often by deploying U.S. troops on land considered holy 
by Muslims. Some comes from resentment of Washington's economic and political arrogance 
more generally. And some comes from religious opposition to the secular world, of which 
the United States is the leading power, an intolerance fed by sexism, anti-Semitism, 
and other reactionary doctrines. One indication of the weight of all these factors is 
provided by the videotape Osama bin Laden released on October 7 -- not because it tells 
us anything about the motives of bin Laden (who is probably totally unconcerned with 
oppressed or suffering people, hoping only to precipitate a holy war engulfing the 
entire region) -- but because bin Laden is an astute judge of what issues inflame people. 
In that video, bin Laden referred to 80 years of Muslim humiliation, Israeli oppression 
of Palestinians, Iraqi starvation, and the atom bombs dropped on Japan. America, he
warned, "will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before all the 
army of infidels depart the land of Muhammad...." He felt these were the issues that 
people hearing him would be moved by, not an attack on Hollywood, much less democracy.


4. Does trying to understand/explain the grievances of the people of the Middle East 
constitute excusing bin Laden, excusing terror, softness on fascism, etc.

When some students killed their classmates at Columbine high school, people of good 
will tried to figure out the causes for such horrible events. In so doing, they were 
hardly justifying or excusing the heinous slaughter. The killers may have had some 
neo-Nazi sympathies (choosing Hitler's birthday as the day for their assault) -- but 
this didn't change our obligation to examine the deeper causes of adolescent alienation, 
to discover how schools might contribute to that alienation and what they could to do 
reduce it. No grievance of oppressed people can excuse or justify what happened on 
September 11. (As a PLO official declared: "It is true that there is injustice, 
terrorism, killing and crimes in Palestine, but that does not justify at all for 
anybody to kill civilians in New York and Washington.") But if we want to understand 
and reduce the widespread anti-Americanism that allows terrorism to find fertile soil, 
we need to attend to the grievances.


 
5. What is Terrorism?

Dictionary definitions indicate it is creating terror, employing fear for political 
purposes. More aptly, terrorism is attacking and terrifying civilian populations in 
order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. So Hitler's bombing 
of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue 
isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism 
the target is innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's 
behavior. Attacks on the public for private gain are not terrorism, but crime. Attacks 
on a military for political purposes are not terrorism, but acts of war.



6. Are Bin Laden and his network terrorists?

Bin Laden has issued public statements calling for the killing of U. S. civilians, among 
others. Evidence presented at trials compellingly ties the bin Laden network to terrorist 
attacks (the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the U. S. embassies in Africa in 
1998). So even apart from Sept. 11, there is no doubt that bin Laden and Al Qaeda are 
terrorists.


 
7. Is the Taliban terrorist?

In its treatment of the Afghan people -- especially women and religious minorities -- 
the Taliban has behaved in a terrorist manner. It has allowed bin Laden to establish 
training camps on its territory and prior to September 11, 2001, rejected UN demands 
that it turn bin Laden over to the United States. There have been no specific charges 
by the United States regarding any direct Afghan support for international terrorism. 
Prior to Sept. 11, Afghanistan was not on the U. S. State Department's (rather selective) 
list of nation's engaging in state terrorism.



8. Is Hamas a terrorist group?

Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine engage in bombings of Israeli civilians. Despite 
the fact that Palestinians are oppressed, these attacks constitute terrorism. There 
can be no justification for blowing up civilians in a Sbarro's pizzeria or a Tel Aviv 
nightclub. These organizations are not the only terrorists, however. The Israeli 
government has killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians. These acts too are 
terrorism. One terrorism does not justify or excuse the other. The United States 
has been backing -- with military, economic, and diplomatic support -- Israeli 
terrorism.

 
9. Is the U.S. government terrorist?

When the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their 
governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. Regrettably, this is not uncommon in 
our history. Most recently, imposing a food and drug embargo on a country - Iraq - 
with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they 
will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the 
weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure 
in Kosovo and Serbia, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was 
terrorism. And now, attacking Afghanistan (one of the world's poorest countries) 
and hugely aggravating starvation dangers for its population with the possible loss 
of tens of thousands, or more lives, is terrorism. We are attacking civilians with 
the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them - in this case hounding bin 
Laden and toppling the Taliban.

