Common Dreams New Center
Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community
http://www.commondreams.org/
==============================================
Fortunate Son: Second Edition
J.H. Hatfield
http://www.softskull.com/ --(Scroll down to the third featured title)
==============================================
CIA's Tracks Lead in Disastrous Circle
By Robert Scheer
Published September 17, 2001
in the Los Angeles Times
So, we've come full circle. The CIA, which originally helped
train Osama bin Laden and many of the other terrorists who
have turned against us, now will have its powers expanded to
do more of the same.
Of course, the CIA did not traffic with Islamic fanatics on
its own initiative but was following a policy proclaimed by
President Reagan of support for "the valiant and courageous
Afghan freedom fighters."
There's something absurd in the sentiment of congressional
leaders, who the New York Times reported Sunday "have
concluded that American spy agencies should be allowed to
combat terrorism with more aggressive tactics, including the
hiring of unsavory foreign agents." When did the CIA stop
hiring "unsavory" agents? Like Bin Laden, the CIA recruited
"freedom fighters" from throughout the Islamic world to
overthrow the secular government in Kabul that was backed by
the Soviets.
Bin Laden was no minor recruit to the cause but, given his
wealthy father's close ties to the Saudi royal family, was
received by the Afghans and Pakistanis on the highest levels
and embraced by them up to the days preceding the disastrous
attack on the U.S.
Bin Laden turned against the U.S. as a consequence of the Gulf
War, when the Saudi leadership rejected his advice to rely on
native fighters and instead turned over the country's defense
to the U.S. military, which overwhelmed that underpopulated
desert kingdom with the bravado of more than half a million
troops. The much-proclaimed success of former President Bush's
Gulf War, despite the enormous civilian "collateral damage"-a
horror never acknowledged in this country-did not topple
Saddam Hussein but left a bitter trail of anti-U.S. fervor.
When Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, he found many willing
Muslim recruits. Like Bin Laden, those identified as the
perpetrators of the recent debacle were raised in the bosom of
indulgent Arab oil states that financed their education
abroad, including years of flight school for at least one of
the Saudi pilots who smashed into the World Trade Center.
They're far more skilled than the terrorists of the past.
But it's nonsense to suggest that the CIA has been hamstrung
in going after Bin Laden, when President Clinton specifically
empowered it to do so three years ago. As Bob Woodward and
Vernon Loeb reported in the Washington Post last week : "The
CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to
disrupt and preempt terrorist operations planned abroad by
Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden under a directive signed by
President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by President Bush this
year, according to government sources."
Bin Laden's operation has been under constant surveillance;
Clinton ordered the blasting of his training camps in response
to a previous terrorist attack. If Bin Laden was responsible
for this most recent attack, it represents nothing less than a
startling failure of U.S. intelligence.
Ironically, under our new president, U.S. policy even had
tilted toward the view that we could work with the Taliban
thugs who have harbored Bin Laden, as evidenced last May when
U.S. drug enforcement officials visited the country and
celebrated that regime's success in limiting opium production.
"Taliban's Ban on Poppy a Success, U.S. Aides Say" was the New
York Times headline, with glowing endorsements from U.S.
officials. The story reported, "The sudden turnaround by the
Taliban, a move that left international drug experts stunned
... opens the way for American aid to the Afghan farmers who
have stopped planting poppies. On [May 17], Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell announced a $43-million grant to Afghanistan
in additional emergency aid to cope with the effects of a
prolonged drought. The United States has become the biggest
donor to help Afghanistan in the drought." Powell issued a
statement that the U.S. would "continue to look for ways to
provide more assistance to the Afghans."
This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call
it what you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through
the United Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the
Taliban a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been
somehow acceptable.
>From the beginning, over the last 20 years, our entire Afghan
policy has provided a reminder of the dangers of "blowback," a
phrase used to describe the turning of the machinations of
U.S. intelligence agencies against our own nation. Yet, in the
desperation of the moment, Congress now wants to empower the
CIA to do more of the same.
Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer
==============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kinney [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2001 5:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [groupmind2] A final solution to the Afghanistan question
I been thinkin bad things, and now I gonna RANT.
Few people understand how serious the events of 9-11 were.
