Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
|articles (non-newspaper, etc)|
|09/21/01 at 14:20:54|
|Bismillah and salam,|
What do you guys say we start gathering the information in less threads? one on palestine, Fisk files, leading academics, one on iraq, one on US related gov., one on hate archives, etc?? Please move your own posts to another one that has more messages or the same so that it is easier to keep track of topics. (ex. Fbi info/rights stuff together, holes and inconsistencies together, what muslims can/should do, etc)
September 18, 2001
>Shocked and Horrified
>By Larry Mosqueda
>Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch
>the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in
the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people.
>I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then
>President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing
>200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter). This includes the infamous
"highway of death" in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots
>in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be
>horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of
over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former
Secretary of State Madeline Albright has stated that their deaths "are
worth the cost".
>Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety
of U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against
democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000
Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four
>Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S.
>overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to
murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when
>sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador
Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.
>Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965
>when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of
over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000
innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct
>President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
>I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored
>terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war
criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the
>resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S.
>government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was
>I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El
>Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000
>people, or "soft targets".
>I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored
>terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that
began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the
>mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I
felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and
>8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned
enemy, Manuel Noriega.
>I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of
>Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the
deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I
learned that the Ayatollah Khomeni, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who
>U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll,
while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.
>I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about the
>how the U.S. has "manufactured consent" since 1948 for its support of
Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their
native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the
>Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and
villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early
>Israeli colonization. I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and
>Shatila were massacred by Israeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and
>direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of
horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over
and over again
>on the national media to inflame the American public.
>The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to
>the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the
>deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that
the country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S.
I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to
"Israeli settlers" in the "occupied territories" with no sense of irony as
report on who are the aggressors in the region.
>Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of
the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially
>Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot
and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where
>Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also
victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy
knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own
>in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND
>Corporation. In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to
Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of
the war. He has stated that, "It is a tribute to the American people that
perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we
>I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed
with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant
>daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada
in 1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti,
>Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these
actions ran into the hundreds of thousands.
>The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a
list that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and
>intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the
publicdiscourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis
that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over
90%)is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number
>those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World
War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include
>wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther
>King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, "My government is the
world's leading purveyor of violence." Shocking and horrifying.
>Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who
>were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during
>this week's events. It is not meant to "justify" any action by those who
bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context.
>believe that the actions were those of "madmen", they are "madmen" who are
able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they
>to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are
apparently the acts of "fanatics" who, depending on who they really are,
can find real
>grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate.
>Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the
>government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given phe
government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not
be accepted as
fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this action, he is
>responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking and horrible
>crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and
>Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often
engage in "wholesale" terror, while those whom governments define as
>engage is "retail" terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same
for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative
difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of
much of the
>"retail" terror are in fact found in the "wholesale" terror of states.
Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but
them in a context and suggest an explanation.
>Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind
of Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics,
>armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military
>personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained
and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long
>visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was "our
man" in that country.
>The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq
>during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population,
and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval.
>The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and
>CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush,
the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew
this before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the
>ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is
not unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this
not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its
>As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate
>even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add
significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be
>qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New
York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, "Bush And Top Aides Proclaim
Ending States That Back Terror" as if that was a rationale, measured, or
>option. States that have been identified for possible elimination are "a
number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even
>Pakistan." This is beyond shocking and horrific-it is just as potentially
>suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves.
>Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original
>bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are
"madmen", "religious fanatics", or a "terrorist group." If so, they are
either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the
homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years,
>The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups
>and individuals who often have legitimate grievances, but engage in
individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is
>"rational" educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions
of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the
>furthering a nebulous concept called the "national interest". Space does
not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the "national
>interest", but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of
hegemony and an imperial empire.
>The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous
>stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and
>heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost
family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact,
those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of
humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by
>times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the
American public, we might begin to understand how much of the rest of the
feels as they are continually victimized.
>Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories
>that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers
>searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as
those of the "Mothers of the Disappeared" who searched for their
>children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were "disappeared"
in 1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina
deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are
>their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be
manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and
anger into a
>national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians
in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called "softening
the target." The target here is the American public and we are being
>ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence
>None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are
>democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually
no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we
assume that these
>governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines the
recent history of these countries, one will find that the American
>direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for the existence
of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban
government of Afghanistan itself.
>The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8 % of
>the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been
>killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do.
Many people are calling for "revenge" or "vengeance" and comments such as
>them all" have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more
>potentially benign comments have called for "justice." This is only
potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush
Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist
contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more
>responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.
>Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a
>wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the
genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war
>during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not
>catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited
upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious
or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is
Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal,
>eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that
will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future. The
>"No Justice, No Peace" is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an
>observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror. CP
>Larry Mosqueda teaches at The Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Canadian Council for Refugees/
|Re: articles (non-newspaper, etc)|
|09/25/01 at 11:23:34|
|Bismillah and salam,|
Is there such a thing as an islamic paradigm in sociology? Here is an article for the acaduh-mix here :)
Streetproofing Guide to the Analysis of 11 Sept
Geneva/ 24 Sept 01
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less." "The question is,"
said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The questions is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master. That is all."
-- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass
Just as parents street-proof their children before allowing them to wander
into the streets to play, so should we prepare ourselves as we wander into
the writing and rambling of commentators on the post-11-September world.
If children should be wary about accepting candy from strangers, we should
be no less cautious about accepting the simplistic assertions and
unsubstantiated generalizations offered by neoconservatives and political
"realists" who believe erroneously that the world, in essence, is no
different now than it was during the Peloponnesian War -- and that
militarized violence can redress social, economic and political ills, rather
than exacerbate them. Not only are they offering up dubious candies,
they've got the car door open and are leaning out to offer us a ride.
Don't get in. Their descriptions of the world are inaccurate. Their
prescriptions impoverish our political imagination and fail to respond to
both the challenges and opportunities presented to us in a post-11-September
World. And most dangerously, they are promoting a recipe for ensuring that
the world will be a meaner, more precarious, place.
The discussion below introduces a simple set of questions that may be used
as analytical filters to guide a critical reading of "explanations" of, and
responses to, 11-September. Ultimately, the discussion seeks to
street-proof readers by introducing some basic analytical tools with which
to assess the merit, general integrity, and trust-worthiness of arguments.
History is not "just one damn thing after another"; that is, we are not
simply propelled by external forces, willy nilly. Occasionally, there are
conjunctures in human history when our potential to affect wide spread and
lasting constructive change increases. Unfortunately, we often only see
these conjunctures in retrospect. It behooves us to ask whether we are in
such a position today.
There are a number "filters" that may help us to critically assess the
strength of arguments and the quality of reasoning applied to the
explanation or understanding of a specific issue, event, or decision. In
most cases, some of these filters are employed intuitively in our reading
and thinking. But by identifying them explicitly, they may be more
effectively applied to the systematic assessment of arguments. For an
argument to withstand independent, critical, assessment, it must be able to
respond to the following questions to the readers' satisfaction :
1) So what ?
2) Can you prove it ?
3) Now what ?
Each question suggests a host of further sub-questions which help us both to
defuse and dismantle shaky arguments, and to construct well-reasoned ones.
Arguments, like theories, are "always for someone and for some purpose." The
question, "so what?" invites us to put an argument into the broader context
of the political world and competing ideas :
What is being figured out, settled, or solved? What is the
author/speaker/spokesperson attempting to understand? What does it matter?
Who cares? Whose interests are served, protected, advanced, or compromised
by the argument? What is the article/statement doing? Why is it doing it?
What are the implications and consequences of the argument? What are the
implications of the author's/speaker's/ spokesperson's argument? Does the
argument make sense? Are the assumption, preconceptions, or
presuppositions underpinning the argument transparent and reasonable?
Can you Prove It?
This question invites us to consider the degree to which an argument
substantiates its analysis or recommendations empirically or logically. When
we begin to seek evidence supporting an argument, we are better able to
distinguish the empirical from the ideological :
What empirical evidence or detail is offered to substantiate the argument?
How accurate is the data, information, or evidence? What are its sources?
How can we check validity? Are specific examples given? Are they
appropriate? Are details missing? Are the comphexities of the issues
understood? How does the the argument present causes and effects? Does
this make sense? Is the argument reasonable? Do inferences and
interpretations lead directly to the stated "conclusions," given the
evidence? What (whose) point of view is taken? Could things be otherwise?
Are alternative and competing understandings or arguments recognized,
addressed, and presented fairly? What is missing from the argument?
Of each of the three sets of questions posed here, this one tends to be the
most neglected, particularly in the academic setting :
Does the argument give us an idea of where we might go from here, for
example, in terms of ideas, theories, policies or concrete actions? Does it
make the leap from critique to the development of a practical plan of
action? Does it provide alternative courses of action to change negative
structures or processes, or to nurture or construct new ones?
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org