Revisiting the War on Terror: A Call to Action

[tuco]

Amnesty International Annual Lecture
Hosted by Trinty College
by professor Noam Chomsky

"War on Terror"

Venue: Shelborne Hall, RDS, Dublin
Date: 18th Jan 2006

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
--

im pretty sure this was debated before, nevertheless maybe someone will find the lecture interesting as its quite recent.

let me quote Chomsky's last sentence from the lecture:

The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky

btw what can each of us do to help in these matters? ideas? coz obviously sitting in front of our computers babbling about it won't solve anything. then again, why should we try to help anything?

 

[Art]

Interesting article tuco. Well worth a read for those with a genuine interest in understanding the motivations behind much of the world's current unrest. Although unashamedly biased concentrating almost exclusively on western transgressions I imagine the author can justify this on the basis that the pro-western view is already enunciated daily through almost every western media outlet.

One of his central contentions that if the west is really interested in reducing world terror they should stop supporting and funding it is IMO a very valid point.

btw on a lighter note I like Robert Ludlum's definition of the acronym CIA - Caught In the Act.

 

[loseyourname]

Is there any way we could talk about what was posted here instead of another locked thread? If you want to know why it was locked, the explanation given in the final post isn't enough for you, PM the person that locked it. Don't ruin a separate and perfectly good thread.

 

[Burnsys]

Is there any way we could talk about what was posted here instead of another locked thread? If you want to know why it was locked, the explanation given in the final post isn't enough for you, PM the person that locked it. Don't ruin a separate and perfectly good thread.

Actualy this "perfectly good thread." was started becouse The other thread was locked, becouse both threads talk about the same thing, Cia Terrorist activities. (tuco sayd it himself but someone deleted that part from his post).

But ok LYM, let's talk about what is posted in this "perfectly good thread.".
--------------------------------------------------------

when chomsky says:
"The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky"

he is referring to The Cia support of terrorist and to terrorist activities executed by the cia, some examples that chomsky cites in the http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf" (and i previusly posted in the locked thread) are:

Luis Posada Carriles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Batista's Cuba
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...irkpatrick.htm

edit:you're recreating the locked thread. Let's keep this thread about this lecture. I have deleted information that is not discussed in the link in the OP. Let's keep this on topic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well Chomsky here is not talking so much about the CIA adventures, which go back to the overthrow of Mossadegh, an operation with the unintended consequence that ordinary "western" middle class Iranians came to detest the US. I roomed with one such (where are you now, Mohammed Sharifzadeh?) in 1960. He was getting a postgrad education at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, as was I, and he loathed, absolutely loathed America. "Ingrate," you may say, but if we had used a little prudence he would have been on our side. As it was, his kind of people rallied to the Islamic Republic and the overthrow of the Shah.

This is really Chomsky's point. Not just wallowing in US guilt, but perceiving that it is never productive. Always the people you mistreat with high sounding rhetoric will come to despise you, and since we've been busy visiting our blessings on so many other countries over the past 60 years, by now the whole world is our enemy, sometimes overtly and often in private.

 

[Burnsys]

FROM Chomsky:http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf

To take one of these official definitions, terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,” typically targeting civilians. The British government’s definition is about the same: “Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.”

But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the US is a leading terrorist state, dramatically so during the Reaganite war on terror. Merely to take the most uncontroversial case, Reagan’s state-directed terrorist war against Nicaragua was condemned by the World Court, backed by two Security Council resolutions (vetoed by the US, with Britain politely abstaining). Another completely clear case is Cuba, where the record by now is voluminous, and not controversial. And there is a long list beyond them.

Sorry i keep going with this. but this topic is about EXACTLY the same of my locked thread. Sorry but i am a little bit angry.

Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115264

 

[russ_watters]

Amnesty International Annual Lecture
Hosted by Trinty College
by professor Noam Chomsky

"War on Terror"

Venue: Shelborne Hall, RDS, Dublin
Date: 18th Jan 2006

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf

My first impression, and one that is typical of why I don't much like Chomsky, is that he's using the title of the speech to trick people into reading it. It doesn't much look like he wants to talk about Bush's war on terror at all, but to use the name as a segue into a discussion of events that happened under Reagan.

Bush's foreign policy is most certainly not a continuation of Reagan's. As a result of this segue, Chomsky puts the reader (listener) on a suspicious posture right from the start and makes one not want to read further. An honest and thoughtful discussion cannot be started via a deception.

I'll try to read more later, though...

 

[Burnsys]

My first impression, and one that is typical of why I don't much like Chomsky, is that he's using the title of the speech to trick people into reading it. It doesn't much look like he wants to talk about Bush's war on terror at all, but to use the name as a segue into a discussion of events that happened under Reagan.

Bush's foreign policy is most certainly not a continuation of Reagan's. As a result of this segue, Chomsky puts the reader (listener) on a suspicious posture right from the start and makes one not want to read further. An honest and thoughtful discussion cannot be started via a deception.

I'll try to read more later, though...

You didn't read the text, what chomsky says is that key the key players in Reagan's war on terror are now the key players in Bush's War on terror.
For example: John Negroponte and Rumsfeld

A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism.The civilian component of the re-declared War on Terror is led by John Negroponte, appointed last year to supervise all counterterror operations. As Ambassador in Honduras, he was the hands-on director of the major operation of the first War on Terror, the contra war against Nicaragua launched mainly from US bases in Honduras.

During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran.

Edit: Second half of chomsky text is about bush's war on terror . which you haven't read yet

 

[Art]

You didn't read the text, what chomsky says is that key the key players in Reagan's war on terror are now the key players in Bush's War on terror.
For example: John Negroponte and Rumsfeld





Edit: Second half of chomsky text is about bush's war on terror . which you haven't read yet

Burnsys I really wouldn't waste your time responding to posters who present a critique without actually bothering to read the article they are critiquing.

 

[Amp1]

Something that Chomsky points out that's glossed over by those that 'don't like it' is the double standard. Another is the mindset of the US policy makers, ie:

It is common to say that no WMD were found in Iraq after exhaustive search. That is not quite accurate, however. There were stores of WMD in Iraq: namely, those produced in the 1980s, thanks to aid provided by the US and Britain, along with others. These sites had been secured by UN inspectors, who were dismantling the weapons. But the inspectors were dismissed by the invaders and the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors nevertheless continued to carry out their work with satellite imagery. They discovered sophisticated massive looting of these installations in over 100 sites, including equipment for producing solid and liquid propellant missiles, biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles. A Jordanian journalist was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border that after US-UK forces took over, radioactive materials were detected in one of every eight trucks crossing to Jordan, destination unknown.
The ironies are almost inexpressible. The official justification for the US-UK invasion was to prevent the use of WMD that did not exist. The invasion provided the terrorists who had been mobilized by the US and its allies with the means to develop WMD -- namely, equipment they had provided to Saddam, caring nothing about the terrible crimes they later invoked to whip up support for the invasion. It is as if Iran were now making nuclear weapons using fissionable materials provided by the US to Iran under the Shah -- which may indeed be happening. Programs to recover and secure such materials were having considerable success in the ‘90s, but like the war on terror, these programs fell victim to Bush administration priorities as they dedicated their energy and resources to invading Iraq.

and, If Osama is really being sought after or being tracked down then why this:

Turning to another domain, the Treasury Department has a bureau (OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control) that is assigned the task of investigating suspicious financial transfers, a central component of the “war on terror.” In April 2004, OFAC informed Congress that of its 120 employees, four were assigned to tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen were occupied with enforcing the embargo against Cuba. From 1990 to 2003 there were 93 terrorism-related investigations with $9000 in fines; and 11,000 Cuba-related investigations with $8 million in fines. The revelations received the silent treatment in the US media, elsewhere as well to my knowledge.
Why should the Treasury Department devote vastly more energy to strangling Cuba than to the “war on terror”? The basic reasons were explained in internal documents of the Kennedy-Johnson years. State Department planners warned that the “very existence” of the Castro regime is “successful defiance” of US policies going back 150 years, to the Monroe Doctrine; not Russians, but intolerable defiance of the master of the hemisphere, much like Iran’s crime of successful defiance in 1979, or Syria’s rejection of Clinton’s demands. Punishment of the population was regarded as fully legitimate, we learn from internal documents. “The Cuban people [are] responsible for the regime,” the Eisenhower State Department decided, so that the US has the right to cause them to suffer by economic strangulation, later escalated to direct terror by Kennedy.

 

[Astronuc]

A conversation with George Soros with his thoughts on the "War on Terror". Soros makes some very good points.

August 11, 2006

Over the years, George Soros has given away about $5 billion in support of causes ranging from democracy in Eastern Europe to after school programs in New York City. He also spent tens of millions trying to keep President Bush from winning a second term. Because that effort failed, Soros has written a new book: "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror." He discussed the book on Aug. 3 at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo.

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/wordforword/2006/08/11 real media required.

from http://wordforword.publicradio.org/

Archive programs
http://wordforword.publicradio.org/programs/ - Tony Blair, Clinton, Karl Rove, and others

 

[TuviaDaCat]

watch this...


edit: nevermind what was written here, i write stupid things when tierd...

 

[Evo]

watch this...


its quite obvious to me, but it seems that europe is too moral to believe so...

im pretty tierd, i might read the article tommorow.

but i think its a very important point for u people to discuss about europe nature to avoid the war on terror, which is very obvious.

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

I don't understand what it has to do with what you're talking about though.

 

[Yonoz]

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

It's always a joy to hear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan" . Check out the "external links" section for more pearls of wisdom.

 

[Astronuc]

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

I've seen the video before, and I too agree with her.

I don't understand what it has to do with what you're talking about though.

Yeah, it's a non-sequitir in the present disucssion.

On the other hand, it does address some major issues behind the current unrest (hostilities) in the world.

Generally, some (perhaps many) people blame external sources for their problems/suffering, when the problems or suffering is self-inflicted.

 

[SOS2008]

'Islamic fascists' who hate freedom? Please!

In reference to rhetoric and double standards that is causing the Mideast to dispise the U.S.:

The day the enemy became 'Islamic fascists'
The president turns a new phrase to describe the 'war on terrorism'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14304397/

The debate of whether fascism is a correct term to describe Islamic terrorists has been ongoing and ultimately is a matter of opinion. IMO there are too few similarities and the terms "radicals" or "extremists" are more appropriate.

So I was outraged when Bush used the term. Not only is it a cheap attempt to increase his rating on terrorism in these pre-election months, it is glaringly hypocritical. Bush and his Rapture-believing, science-suppressing, neo-con supporters need only to look in the mirror to see backward religious fanaticism and fascist nationalism. Talk about casting stones.

I am pleased to see the news media pick up on this nonsense, and would like to know if others in PF picked up on this as well and your reactions to it.

A second and related point made by Bush is that these Islamic fascists want to destroy us because they hate freedom. WTF?! How long must we tolerate having this chimp catapult his propaganda feces at us?

Hmm...who is a more credible source? Bush and his ignorance-embracing supporters or Chomsky? Chomsky, of course! Open your mind and read what he has to say.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hmm...who is a more credible source? Bush and his ignorance-embracing supporters or Chomsky? Chomsky, of course! Open your mind and read what he has to say.

Chomsky is like quantum mechanics. Everything he says is correct, but the interpretations are viciously controversial.

