George Lakoff (cognitive scientist at UC) has a small book out (Don’t Think of an Elephant, with a forward by Howard Dean) and a video that goes with it. It is about framing (the idea of framing has a more technical meaning for the cognitive scientist) in politics and gives a (shortened) version of the stunning ideas he presents in his book Moral Politics. It is a call for progressives and democrats to do what the GOP has done over the past 30 years. He explains that conservatives have spent billions of dollars (on conservative intellectuals, think tanks, media operations, training centers, etc.) developing and learning how to frame every issue in terms of (what he calls) their “Strict Father” metaphorical structure. (Lakoff gives a truly brilliant analysis of conservative and liberal political talk and thought, and if you are not familiar with his views, you are missing something incredible.) The GOP now has a huge and extremely well-organized infrastructure for imposing this frame on the political scene. This is one reason that the GOP has been so successful recently. Lakoff explains that the goal of the GOP is to impose their frame on America and the rest of the world (that just goes with their Strict Father conceptualizing structure). Lakoff warns that it will be impossible to challenge the GOP without a proper framing response. Frames are embodied in our brains, so that changing one's frame changes one's brain. GOP framing is literally changing people's brains. (What I have said here about Lakoff's views is very superficial and barely scratches the surface.)
Lakoff is leading the current move (with progressives and democrats) to develop their own think tanks and research into framing. As Lakoff puts it, progressives need to know how to frame every issue in terms of what he calls the “Nuturant Parent” worldview. (Again he derives this worldview from an analysis of the metaphors that liberals and progressives use in the political arena.) Lakoff says that science is on the side of the Nuturant Parent worldview, and it is possible to catch up with the GOP with only a fraction of the time and money that the GOP has spent. (According to Lakoff, the Strict Father and Nuturant Parent worldviews are competing frames that have developed historically over thousands of years.)
The only progressive think tank on framing is the Rockridge Institute. Here is the site.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/
On this page, PoliticalStrategy.org’s Framing Project gives some of the latest material on Lakoff’s ideas and a presentation of some of Luntz’ stuff for conservatives:
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001118.php
Frank Luntz is a main thinker and political strategist for the GOP. He runs a highly respected business that does research and trains conservatives how to think and talk. He has manuals on a variety of issues, but generally they are not made public. Luntz’ work is like a play book for the GOP. Here is his site.
http://www.luntz.com/index.htm
Monday, August 22, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
Thomas Friedman: Don't Dare Think about Causes of Terrorism
In his article The Rise Of The Democratic Police State, John Pilger writes:
The other day Blair said, "We are not having any of this nonsense about [the bombings having anything] to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense and we have to confront it as that." This "raving", as the American writer Mike Whitney observed, "is part of a broader strategy to dismiss the obvious facts about terror and blame the victims of American-British aggression. It's a tactic that was minted in Tel Aviv and perfected over 37 years of occupation. It is predicated on the assumption that terrorism emerges from an amorphous, religious-based ideology that transforms its adherents into ruthless butchers."
Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has examined every act of suicide terrorism over the past 25 years. He refutes the assumption that suicide bombers are mainly driven by "an evil ideology independent of other circumstances." He said, "The facts are that since 1980, half the attacks have been secular. Few of the terrorists fit the standard stereotype... Half of them are not religious fanatics at all. In fact, over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are not about] religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel the United States and other western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula and in countries they view as their homeland or prize greatly... The link between anger over American, British and western military [action] and al-Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us could not be tighter."
So we have been warned, yet again. Terrorism is the logical consequence of American and British "foreign policy" whose infinitely greater terrorism we need to recognize, and debate, as a matter of urgency.
It is worth reading the whole thing, but here is a little more. Pilger says something interesting and disturbing about Thomas Friedman's latest ideas about how to control terrorism. We have to control thought about the causes of terrorism. Pilger writes,
Thomas Friedman is a famous columnist on the New York Times. He has been described as "a guard dog of US foreign policy". Whatever America's warlords have in mind for the rest of humanity, Friedman will bark it. He boasts that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist". He promotes bombing countries and says world war three has begun.
Friedman's latest bark is about free speech, which his country's constitution is said to safeguard. He wants the State Department to draw up a blacklist of those who make "wrong" political statements. He is referring not only to those who advocate violence, but those who believe American actions are the root cause of the current terrorism. The latter group, which he describes as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists", includes most Americans and Britons, according to the latest polls.
Friedman wants a "War of Ideas report" which names those who try to understand and explain, for example, why London was bombed. These are "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed". He borrows the term "excuse makers" from James Rubin, who was Madeleine Albright's chief apologist at the State Department.
Is this a fair characterization of Friedman's views? Well, here is the relevant part of Friedman's article, Expose the Haters. Friedman writes:
Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them....
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.
Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers." Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be disseminated globally. "The rulers in these countries have no interest in amplifying the voices of moderates because the moderates often disagree with the rulers as much as they disagree with the extremists," said Husain Haqqani, author of the new book "Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military." "You have to deal us moderates into the game by helping to amplify our voices and exposing the extremists and their amen corner."
Every quarter, the State Department should identify the top 10 hatemongers, excuse makers and truth tellers in the world. It wouldn't be a cure-all. But it would be a message to the extremists: You are free to say what you want, but we are free to listen, to let the whole world know what you are saying and to protect every free society from hate spreaders like you. Words matter.
It seems to me that Friedman doesn't understand that explanations for an action may not justify it morally at all or make it more reasonable in some positive sense. Also, there is the disinction between description and evaluation. There is a crucial difference between an explanation that justifies an action morally, and an explanation that aims to merely describe the causes of an action or the motivating factors for an action. The latter sort of explanation can be given with no concern at all for the worth of the action. In fact, even an explanation that justifies an action morally could be understood without any concern for what it implies about the worth, reasonableness, or morality of the action. Furthermore, one may want to understand the causes of a action so that one can evaluate the causes, especially if one suspects that the causes are bad and undesireable. One may want to eliminate bad causes if the effects of those causes are also bad. An explanation of causes may tell us something important about our world that needs to be changed.
Words matter, and so it is important not to confuse things by covering over these important distinctions. Anyone who values democracy and wants to maintain and promote basic problem-solving and critical-thinking strategies will want to do whatever he or she can to keep these distinctions clear -- in their minds and in the minds of their fellow citizens.
