Fw: OTHER WORDS - N° 2 - Monday, 17/ 9/01

[Artur F. Silva]

Dear all:

I think this Newletter from the site of the "World Forum" of Porto Alegre 
(Brasil),
concerned with the NY tragedy and the even greater tragedy in preparation 
(war),
may be of interest to some of you.

As anyone who so wishes can subscribe to "Other Words" (see at the end) I 
will not
foward any further newsletters.

Regards

Artur



OTHER WORDS PORTO ALEGRE 2002 SITE UPDATE NEWSLETTER -- MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 
19, 2001 -- Nº 2


----------


See in this issue:

Can those who created Bin Laden combat terrorism? On the basis of texts 
from the North American magazine The Nation, Other Words tells the 
forbidden history of the alliance between Washington and Osama Bin Laden. 
Read on at the end of this message.

Porto Alegre 2002 site opens a special section on the crisis: Read in 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/sys/reader/htm/preindexview.htm?user=reader&editionsectionid=69>The 
Empire seeks an enemy, a collection of analyses of the even more violent, 
unequal and antidemocratic world the USA wants to bring into being and 
about how to oppose it. Texts by Noam Chomsky, ATTAC-France, Norman 
Salomon, Robert Fisk and many others. Interview with Adolfo Perez Esquivel.

Noam Chomsky sees another side to the attack: 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?user=reader&infoid=884&editionsectionid=15>"This 
crime is a favor to the extreme right, which yearns to use force", says the 
North American linguist and political activist. 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_day_from=&infoid=903&search_by_month_from=&search_by_day_to=&search_by_year_from=&editionsectionid=69&numinfosperpage=&us>A 
note from ATTAC-France adds "The attacks that targeted New York and 
Washington are part of an early terrorism that can find no justification in 
any cause at all".

The secret reasons behind the new crusade: 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_to=&search_by_field=tax&search_by_authorname=Ben+Cohen,,+AlterNet&infoid=901&search_by_year_from=&search_by_state=all&s>Ben 
Cohen shows that the US$ 344-billion budget for military spending, proposed 
by the White House to the US Congress, is useless for combating terrorism. 
IN order to justify it, a new enemy will have to be found .

Media in speculation and infamy: 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_from=&search_by_section=all&search_by_priority=all&editionsectionid=69&search_by_state=all&search_by_day_from=&search_b>Norman 
Solomon and 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_to=&search_by_field=tax&search_by_headline=false&search_by_day_from=&search_by_year_to=&search_by_authorname=Geov+Parrish,,>Geov 
Parrish show that the North American press is treating the attacks with the 
same sensationalism used by TV for police news. The coverage is 
distinguished mainly by its incitement to revenge, demonization of 
non-whites and concealment of the violence perpetrated by the US against 
other peoples.

And more: "Will Pakistan jump to US demands?" by 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_to=&search_by_headline=false&search_by_year_from=&search_by_field=tax&user=reader&search_by_authorname=Tariq+Ali,,+Counter+>Tariq 
Ali, "The bigger day come the harder day fall" by 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_to=&query=advnostatus&search_by_day_from=&infoid=968&search_by_priority=all&keywords=&search_by_section=all&search_>Matthey 
Parris, War on Whom? by 
<http://www.portoalegre2002.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/ingles/view.htm?search_by_month_to=&search_by_field=tax&editionsectionid=69&search_by_headline=false&search_by_day_from=&search_by_year_to=&search_by_a>Michael 
Moore.



The forbidden history of the alliance between Washington and Osama Bin Laden

"Enemy sought for US$ 344-billion budget ", remarked the North American 
magazine Z-Net a few days ago, in relation to the unprecedented military 
spending proposed by the White House to the United States Congress, which 
extend to the militarization of space. It used the phrase as a comment on 
the lack of proportion between the spending and the absence of threats to 
justify it. To judge from the news of the last few hours, the USA have 
already found their enemy. They have chosen the Saudi millionaire, Osama 
bin Laden, who has been sheltered for years in Afghanistan by the Taliban. 
It will never be possible to combat him nor to prevent repeats of Tuesday s 
carnage with the new Star Wars programme", but that does not matter. 
Humiliated by the attacks, Washington needs to show the world and 
especially the financial markets that it has not lost the initiative, nor 
readiness to pursue its plans. Official media sources will prevent the 
mismatch between the real risks that terrorism represents and what is to be 
done on the pretext of combating it. Symptomatically, the newspapers have 
already started to forget a history of crucial importance to North American 
security, should Bin Laden prove to be the culprit. This tells of the 
alliance that Washington maintained for years with its present public enemy 
No. 1 , which was indispensable to his gaining both the organizational 
capability he enjoys today and his aura as the supposed avenger of the Arab 
world.