 
10. Why did the World Trade Center terrorists do it? 

We can't know, of course, but we can surmise. The September 11 attack was a 
grotesquely provocative act against a super power. No doubt many of those involved 
felt great anger and desperation due to U.S. policies in the region. But these 
attacks didn't alleviate such problems. The U.S. response is predictably violent 
and as any anyone would anticipate, reactionary forces have benefited in the U.S. 
and around the world.
But perhaps provoking the United States was precisely the intent. By provoking a 
massive military assault on one or more Islamic nations, the perpetrators may have 
sought to set off a cycle of terror and counter-terror, precipitating a holy war 
between the Islamic world and the West, leading, in their hopes, to the overthrow 
of all insufficiently Islamic regimes and the unraveling of the United States, 
just as the Afghan war contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. 
But if provocation rather than grievances motivated the planners of the terror 
strikes against the U.S., this wouldn't make grievances irrelevant. Whatever the 
planners' motives, they still needed to attract capable, organized, and skilled 
people, not only to participate, but even to give their lives to the planner's 
suicidal agenda. Deeply-felt grievances provide a social environment from which 
fanatics recruit and garner support.

 
11. What is the legal way of dealing with terrorism?

In our world, the only alternative to vigilantism is that guilt should be determined 
by amassing of evidence that is then assessed in accordance with international law 
by the United Nations Security Council or other appropriate international agencies.
Punishment should be determined by the UN as well, and likewise the means of 
implementation. The UN may arrive at determinations that one or another party likes 
or not, as with any court, and may also be subject to political pressures that call 
into question its results or not, as with any court. But that the UN is the place 
for determinations about international conflict is obvious, at least according to 
solemn treaties signed by the nations of the world.
Thus, to pursue a legal approach means assembling evidence of culpability and presenting 
it to the UN or the World Court. It means those agencies undertaking to apprehend 
and prosecute culprits. It does not involve victims overseeing retaliation without 
even demonstrating guilt, much less having legal sanction, much less in a manner that 
increases the sum total of terrorism people are suffering and the conditions that 
breed potential future terrorism

 
12.  If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international 
response have been to the September 11 attacks?

Presumably, if provided proof of culpability, UN agencies would seek to arrest guilty 
parties. They would first seek to negotiate extradition. If a host government failed 
to comply, as a last resort they could presumably send in a force to extract guilty 
parties. But these actions would be taken in accord with international law, by forces 
led by international agencies and courts, in a manner respecting civilian safety, and 
consistent with further legitimating rather than bypassing respect for law and justice.
 
13.  If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international 
response have been to  the embargo of Iraq, the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia, and the 
bombing of Afghanistan?

These acts, among many others, violate international law in many respects, not least 
because they harm civilians. Presumably, then, were international legal channels 
strengthened and respected, aggrieved parties could bring these and other cases to 
legal attention, leading to diverse prosecutions, many of which would be aimed at 
officials from the U.S.

 
14. Is what the U. S. is doing consistent with a legal approach?

To not present evidence, to decide guilt rather than respect institutions of 
international law, to prosecute not only presumed culprits but a whole population 
suffering terror and perhaps starvation--of course, international law has been 
violated. Worse, the mechanism for attaining illegal vigilante prosecution has 
been a policy which knowingly and predictably will kill many, perhaps even huge 
numbers of innocent civilians. We take access to food away from millions and 
then give food back to tens of thousands while bombing the society into panic 
and dissolution.
 
Why?
 
The answer is not to reduce the prospects of terror attacks. The U.S. government 
and all mainstream media warn their likelihood will increase, both out of short 
term desire to retaliate, and, over the longer haul, due to producing new reservoirs 
of hate and resentment. The answer is not to get justice. Vigilantism is not justice 
but the opposite, undermining international norms of law. The answer is not to reduce 
actual terror endured by innocent people. Our actions are themselves hurting civilians, 
perhaps in tremendous numbers.
  
All rhetoric aside, the answer is that the U.S. wishes to send a message and to 
establish a process. The message, as usual, is don't mess with us. We have no 
compunction about wreaking havoc on the weak and desperate. The process, also not 
particularly original since Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior had similar aspirations, 
is to legitimate a "war on terrorism" as a lynchpin rationale for both domestic and 
international policy-making.

This “war on terrorism” is meant to serve like the Cold War did. We fight it with few if 
any military losses. We use it to induce fear in our own population and via that fear to 
justify all kinds of elite policies from reducing civil liberties, to enlarging the 
profit margins of military industrial firms, to legitimating all manner of international 
polices aimed at enhancing U.S. power and profit, whether in the Mideast or elsewhere.