Rejecting such crucial and basic distinctions, Friedman seems to think that all attempts to seek out explanations for terrorist actions are attempts to make these actions look reasonable or attempts to place some positive moral light on them, or to remove some negative evaluation of them. And he thinks that when it comes to terrorist actions, all attempts to seek out causal explanations for them are dangerous and morally outrageous attempts to put these actions in some positive light. Friedman's view seems to be that to seek out the motivational causes behind terrorist actions is always to promote or put some approval on them.
Or just as bad, Friedman seems to think that the only relevant explanation for terrorist actions is that terrorists are simply killers guided by radical religious ideology. But knowing whether this claim is true or false requires a thorough investigation into all of the facts and possible causes of their actions. This also requires (at minimum) looking carefully and critically at what the terrorists actually say are the reasons for their actions. This sort of investigation is what Friedman does not allow us to do. Friedman's proposal prevents us from listening to anyone or entering a constructive debate with anyone who articulates an explanation that differs from and challenges Friedman's favored belief. Friedman's own claim assumes what he denies, unless he has some mystical or other privileged access to the truth that does not require robust empirical inquiry and debate regarding the facts.
There may be reasons for Friedman's misconceptions and apparent errors. I suspect that what motivates Friedman to say these things is that he wants to stop any sort of investigation into the grievances and complaints of the terrorists. One plausible reason for this is that such an inquiry may ultimately lead to an investigation into the foreign policy of the US and its impact on Muslims and others around the world (and terrorist groups). Such an investigation, because it ultimately leads to understanding and exposing American foreign policy, may lead Americans to evaluate these policies. It may then lead to negative judgments about American foreign policy and the globalization that it often promotes. Such judgment may lead people to question America's policies. People may come to understand, not that terrorism is justified in some positive sense, but that American policy is seriously flawed and has to be changed. And that could harm the interests of corporate power that guides many of those policies. But such possibilities must be crushed for the sake of those interests. American policy is what must be kept hidden and never exposed.
But more than ever, a very bright spotlight needs to be placed on that.
The other day Blair said, "We are not having any of this nonsense about [the bombings having anything] to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense and we have to confront it as that." This "raving", as the American writer Mike Whitney observed, "is part of a broader strategy to dismiss the obvious facts about terror and blame the victims of American-British aggression. It's a tactic that was minted in Tel Aviv and perfected over 37 years of occupation. It is predicated on the assumption that terrorism emerges from an amorphous, religious-based ideology that transforms its adherents into ruthless butchers."
Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has examined every act of suicide terrorism over the past 25 years. He refutes the assumption that suicide bombers are mainly driven by "an evil ideology independent of other circumstances." He said, "The facts are that since 1980, half the attacks have been secular. Few of the terrorists fit the standard stereotype... Half of them are not religious fanatics at all. In fact, over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are not about] religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel the United States and other western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula and in countries they view as their homeland or prize greatly... The link between anger over American, British and western military [action] and al-Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us could not be tighter."
So we have been warned, yet again. Terrorism is the logical consequence of American and British "foreign policy" whose infinitely greater terrorism we need to recognize, and debate, as a matter of urgency.
It is worth reading the whole thing, but here is a little more. Pilger says something interesting and disturbing about Thomas Friedman's latest ideas about how to control terrorism. We have to control thought about the causes of terrorism. Pilger writes,
Thomas Friedman is a famous columnist on the New York Times. He has been described as "a guard dog of US foreign policy". Whatever America's warlords have in mind for the rest of humanity, Friedman will bark it. He boasts that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist". He promotes bombing countries and says world war three has begun.
Friedman's latest bark is about free speech, which his country's constitution is said to safeguard. He wants the State Department to draw up a blacklist of those who make "wrong" political statements. He is referring not only to those who advocate violence, but those who believe American actions are the root cause of the current terrorism. The latter group, which he describes as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists", includes most Americans and Britons, according to the latest polls.
Friedman wants a "War of Ideas report" which names those who try to understand and explain, for example, why London was bombed. These are "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed". He borrows the term "excuse makers" from James Rubin, who was Madeleine Albright's chief apologist at the State Department.
Is this a fair characterization of Friedman's views? Well, here is the relevant part of Friedman's article, Expose the Haters. Friedman writes:
Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them....
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.
Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers." Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be disseminated globally. "The rulers in these countries have no interest in amplifying the voices of moderates because the moderates often disagree with the rulers as much as they disagree with the extremists," said Husain Haqqani, author of the new book "Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military." "You have to deal us moderates into the game by helping to amplify our voices and exposing the extremists and their amen corner."
Every quarter, the State Department should identify the top 10 hatemongers, excuse makers and truth tellers in the world. It wouldn't be a cure-all. But it would be a message to the extremists: You are free to say what you want, but we are free to listen, to let the whole world know what you are saying and to protect every free society from hate spreaders like you. Words matter.
It seems to me that Friedman doesn't understand that explanations for an action may not justify it morally at all or make it more reasonable in some positive sense. Also, there is the disinction between description and evaluation. There is a crucial difference between an explanation that justifies an action morally, and an explanation that aims to merely describe the causes of an action or the motivating factors for an action. The latter sort of explanation can be given with no concern at all for the worth of the action. In fact, even an explanation that justifies an action morally could be understood without any concern for what it implies about the worth, reasonableness, or morality of the action. Furthermore, one may want to understand the causes of a action so that one can evaluate the causes, especially if one suspects that the causes are bad and undesireable. One may want to eliminate bad causes if the effects of those causes are also bad. An explanation of causes may tell us something important about our world that needs to be changed.
Words matter, and so it is important not to confuse things by covering over these important distinctions. Anyone who values democracy and wants to maintain and promote basic problem-solving and critical-thinking strategies will want to do whatever he or she can to keep these distinctions clear -- in their minds and in the minds of their fellow citizens.
Rejecting such crucial and basic distinctions, Friedman seems to think that all attempts to seek out explanations for terrorist actions are attempts to make these actions look reasonable or attempts to place some positive moral light on them, or to remove some negative evaluation of them. And he thinks that when it comes to terrorist actions, all attempts to seek out causal explanations for them are dangerous and morally outrageous attempts to put these actions in some positive light. Friedman's view seems to be that to seek out the motivational causes behind terrorist actions is always to promote or put some approval on them.