  In the missile shelter built with US money

The facts practically prohibited by the press aligned with the system are 
available in certain North America alternative publications, notably in 
addition to Z-Net the magazine The Nation. Writing for the latter is Robert 
Fisk, a veteran reporter specializing in Middle East issues. His text can 
be read on www.portoalegre2002.net, in the section #Armed Conflicts. He 
speaks with the authority of someone who, in his capacity as a journalist, 
has met Bin Laden several times. The last was in 1997, in the mountains of 
Afghanistan. The Saudi he met had the bearing and the traditional dress 
with which he is normally shown in the western press: traditional afghan 
robes, reclining in his cave, calm. Bin Laden seemed to have a very 
superficial knowledge of the world situation. He pounced on the newspaper 
that Fisk had with him. He gave him to understand that reading brought him 
much new information, but abandoned this activity after half an hour. He 
preferred to talk about his belief in the protection that he was assured by 
Allah. He related the many episodes when, confronting the Soviet occupation 
of Afghanistan, he escaped unscathed because the rockets fired at his 
hideouts failed to explode. He claimed not to fear death, because as a 
Moslem, I believe that when we die in combat we go to Paradise ". But never 
for an instant did he leave the shelter he was in. Fisk writes: it was "a 
relic from the days when he fought the Soviets: a niche eight meters high 
cut into the rock, proof against even missile attack".

  For the sake of victory over the Soviets, agreement with the extremists

  In another text an analytical article signed by Dilip Hiro and titled The 
cost of Afghan Victory (#"O custo da vitória afegã") The Nation recalls the 
circumstances of the alliance that was to lead to Washington s involvement 
with Bin Laden. The scene is Afghanistan; the time, the final phase of the 
Cold War. In 1979, a military take-over had brought groups aligned with the 
Soviet Union (USSR) to power. Zbigniew Brzezinsky, a fervent anti-Communist 
and national Security Advisor to the then President Jimmy Carter, glimpsed 
an opportunity to go from defence onto the offensive. He wanted not only to 
reinstall in Kabul a government loyal to the West. He intended to spread 
among the Moslem populations of the USSR a kind of religious thinking 
capable of inciting them to the utmost against the government in Moscow. 
The Nation stresses: there were alternatives, even for those who, like the 
National Security Advisor, were set on waging the Cold War. In Afghanistan, 
there were "several secular and nationalist groups opposed to the Soviets". 
Instead of supporting them, however, the White House opted for what it held 
to be a stroke of genius. It fuelled the most fundamentalist Afghan 
organizations, which, in 1983, has formed the Islamic Alliance of Afghan 
Mujahidin (IAAM).

Encouraging fundamentalism and the Jihad, in favour of US interests

Washington did not content itself with diplomatic backing for the IAAM. It 
constructed an alliance capable of putting the IAAM in a position 
financially, militarily and ideologically to defeat the Soviets. In 
addition to the US, participants in the project included Pakistan, governed 
by General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in a military coup, and 
Saudi Arabia, controlled for decades by a royal family of corrupt nabobs. 
The cement used by the US to consolidate is strategic interests was 
religious extremism. Thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis were drawn to 
anti-Soviet guerrilla training camps. These were directed by the ISI, the 
secret service of Pakistan. The instructors instilled the supreme value of 
the holy war (Jihad) against Moscow. The White House hoped to kill two 
birds with one stone. This purported defence of Islam against Soviet 
attacks would serve, in Pakistan, to bolster the power of Zia ul-Haq, a 
loyal ally of the West. The third link in the coalition, Saudi Arabia, 
where another pro-US government, although very wealthy, was in need of an 
ideological boost. Over a period of several years, the Saudi princes would 
be invited to donate US$ 20 billion to the IAAM crusade. Through the CIA, 
the United States chipped in with a further US$ 20 billion. The rivers of 
greenbacks would serve to recruit and train fanatical guerrillas and arm 
them to the teeth. Their arsenal included anti-helicopter missiles, which 
would be decisive in their confronting and defeating both the pro-USSR 
government and the Soviet troops themselves, who had occupied Afghanistan 
in support of their ally in 1979.

