HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: eric stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster: Take Two!

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo.htm
 
Bin Laden, Terrorist Monster: Take Two!
 by Jared Israel
 [9 October 2001]
 =======================================
 
In 'US Army Gets Secret Advice from Hollywood,' the
 BBC (British Broadcasting Company) notes that: 
 
"American intelligence specialists are reported to
 have 'secretly' sought advice on handling terrorist
 attacks from Hollywood film-makers."
 (http://emperors-clothes.com/news/hollywood-i.htm )
 
Among said film-makers is Steven E De Souza, the
 screenwriter for the movie 'Die Hard,' whose plot
 deals with terrorists trying to destroy a big city
 skyscraper. 
 
The goal of this interaction? 
 
"In particular...the entertainment industry can offer
 [the Army] expertise in understanding plot and
 character, as well as advice on scenario training." 
 
Have the black ops boys by any chance lent their
 script doctors to Osama bin Laden? 
 
Consider the following.
 
Bin Laden was interviewed September 28th by a
 pro-Taliban newspaper. Here's a summary:

"In an interview with 'Ummat' -- a publication
 sympathetic to Afghanistan's ruling Taliban -- bin
 Laden said both he and al Qaida had 'nothing to do
 with the terrorist attacks in America' and that
 'hard-line Jewish organizations might be involved.' 
 
"Ummat said it sent questions to bin Laden through
 Taliban officials, and received written responses. Bin
 Laden reportedly said in his replies that dozens of
 terrorists organizations from countries like Israel,
 Russia, India and Serbia could be responsible for the
 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that
 left over 6,000 people dead or missing. 
 
He also insisted that al Qaida does not consider the
 United States its enemy." ('United Press
 International,' 28 September 28, 2001, Friday)
 
This interview was seized on by those opposed to
 bombing Afghanistan. They noted that terrorists always
> take credit for their murders. Indeed, the whole point
 of terror is to take credit. How else can the
 terrorists intimidate the target group and force them
 to flee, give up, change their political allegience or
 make concessions to terrorist demands?
 
Since bin Laden wasn't taking credit, how, asked
 critics, could anybody be sure he was behind the WTC
 attacks? And if nobody could be certain he was behind
 the attacks why was the U.S. so anxious to
 'counter'attack against Afghanistan?
 
Now bin Laden has issued a speech which he recorded on
 videotape. This speech has been broadcast on TV.
 Transcripts have been published in major newspapers.
 His picture is on the front page of the 'NY Times,'
 holding a microphone, looking like a maniacal crooner.
 
 
This is in itself remarkable. As opponents of the NATO
 bombing of Yugoslavia and the U.S.-supported, Kosovo
 Liberation Army attacks on that country will testify,
 it is virtually impossible for people critical of U.S.
 foreign policy to get their views presented in major
 newspapers or on TV in the U.S. 
 
But here is bin Laden, front page and prime time. 
 
And mind you, he's no longer saying, "Russia, India,
 Serbia and Israel" did it, or "America is not the
 enemy." Rather, his expressed views have altered:
 
"God Almighty hit the United States at its most
 vulnerable spot. He destroyed its greatest buildings.
 Praise be to God. Here is the United States. It was
 filled with terror from its north to its south and
 from its east to its west. Praise be to God... 
 
"But if the sword falls on the United States after 80
 years, hypocrisy raises its head lamenting the deaths
 of these killers who tampered with the blood, honour,
 and holy places of the Muslims. 
 
". When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of
 Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to
 destroy the United States. I ask God Almighty to
 elevate their status and grant them Paradise." (1)
 
Quite a change.
 
The 'Times' commented:
 
"Within hours of the first American bombs dropping on
 Afghanistan, the world's most wanted man, Osama bin
 laden, appeared in a videotape broadcast, worldwide in
 which he taunted the United States and celebrated the
 Sept 11 terrorist attacks. (Our emphasis)
 
Allow me to remind you, Osama bin Laden's tape was not
 broadcast worldwide by Osama bin Laden, nor by chance.
 Rather, it was broadcast worldwide by the mainstream
 mass media, that is, by the conscious effort of bin
Laden's supposed enemies.

 The 'Times' described Mr. bin Laden's performance as
 "an evident attempt to rally the entire Islamic world
 against the United States."
 
I beg to differ.
 
By providing this videotape at this time, bin Laden
 has given the mass media an effective and timely
 argument to justify bombing Afghanistan and perhaps
 other countries.
 