Or just as bad, Friedman seems to think that the only relevant explanation for terrorist actions is that terrorists are simply killers guided by radical religious ideology. But knowing whether this claim is true or false requires a thorough investigation into all of the facts and possible causes of their actions. This also requires (at minimum) looking carefully and critically at what the terrorists actually say are the reasons for their actions. This sort of investigation is what Friedman does not allow us to do. Friedman's proposal prevents us from listening to anyone or entering a constructive debate with anyone who articulates an explanation that differs from and challenges Friedman's favored belief. Friedman's own claim assumes what he denies, unless he has some mystical or other privileged access to the truth that does not require robust empirical inquiry and debate regarding the facts.
There may be reasons for Friedman's misconceptions and apparent errors. I suspect that what motivates Friedman to say these things is that he wants to stop any sort of investigation into the grievances and complaints of the terrorists. One plausible reason for this is that such an inquiry may ultimately lead to an investigation into the foreign policy of the US and its impact on Muslims and others around the world (and terrorist groups). Such an investigation, because it ultimately leads to understanding and exposing American foreign policy, may lead Americans to evaluate these policies. It may then lead to negative judgments about American foreign policy and the globalization that it often promotes. Such judgment may lead people to question America's policies. People may come to understand, not that terrorism is justified in some positive sense, but that American policy is seriously flawed and has to be changed. And that could harm the interests of corporate power that guides many of those policies. But such possibilities must be crushed for the sake of those interests. American policy is what must be kept hidden and never exposed.
But more than ever, a very bright spotlight needs to be placed on that.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Coca Cola, India, and Water
Here is one current example of the struggle between corporate power and those fighting for democratic control of their resources.
From Democracy Now!
43 Arrested at Coke Protests in India
In India, police have arrested 43 people during a protest march outside a Coca Cola factory. Organizers reported four activists were hospitalized with severe head injuries after police charged the demonstrators with batons. Coke has faced widespread protests throughout India. "Basically the issues are that Coca Cola is extracting too much groundwater from the groundwater resource and it's leaving the communities without any water all across India," said Amit Shirvasli of the India Resource Center. "And the pressure on Coca Cola company continues to grow in India and it's become one of the most formidable community-led campaigns in the world today." The Coke protest on Monday came on India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.
More news:
Police attack, injure Coca-Cola protesters
Plachimada, India: Close to 100 activists from Yuvajana Vedi, youth wing of the CPI(ML), and their allies marched to Coca-Cola's factory gates in Plachimada in Kerala in southern India, demanding that the bottling plant shut down permanently.
The protesters were stopped about 100 meters from the factory gates, and the heavy police force resorted to a violent lathi charge (baton charge), severely injuring four activists who had to be hospitalized with severe head injuries. Another 43 activists were held in custody, including a 16 year old girl who has been transferred to juvenile home.
The march was held on August 15, 2005, India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.
The march started in Kannimari and culminated in Plachimada, was led by Yuvajana Vedi state president, Mr. Provit and inaugurated by CPI(ML) State secretary K.C. Sivaraman.
Representatives from the local community, including Vilayodi Venugopal of the Anti-Coca-Cola Struggle Committee, also addressed the rally.
"We condemn the violence used by the police," said Vilayodi Venugopal. "We are committed to ensuring that this plant never opens again."
Mr. R. Ajayan, convener of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, has called for a demonstration at district headquarters on August 17 to protest the police action.
The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, one of the company's largest in India, has been shut down since March 2004 because of local community pressure. The community is experiencing severe water shortages as well as a polluted groundwater resource and soil- directly as a result of Coca-Cola's operations.
The state government of Kerala has announced that it will challenge Coca-Cola's right to extract groundwater in the area, and the panchayat (village council), which initially refused to renew Coca-Cola's license, has now offered a 3 month temporary license with 13 conditions.
In a related development, the Kuttiady panchayat (village council) in Kerala declared its area to be a Coke-free zone, and received the support of shopkeepers as well as political parties, in a show of solidarity with the people of Plachimada.
The Coca-Cola company is the target of many communities across India that are experiencing water shortages and polluted water and soil.
Source: India Resource Centre
Also see this news article:
Indian water case pits village against a giant
From Democracy Now!
43 Arrested at Coke Protests in India
In India, police have arrested 43 people during a protest march outside a Coca Cola factory. Organizers reported four activists were hospitalized with severe head injuries after police charged the demonstrators with batons. Coke has faced widespread protests throughout India. "Basically the issues are that Coca Cola is extracting too much groundwater from the groundwater resource and it's leaving the communities without any water all across India," said Amit Shirvasli of the India Resource Center. "And the pressure on Coca Cola company continues to grow in India and it's become one of the most formidable community-led campaigns in the world today." The Coke protest on Monday came on India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.
More news:
Police attack, injure Coca-Cola protesters
Plachimada, India: Close to 100 activists from Yuvajana Vedi, youth wing of the CPI(ML), and their allies marched to Coca-Cola's factory gates in Plachimada in Kerala in southern India, demanding that the bottling plant shut down permanently.
The protesters were stopped about 100 meters from the factory gates, and the heavy police force resorted to a violent lathi charge (baton charge), severely injuring four activists who had to be hospitalized with severe head injuries. Another 43 activists were held in custody, including a 16 year old girl who has been transferred to juvenile home.
The march was held on August 15, 2005, India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.
The march started in Kannimari and culminated in Plachimada, was led by Yuvajana Vedi state president, Mr. Provit and inaugurated by CPI(ML) State secretary K.C. Sivaraman.
Representatives from the local community, including Vilayodi Venugopal of the Anti-Coca-Cola Struggle Committee, also addressed the rally.
"We condemn the violence used by the police," said Vilayodi Venugopal. "We are committed to ensuring that this plant never opens again."
Mr. R. Ajayan, convener of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, has called for a demonstration at district headquarters on August 17 to protest the police action.
The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, one of the company's largest in India, has been shut down since March 2004 because of local community pressure. The community is experiencing severe water shortages as well as a polluted groundwater resource and soil- directly as a result of Coca-Cola's operations.
The state government of Kerala has announced that it will challenge Coca-Cola's right to extract groundwater in the area, and the panchayat (village council), which initially refused to renew Coca-Cola's license, has now offered a 3 month temporary license with 13 conditions.
In a related development, the Kuttiady panchayat (village council) in Kerala declared its area to be a Coke-free zone, and received the support of shopkeepers as well as political parties, in a show of solidarity with the people of Plachimada.
