Slashdot Mirror
Another Asteroid Close Call
james was one of a number of people that submitted the news that
the earth has had another near miss, this time with an asteroid. This particular one is thought to be about 300 meters in length, meaning that if it had struck the earth, it would have destroyed an area of say...South Africa. Not to mention the fall out. But
we don't need
a
better system
for watching the stars. Nope. Obviously not.
I am sorry to say it but, I beleive that a direct hit it what is needed to force our governments to take action. Hopefully it will be not too big and in an unpopulated area, but statistically we are bound to get wacked at somepoint.
all the time we hear about near misses.. "an asteroid half the size of out moon is floating around pluto, if it had hit the earth all life would of been wiped out, possibly what caused the destruction of the dinosaurs BLAH BLAH BLAH"
these stories always get attention so someone can get funding of some kind somewhere.
Until we can do something about an asteroid that is going to hit us, there is really no point in spending a fortune (that can be spent on useful projects) on watching out for them.
Damn! There went another asteroid we could have exploited for natural resources, thus making a space-based economy viable. This would contribute to the benefit of mankind by improving the standard of living and also making it more likely we can do something about future potential planet-killers.
..is tell us when we're all going to die.
We only get about a months notice of such close passes anyway and there is no way we're going to be able to get a 'Bruce Willis and mates' crew up into orbit in 30 days. A proper asteroid defence system is likely to be at least a decade away, as it is likely to require a number of hefty nukes to persuade an oncoming 300m+ asteroid that it doesn't have right of way.
Besides, I'd feel distinctly nervous about having a space based system loaded with a several very big nukes right above our heads; just imagine what could happen if a very small object hit the system and destroyed it, knocking the bits back into earths gravity......whilst I know you wouldn't get a nuclear explosion, what chances fallout in a similar manner to a "dirty" sub-nuclear weapon ?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I always understood that nuking an asteroid was a little pointless. I mean, instead of one big chunk of rock coming towards you really fast, you instead have several.
:)
Find a tile floor. Drop 500 marbles, all at once. Now try dropping a bowling ball.
Obviously, you're not a golfer.
the earth to cause chaos. People often forget that if anything nudges our moon out of orbit we've had it too.
No moon = no tide = a stagnating sea, massive change to coastal ecosystems and other nasty changes.
It depends, a hit in the Pacific ocean would cause some nice flooding and tidal waves. A hit in say China or India could wipe out many hundreds of millions of people compared to say say a few thousdand if it hit say Mongolia.
My favoutie target would be the moon man that would look awesome for a big explosion facing us
Nasa knows about 47 1km asteroids in near-earth orbits, any of which could make bickering about the RIAA rather short-lived. Their website claims that the best reason to study NEO's, as we don't have an active defense, is to "allow us to store food and supplies and to evacuate regions near ground zero." This is not the sort of confidence that inspires politicians to open their wallet, nor should it.
India and Pakistan are on the brink of bringing the world into a nuclear holocost. Our supplies of oil are depleting while our energy usage goes up. Ebola has broken out in another african village, and Aids rates worldwide are up to 1 in 100 with some areas reaching 1 in 3. Until such a time as there is something realistic we can do about near earth asteroids, that money is better focused on more pressing forms of armageddon.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
"Close call"? What are the actual odds of impact? No major country wipeouts by asteroids happened in the last few thousand years. What are the odds of Earth being destroyed by an asteroid in the next few decades? With every other third world country developing weapons of mass destruction, right now, we have bigger threats to worry about and spend money on.
Being an astronomer I probably shouldn't say this, because a pile of cash would rain down on me if somebody decided we needed to monitor the skies 24/7, but what the heck:
The risk isn't that high. Really.
We should rather spend our time ending wars. You may say, we can never end wars. Actually, all the nobel peace prize winners I've talked to think we can, so! ;-)
But on the other hand, I'd really like to monitor the skies 24/7, but such a system should not be designed with one application in mind, it should be designed with the goal of enabling all kinds of projects. For example, I'd like to see a global, dense network of Liquid Mirror Telescopes. That could be used to look for NEOs too.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The information about any possible future collisions is/will never be shared publicly. No agency in it's right mind would tell a large mass of people that they are at ground zero for a collision, just imagine the scene that would occur. OTOH a agency looking for more funding will tell you how much you need that agency.
Any meteor, asteroid or comet that sets its cold, icy eyes on our beloved Earth needs to be pimpsmacked by one of these.
Russia's 100-Megaton nukes; the most powerful ever built.
One was detonated half-yield at Novaya Zemlya on October 30th 1961.
It was hypothesized that if one placed enough of these nukes in one spot, and detonated them simultaneously, one could knock the Earth of its axis.
It should make short work of a measely asteroid.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
I'm one of those morons who thinks asteroids can't drive nuke-laden-Ryder trucks or steer a rusty old nuke-bearing freighter into a harbor. Moreover, I so stupid I don't believe asteroids will take evasive maneuvers to avoid being intercepted. I'm even stupider in that I don't believe spending $200 billion on Star Wars - The Sequel, would have saved the WTC.