The germ warfare labs at Fort Deitrich are just a few miles down
the map from Camp David, directly in line with the flight path of
the hijacked plane that was shot down over Johnstown.
Lessons? All I see are warnings about not making widows raise
orphans to be martyrs. Especially when dealing with people who
face a nickel-iron meteorite 4x daily to pray. Most especially
when the most radical militants in their communities have already
had CIA training.
Everybody seems to think that there is no workable solution; they
want revenge, with one or another level of precision as to the
targets. Well I have a real solution, and it is a final
solution: An unconventional war, aimed directly at those who
"harbor" terrorists, that is, the innocent bystanders. If the
proposed assault is carried out with unflinching and sustained
resolve, we shall prevail, and end support for terrorism in
Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East.
My final solution even cuts the Palestinian problem down to size,
as a bonus and at no extra cost.
Here's how it works:
The U.S. shoves unlimited humanitarian aid down Afghanistan's
throat, no strings attached, whether they want it or not. If the
Taliban won't receive the materials and distribute them
impartially across Afghanistan, we begin strategic bombing with
food, medical supplies (including paramedic kits and manuals),
agricultural supplies, and solar powered short wave radios. We
take whatever intelligence assets we have there off the job of
hunting Mad Arabs, and use them to prioritize local needs so that
the strategic bombing will have maximum effect. Every package
dropped should include original crayon drawings from U.S.
elementary schools (OK class, now we will all make a drawing
that shows our own ideas of "helping by sharing").
The merciless American air attack will continue unabated around
the clock until the Taliban, broken and defeated, comes to the
bargaining table. And defeated they will be: Afghanistan was
reduced to rubble from border to border by the Soviets on their
way out. The life expectancy in Afghanistan is 45 years, and
rebuilding is "on hold" while everyone concentrates on survival.
The Afghan economy runs, to the small extent that it exists, on
foreign loans already in default. The people of Afghanistan are
not in a position to refuse reconstruction, and once it is
underway, they will not tolerate a government that places it in
jeopardy.
Threatening Afghanis would only make them laugh; shooting at them
would bring more monkey-wrench attacks inside the U.S. Remember,
the Afghanis are veterans of Soviet occupation, and their
resistance leaders were trained by the CIA. But food and tools
and hope will make them afraid, very afraid, that the terrorists
will do something nasty that might end the bombing.
As a natural result of U.S. deployment of this final solution,
Osama Bin Ladin and his merry men will probably be delivered to
us, gift wrapped, without our even asking.
Once the Taliban is brought to heel, we dictate treaty terms
including mutual defense and non-agression, the acceptance of a
"green revolution" package similar to the one given to Israel,
and an immigration policy for all displaced persons in the region
(read: Palestinians), who would be entitled to full Afghani
citizenship after three years of service in an internationally
funded Afghani Reconstruction Corps.
The cost would be lower than that of a conventional "war against
terrorism", and it would be distributed among various nations and
relief agencies, with Uncle Sam picking up about half the bill.
What's the U.S. taxpayer get? How about an end to Middle Eastern
terrorism for the forseeable future, plus a boost to the U.S.
economy greater than that which a war would provide.
And U.S. would be elevated to herioc stature in the court of
world opinion at no additional charge.
Bin Ladin became the poster child for Islamic militancy because
of his charitable works. He spent most of his share of the
family fortune providing humanitarian aid to various Islamic
groups perceived as victims of Western imperialist agression.
The U.S. can out-spend him 20 to 1 in a matter of weeks, and keep
doing it until Afghanistan is liveable, without disrupting the
Federal budget. Except, of course, that a few billion will have
to be diverted from "missle defense" and other worthless pork-
barrel projects in the military budget.
Now all that's left is the Iraq problem. Remember them? The
folks we have been at war with for 10 years? The ones Israeli
intel says planned and funded the attack last Tuesday? The
government Uncle Sam needs to leave in place, to justify U.S. air
bases in Saudi Arabia?
I haven't solved that one yet.