The Coca-Cola company is the target of many communities across India that are experiencing water shortages and polluted water and soil.
Source: India Resource Centre
Also see this news article:
Indian water case pits village against a giant
The Central Issue of Our Time (or close to it)
The central issue of our time is the issue of corporate power vs. democractic self-government. For those on the side of democracy, it is the issue of how to bring existing huge corporate power under democratic control and eliminate its reckless pursuit of profit and natural resources, a pursuit that now aims to secure permanent enormous global benefits for those within the sphere of corporate power and privilege, at the terrible, criminal, and unjust expense of the legitimate interests and lives of everyone else, including the life of the planet.
In one sense, this is not an issue at all because it has been kept out of the arena of general public debate. The fact that it is not seriously discussed (except in the alternative world of activists) is a sign of the true dominance of corporate power. It is in the interests of corporate power to keep such an issue out of the larger public mind, and they have succeeded in doing that.
In large part, terrorism is a reaction to corporate power and its abusive policies. But those behind terrorism are not worried about democratic self-government. For them, the issue is different. It is about corporate power vs. Islamic life. It is about the struggle to maintain a public life that follows God's law and His plan. It is about attaining the freedom that comes by following the word of God.
Those who believe in democratic self-government demand that dominating ideas be subjected to serious discussion, so that society can avoid error and get closer to the truth. They do not believe that one can know that certain privileged beliefs are true without subjecting those beliefs to empirical critical evaluation and analysis. And they hold that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the debate since different points of view will help ensure that important ideas and criticisms are not missed and that errors will be avoided. Also, it will help ensure that ideas will not treat some as means to the ends of others without their free, informed consent.
In one sense, this is not an issue at all because it has been kept out of the arena of general public debate. The fact that it is not seriously discussed (except in the alternative world of activists) is a sign of the true dominance of corporate power. It is in the interests of corporate power to keep such an issue out of the larger public mind, and they have succeeded in doing that.
In large part, terrorism is a reaction to corporate power and its abusive policies. But those behind terrorism are not worried about democratic self-government. For them, the issue is different. It is about corporate power vs. Islamic life. It is about the struggle to maintain a public life that follows God's law and His plan. It is about attaining the freedom that comes by following the word of God.
Those who believe in democratic self-government demand that dominating ideas be subjected to serious discussion, so that society can avoid error and get closer to the truth. They do not believe that one can know that certain privileged beliefs are true without subjecting those beliefs to empirical critical evaluation and analysis. And they hold that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the debate since different points of view will help ensure that important ideas and criticisms are not missed and that errors will be avoided. Also, it will help ensure that ideas will not treat some as means to the ends of others without their free, informed consent.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Al-Zawahri Tapes and Reasons for Al-Qaida Terrorism
There are new tapes from al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's second in command, they say. One probably is not going to find a complete transcript of what al-Zawahri says. The best and largest amount of translation is probably at Al-Jazeera. I'll give you the quotes from the Al-Jazeera site below. But even Al-Jazeera said that they only showed about 10 percent of the tape. They showed about 5 minutes of the tape. Taahir Hoorzook, of the media relations department in Al-Jazeera, said: "The content of the rest of the tape which we didn't air, is the usual rhetoric, speaking about the Islamic lands occupied and stuff like that which we found not newsworthy." It may be newsworthy for the US because the US has never, or hardly ever, seen any of that "usual rhetoric." But the US big media certainly has a lot of its own rhetoric when it goes about interpreting what the tape is about and what al-Zawahri says. Most of what the media has been saying seems very dubious and slanted to follow what the US administration puts out as doctrine.
Unfortunately, what Bush has to say about the content of the tape seems to be the most dubious. For instance, he keeps pushing the oversimplified view that we are faced with a clash between freedom and tyranny without making any effort to understand or explain these issues in the present context. Bush's main approach is to characterize al-Qaida's philosophy as being dark and backward, and then he promotes the idea that they want to impose this dark tyranny on the whole world. So Bush's idea is that al-Qaida hates freedom and democracy (and they "do not appreciate women"), and because the US is pushing freedom and democracy (and respect for women) in Muslim lands, al-Qaida wants to push the US out of these lands. Bush claims that they want to push the US out so that they can first impose their tyranny on the Middle East and then ultimately on the whole world. Bush suggests that Al-Qaida and its leaders are on a par with the Nazis and Hitler in the sense that they are trying to control the whole world by imposing their tyrannical ideology on it. Bush suggests that the US is fighting a Hitler-like challenge and will bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East (and the whole world). There is a lot that can be said in criticism of Bush's view. But for now the following mentions only a couple of things.
A much different picture of the situation emerges if one reads what al-Qaida leaders say. Bin Laden and al-Zawahri, and others, almost always point to unjust and destructive US policies, which have, for instance, resulted in US crimes against Muslims, US support of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, and US theft of oil and resources. Also, there is no indication of al-Qaida's plan to impose their Muslim rule on the whole world. They focus on being allowed to govern themselves without outside interference.
Also, there is no indication that al-Qaida hates freedom. In fact they say that they love freedom. It is just that freedom for them means, in part, being able to live according to Islamic law, which is to live according to God's law. It is interesting to note that al-Zawahri discusses this issue of freedom in the tape, and these comments appear especially in the second Al-Jazeera news article given below. What is incredible is that there will likely be no discussion at all in the US media about this very interesting and important issue. In fact, it would almost a joke to suggest such a discussion. To discuss it would definitely go against the official doctrine that Bush promotes.
What one sees is that al-Qaida leaders are able and willing to think about and discuss important issues in a somewhat rational and realistic way -- which should be a virtue of democratic citizens. As a result, they end up making claims that deserve serious consideration and critical reflection. In contrast, US leaders (and media) seem entirely unable or unwilling to reach that level of critical discussion and understanding. One can make a safe guess that this is so in part because it is not in US interests (or rather US corporate interests) to do so, especially when you can impose your will on others by force.
The following are quotes, and some commentary from the latest al-Zawahri tapes as presented at Al-Jazeera in several different news articles. Lines separate the articles.
________________________________
Al-Jazeera news articles on the al-Zawahri tapes
Al-Qaida would continue to launch deadly attacks until US troops quit all Muslim countries.
"Blair's policies brought you destruction in central London and will bring you more destruction ... ," al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, said in a tape aired on Aljazeera.
