Just came across this post.
[Bilow: As far as I know, this is an accurate treatment of why Osama Bin Laden attacked us, other than the rather unfair suggestion that the US and Britain are responsible for the consequences of Saddam Hussein's foolishment, and that the assault is targeted at civilians. Anyone who thinks the attacks were targeted at civilians should ask surviving members of the Iraqi military for their opinions. If my memory serves me correct, Saudi Arabia and the Kuwaitis in exile were screaming bloody murder for revenge. In fact, most of the rest of the world wholeheartedly approved. But note that by making this statement, Noam Chomsky is admitting that Osama Bin Laden, (and therefore the Taliban that supports him) is, in fact, the party responsible for the attack. I really wouldn't have expected him to make an admission like that.]
Amazing that you would be surprised about this. Simply amazing. Right off the bat, you reveal you have no clue about Noam Chomsky.
[Bilow: Here Chomsky makes a verbal sleight of hand. After listing the sins of the Americans, he notes that the people in the Middle East are "suffering deep poverty and oppression". But that deep poverty and oppression has little to do with actions of the United States, except possibly in Iraq. The fact is that most of the people from these nations that throng US embassies for visas to come over here are trying to escape the violence and oppression of their own governments, not the United States. The third world was backwards, poor and oppressed long before the United States ever got involved with it. Since that time, several 3rd world countries have become advanced, rich and free despite having strong connections to the United States.]
Feel free to criticize things Chomsky didn't say, that's a popular way to attack him.
[Bilow: No such "stark choice" has been offered to the "world". The stark choice was offered instead to a few countries that are now or have recently been supporting the terrorists who attacked the United States. This is included in the rights of the United States to self defense.]
Well, it's difficult to argue such an obvious point. Bush's words were something along the lines of "You're either with us or with the terrorists". This was crystal clear.
[Bilow: It's hard to figure out what Chomsky is implying here. I haven't seen anyone else say that the use of force in defense of a country is "ultra-criminal". Perhaps he's suggesting that war, if undeclared, is ultra-criminal. If so, he doesn't have much of history in favor of his stand because the vast majority of America's wars were never formally declared.]
Example: If someone robs your house, and you go to that person's neighborhood and blow up every house on his street, that is ultra-criminal. Of course he doesn't have history on its side. Human history is dominated by brutal criminal acts.
[Bilow: Nicaragua, like the United States, has the same rights of self defense. That Nicaragua didn't choose to use its extensive military to threaten an invasion of the United States is not because they were morally higher than the US, it's simply because they didn't have the ability to do so. In fact, what Nicaragua did do is support cross border terrorism in their neighbors, the same neighbors (Honduras, El Salvador) who asked for the United States to take action. And Nicaragua's neighbors are also possessed of a right of self defense, and were entirely within their rights to ask the help of the United States. In short, there is no "law" against war, declared or undeclared.]
Here you explicitly admit that you have no regard for international law.
[Bilow: By this logic, all war simply creates an "escalating cycle of violence". In fact, the vast majority of wars are the culmination of escalating cycles of violence, not the continuation of them, and result in an elimination of the escalating cycle of violence. If this weren't the case, everybody would always be fighting everybody. The United States has carried on war, declared or undeclared against every major power, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, China, Russia and Italy. Is there still an "escalating cycle of violence" making us ever more violent towards each other? No! Chomsky's point is incompatible with history. The other point he is making is that war results in an increase in the political power of the militaristic part of a society. This shouldn't be a surprise. Who would want to trust a guy who "loathed the military" as the leader in war? People want war run by those who are competent in it, not by those who are competent in blaming America first.]
Once again, you are criticizing something Chomsky didn't say. He obviously didn't say that the cycle of violence is a never ending virtuous circle. He was speaking about within a conflict.
[Bilow: Interviews with Bin Laden suggest that he (like Saddam Hussein and Hitler before him) did not believe that the United States had the guts to fight. I would think that events have been playing out rather unhappily for Bin Laden. Most of the Moslem world has signed up to be part of his destruction, most significantly including Pakistan. It's hard to understand what Chomksy is suggesting by "far greater scale". The deep divisions of the Moslem countries suggests that there will be no "far greater scale". As far as war, yes, we are in one now, and the power of the alliance that we are creating is stronger than any alliance the world has ever seen before. All this against a country with 14 million citizens before half of them fled the country, and no technology, economy or allies. Some "far greater scale".]
You make some excellent points here. I just noticed this today in reading a Bin Laden interview. He was talking about how the U.S. ran scared in Somalia.
[Bilow: No such demand has been indicated in the papers. In fact, food is still being allowed into Afghanistan across the Pakistan border, as can be seen here, for instance: newsoftheworld.co.uk
It takes time to move food around, just like it takes time to move military forces around. The only reason the United States is not (deliberately) using starvation against Afghanistan is because it is generally believed that the Afghanistan people do not support their government, and will support a call for a new, less repressive, government. Starvation has been a prominent and legitimate feature of warfare since before Homer.]
I don't have any source for this comment by Chomsky, but he always has good sources for his info. I do know the UN stopped food aid for 2 weeks after the WTC attack. un.org I do also know that the bombing has made the food aid we are dropping in Afghanistan fairly ineffective.
[to be continued . . . ]
Tom |