 

[pcorbett]

I'm going to go with Bush and his "ignorance embracing" supporters over Islamofascist and left-wing know-nothings. Call it a vote for freedom.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm going to go with Bush and his "ignorance embracing" supporters over Islamofascist and left-wing know-nothings. Call it a vote for freedom.

Rather than just claiming that left-wingers know nothing, I'd prefer you enlighten us with your great knowledge regarding the term fascist and how, per definition, this is more applicable to Islamic terrorists than it is to the right-wing neocon Bushies.

 

[Skyhunter]

Rather than just claiming that left-wingers know nothing, I'd prefer you enlighten us with your great knowledge regarding the term fascist and how, per definition, this is more applicable to Islamic terrorists than it is to the right-wing neocon Bushies.

Here are the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.

Islamic extremists share some similar characteristics with fascists, so have most violent movements in history. Overall there is little they have in common with fascism. Most glaringly is lack of nationalism, a key component of fascism.

Here is a point by point comparison.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/15545/8082

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Wrong on the first point (kinda like how those who say US law is grounded in the Ten Commandments: the First Amendment and the First Commandment contradict each other). Here, fascism is nationalistic whereas violent Islamists are not only stateless, their pan-Islamic or neo-caliphate ambitions are actively hostile to dozens of nations. They can't be fascists because they want to erase the divisions between nations. The caliphate pre-dates any notion of the nation-state. They may have mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia, but nation is not the theme.

For Bush to use that language is a sign that he is reaching out to the dittoheads, hannitized, and savaged wing-nuts in an attempt to energize the rabid base for the mid-terms.

As Alexandra mentioned in another thread, and I paraprase;

One must correctly identify a problem if one is to have any chance at all of solving it.

Bush's use of the term Islamic fascist, is a sign to me that either he doesn't understand what he is saying, or that his choice of words are calculated to evoke a response.

I think it is both, he doesn't understand, but he says what he says because Rove has made the calculations and instucted him to say it.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, where al Qaida was (is?) located and where Osama bin Laden was (is?) -

Becoming a Piece of the Picture: Life in Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5690902

All Things Considered, August 22, 2006 · Sarah Chayes is a familiar name to NPR listeners. She reported for NPR from Paris, the Balkans, and after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan. She became so captivated by the potential of Afghanistan that she left reporting, and started a nonprofit group in the southern city of Kandahar.

She still lives in Afghanistan, now running a cooperative agricultural venture that sells local soaps and oils. Chayes has written a book about her years in Afghanistan. Her book tells a story of corrupt warlords, counterproductive U.S. policy, and murder.

Interesting commentary from Chayes. All isn't what the Bush administration would have the American public believe.

 

[russ_watters]

Here are the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.

Islamic extremists share some similar characteristics with fascists, so have most violent movements in history. Overall there is little they have in common with fascism. Most glaringly is lack of nationalism, a key component of fascism.

Though I agree, at least, that the comparison is a little thin, it isn't without merit and the objection to point #1 is, simply put, shortsighted and self-contradictory. Ie:

Here, fascism is nationalistic whereas violent Islamists are not only stateless... [snip] They can't be fascists because they want to erase the divisions between nations.

Say what? That's as direct a self-contradiction as there can be. Paraphrased: 'Islamists are stateless because they want the world united in a single Islamic state.'

But nationalism exists even locally: Point #1 mentions flags and key symbolism in promoting the cause. Case-in-point: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/GOT08D.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10404885621,00.html

Essentially, Islamic fascism is trans-national (unfortunately, the word "transnationalism" is already taken, otherwise I'd coin it for this purpose...). It is fiercely nationalistic local organizations with a larger unifying purpose.

The caliphate pre-dates any notion of the nation-state.

Islam is only 1500 years old. What do you call those things tha existed before then, like the Egyptian and Roman empires? Surely they qualify as nation-states?

They may have mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia, but nation is not the theme.

That's a cop-out. Translation: 'all the components are the same, but they are different because we applied a different name to the phenomena'. Uh, no.