Truce offer
"What you have seen in New York, Washington and Afghanistan, are only the initial losses and if you (United States) continue the same hostile policies you will see what will make you forget those horrors," he said in reference to the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Zawahri said the London bombs were a result of Blair's policies.
He said bin Laden had offered a truce to Western countries asking them to pull out their armies from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to live in peace.
"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Shaikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine, and until all your infidel armies leave Prophet Mohammad's lands," he said.
"Our message to you is clear, strong, and final: There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers," al-Zawahri added.
Vietnam comparison
Zawahri, who in the footage appeared to be standing outside with an assault rifle at his side, also warned the Americans of horrors worse than the war in Vietnam.
"There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers"
"The Americans... will see horror that would make them forget the horror they saw in Vietnam," he said.
"The truth that (President George) Bush ... hides from you is that there is an exit from Iraq except through immediate withdrawal. Any delay will mean only more dead and losses.
"If you do not leave today, you will inevitably leave tomorrow,
but only after (you suffer losses) of tens of thousands of dead and many more injured."
______________________________
Freedom
Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has condemned the American concept of freedom in a taped speech broadcast by Aljazeera.
Aired on Thursday, the audiotape message said the freedom sought by millions in the Islamic world was "not the freedom to destroy others ... it is not the freedom that allows [America] to support oppressive regimes".
Al-Zawahiri said he could not accept Washington's continued promotion of "Israel's freedom to annihilate Muslims".
The comments were first issued on 2 February on the internet, but were aired for the first time on Thursday.
Al-Zawahiri also slammed what he called "fraudulent elections held under occupation", in a reference to last month's polls in Iraq.
Details
Liberty as construed by the Americans, he said, was based on "usurious banks, giant companies, misleading media outlets and the destruction of others for material gain".
Real freedom was "not the liberty of homosexual marriages and the abuse of women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals or attract tourists," al-Zawahiri added.
"It is not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib," it said, referring to US-run prisons in Cuba and Iraq where serious allegations of torture have been levelled.
"Our freedom ... and the reform that we are seeking depends on three concepts - the rule of Sharia [Islamic law] ... freeing Islam from any aggressor ... and liberating the human being."
No to occupation
In the Islamic world, the people had the "right to choose its leader, hold him to account and criticise him ... I do not think that we can achieve reform while we are under American and Jewish occupation."
_________________________
Aljazeera has aired excerpts of a new video from al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri in which he criticises the US concept of reform, as well as assaults on female protesters in Egypt last month.
Al-Zawahri's message is particularly critical of the Pakistani, Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments.
"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets," he said.
"Reform and expelling the invaders from Muslim countries cannot be accomplished except by fighting for the sake of God."
Al-Zawahri said any reform must be based on Islamic Sharia (law) and that Muslim countries should be free to govern themselves without foreign interference, or the presence of foreign troops.
"We cannot imagine any reform while our countries are occupied by crusader forces which are spreading throughout our land," he said.
Al-Zawahri referred to protest-demonstrations in Cairo last month against the Egyptian constitutional referendum in which female protesters and several female reporters were allegedly molested by plain-clothed ruling party supporters.
Reforms
"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets."
Al-Zawahri, considered to be Osama bin Laden's second in command, criticised what he said were violations of women's rights during the Egyptian protests.
On the Palestinian issue, he cast doubt on the possibility of effecting change through peaceful demonstrations. He warned the Palestinians against what he called attempts to drag them into the election game in order to extract legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority.
In his previous tape - which Aljazeera aired on 20 February - al-Zawahiri warned the West it faced defeat in what he termed its new crusade against the Islamic world.
In that message, which he said was to mark the third anniversary of the internment of Muslims at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, al-Zawahri had hit out at US plans for reform in the Arab and Islamic world.
___________________________
Al-Qaida's number two has said governments cannot stop its attacks and that the West's security depends on respect for Islam and an end to aggression against Muslims.
Ayman al-Zawahri said in a videotape broadcast by Aljazeera on Sunday that the "new Crusader campaign" would end in defeat as others had in the past.
Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and seated with a machine gun next to him, said his comments came three years after the first prisoners were taken from Afghanistan to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"If you Western nations believe that these cartoon governments will protect you from our responses, then you are deluded. Your real security lies in cooperating with the Islamic nation on the basis of respect and ending aggression," al-Zawahri said.
"Your new Crusader campaign will end, God willing, in defeat as did those that preceded it but after the deaths of tens of thousands, the destruction of your economy and exposing you in the pages of history," he added.
Democracy exposed
Al-Zawahri said US calls for democracy in the Middle East were a farce after allegations of abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, which holds hundreds of suspects detained during the 2001 US-led war to oust al-Qaida and the ruling Taliban from Afghanistan and in other operations.
"It has been three years since the first group of Muslim prisoners were sent to Guantanamo prison... One may ask why all this interest in Guantanamo when our countries are filled with a thousand Guantanamos under US observation," he said.
"It is because it exposes the truth of reform and democracy that America claims it aims to spread in our countries.
"The reform which emerges from US prisons like Bagram, Kandahar, Guanatanamo, Abu Ghraib, and from the launch of cluster bombs and rockets and the appointment of the likes of [Afghanistan's President Hamid] Karzai and [Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi," he said.
The last videotape from al-Zawahri - aired in November - warned that al-Qaida would continue to attack the US until Washington changed its policies towards the Muslim world.
___________________________________
Al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri has forecast a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a videotape aired on Aljazeera television.
"The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing," he said in the tape telecast on Thursday.
"In the two countries, the Americans are between two fires: if they remain there they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything."
The mujahidin are in a strong position in Afghanistan and have turned US plans in Iraq "head over heels", al-Zawahri said.
In Afghanistan, the mujahidin have driven US forces to "hide in their trenches", he said.
On the Darfur conflict, he said it was an example of US desire to split the Arab and Muslim world.
In the tape, shown two days before the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, he said: "East and south Afghanistan have become an open arena for the mujahidin. The enemy is limited to the capitals."
He added: "The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin, as the mujahidin shell and fire on them, and cut roads off around them. Their defence is only to bomb by air, wasting US money as they kick up dust."
"The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin."
Al-Zawahri was last heard in March when Aljazeera aired a recorded message in which he called on Pakistanis to overthrow the US-allied Pervez Musharraf government.
