Hi folks
Joanne and I have received the email below concerning the Cyber-Society-Live
list. It is fairly self-explanatory and was sent in response to the posting
featuring Chomsky.

For our part, we have no problem discussing politics on the list. After all,
the list exists to discuss the social, political, cultural and economic
aspects of technology, mostly cybernetic technology of course. It was these
interests that gave birth not only to the Exploring Cyber Society conference
but also to this list.

As for discussing the events of 11. 09. 01 in NYC, we do not of any lists
that have not been diverted to discussing these events. When people stop
sending things they want to talk about concerning these events to the list
we are sure it will return to more specifically cybernetic issues. However,
it would be difficult to argue that the attack on the World Trade Centre
Towers did not have a technological dimension, however high or low-tech that
might be.

But, in the end, we hope this list is not here merely for the benefits of
the moderators -- what would be the point of that? It is here for the
members. And it is, as far as we are concerned, the members who should
decide what is and is not discussed.

Reactions anyone?

best wishes

John & Joanne
[CSL moderators]

=================================================================
Subject:  Re: [CSL] Fwd: serious as hell
Date:  Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:20:27 +0300 (IDT)
From:  Gustavo Mesch <[log in to unmask]>
To:  Joanne Roberts <[log in to unmask]>


>  I am asking this list to stop posting political statements. In particular
> one sided and unilateral analysis of the relationships between ultra
> fundamentalistic moslems groups and western countries. Most of them are
> one sided, supporting the well known views of Iran, Irak, Hesbollah and
> the Taliban on the Us. The purpose of this list is on Cyber issues and it
> is not correct to change it purposes to convert it in the voice of those
> that have killed thousands of innocent civilians in the US whose only
> crime was to get up and go to work.
> Gustavo Mesch,
> Sociology
> U of Haifa, Israel.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: serious as hell <fwd>
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:43:08 +0100
> From: "W.J.Gregory" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I am forwarding this e-mail received from a colleague.
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> sorry to send this out unsolicited but I think the issue is important
enough
> to neglect normal customs. below is an interview with the most referenced
> academic alive, whose article US newspapers will not publish.
> thanks,
> z
>
> Noam Chomsky on the prospects for war
> Tue Sep 18 '01
>
> "If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the
> government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in
this
> case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the
> region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are
considering
> the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society."
> Interviewing Chomsky on Radio B92, Belgrade
>
> ~ Why do you think these attacks happened?
>
> To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the
> crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the
Middle
> East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin
Laden
> network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin
> Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume that
this
> is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to
> ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of
> supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a
great
> deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the
> years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent
> correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London 'Independent'), who has
> intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over
decades.
> A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in
> the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many
> religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the
> CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to
the
> Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts
> suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact
with
> the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the
> CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The
> end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one,
> from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" ('London Times'
> correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These
> "Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan)
> carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they
> terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia,
> which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes
> against Muslims.
>
> The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined
> Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as
it
> tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not
> pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
> Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting
the
> Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out
> terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden
> and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established
> permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart
to
> the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of
> Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.
>
> Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes
of
> the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian
> regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart
> from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins. Bin Laden
despises
> the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is
> also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military
> occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's decisive diplomatic,
> military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh
> and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which
> Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break
the
> occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the
> resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other
actions
> that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the
> US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts
> Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long
> US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has
> devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while
> strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the
US
> and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of
the
> Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners
prefer
> to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The 'Wall
> Street Journal' (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and
> privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen
> with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views:
> resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking
> the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years
while
> devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive
> anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers
against
> economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great
> majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar
sentiments
> are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has
led
> to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in
> the facts.
>
> ~ The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote
> the lead analysis in the 'New York Times' (Sept. 16), the perpetrators
acted
> out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance,
> prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are
> irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann).
This
> is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in
> intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be
> completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of
> self-adulation and uncritical support for power.
>
> It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying
> for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics to
flock
> to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The
> escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and
most
> brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent
history
> of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases.
>
> ~ What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American
> self reception?
>
> US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being
offered
> a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and
> destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force against any
> individuals or countries the President determines to be involved in the
> attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal. That
is
> easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if
> Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had rejected the orders
> of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against
> Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all
states
> to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more
severe
> and destructive even than this atrocity.
>
> As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One
> should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally
> have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this question
is,
> in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with
> sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind
> hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very
> well.
>
> ~Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the
> world?
>
> The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to
> the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the
> terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most
hard
> line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic
> regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected.
Again,
> terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender,
> tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and
> repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about
> submission to this course.
>
> ~ After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be.
> Are you afraid, too?
>
> Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one that
> has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's
> prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the
> familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.
>
> The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other
> supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering
people
> of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of
> people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die,
possibly
> millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly
> millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has
> nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even
than
> that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in
> passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can
learn
> a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of
> the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be
> reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest
idea
> of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It
> would be instructive to seek historical precedents.
>
> If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come
under
> direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does
submit
> to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be
overthrown
> by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have nuclear
> weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the
oil
> producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a
war
> that may destroy much of human society.
>
> Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack
> on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it
> will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes.
> Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be
> heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and
he
> is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing
> in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military
> base -- drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years
ago.
> The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are
very
> hard to prevent.
>
> ~ "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?
>
> The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in
world
> affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US,
> this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory
has
> been under attack, even threat. It's colonies have been attacked, but not
> the national territory itself. During these years the US virtually
> exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico,
intervened
> violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines
> (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century
> particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world.
The
> number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been
> directed the other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of
Europe.
> Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars,
meanwhile
> conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under
> attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England,
for
> example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of
> the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on
> the intellectual and moral culture.
>
> It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
> because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of the
> target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance.
If
> the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds of
> years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the
escalation
> of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term consequences
> that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An
aroused
> public within the more free and democratic societies can direct policies
> towards a much more humane and honorable course.
>
> --- End Forwarded Message ---
>
> ***************************************************************
>
> Dr Wendy Gregory
> Research Director
> Business School
> The University of Hull
> Hull HU6 7RX
> Britain.
>
> Telephone: (+44)(0)1482-465960
> Fax: (+44)(0)1482-466637
>
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Research website: http://www.hull.ac.uk/hubs/research/index.htm
> ****************************************************************

--

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************