The only reason Star Wars is back is there are plenty of hogs and Bush has rung the Treasury's dinner bell announcing the pig trough is full.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
If you're looking for moderately large dark bodies in space, you do it by watching the stars. Dark bodies like asteroids and comets are, surprisingly enough, dark (and generally opaque). Stars, on the other hand, are bright and have a tendency to not flicker out.
What all this means is that the way you find dark bodies in space is by comparing lots of pictures of starfields and looking for stars that go out and come back. Since it's unlikely that the star flickered, if it seems to do so then there's a good chance something passed between you and it.
fencepost
just a little off
But it's sort of in the nature of these things that "near misses" will be very common compared to actual hits. Let's look at the numbers:
If we divide these numbers, we find that an object will be this close to earth on the average something a bit more than 2 million times as often as it actually hits the earth.
So, if an asteroid this size hits earth on the average once every 500000 years, then we should expect that one comes this close to earth on the average 4 times a year.
Offcourse I'm simplifying a lot here, and offcourse this is statistics, we migth just as well be hit one month from now. All I'm saying is that it's not very surprising that something comes "this close" fairly often.
100 megaton would be about 7.3 on richter scale.
:) Nice one. It has some kind of indefinite circularity to it, doesn't it.
First intuition: large longitudinal component.
Enough of these nukes in one spot
Life on our beloved and only planet has survived many impacts of big (let's say caliber >= 1km) and small size. The big bangs sometimes caused a fallout winter for a few human generations, occasionally, if ground zero contained it, including radioactive material, causing more mutations in the fauna and flora for some time. But that was about it. Life went on.
Today, however, a special kind of landmines endangers the continuity of any, let's say vertebrates, after the next big impact. Our nuclear facilities all over the planet are only safe as long as their cooling systems are working. The statics of these facilities are set to withstand the strongest 'natural' earthquakes.
Unfortunately an impact of an asteroid of decent size causes much stronger quakes. Depending on its energy, incoming angle, hit area etc. this will cause from just a few to complete worldwide nuclear meltdowns.
Any solution how to defuse this minefield should get you at least a Nobel prize.
Problem is that all the kinetic energy still ends up in our system. One big piece is bad. Split that one big piece into several smaller pieces, and it's even worse. But take things to an arbitrary limit, where you pulverize the entire asteroid down to dust.
Now all that dust impacts the atmosphere, heats to incandescence, and vaporizes. Do *you* want to be in the hemisphere where *that* happens? Imagine New York City under the glare of 70 trillion E-Z-Bake Ovens.
If you fragment the asteroid when it's far enough away from Earth (months earlier in its orbit), and give the fragments enough energy that they're not going to just drift back together, then most of the fragments would likely miss Earth.
The key is fragmenting it when it's far enough away, so that the fragments have time to spread.
Where's Cecil the Air-Raid Turtle when you need him?
You're confusing your turtles. Cecil was the one who raced Bugs Bunny.
The air raid turtle's "name was Bert, and Bert the turtle was very alert. When danger threatened him, he never got hurt - he knew just what to do!"
If a 100 metre asteroid were to crash into earth, and hit a country with nuclear capability, it would appear at first to be a high yield nuclear attack. Minutes/hours later, it would easily be confirmed for what it really is, but during those crucial seconds where the country in question thinks they're under nuclear attack, might panic and respond by launching their own attack, especially if they're currently having hostilities with another country at the time.
Now, once they launch an attack, what will the rest of the nations of the world do? By the time everyone figures out exactly what happened, half a dozen nations might be actively involved in a nuclear war. Of course, this seems a bit paranoid, but this is the world we live in.
Its very possible that a 100 meter asteroid could sneak up on us and hit with little or no warning. At least if we have a few days warning, we can evacuate ground zero and all affected nations will know what is REALLY happening and won't panic and create more problems in the process.
Should we invest trillions of $$$ in defensive measures against this type of threat? Not now. We aren't even sure exactly what the threat would be. A rocky asteroid would present a different threat, and therefore a different solution compared to one comprised primarily of metal. We would require a different approach to deflecting them. And if we only discover them a month before impact, there is nothing we could do anyways, unless its a VERY small asteroid, and even then, the most we could probably do is adjust the location of ground zero, and not miss the earth entirely. Any solution will require the cumulative effects of time to work properly.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
let's multiply that by 10^-3
wasn't the unit for weight a kilogram?
Chomsky Transcript: The New War Against Terror (1/3)
The New War Against Terror
Noam Chomsky October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio recorded at
The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT
Everyone knows it's the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher].
I just got orders that I'm supposed to be here, not there. Well
the last talk I gave at this forum was on a light pleasant topic.
It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the
nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves
in a fairly short time. So this time there is a little relief and
we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror. Unfortunately,
the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more
horrible as we proceed.
Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk
I'm going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.
The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That
is that the events of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity
probably the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in
history, outside of war.
The second assumption has to do with the goals. I'm assuming that
our goal is that we are interested in reducing the likelihood of
such crimes whether they are against us or against someone else.