__________________________________
Usama bin Ladin's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahri has condemned French moves to ban the Muslim headscarf in government schools.
"This is a new sign of the Crusader hatred which Westerners harbour against Muslims while they boast of freedom, democracy and human rights," al-Zawahri said on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television channel on Tuesday.
The French parliament this month voted to ban religious emblems in state schools, a measure Paris says will keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms, but which Muslims around the world have said targets Islam.
"France is the country of freedom which defends freedom to show the body, and to be immoral and depraved.
In France you're free to show yourself but not to dress modestly," said al-Zawahri, who is thought to be hiding, along with bin Ladin, somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"This is a campaign planned by the Crusader Zionists (Israel supporters) with their agents in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia and other Islamic countries," al-Zawahri said, in an attack on Muslim countries which have made moves to secularise their societies along Western lines.
Unfortunately, what Bush has to say about the content of the tape seems to be the most dubious. For instance, he keeps pushing the oversimplified view that we are faced with a clash between freedom and tyranny without making any effort to understand or explain these issues in the present context. Bush's main approach is to characterize al-Qaida's philosophy as being dark and backward, and then he promotes the idea that they want to impose this dark tyranny on the whole world. So Bush's idea is that al-Qaida hates freedom and democracy (and they "do not appreciate women"), and because the US is pushing freedom and democracy (and respect for women) in Muslim lands, al-Qaida wants to push the US out of these lands. Bush claims that they want to push the US out so that they can first impose their tyranny on the Middle East and then ultimately on the whole world. Bush suggests that Al-Qaida and its leaders are on a par with the Nazis and Hitler in the sense that they are trying to control the whole world by imposing their tyrannical ideology on it. Bush suggests that the US is fighting a Hitler-like challenge and will bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East (and the whole world). There is a lot that can be said in criticism of Bush's view. But for now the following mentions only a couple of things.
A much different picture of the situation emerges if one reads what al-Qaida leaders say. Bin Laden and al-Zawahri, and others, almost always point to unjust and destructive US policies, which have, for instance, resulted in US crimes against Muslims, US support of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, and US theft of oil and resources. Also, there is no indication of al-Qaida's plan to impose their Muslim rule on the whole world. They focus on being allowed to govern themselves without outside interference.
Also, there is no indication that al-Qaida hates freedom. In fact they say that they love freedom. It is just that freedom for them means, in part, being able to live according to Islamic law, which is to live according to God's law. It is interesting to note that al-Zawahri discusses this issue of freedom in the tape, and these comments appear especially in the second Al-Jazeera news article given below. What is incredible is that there will likely be no discussion at all in the US media about this very interesting and important issue. In fact, it would almost a joke to suggest such a discussion. To discuss it would definitely go against the official doctrine that Bush promotes.
What one sees is that al-Qaida leaders are able and willing to think about and discuss important issues in a somewhat rational and realistic way -- which should be a virtue of democratic citizens. As a result, they end up making claims that deserve serious consideration and critical reflection. In contrast, US leaders (and media) seem entirely unable or unwilling to reach that level of critical discussion and understanding. One can make a safe guess that this is so in part because it is not in US interests (or rather US corporate interests) to do so, especially when you can impose your will on others by force.
The following are quotes, and some commentary from the latest al-Zawahri tapes as presented at Al-Jazeera in several different news articles. Lines separate the articles.
________________________________
Al-Jazeera news articles on the al-Zawahri tapes
Al-Qaida would continue to launch deadly attacks until US troops quit all Muslim countries.
"Blair's policies brought you destruction in central London and will bring you more destruction ... ," al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, said in a tape aired on Aljazeera.
Truce offer
"What you have seen in New York, Washington and Afghanistan, are only the initial losses and if you (United States) continue the same hostile policies you will see what will make you forget those horrors," he said in reference to the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Zawahri said the London bombs were a result of Blair's policies.
He said bin Laden had offered a truce to Western countries asking them to pull out their armies from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to live in peace.
"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Shaikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine, and until all your infidel armies leave Prophet Mohammad's lands," he said.
"Our message to you is clear, strong, and final: There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers," al-Zawahri added.
Vietnam comparison
Zawahri, who in the footage appeared to be standing outside with an assault rifle at his side, also warned the Americans of horrors worse than the war in Vietnam.
"There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers"
"The Americans... will see horror that would make them forget the horror they saw in Vietnam," he said.
"The truth that (President George) Bush ... hides from you is that there is an exit from Iraq except through immediate withdrawal. Any delay will mean only more dead and losses.
"If you do not leave today, you will inevitably leave tomorrow,
but only after (you suffer losses) of tens of thousands of dead and many more injured."
______________________________
Freedom
Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has condemned the American concept of freedom in a taped speech broadcast by Aljazeera.
Aired on Thursday, the audiotape message said the freedom sought by millions in the Islamic world was "not the freedom to destroy others ... it is not the freedom that allows [America] to support oppressive regimes".
Al-Zawahiri said he could not accept Washington's continued promotion of "Israel's freedom to annihilate Muslims".
The comments were first issued on 2 February on the internet, but were aired for the first time on Thursday.
Al-Zawahiri also slammed what he called "fraudulent elections held under occupation", in a reference to last month's polls in Iraq.
Details
Liberty as construed by the Americans, he said, was based on "usurious banks, giant companies, misleading media outlets and the destruction of others for material gain".
Real freedom was "not the liberty of homosexual marriages and the abuse of women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals or attract tourists," al-Zawahiri added.
"It is not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib," it said, referring to US-run prisons in Cuba and Iraq where serious allegations of torture have been levelled.
"Our freedom ... and the reform that we are seeking depends on three concepts - the rule of Sharia [Islamic law] ... freeing Islam from any aggressor ... and liberating the human being."
No to occupation
In the Islamic world, the people had the "right to choose its leader, hold him to account and criticise him ... I do not think that we can achieve reform while we are under American and Jewish occupation."
_________________________
Aljazeera has aired excerpts of a new video from al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri in which he criticises the US concept of reform, as well as assaults on female protesters in Egypt last month.
Al-Zawahri's message is particularly critical of the Pakistani, Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments.
"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets," he said.
"Reform and expelling the invaders from Muslim countries cannot be accomplished except by fighting for the sake of God."
Al-Zawahri said any reform must be based on Islamic Sharia (law) and that Muslim countries should be free to govern themselves without foreign interference, or the presence of foreign troops.