Steve Kinney
---Support privacy and freedom of expression with---
<http://www.epic.org/ <http://www.eff.org/
<http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/091701.htm
==============================================
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 01:10:03 -0400
To: Bob Lederer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Andrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Action Alert: Respond to War Mongering Media Coverage
ACTION ALERT FROM MEDIA ALLIANCE
Tuesday's attacks were a horrible tragedy. They are to be condemned
by all peace-loving people in the world. In order for people to be
able to think critically about what happened and make informed
decisions about what the U.S. government's response should be, they
need to hear a diversity of voices and perspectives in the media
coverage of these events. Many of those voices have been missing;
for example, the mainstream media has, by and large, not included
the points of view of people who support non-violent responses to
the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
We encourage Media Alliance members and other media activists to
hold the mainstream media accountable for its problematic coverage.
Right now the mainstream media is encouraging an environment in
which war or some other form of violent restribution is inevitable.
We also encourage people to seek out a variety of perspectives
from alternative media sources.
ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION
You can find a variety of analytical articles and news stories on
the following websites: www.commondreams.org <http://www.commondreams.org,
www.alternet.org <http://www.alternet.org,
www.zmag.org <http://www.zmag.org, www.indymedia.org
<http://www.indymedia.org.
On radio, tune in to KPFA 94.1 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area. In
other parts of the country, tune in to Democracy Now! at your local
Pacifica affiliate station; or check out your community radio station.
You can hear Democracy Now on the web at www.democracynow.org
<http://www.democracynow.org.
TAKE ACTION
* Contact CNN and Fox News Channel.
CNN, Washington Bureau, 202-898-7900 (ask for the news room)
CNN News President, Walter Isaacson, 404-827-1500
Fox News Channel, 212-301-3100 (Jama Vitale), FAX 212-301-4224
Fox News Channel Comment Line: 888-369-4762; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Following are some talking points for your calls to these outlets:
1. Their coverage needs to include pacifist perspectives. So far
the discussions in the mainstream media have centered on which form
of violent retribution is preferred. Avoiding discussion of other
responses, including non-violent ones, contributes to an atmosphere
that further perpetuates the cycle of violence that manifested
itself on Tuesday.
2. Their coverage needs to include perspectives that oppose
racist and xenophobic stereotyping and behavior, especially
against Arabs and Arab Americans. Although outlets have covered
the recent spate of hateful attacks on Arab Americans, there
need to be voices included that explicitly defend immigrants.
Immigrants of all backgrounds have always been, and are today,
a central part of U.S. society and our many communities.
3. Their coverage needs to include analysis of the root causes
that led the people who perpetrated the attacks on Tuesday to
want to kill thousands of civilians (and themselves too). One
such root cause is the longstanding, widespread, and devastating
violence that has been the result of U.S. foreign policy. Some
recent examples include the U.S.-driven sanctions on Iraq which
have killed more than 1.5 million children, the billions of dollars
in military aid to Colombia which the U.S. has used to fuel a
deadly civil war, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in
military aid to Israel to enforce an occupation in violation of
numerous U.N. resolutions.
Additionally, reporters should acknowledge the role of the United
States in training and aiding many parties that the U.S. government
subsequently has labelled as "terrorists" (e.g. Saddam Hussein,
Osama bin Laden, etc.). Reporting that the terrorists "are against
American values" and "hate our freedom" is inadequate.
4. Their coverage needs to include perspectives that oppose new
policies that will use the recent attack as a pretext to increase
military spending, fast track Star Wars, and curtail civil liberties.
People who can speak to these topics can easily be found by CNN
and Fox News Channel through the websites listed above or through
the Institute for Public Accuracy, www.accuracy.org
<http://www.accuracy.org.
*Other possible actions:
-Forward a list of alternative news sources (above) to friends and
family who aren't already familiar with these media outlets.
-Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper (SF Chronicle,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; NYT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; LA Times,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
-Call in to radio talk shows that don't include the perspectives
described above (AM: KGO 810 AM, 415-808-0810).
**************
Media Alliance is a training and resource center for media workers,
actvists and community organizations.
Media Alliance
814 Mission St. #205
San Francisco CA 94103
www.media-alliance.org <http://www.media-alliance.org
==============================================
#################################################################
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution." Emma Goldman
This message comes to you from the emmasdance list.
To SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE to the emmasdance list send email to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the message subscribe/unsubscribe emmasdance. [No subject is needed.]
#################################################################