If you don't accept those two assumptions, then what I say will
not be addressed to you. If we do accept them, then a number of
questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a good deal of
thought.
The 5 Questions
One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening
right now? Implicit in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd
has to do with the very common assumption that what happened on
September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history.
I tend to agree with that. I think it's true. It was a historic
event and the question we should be asking is exactly why? The 3rd
question has to do with the title, The War Against Terrorism.
Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what
is terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has
to do with the origins of the crimes of September 11th. And the
5th question that I want to talk a little about is what policy
options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing
with the situations that led to it.
I'll say a few things about each. Glad to go beyond in discussion
and don't hesitate to bring up other questions. These are ones that
come to my mind as prominent but you may easily and plausibly have
other choices.
1. What's Happening Right Now?
Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People
Well let's start with right now. I'll talk about the situation in
Afghanistan. I'll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the
New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New York Times
there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of
starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were
surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times
reported, I'm quoting it, that the United States demanded from
Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the
food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As
far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States
or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over
Europe the next day.
There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my
knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions
of people. The threat of military strikes right after September..around
that time forced the removal of international aid workers that
crippled the assistance programs.
Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times. Refugees
reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing
scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of American
led military attacks turns their long running misery into a potential
catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the
line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times
Magazine.
The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by
far, were able to resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began
to resume at a lower level, resume food shipments. They don't have
international aid workers within, so the distribution system is
hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They
then resumed but at a lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing
condemnations of US airdrops, condemning them as propaganda tools
which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to be
quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue.
After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a
back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic
of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in
acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks
left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas
totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling
the delivery rate is down to = of what is needed. Casual comment.
Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the
slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something
like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization
dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for
delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for
some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation.
It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN
in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing
to try to save millions of victims. As far as I'm aware that was
unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the major aid agencies OXFAM
and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can't find
a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston
Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir.
Silent Genocide
Well we could easily go on.but all of that.first of all indicates
to us what's happening. Looks like what's happening is some sort
of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the
elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that
whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made
and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to
the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks.very
casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that's
just kind of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the
rest of the world. In fact not even in much of Europe. So if you
read the Irish press or the press in Scotlandthat close, reactions
are very different. Well that's what's happening now. What's
happening now is very much under our control. We can do a lot to
affect what's happening. And that's roughly it.
2. Why was it a Historic Event?
National Territory Attacked
Alright let's turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting
for the moment that we are in the midst of apparently trying to
murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course, their victims.
Let's go backturn to the question of the historic event that took
place on September 11th. As I said, I think that's correct. It was
a historic event. Not unfortunately because of its scale, unpleasant
to think about, but in terms of the scale it's not that unusual.
I did say it's the worstprobably the worst instant human toll of
any crime. And that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes
with effects a bit more drawn out that are more extreme, unfortunately.
Nevertheless, it's a historic event because there was a change.
The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That's
new. Radically new. So, take US history.
The last time that the national territory of the United States was
under attack, or for that matter, even threatened was when the
British burned down Washington in 1814. There have been manyit was
common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that's not a good analogy. The
Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military
bases in 2 US colonies not the national territory; colonies which
had been taken from their inhabitants in not a very pretty way.
This is the national territory that's been attacked on a large
scale, you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique.
During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or
mostly exterminated the indigenous population, that's many millions
of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried out depredations all
over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond,
conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several hundred
thousand Filipinos in the process.
Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the
world in ways I don't have to describe. But it was always killing
someone else, the fighting was somewhere else, it was others who
were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.
Europe
In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because
its history is even more horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot
of Europe, basically.
For hundreds of years, Europe has been casually slaughtering people
all over the world. That's how they conquered the world, not by
handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did suffer
murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another.
The main sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering
one another. The only reason that it came to an end in 1945, was.it
had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war with each other
and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that
everyone understood that the next time they play the game it was
going to be the end for the world. Because the Europeans, including
us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction that that
game just had to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In
the 17th century, about probably 40% of the entire population of
Germany was wiped out in one war.
But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans
slaughtering each other, and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere.
The Congo didn't attack Belgium, India didn't attack England,
Algeria didn't attack France.
It's uniform. There are again small exceptions, but pretty small
in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us
were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The
first time that the guns have been pointed the other way. And in
my opinion that's probably why you see such different reactions on
the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally,
in many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides.
The world looks very different depending on whether you are holding
the leash or whether you are being whipped by it for hundreds of
years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe
and its offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a
historic event but regrettably not in scale, in something else and
a reason why the rest of the worldmost of the rest of the world
looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims
of the atrocity or being horrified by them, that's almost uniform,
but viewing it from a different perspective.
Something we might want to understand.
3. What is the War Against Terrorism?
Well, let's go to the third question, 'What is the war against
terrorism?' and a side question, 'What's terrorism?'. The war
against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle
against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by
"depraved opponents of civilization itself." That's a feeling that
I share. The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years
ago. Those arethat's President Reagan and his Secretary of State.
The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring
that the war against international terrorism would be the core of
our foreign policy.describing it in terms of the kind I just
mentioned and others. And it was the core of our foreign policy.