The other day the British government published a
 document purporting to prove bin laden was behind
 9-11. In fact, the document proved no such thing.
 Rather, it listed some horrific crimes in which he was
 involved, or probably involved, prior to 9-11, and it
 repeated various violent things he purportedly said.
 This might constitute negative character evidence at a
 trial, but it offers no proof that he was behind 9-11.
 
 
Having for days promised Great Revelations, and having
 finally produced something that would flunk an exam in
 First Semester Criminal Law in any U.S. Law School,
 the U.S. and British governments were in a bad spot. 
 
They wanted to bomb Afghanistan - but why? Many
 people, or at least those whose critical faculties are
 able to overcome the current political atmosphere in
 the U.S. and Britain, would like to know, when bombing
 other countries, whether it is necessary and
 appropriate.
 
Bombing Afghanistan because bin Laden masterminded
 9-11 is a stretch for three reasons:
 
 
It violates the entire fabric of international law,
 for instance the Helsinki Final Act and the United
 Nations Charter. International Law denies the U.S. and
 British governments the right to bomb other countries
 even if they feel they have a good reason. (Other
 countries might feel they have a good reason to do
 likewise to the U.S. and Britain, and the U.S.
 government would not like that.) 
 
 
It is not clear how the punishment (bombing
 Afghanistan) would fit the crime, since whereas
 millions of ordinary people in Afghanistan would be
bound to suffer, and surely many would die, bin Laden
 and the Taliban leaders might not. Indeed, official
 British/US plans call for creating a new "government"
 in Afghanistan largely made up of - the Taliban (2)
 
 
And obviously bombing would encourage violent
 reprisals and/or create a climate where secret
 government agencies could stage phony terrorist
 attacks (often called 'provocations') to justify
 further military action overseas. 
That is what is wrong with bombing Afghanistan if the
 U.S. and British governments had proven that bin Laden
 was responsible for 9-11.
 
But bombing Afghanistan despite the U.S. and British
 governments having provided no hard evidence that bin
 Laden was behind 9-11 is simply insane. Unless, of
 course, the U.S. and British governments have a
 purpose entirely separate from the publicly stated one
 of taking revenge for 9-11. (3) 
 
By issuing this videotape, bin Laden has accomplished
 the following:
 
 
He has provided a harsh verbal "taunt" (the 'Times'
 word) which can be read, and has been read and
 listened to, by millions of people in the NATO
 countries and which has thereby created a mass
 emotional basis for bombing. Not because bin Laden's
 taunt justifies U.S. military attacks but because it
 a) allows demagogues to say, "He has confessed! We
 must retaliate!" while encouraging ordinary people to
 feel less upset about attacking faraway countries. 
 
People say: "We've got to do something about that
 bastard, don't we?" and "We have to retaliate in some
 way." That is the refrain I hear from many quarters.
 One friend of mine wanted to know just one thing: "Do
 you think he's a monster or not?" To which I answered,
 "Yeah, he's a monster. But that has nothing to do with
 bombing Afghanistan." It's a hard argument to make
 given the passions which bin Laden's video has
 conveniently further inflamed.
 
 
Bin Laden mixes Islamist fanaticism and callous glee
 over the suffering of Americans, on the one hand, with
 valid criticisms of the U.S. government, on the other.
 Among the valid statements: he accuses the US of being
 responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqi children
 through its insistence on imposing horrific economic
 sanctions on Iraq. This is a very extreme charge, of
 course, but it also happens to be true, as admitted by
 one of the responsible parties, former Secretary of
 State, Madeline Albright. (4) (At the time Albright
 made her admission, the number of dead children was
 estimated at 500,000.)
 
Since bin Laden utters vicious, Islamist ravings and
 equates ordinary Americans with the U.S. government,
 on the one hand, but mixes this with valid criticisms,
 on the other, his video creates an atmosphere of
 hostility towards views critical of U.S. foreign
 policy because now, in addition to challenging the
 propaganda apparatus of the U.S. government and its
 supporting media, we bear the burden of "sounding like
 bin Laden," whom we happen to loathe.
 
Consider this example: Emperor's Clothes has been
 fighting Islamist and secessionist terrorism for over
 two years. We have proven, from evidence available in
 the mass media, that the U.S. government has been
 intimately involved, often covertly, in creating and
 sponsoring terrorist organizations, especially in the
 Balkans. (7) Our Website has hundreds of pages of
 texts attacking this terrible union. Ironically, bin
 Laden and related Islamist terrorists have been
 involved on the U.S. side, backing local terrorists in
 Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. (8) 
 
But today we received an email accusing us of
 supporting Islamist terrorism because we attack U.S.
 government arrogance and violence - and after all,
 said this person, so does bin Laden!
 