In any case:

The debate of whether fascism is a correct term to describe Islamic terrorists has been ongoing and ultimately is a matter of opinion. IMO there are too few similarities and the terms "radicals" or "extremists" are more appropriate.

I'll agree with that. They are certainly closely related, but the trans-national charcteristic makes the comparison a little problematic. Certainly, Bush picked the term for its emotional impact. He's not wrong, he's just being a politician.

 

[Skyhunter]

In any case: I'll agree with that. They are certainly closely related, but the trans-national charcteristic makes the comparison a little problematic. Certainly, Bush picked the term for its emotional impact. He's not wrong, he's just being a politician.

Until the Saudis objected.

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1684675/posts

In a statement after its weekly meeting, the Saudi Cabinet "warned against labeling Muslims with accusations of terrorism and fascism."

Bush didn't repeat the reference to "Islamic fascists" at the State Department today, referring instead to "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives."

A clear indicator of where his priorities lie.

 

[Astronuc]

Ahmed Rashid, Reporting on Islamist Groups
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5702969

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 24, 2006 · Before most Americans had heard of the Taliban, Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid wrote a book about them. After the Sept. 11 attacks, it became a best-seller. Rashid's recent reporting for English-language newspapers involves Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Paperback) ISBN: 0300089023 (Mar 1, 2001)

Amazon.com

This is the single best book available on the Taliban, the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan responsible for harboring the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Ahmed Rashid is a Pakistani journalist who has spent most of his career reporting on the region--he has personally met and interviewed many of the Taliban's shadowy leaders. Taliban was written and published before the massacres of September 11, 2001, yet it is essential reading for anyone who hopes to understand the aftermath of that black day. It includes details on how and why the Taliban came to power, the government's oppression of ordinary citizens (especially women), the heroin trade, oil intrigue, and--in a vitally relevant chapter--bin Laden's sinister rise to power. These pages contain stories of mass slaughter, beheadings, and the Taliban's crushing war against freedom: under Mullah Omar, it has banned everything from kite flying to singing and dancing at weddings. Rashid is for the most part an objective reporter, though his rage sometimes (and understandably) comes to the surface: "The Taliban were right, their interpretation of Islam was right, and everything else was wrong and an expression of human weakness and a lack of piety," he notes with sarcasm. He has produced a compelling portrait of modern evil. --John Miller

Taliban (Paperback) ISBN: 0330492217 (October 26, 2001)

Apparently two different books.

http://www.ahmedrashid.com/

I think people tend to forget how the Taliban came to power following the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan in early 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

As early as the mid-1980's, CIA and other experts were beginning to warn about 'blowback', the unintended consequences of covert operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

 

[Astronuc]

It seems many/most events in the ME are somehow tied into the 'war on terror'. But some good news.

Fox News Crew Freed After Gaza Ordeal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5645822

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip August 27, 2006, 11:44 a.m. ET · Militants freed two Fox News journalists on Sunday, ending a nearly two week hostage drama. One of the former captives said they were sometimes held face down in a dark garage, tied up in painful positions and forced at gunpoint to make videos and say they had converted to Islam.

Correspondent Steve Centanni, 60, of Washington, D.C., and cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, of New Zealand, were dropped off at Gaza City's Beach Hotel by Palestinian security officials. A tearful Centanni briefly embraced a Palestinian journalist in the lobby, then rushed upstairs with Wiig behind him.

 

[Ascetic Anchorite]

This video sums-up the terror situation perfectly:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322&q=terror+storm

 

[Yonoz]

It seems many/most events in the ME are somehow tied into the 'war on terror'. But some good news.

Fox News Crew Freed After Gaza Ordeal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5645822

Good for some.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1376195,00.html"

Two Fox News journalists were freed on Sunday in Gaza after a complex deal was hammered out between the kidnappers and the Hamas-led government of Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh. The negotiations brought an end to the two-week-long hostage ordeal, but it may complicate efforts to free another captive — Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit — held by Palestinian militants.