The Reagan administration responded to this plague spread by depraved
opponents of civilization itself by creating an extraordinary
international terrorist network, totally unprecedented in scale,
which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily.well,
partly nearby, but not only there. I won't run through the record,
you're all educated people, so I'm sure you learned about it in
High School. [crowd laughter]
Reagan-US War Against Nicaragua
But I'll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial,
so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme
but uncontroversial. It's uncontroversial because of the judgments
of the highest international authorities the International Court
of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this
one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal
concern for international law, human rights, justice and other
things like that. And now I'll leave you an exercise. You can
estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this
uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the
last month. And it's a particularly relevant one, not only because
it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to
how a law abiding state would respond todid respond in fact to
international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even
more extreme than the events of September 11th. I'm talking about
the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands
of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.
Nicaragua's Response
Nicaragua did respond. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in
Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting
a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World
Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, condemned what
they called the "unlawful use of force," which is another word for
international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United
States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The
United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total
contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction
of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua went to the UN Security
Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to
observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone
understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands
as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the
World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security
Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.
Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically
no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a
similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El
Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United
States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to
observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do
anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don't work in a
world that is ruled by force.
This case is uncontroversial but it's by no means the most extreme.
We gain a lot of insight into our own culture and society and what's
happening now by asking 'how much we know about all this? How much
we talk about it? How much you learn about it in school? How much
it's all over the front pages?' And this is only the beginning.
The United States responded to the World Court and the Security
Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly, that was
a bipartisan decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also
changed. For the first time there were official orders givenofficial
orders to the terrorist army to attack what are called "soft
targets," meaning undefended civilian targets, and to keep away
from the Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the
United States had total control of the air over Nicaragua and the
mercenary army was supplied with advanced communication equipment,
it wasn't a guerilla army in the normal sense and could get
instructions about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces
so they could attack agricultural collectives, health clinics, and
so onsoft targets with impunity. Those were the official orders.
What was the Reaction Here?
What was the reaction? It was known. There was a reaction to it.
The policy was regarded as sensible by left liberal opinion. So
Michael Kinsley who represents the left in mainstream discussion,
wrote an article in which he said that we shouldn't be too quick
to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch had just done. He
said a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost benefit
analysis" -- that is, I'm quoting now, that is the analysis of "the
amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood
that democracy will emerge at the other end." Democracy as the US
understands the term, which is graphically illustrated in the
surrounding countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United
States, US elites, have the right to conduct the analysis and to
pursue the project if it passes their tests. And it did pass their
tests. It worked. When Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower
assault, commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success of
the methods that were adopted and described them accurately. So
I'll quote Time Magazine just to pick one. They lauded the success
of the methods adopted: "to wreck the economy and prosecute a long
and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the
unwanted government themselves,"
with a cost to us that is "minimal," and leaving the victims "with
wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," and
thus providing the US candidate with a "winning issue": "ending
the impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." The New York Times
had a headline saying "Americans United in Joy" at this outcome.
Terrorism Works - Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak
That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts.
One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works.
Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very
serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism
is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's
primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is
held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control
the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror.
Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical
exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way.
So pick the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied
Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms
of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was
terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore,
the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the
US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in
Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began
carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former
resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published
interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were
inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn't do
this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice
of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals
of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict,
as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that
are being used. So it's not just that the Nazis did it. It's that
it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western
civilization, that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves.
Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those
who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be. And if you can
find a historical exception to that, I'd be interested in seeing
it.
Nature of our Culture - How We Regard Terrorism
Well, an interesting indication of the nature of our culture, our
high culture, is the way in which all of this is regarded. One way
it's regarded is just suppressing it. So almost nobody has ever
heard of it. And the power of American propaganda and doctrine is
so strong that even among the victims it's barely known. I mean,
when you talk about this to people in Argentina, you have to remind
them. Oh, yeah, that happened, we forgot about it. It's deeply
suppressed. The sheer consequences of the monopoly of violence can
be very powerful in ideological and other terms.
The Idea that Nicaragua Might Have The Right To Defend Itself
Well, one illuminating aspect of our own attitude toward terrorism
is the reaction to the idea that Nicaragua might have the right to
defend itself.
Actually I went through this in some detail with database searches
and that sort of thing. The idea that Nicaragua might have the
right to defend itself was considered outrageous. There is virtually
nothing in mainstream commentary indicating that Nicaragua might
have that right. And that fact was exploited by the Reagan
administration and its propaganda in an interesting way. Those of
you who were around in that time will remember that they periodically
floated rumors that the Nicaraguans were getting MIG jets, jets
from Russia. At that point the hawks and the doves split. The hawks
said, 'ok, let's bomb 'em.' The doves said, `wait a minute, let's
see if the rumors are true. And if the rumors are true, then let's
bomb them.
Because they are a threat to the United States.' Why, incidentally
were they getting MIGs? Well they tried to get jet planes from
European countries but the United States put pressure on its allies
so that it wouldn't send them means of defense because they wanted
them to turn to the Russians. That's good for propaganda purposes.
