[ot] [!nt] \n2+0\

[integer at www.god-emil.dk]

From: Nmherman at aol.com

--------5 of 8--------

From: Michael Albert <sysop at zmag.org>

Subject: Chomsky On the Bombings 

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach
the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with
no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and
killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an
inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much
worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous
crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people:
janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a
crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is
also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of
"missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out
repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage
in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely
to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction.
There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But
today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to
develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover
for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope
to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the
likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks
like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than
they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we
can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making
an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the
latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words
of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the
region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting.
Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated
people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror
that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also
about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters
firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid
and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering
their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice:
we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the
likelihood that much worse lies ahead.