Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:26:46 +0200From: Renee Turner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: CSL
Subject: Re: [CSL]: OBJECTIONS TO POLITICAL STATEMENTS?

Just a quick response:

To my mind the operative word in Cyber-Society-Live is 'society'.  Without
it ,we are
reduced to tech talk. If people do not agree with what is posted then they
should post a
rebuttal.  Lets keep the debate going.

all the best, Renee

John Armitage wrote:

> 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
>
****************************************************************************
*********

************************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************************