"We cannot imagine any reform while our countries are occupied by crusader forces which are spreading throughout our land," he said.
Al-Zawahri referred to protest-demonstrations in Cairo last month against the Egyptian constitutional referendum in which female protesters and several female reporters were allegedly molested by plain-clothed ruling party supporters.
Reforms
"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets."
Al-Zawahri, considered to be Osama bin Laden's second in command, criticised what he said were violations of women's rights during the Egyptian protests.
On the Palestinian issue, he cast doubt on the possibility of effecting change through peaceful demonstrations. He warned the Palestinians against what he called attempts to drag them into the election game in order to extract legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority.
In his previous tape - which Aljazeera aired on 20 February - al-Zawahiri warned the West it faced defeat in what he termed its new crusade against the Islamic world.
In that message, which he said was to mark the third anniversary of the internment of Muslims at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, al-Zawahri had hit out at US plans for reform in the Arab and Islamic world.
___________________________
Al-Qaida's number two has said governments cannot stop its attacks and that the West's security depends on respect for Islam and an end to aggression against Muslims.
Ayman al-Zawahri said in a videotape broadcast by Aljazeera on Sunday that the "new Crusader campaign" would end in defeat as others had in the past.
Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and seated with a machine gun next to him, said his comments came three years after the first prisoners were taken from Afghanistan to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"If you Western nations believe that these cartoon governments will protect you from our responses, then you are deluded. Your real security lies in cooperating with the Islamic nation on the basis of respect and ending aggression," al-Zawahri said.
"Your new Crusader campaign will end, God willing, in defeat as did those that preceded it but after the deaths of tens of thousands, the destruction of your economy and exposing you in the pages of history," he added.
Democracy exposed
Al-Zawahri said US calls for democracy in the Middle East were a farce after allegations of abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, which holds hundreds of suspects detained during the 2001 US-led war to oust al-Qaida and the ruling Taliban from Afghanistan and in other operations.
"It has been three years since the first group of Muslim prisoners were sent to Guantanamo prison... One may ask why all this interest in Guantanamo when our countries are filled with a thousand Guantanamos under US observation," he said.
"It is because it exposes the truth of reform and democracy that America claims it aims to spread in our countries.
"The reform which emerges from US prisons like Bagram, Kandahar, Guanatanamo, Abu Ghraib, and from the launch of cluster bombs and rockets and the appointment of the likes of [Afghanistan's President Hamid] Karzai and [Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi," he said.
The last videotape from al-Zawahri - aired in November - warned that al-Qaida would continue to attack the US until Washington changed its policies towards the Muslim world.
___________________________________
Al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri has forecast a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a videotape aired on Aljazeera television.
"The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing," he said in the tape telecast on Thursday.
"In the two countries, the Americans are between two fires: if they remain there they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything."
The mujahidin are in a strong position in Afghanistan and have turned US plans in Iraq "head over heels", al-Zawahri said.
In Afghanistan, the mujahidin have driven US forces to "hide in their trenches", he said.
On the Darfur conflict, he said it was an example of US desire to split the Arab and Muslim world.
In the tape, shown two days before the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, he said: "East and south Afghanistan have become an open arena for the mujahidin. The enemy is limited to the capitals."
He added: "The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin, as the mujahidin shell and fire on them, and cut roads off around them. Their defence is only to bomb by air, wasting US money as they kick up dust."
"The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin."
Al-Zawahri was last heard in March when Aljazeera aired a recorded message in which he called on Pakistanis to overthrow the US-allied Pervez Musharraf government.
__________________________________
Usama bin Ladin's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahri has condemned French moves to ban the Muslim headscarf in government schools.
"This is a new sign of the Crusader hatred which Westerners harbour against Muslims while they boast of freedom, democracy and human rights," al-Zawahri said on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television channel on Tuesday.
The French parliament this month voted to ban religious emblems in state schools, a measure Paris says will keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms, but which Muslims around the world have said targets Islam.
"France is the country of freedom which defends freedom to show the body, and to be immoral and depraved.
In France you're free to show yourself but not to dress modestly," said al-Zawahri, who is thought to be hiding, along with bin Ladin, somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"This is a campaign planned by the Crusader Zionists (Israel supporters) with their agents in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia and other Islamic countries," al-Zawahri said, in an attack on Muslim countries which have made moves to secularise their societies along Western lines.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Terrorism and Targeting Innocent Civilians: Part II
When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime; it is something that has justification. -- bin Laden
This is the second part of my reflections on the sort of terrorism that targets civilians. The first part argued that it is not obvious that targeting innocent civilians can never be justified and that one should look at the specific case at hand. To take one example, American history seems to show that there can be a justification or excuse for targeting and killing innocent civilians. In past conflicts, America has used a concept of strategic bombing that included the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. The US military has been very successful at intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Many Americans, including presidents, senators, and other political leaders and thinkers will claim that such killing has been justified. Also, there seems to be possible scenarios in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians can be justified, especially cases in which the killing of innocent civilians is necessary to counter the unjustified killing of a significantly greater number of other innocents. If the preceding is correct, then there are possible cases in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians (even enormous numbers of innocent civilians) can be justified. Consequently, one cannot know a priori that any particular case of such killing is not justified. One has to look at the specifics of the situation to determine whether the killing is justified. Al-Qaida has intentionally targeted innocent civilians. But is this justified? One must examine the specifics of the situation.
It may be that some of the terrorism against innocent civilians that Al-Qaida and bin Laden have committed is justified, but there is another reason for examining the circumstances behind terrorism, even if such terrorism is not justified. The goal is to find a way to eliminate or reduce terrorism, and this goal will likely be very much harder to attain without understanding the reasons and causes behind terrorism. Even if there is no justification for the killing of innocent civilians, we have an interest in understanding the causes of terrorism, just as we would want to understand the causes of violent crime in our cities. If we can understand the causes of terrorism, then it may be possible to remove these causes. If terrorism is justified, then we have even more reason to remove or correct the circumstances that generate terrorism, but we still have a strong reason to understand terrorism even if we find that terrorism that kills innocent civilians is not justified.