A Saudi millionaire joins forces with strange "freedom fighters "

It was this climate of extremism and intolerance roused by Washington that 
attracted the Saudi Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. When he arrived there 
in the early 80s, he was just the young millionaire heir to a family in the 
construction business. He was fascinated by the jihad sponsored by the USA. 
He was the first Saudi to join it and in time he was to bring with him at 
least 4,000 compatriots. He became the leader of the volunteers in 
Afghanistan. He got close to the IAAM leaders who, thanks to White House 
support, had set up the Taliban government years earlier. He built 
reinforced shelters for arms caches, participated in guerrilla actions. He 
never lacked western moral support. The reporter Robert Fisk relates: "I 
was in Afghanistan in 1980, when Laden arrived. I still have a lot of 
reporting notes from those days. They record that the Mujahidin guerillas 
burned schools and cut the teachers throats, because the government had 
decided to form mixed classes, boys and girls. The London Times called them 
freedom fighters. Later, when the Mujahidin brought down an Afghan civil 
plane with its 49 passengers (with an English Blowpipe missile), the Times 
called them rebels. Strangely, the word terrorists was never used to 
describe them .

Terrorism against the US; acts of heroism against the USSR

 From 1989 onwards, with the collapse of the pro-Soviet government in 
Afghanistan and of the Soviet Union itself, the "volunteers" started to 
return to their home countries. On returning to the Arab world, explains 
Dilip Hiro, they formed a group apart, and became known as the Afghans They 
had certain very distinguishing marks. Their intolerance and scorn for 
human life were the same cultivated under the command of, and as a 
deliberate decision by, the United States. In the years of anti-Soviet 
warfare, they had become highly skilled in terrorist techniques. 
Politically, however, they were less experienced. They came to perceive how 
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt were governed by élites as 
submissive to the United States as the Afghani government they had fought 
was subordinated to the Soviets.

The snake bites the hand that fed it

The Gulf War turned them against Washington once and for all. Once the 
campaign against Iraq was over, in 1991, the White House failed to keep its 
promise to withdraw its military bases and the thousands of soldiers 
mobilized against Saddam Hussein from Saudi Arabia, the country where the 
sacred cities of Mecca and Medina are located. Bin Laden and his followers 
remembered that this was against Sharia, the Islamis law. In 1993, King 
Fahd, perhaps the US s loyalist ally in the world, still courted the 
millionaire, going as far as to appoint him to a Royal Advisory Council. In 
94, after further disagreements, Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia. 
In 96, he declared a jihad against the North American presence in his 
country. He declared then that "driving out the American occupier is the 
most important duty of Moslems, after the duty of believing in God". Two 
years later, a joint declaration signed by a front of fundamentalist 
organizations formed by Bin Laden exhorted: "The decision to kill North 
Americans and their allies civil and military is an individual duty for all 
Moslems who can do so in any country where possible, for the purpose of 
freeing the Al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the Holy Mosque [in Mecca] 
from their clutches. This is in consonance with the word of almighty God".

  A love and hate relationship with terror

  In his account for The Nation, Robert Fisk recalls that Bin Laden is not 
the first ally with which the White House has had a close relationship for 
a certain time, only later when it no longer needs his services to denounce 
him fairly or unfairly as a terrorist. He cites the cases of Saddam 
Hussein, seen as a hero when he attacked Iran with chemical weapons; or 
Yasser Arafat, considered a "super-terrorist" when he led the struggle for 
the liberation of Palestine and later as a "respectable statesman", when he 
signed peace accords with Israel that were never fulfilled.

  It is enough to look at Latin America to find a multitude of examples of 
special relations between Washington and terrorists, practitioners of 
military coups, tyrannical, corrupt leaders, torturers. Moreover, in 
another, sense less direct, but more menacing the alliance with terror is 
being reworked at this very moment. Bin Laden uses US and Israeli 
oppression of the Arab world as a pretext to justify his intolerance and 
criminal acts. All the declarations by North American leaders since the 
attack indicate that the White House intends to allege the real risk of 
terrorism to unleash a military and political offensive which, unless it is 
forestalled, will make the planet a far more violent, undemocratic and 
unequal place. Perhaps that is why societies have the right to say that, 
against the barbarity of the extremists and the Empire, the only way out is 
to build another world.

To subscribe to Other Words, just visit www.portoalegre2002.net and key in 
your e-mail address in the appropriate box, or send a blank e-mail to 
<other-words-subscribe at yahoogroups.com>. There’s no need to write anything 
in the subject line or in the body of the message.

If you want to stop receiving the newsletter, send a similarly blank e-mail 
to <other-words-unsubscribe at egroups.com>







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20010919/da82c54b/attachment-0016.htm>