Then they become a threat to us. Remember, they were just 2 days
march from Harlingen, Texas. We actually declared a national
emergency in 1985 to protect the country from the threat of Nicaragua.
And it stayed in force. So it was much better for them to get arms
from the Russians. Why would they want jet planes? Well, for the
reasons I already mentioned. The United States had total control
over their airspace, and was using that to provide instructions to
the terrorist army to enable them to attack soft targets without
running into the army that might defend them. Everyone knew that
that was the reason.
They are not going to use their jet planes for anything else. But
the idea that Nicaragua should be permitted to defend its airspace
against a superpower attack that is directing terrorist forces to
attack undefended civilian targets, that was considered in the
United States as outrageous and uniformly so. Exceptions are so
slight, you know I can practically list them. I don't suggest that
you take my word for this. Have a look. That includes our own
senators, incidentally.
Honduras - The Appointment of John Negroponte as Ambassador to the
United Nations
Another illustration of how we regard terrorism is happening right
now. The US has just appointed an ambassador to the United Nations
to lead the war against terrorism a couple weeks ago. Who is he?
Well, his name is John Negroponte. He was the US ambassador in the
fiefdom, which is what it is, of Honduras in the early 1980's.
There was a little fuss made about the fact that he must have been
aware, as he certainly was, of the large-scale murders and other
atrocities that were being carried out by the security forces in
Honduras that we were supporting. But that's a small part of it.
As proconsul of Honduras, as he was called there, he was the local
supervisor for the terrorist war based in Honduras, for which his
government was condemned by the world court and then the Security
Council in a vetoed resolution. And he was just appointed as the
UN Ambassador to lead the war against terror. Another small experiment
you can do is check and see what the reaction was to this. Well,
I will tell you what you are going to find, but find it for yourself.
Now that tells us a lot about the war against terrorism and a lot
about ourselves.
After the United States took over the country again under the
conditions that were so graphically described by the press, the
country was pretty much destroyed in the 1980's, but it has totally
collapsed since in every respect just about. Economically it has
declined sharply since the US take over, democratically and in
every other respect. It's now the second poorest country in the
Hemisphere. I should say.I'm not going to talk about it, but I
mentioned that I picked up Nicaragua because it is an uncontroversial
case. If you look at the other states in the region, the state
terror was far more extreme and it again traces back to Washington
and that's by no means all.
Chomsky Transcript: The New War Against Terror (2/3)
US & UK Backed South African Attacks
It was happening elsewhere in the world too, take say Africa. During
the Reagan years alone, South African attacks, backed by the United
States and Britain, US/UK-backed South African attacks against the
neighboring countries killed about a million and a half people and
left 60 billion dollars in damage and countries destroyed. And if
we go around the world, we can add more examples.
Now that was the first war against terror of which I've given a
small sample. Are we supposed to pay attention to that? Or kind of
think that that might be relevant? After all it's not exactly
ancient history. Well, evidently not as you can tell by looking at
the current discussion of the war on terror which has been the
leading topic for the last month.
Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua
I mentioned that Nicaragua has now become the 2nd poorest country
in the hemisphere. What's the poorest country? Well that's of course
Haiti which also happens to be the victim of most US intervention
in the 20th century by a long shot. We left it totally devastated.
It's the poorest country.
Nicaragua is second ranked in degree of US intervention in the 20th
century.
It is the 2nd poorest. Actually, it is vying with Guatemala. They
interchange every year or two as to who's the second poorest. And
they also vie as to who is the leading target of US military
intervention. We're supposed to think that all of this is some sort
of accident. That is has nothing to do with anything that happened
in history. Maybe.
Colombia and Turkey
The worst human rights violator in the 1990's is Colombia, by a
long shot.
It's also, by far, the leading recipient of US military aid in the
1990's maintaining the terror and human rights violations. In 1999,
Colombia replaced Turkey as the leading recipient of US arms
worldwide, that is excluding Israel and Egypt which are a separate
category. And that tells us a lot more about the war on terror
right now, in fact.
Why was Turkey getting such a huge flow of US arms? Well if you
take a look at the flow of US arms to Turkey, Turkey always got a
lot of US arms. It's strategically placed, a member of NATO, and
so on. But the arms flow to Turkey went up very sharply in 1984.
It didn't have anything to do with the cold war. I mean Russian
was collapsing. And it stayed high from 1984 to 1999 when it reduced
and it was replaced in the lead by Colombia. What happened from
1984 to 1999? Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist
war against Kurds in southeastern Turkey. And that's when US aid
went up, military aid. And this was not pistols. This was jet
planes, tanks, military training, and so on. And it stayed high as
the atrocities escalated through the 1990's. Aid followed it. The
peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid to Turkey was more
than in the entire period 1950 to 1983, that is the cold war period,
which is an indication of how much the cold war has affected policy.
And the results were awesome. This led to 2-3 million refugees.