The late activist Eqbal Ahmad gives an interesting account of some reasons for political terrorism, the sort of terrorism that bin Laden is engaged in:
Normally, and there are exceptions, there is an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed by the people. The Palestinians, for example, the superterrorists of our time, were dispossessed in 1948. From 1948 to 1968 they went to every court in the world. They knocked on every door. They had been completely deprived of their land, their country, and nobody was listening. In desperation, they invented a new form of terror: the airplane hijacking. Between 1968 and 1975 they pulled the world up by its ears. That kind of terror is a violent way of expressing long-felt grievances. It makes the world hear. It’s normally undertaken by small, helpless groupings that feel powerless. We still haven’t done the Palestinians justice, but at least we all know they exist. Now, even the Israelis acknowledge. Remember what Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel, said in 1970: There are no Palestinians. They do not exist.
They damn well exist now.
Political terrorists normally turn to terrorism in an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed when all other means have failed. Also, terrorism may satisfy the need for retribution against a perceived injustice (which could include the injustice of having legitimate grievances ignored). Ahmad states:
Secondly, terrorism is an expression of anger, of feeling helpless, angry, alone. You feel like you have to hit back. Wrong has been done to you, so you do it. During the hijacking of the TWA jet in Beirut, Judy brown of Belmar, New Jersey, said that she kept hearing them yell, “New Jersey, New Jersey.” What did they have in mind? She thought that they were going after her. Later on it turned out that the terrorists were referring to the US battleship New Jersey, which had heavily shelled the Lebanese civilian population in 1983.
In addition, Ahmad includes the feelings of betrayal, which is connected to the tribal ethic of revenge, something that applies to bin Laden. According to Ahmad, Bin Laden feels that America betrayed him when US forces occupied Saudi Arabia (the land of the kaba, the sacred site of Islam in Mecca) for the Gulf War but then refused to leave. There had never been foreign troops in these holy lands. Since America did not keep its word, bin Laden, following tribal ethics, sought revenge. Ahmad also points out that people who have been victims of violent abuse often become violent people.
One interesting point that Ahmad makes is that the absence of revolutionary ideology (of the Marxist kind) in our time has been central to the spread of terrorism. Marxists argued that true revolutionaries do not resort to assassination. They rejected terror as a viable tactic of revolution. Instead of isolated acts of violence, social problems require social and political mobilization.
Now let’s look at the grievances in bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:
Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.
(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.
(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.
(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.
To be continued in Part III….
This is the second part of my reflections on the sort of terrorism that targets civilians. The first part argued that it is not obvious that targeting innocent civilians can never be justified and that one should look at the specific case at hand. To take one example, American history seems to show that there can be a justification or excuse for targeting and killing innocent civilians. In past conflicts, America has used a concept of strategic bombing that included the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. The US military has been very successful at intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Many Americans, including presidents, senators, and other political leaders and thinkers will claim that such killing has been justified. Also, there seems to be possible scenarios in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians can be justified, especially cases in which the killing of innocent civilians is necessary to counter the unjustified killing of a significantly greater number of other innocents. If the preceding is correct, then there are possible cases in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians (even enormous numbers of innocent civilians) can be justified. Consequently, one cannot know a priori that any particular case of such killing is not justified. One has to look at the specifics of the situation to determine whether the killing is justified. Al-Qaida has intentionally targeted innocent civilians. But is this justified? One must examine the specifics of the situation.
It may be that some of the terrorism against innocent civilians that Al-Qaida and bin Laden have committed is justified, but there is another reason for examining the circumstances behind terrorism, even if such terrorism is not justified. The goal is to find a way to eliminate or reduce terrorism, and this goal will likely be very much harder to attain without understanding the reasons and causes behind terrorism. Even if there is no justification for the killing of innocent civilians, we have an interest in understanding the causes of terrorism, just as we would want to understand the causes of violent crime in our cities. If we can understand the causes of terrorism, then it may be possible to remove these causes. If terrorism is justified, then we have even more reason to remove or correct the circumstances that generate terrorism, but we still have a strong reason to understand terrorism even if we find that terrorism that kills innocent civilians is not justified.
The late activist Eqbal Ahmad gives an interesting account of some reasons for political terrorism, the sort of terrorism that bin Laden is engaged in:
Normally, and there are exceptions, there is an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed by the people. The Palestinians, for example, the superterrorists of our time, were dispossessed in 1948. From 1948 to 1968 they went to every court in the world. They knocked on every door. They had been completely deprived of their land, their country, and nobody was listening. In desperation, they invented a new form of terror: the airplane hijacking. Between 1968 and 1975 they pulled the world up by its ears. That kind of terror is a violent way of expressing long-felt grievances. It makes the world hear. It’s normally undertaken by small, helpless groupings that feel powerless. We still haven’t done the Palestinians justice, but at least we all know they exist. Now, even the Israelis acknowledge. Remember what Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel, said in 1970: There are no Palestinians. They do not exist.
They damn well exist now.
Political terrorists normally turn to terrorism in an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed when all other means have failed. Also, terrorism may satisfy the need for retribution against a perceived injustice (which could include the injustice of having legitimate grievances ignored). Ahmad states:
Secondly, terrorism is an expression of anger, of feeling helpless, angry, alone. You feel like you have to hit back. Wrong has been done to you, so you do it. During the hijacking of the TWA jet in Beirut, Judy brown of Belmar, New Jersey, said that she kept hearing them yell, “New Jersey, New Jersey.” What did they have in mind? She thought that they were going after her. Later on it turned out that the terrorists were referring to the US battleship New Jersey, which had heavily shelled the Lebanese civilian population in 1983.
In addition, Ahmad includes the feelings of betrayal, which is connected to the tribal ethic of revenge, something that applies to bin Laden. According to Ahmad, Bin Laden feels that America betrayed him when US forces occupied Saudi Arabia (the land of the kaba, the sacred site of Islam in Mecca) for the Gulf War but then refused to leave. There had never been foreign troops in these holy lands. Since America did not keep its word, bin Laden, following tribal ethics, sought revenge. Ahmad also points out that people who have been victims of violent abuse often become violent people.
One interesting point that Ahmad makes is that the absence of revolutionary ideology (of the Marxist kind) in our time has been central to the spread of terrorism. Marxists argued that true revolutionaries do not resort to assassination. They rejected terror as a viable tactic of revolution. Instead of isolated acts of violence, social problems require social and political mobilization.
Now let’s look at the grievances in bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:
Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.
(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.
(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.
(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.
To be continued in Part III….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)