 
At the same time, by linking Islamist terrorist
 ravings with valid criticisms, the bin Laden video
 encourages those who hate US foreign policy to view
 the bin Laden monster as some kind of hero. 
 
Never mind that he helped the CIA turn Afghanistan
 into a living hell. Never mind that he and his
 Mujahedeen, who were praised by Ronald Reagan as
 "freedom fighters," who were paid billions by the CIA
 (5), would execute school teachers because obviously
 every teacher in a secular school had to be a
 communist - why else would anyone teach a little girl
 to read? 
 
Never mind that his Taliban monsters have made it a
 crime for male surgeons to operate on women. (One of
 our readers, an Afghan surgeon now living in the U.S.,
 reports that he was performing a stomach operation on
 a woman when the Taliban seized Kabul. He was
 literally forced to leave the operating room and was
 arrested for treating a female patient. The patient
 was left unconscious, stomach cut wide open, on the
 operating table.) 
In his 28 September interview, bin Laden is quoted as
 follows:
 
"'I can go from Indonesia to Algeria, Kabul to
 Chechnya, Bosnia to Sudan, and Burma to Kashmir," he
 said. "This is not a question of my survival. This is
 the question of the survival of jihad (holy war).
 Wherever required, I will be there.'" 
 
This amounts to a confession that bin Laden has been
 involved with the very terrorists that the U.S. has
 sponsored, for example in Chechnya, Bosnia, Macedonia,
 Algeria, and Indonesia, and also, with the KLA whom
 the U.S. government has sponsored in attacking Serbia.
 (6)
 
This man is no enemy of oppression. This is terribly
 distorted person who tries to distort others in his
 image, a spoiled billionaire who exploits the misery
 of angry people to lure them into the fascistic
 'solution' of his murderous Islamist fundamentalism. 
 
Wouldn't the U.S. government love it if some young
 people who hate the bombing of Afghanistan were to
 elevate this thug into some kind of hero? Such people
 would discredit themselves and any valid criticisms
 they had of the status quo and - as we have seen time
 and again - they could then easily be used by the CIA,
 as followers of bin Laden have been used to attack
 secular governments from Algeria to Yugoslavia to
 Afghanistan.
 
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
 PERFECT TIMING
 + + + + + + + + ++ + + + 
 
The 'N.Y. Times' notes: 
 
"[The tape] appeared to have been carefully prepared
 so as to have the maximum effect the moment American
 military operations against Mr. bin Laden and the
 Taliban rulers of Afghanistan began."
 
Very true. A cynic might say that in constructing the
 storyline of a Hollywood blockbuster it is necessary
 to have the terrorist villain goad and taunt (and
 perhaps treacherously assault) the All-American hero
 several times before the hero comes back to smash the
 villain (or, in this case, smash the country where the
 villain resides.) 
 
If the villain does not verbally (and perhaps
 physically) abuse the All-American hero, then when the
 hero crushes the villain (or the country where the
 villain resides) the audience might not cheer; it
 might look askance; it might view the hero as a bully
 and a monster himself. 
 
-- Jared Israel
 
Click here to email the link to this article to a
 friend!
 
= = = = = = = = = = = =
 Further Reading
 = = = = = = = = = =
 
1) A transcript of bin Laden's latest speech can be
 read at
 http://www.truthout.com/0657.Bin.Laden.Stmt.htm 
 
2) See http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm#a 
 
3) 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan' by Jared Israel,
 Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
 
4) Madeline Albright's exchange with Leslie Stahl on
 '60 Minutes', 12 May 1996, regarding deaths of Iraqi
 children:
 
Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half a million
 children have died [due to sanctions on Iraq, imposed
 because of US pressure]. I mean, that's more children
 than died when--wh--in--in Hiroshima. And--and, you
 know, is the price worth it? 
Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard
 choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
 
(60 MINUTES, May 12, 1996) - 
 
5) See 'Taliban Camps U.S. bombed in Afghanistan Were
 Built by NATO' which can be read at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm 
 
6) See '"TERRORISM AGAINST SERBIA IS NO CRIME"' at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/nocrime.htm
 
 
and
 
7) 'Gentle Reign: Washington Makes It Perfectly Clear
 in Kosovo & Macedonia' at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/gentle.htm 
 
8) See 'Excerpts from News Reports - Bin Laden in the
 Balkans' at:
 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm 
 
To read the Helsinki Final Act (the "Helsinki
 Accords") please go to
 http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html 
 
Join our email list at
 http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive about one article/day.
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [email protected]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://TOPICA.COM/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to