Some of the worst ethnic cleansing of the late 1990's. Tens of
thousands of people killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed, way
more than Kosovo, even under NATO bombs. And the United States was
providing 80% of the arms, increasing as the atrocities increased,
peaking in 1997. It declined in 1999 because, once again, terror
worked as it usually does when carried out by its major agents,
mainly the powerful. So by 1999, Turkish terror, called of course
counter-terror, but as I said, that's universal, it worked. Therefore
Turkey was replaced by Colombia which had not yet succeeded in its
terrorist war. And therefore had to move into first place as
recipient of US arms.
Self Congratulation on the Part of Western Intellectuals
Well, what makes this all particularly striking is that all of this
was taking place right in the midst of a huge flood of self-congratulation
on the part of Western intellectuals which probably has no counterpart
in history. I mean you all remember it. It was just a couple years
ago. Massive self-adulation about how for the first time in history
we are so magnificent; that we are standing up for principles and
values; dedicated to ending inhumanity everywhere in the new era
of this-and-that, and so-on-and-so-forth. And we certainly can't
tolerate atrocities right near the borders of NATO. That was repeated
over and over. Only within the borders of NATO where we can not
only can tolerate much worse atrocities but contribute to them.
Another insight into Western civilization and our own, is how often
was this brought up? Try to look. I won't repeat it. But it's
instructive. It's a pretty impressive feat for a propaganda system
to carry this off in a free society. It's pretty amazing. I don't
think you could do this in a totalitarian state.
Turkey is Very Grateful
And Turkey is very grateful. Just a few days ago, Prime Minister
Ecevit announced that Turkey would join the coalition against
terror, very enthusiastically, even more so than others. In fact,
he said they would contribute troops which others have not willing
to do. And he explained why.
He said, We owe a debt of gratitude to the United States because
the United States was the only country that was willing to contribute
so massively to our own, in his words "counter-terrorist" war, that
is to our own massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities and terror.
Other countries helped a little, but they stayed back. The United
States, on the other hand, contributed enthusiastically and decisively
and was able to do so because of the silence, servility might be
the right word, of the educated classes who could easily find out
about it. It's a free country after all. You can read human rights
reports. You can read all sorts of stuff. But we chose to contribute
to the atrocities and Turkey is very happy, they owe us a debt of
gratitude for that and therefore will contribute troops just as
during the war in Serbia. Turkey was very much praised for using
its F-16's which we supplied it to bomb Serbia exactly as it had
been doing with the same planes against its own population up until
the time when it finally succeeded in crushing internal terror as
they called it. And as usual, as always, resistance does include
terror. Its true of the American Revolution. That's true of every
case I know. Just as its true that those who have a monopoly of
violence talk about themselves as carrying out counter terror.
The Coalition - Including Algeria, Russia, China, Indonesia
Now that's pretty impressive and that has to do with the coalition
that is now being organized to fight the war against terror. And
it's very interesting to see how that coalition is being described.
So have a look at this morning's Christian Science Monitor. That's
a good newspaper. One of the best international newspapers, with
real coverage of the world. The lead story, the front-page story,
is about how the United States, you know people used to dislike
the United States but now they are beginning to respect it, and
they are very happy about the way that the US is leading the war
against terror. And the prime example, well in fact the only serious
example, the others are a joke, is Algeria. Turns out that Algeria
is very enthusiastic about the US war against terror. The person
who wrote the article is an expert on Africa. He must know that
Algeria is one of the most vicious terrorist states in the world
and has been carrying out horrendous terror against its own population
in the past couple of years, in fact. For a while, this was under
wraps. But it was finally exposed in France by defectors from the
Algerian army. It's all over the place there and in England and so
on. But here, we're very proud because one of the worst terrorist
states in the world is now enthusiastically welcoming the US war
on terror and in fact is cheering on the United States to lead the
war. That shows how popular we are getting.
And if you look at the coalition that is being formed against terror
it tells you a lot more. A leading member of the coalition is Russia
which is delighted to have the United States support its murderous
terrorist war in Chechnya instead of occasionally criticizing it
in the background. China is joining enthusiastically. It's delighted
to have support for the atrocities it's carrying out in western
China against, what it called, Muslim secessionists. Turkey, as I
mentioned, is very happy with the war against terror. They are
experts. Algeria, Indonesia delighted to have even more US support
for atrocities it is carrying out in Ache and elsewhere. Now we
can run through the list, the list of the states that have joined
the coalition against terror is quite impressive. They have a
characteristic in common.
They are certainly among the leading terrorist states in the world.
And they happen to be led by the world champion.
What is Terrorism?
Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have
been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen
to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition.
You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief
statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is
that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of
violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through
intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's
a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that.
The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept
that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the
consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort
right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on
terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you
will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting
time on this and really get down to it.
But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of
terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely
the wrong results.
So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you
take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is
official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of
what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another
name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know,
call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter
terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity
Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual
definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't
have all the wrong consequences.
Why did the United States and Israel Vote Against a Major Resolution
Condemning Terrorism?
There are some other problems. Some of them came up in December
1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that's when the
furor over the plague was peaking. The United Nations General
Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning
the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight
against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country,
Honduras abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States
and Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against
a major resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in
fact pretty much the terms that the Reagan administration was using?