In its broadcasts, Fox News often portayed the Hamas militants as terrorists, but the kidnapping of the two journalists, sources tell TIME, had nothing to do with Fox's perceived pro-Israel stance or a serious attempt, as the captors first demanded, of swapping the pair for Muslim prisoners in the U.S. Instead, the two newsmen were more likely the victims of a vicious feud between various Palestinian militias.

This is a good glimpse into internal Palestinian politics.

 

[Astronuc]

Something to ponder -

White House Freshens Anti-Terrorism Strategy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770630

All Things Considered, September 5, 2006 · In the second of a series of planned speeches on the need to confront the threat posed by terrorism, President Bush on Tuesday described the war in Iraq in terms of the military struggles of Europe in the 20th century.

Speaking in Washington, D.C., the president said there had been progress in making the country safer in the five years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also said that, even though U.S. actions have weakened al-Qaida since the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans must take seriously the words of the enemy.

Also Tuesday, the White House released a document titled the National Strategy for Fighting Terrorism, which says that America is safer than it was five years ago, but that significant threats remain.

In response to the president and the White House report, Democrats accused the president of failing the national security test. At a news conference at the Capitol, retired Gen. Wesley Clark said that the Iraq War has actually put America more at risk.

"Invading Iraq was an unnecessary war," Clark said. "It distracted us from what we were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and it's been counterproductive in winning the war on terror."

The White House dismissed suggestions that it is politicizing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as part of the fall congressional campaign. Press secretary Tony Snow says that terrorism is what Americans are talking about and that the president is simply presenting his case to the public.

But -

Book Explores Latest Jihadi Thinking
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770651

All Things Considered, September 5, 2006 · Several lesser-known thinkers whose work is widely read on the Internet are more influential than Osama bin Laden in shaping the views and actions of Islamic radicals. That's the view of New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright, author of the book The Looming Tower.

I think it important to understand other peoples' points of view, something that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al refuse to do. Bush sees only war and conflict, i.e. beat the opposition into submission. This is precisely the mistake that the US made in Vietnam. Bush's way is wrong!

 

[McGyver]

For Bush to use that [facism] language is a sign that he is reaching out to the dittoheads, hannitized, and savaged wing-nuts in an attempt to energize the rabid base for the mid-terms.

As Alexandra mentioned in another thread, and I paraprase;

One must correctly identify a problem if one is to have any chance at all of solving it.

Precisely. Perhaps someone in the Bush White House can explain why this key figure now in the news, was arrested after and thought complicit then in the 911 attacks, but was mistakenly released:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733525/

 

[Astronuc]

Assessment from abroad -

'War on terror' loses clear direction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5319522.stm

In the five years since 9/11, a clear-cut and well-supported "war on terror" declared by President Bush has become confused and divisive.

Whereas Le Monde declared the day after 9/11: "We are all Americans now", a placard at a demonstration in London recently read: "We are all Hezbollah now".

American policy has had successes. The quick war in Afghanistan after 9/11 (now flaring up again in the south) toppled the Taleban and has denied al-Qaeda its training bases, which were important to it (base is what the word Qaeda means).

Al-Qaeda has lost much of its leadership. It has not toppled governments as it had hoped. Western forces have not left the Middle East, and in particular the government of Saudi Arabia, guardian of Mecca, which is probably Osama Bin Laden's ultimate target, stands.

Yet Western and other publics are left in fear, and rightly so. Al-Qaeda is no invention. Its impact - or that of its sympathisers - was seen not only in New York and Washington but in Bali, Madrid, London, Morocco, Istanbul and elsewhere.


The power of fear

Fear is a powerful motivating factor. Fear after 9/11 led to the Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

But this doctrine has not been endorsed by all.

Doubts, divisions and defections have developed among American allies. For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred. The prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners, secret prisons and rendition flights all added to this feeling.