Well, there is a reason. There is one paragraph in that long
resolution which says that nothing in this resolution infringes on
the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist
regimes or foreign military occupation to continue with their
resistance with the assistance of others, other states, states
outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and Israel
can't accept that. The main reason that they couldn't at the time
was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally, officially
called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It
was called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist
force officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we
certainly couldn't support actions by a terrorist group struggling
against a racist regime. That would be impossible.
And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli occupied
territories, now going into its 35th year. Supported primarily by
the United States in blocking a diplomatic settlement for 30 years
now, still is. And you can't have that. There is another one at
the time. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being
combated by what the US calls a terrorist force, Hizbullah, which
in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon. And we can't
allow anyone to struggle against a military occupation when it is
one that we support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote
against the major UN resolution on terrorism. And I mentioned before
that a US vote againstis essentially a veto. Which is only half
the story. It also vetoes it from history. So none of this was ever
reported and none of it appeared in the annals of terrorism. If
you look at the scholarly work on terrorism and so on, nothing that
I just mentioned appears. The reason is that it has got the wrong
people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone the definitions
and the scholarship and so on so that you come out with the right
conclusions; otherwise it is not respectable scholarship and
honorable journalism. Well, these are some of problems that are
hampering the effort to develop a comprehensive treaty against
terrorism. Maybe we should have an academic conference or something
to try to see if we can figure out a way of defining terrorism so
that it comes out with just the right answers, not the wrong answers.
That won't be easy.
4. What are the Origins of the September 11 Crime?
Well, let's drop that and turn to the 4th question, What are the
origins of the September 11 crimes? Here we have to make a distinction
between 2 categories which shouldn't be run together. One is the
actual agents of the crime, the other is kind of a reservoir of at
least sympathy, sometimes support that they appeal to even among
people who very much oppose the criminals and the actions. And
those are 2 different things.
Category 1: The Likely Perpetrators
Well, with regard to the perpetrators, in a certain sense we are
not really clear. The United States either is unable or unwilling
to provide any evidence, any meaningful evidence. There was a sort
of a play a week or two ago when Tony Blair was set up to try to
present it. I don't exactly know what the purpose of this was.
Maybe so that the US could look as though it's holding back on some
secret evidence that it can't reveal or that Tony Blair could strike
proper Churchillian poses or something or other. Whatever the PR
[public relations] reasons were, he gave a presentation which was
in serious circles considered so absurd that it was barely even
mentioned. So the Wall Street Journal, for example, one of the more
serious papers had a small story on page 12, I think, in which they
pointed out that there was not much evidence and then they quoted
some high US official as saying that it didn't matter whether there
was any evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So why
bother with the evidence? The more ideological press, like the New
York Times and others, they had big front-page headlines. But the
Wall Street Journal reaction was reasonable and if you look at the
so-called evidence you can see why. But let's assume that it's
true. It is astonishing to me how weak the evidence was. I sort of
thought you could do better than that without any intelligence
service [audience laughter]. In fact, remember this was after weeks
of the most intensive investigation in history of all the intelligence
services of the western world working overtime trying to put
something together. And it was a prima facie, it was a very strong
case even before you had anything. And it ended up about where it
started, with a prima facie case. So let's assume that it is true.
So let's assume that, it looked obvious the first day, still does,
that the actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here
called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is
undoubtedly a significant part. Whether they were involved or not
nobody knows. It doesn't really matter much.
Where did they come from?
That's the background, those networks. Well, where do they come
from? We know all about that. Nobody knows about that better than
the CIA because it helped organize them and it nurtured them for
a long time. They were brought together in the 1980's actually by
the CIA and its associates elsewhere:
Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved,
they may have been involved a little bit earlier, maybe by 1978.
The idea was to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy.
According to President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you remember, just
to put the dates right, that Russia invaded Afghanistan in December
1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the US support for the mujahedin
fighting against the government began 6 months earlier. He is very
proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in his words, an
Afghan trap, by supporting the mujahedin, getting them to invade,
getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific
mercenary army.
Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together the best
killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from
around North Africa, Saudi Arabia.anywhere they could find them.
They were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin
Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its
friends from elsewhere. Whether Brzezinski is telling the truth or
not, I don't know. He may have been bragging, he is apparently very
proud of it, knowing the consequences incidentally. But maybe it's
true. We'll know someday if the documents are ever released.
Anyway, that's his perception. By January 1980 it is not even in
doubt that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive
military force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It
was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion.
But the US intervention was not helping the Afghans. In fact, it
helped destroy the country and much more.
The Afghanis, so called, had their own...it did force the Russians
to withdrew, finally. Although many analysts believe that it probably
delayed their withdrawal because they were trying to get out of
it. Anyway, whatever, they did withdraw.
Meanwhile, the terrorist forces that the CIA was organizing, arming,
and training were pursuing their own agenda, right away. It was no
secret. One of the first acts was in 1981 when they assassinated
the President of Egypt, who was one of the most enthusiastic of
their creators. In 1983, one suicide bomber, who may or may not
have been connected, it's pretty shadowy, nobody knows. But one
suicide bomber drove the US army-military out of Lebanon.
And it continued. They have their own agenda. The US was happy to
mobilize them to fight its cause but meanwhile they are doing their
own thing. They were clear very about it. After 1989, when the
Russians had withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere. Since then
they have been fighting in Chechnya, Western China, Bosnia, Kashmir,
South East Asia, North Africa, all over the place.
The Are Telling Us What They Think
They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants
to silence the one free television channel in the Arab world because
it's broadcasting a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama
bin Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes of the
Arab world that try to shut it up.
But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's
worth it. There is plenty of interviews. And there are plenty of
interviews by leading Western reporters, if you don't want to listen
to his own voice, Robert Fisk and others. And what he has been
saying is pretty consistent for a long time. He's not the only one
but maybe he is the most eloquent. It's not only consistent over
a long time, it is consistent with their actions.
So there is every reason to take it seriously. Their prime enemy
is what they call the corrupt and oppressive authoritarian brutal
regimes of the Arab world and when the say that they get quite a
resonance in the region.
They also want to defend and they want to replace them by properly
Islamist governments. That's where they lose the people of the
region. But up till then, they are with them. From their point of
view, even Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist state in
the world, I suppose, short of the Taliban, which is an offshoot,
even that's not Islamist enough for them. Ok, at that point, they
get very little support, but up until that point they get plenty
of support. Also they want to defend Muslims elsewhere. They hate
the Russians like poison, but as soon as the Russians pulled out
of Afghanistan, they stopped carrying out terrorist acts in Russia
as they had been doing with CIA backing before that within Russia,
not just in Afghanistan. They did move over to Chechnya. But there
they are defending Muslims against a Russian invasion. Same with
all the other places I mentioned. From their point of view, they
are defending the Muslims against the infidels. And they are very
clear about it and that is what they have been doing.
Why did they turn against the United States?
Now why did they turn against the United States? Well that had to
do with what they call the US invasion of Saudi Arabia. In 1990,
the US established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia which
from their point of view is comparable to a Russian invasion of
Afghanistan except that Saudi Arabia is way more important. That's
the home of the holiest sites of Islam. And that is when their
activities turned against the Unites States. If you recall, in 1993
they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Got part of the way,
but not the whole way and that was only part of it. The plans were
to blow up the UN building, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the
FBI building. I think there were others on the list. Well, they
sort of got part way, but not all the way. One person who is jailed
for that, finally, among the people who were jailed, was a Egyptian
cleric who had been brought into the United States over the objections
of the Immigration Service, thanks to the intervention of the CIA
which wanted to help out their friend. A couple years later he was
blowing up the World Trade Center. And this has been going on all
over. I'm not going to run through the list but it's, if you want
to understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent picture. It's
described in words. It's revealed in practice for 20 years. There
is no reason not to take it seriously. That's the first category,
the likely perpetrators.
Category 2: What about the reservoir of support?
What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find
out what that is. One of the good things that has happened since
September 11 is that some of the press and some of the discussion
has begun to open up to some of these things. The best one to my
knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away began to run,
within a couple of days, serious reports, searching serious reports,
on the reasons why the people of the region, even though they hate
bin Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless support
him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience of Islam,
as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are not
surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their
friends: bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen
tied to the United States, people who they interview in McDonalds
restaurant, which is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy
American clothes. That's the people they are interviewing because
they want to find out what their attitudes are. And their attitudes
are very explicit and very clear and in many ways consonant with
the message of bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the
United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal
regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its
intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating
the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein;
and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States
and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst
atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings
that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to.
And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation
which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has
been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic
support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't
like it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards
Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed.
Ok, those are the reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those
reasons, people recognize it and support it.
Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least
educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has
been all over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally.
I have not done a real study but I think right wing opinion has
generally been more honest. But if you look at say at the New York
Times at the first op-ed they ran by Ronald Steel, serious left
liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they hate us? This is the same
day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the survey
on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because we champion
a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism, and
democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate
us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions
of bankers, professionals, international lawyers and saying `look,
we hate you because you are blocking democracy, you are preventing
economic development, you are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist
regimes and you are doing these horrible things in the region.' A
couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way out on the left, explained
that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing more
and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions, he
says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs
to join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that,
everything we do is irrelevant.
Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting.
It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are.
It enables us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a
couple of defects. One is it is at total variance with everything
we know. And another defect is that it is a perfect way to ensure
that you escalate the cycle of violence. If you want to live with
your head buried in the sand and pretend they hate us because
they're opposed to globalization, that's why they killed Sadat 20
years ago, and fought the Russians, tried to blow up the World
Trade Center in 1993. And these are all people who are in the midst
of corporate globalization but if you want to believe that,
yehcomforting. And it is a great way to make sure that violence
escalates. That's tribal violence. You did something to me, I'll
do something worse to you. I don't care what the reasons are. We
just keep going that way. And that's a way to do it. Pretty much
straight, left-liberal opinion.