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Russians had withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere.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 MacDonalds 
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, yeh.
..comforting. 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.

5. What are the Policy Options?

What are the policy options? Well, there are a number. A narrow policy 
option from the beginning was to follow the advice of really far out 
radicals like the Pope [audience laughter]. The Vatican immediately said 
look it's a horrible terrorist crime. In the case of crime, you try to 
find the perpetrators, you bring them to justice, you try them. You don't 
kill innocent civilians. Like if somebody robs my house and I think the 
guy who did it is probably in the neighborhood across the street, I don't 
go out with an assault rifle and kill everyone in that neighborhood. 
That's not the way you deal with crime, whether it's a small crime like 
this one or really massive one like the US terrorist war against Nicaragua,
even worse ones and others in between. And there are plenty of 
precedents for that. In fact, I mentioned a precedent, Nicaragua, a lawful,
a law abiding state, that's why presumably we had to destroy it, which 
followed the right principles. Now of course, it didn't get anywhere 
because it was running up against a power that wouldn't allow lawful 
procedures to be followed. But if the United States tried to pursue them, 
nobody would stop them. In fact, everyone would applaud. And there are 
plenty of other precedents.

IRA Bombs in London

When the IRA set off bombs in London, which is pretty serious business, 
Britain could have, apart from the fact that it was unfeasible, let's put 
that aside, one possible response would have been to destroy Boston which 
is the source of most of the financing. And of course to wipe out West 
Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the feasibility, it would have 
been criminal idiocy. The way to deal with it was pretty much what they 
did. You know, find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for 
the reasons. Because these things don't come out of nowhere. They come 
from something. Whether it is a crime in the streets or a monstrous 
terrorist crime or anything else. There's reasons. And usually if you look
at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, 
independently of the crime, they ought to be addressed because they are 
legitimate. And that's the way to deal with it. There are many such 
examples.

But there are problems with that. One problem is that the United States 
does not recognize the jurisdiction of international institutions. So it 
can't go to them. It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court. It 
has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court. It is powerful 
enough to set up a new court if it wants so that wouldn't stop anything. 
But there is a problem with any kind of a court, mainly you need evidence.
You go to any kind of court, you need some kind of evidence. Not Tony Blair
talking about it on television. And that's very hard. It may be impossible 
to find.

Leaderless Resistance

You know, it could be that the people who did it, killed themselves. 
Nobody knows this better than the CIA. These are decentralized, 
nonhierarchic networks. They follow a principle that is called Leaderless 
Resistance. That 's the principle that has been developed by the Christian
Right terrorists in the United States. It's called Leaderless Resistance. 
You have small groups that do things. They don't talk to anybody else. 
There is a kind of general background of assumptions and then you do it. 
Actually people in the anti war movement are very familiar with it. We 
used to call it affinity groups. If you assume correctly that whatever 
group you are in is being penetrated by the FBI, when something serious is
happening, you don't do it in a meeting. You do it with some people you 
know and trust, an affinity group and then it doesn't get penetrated. 
That's one of the reasons why the FBI has never been able to figure out 
what's going on in any of the popular movements. And other intelligence 
agencies are the same. They can't. That's leaderless resistance or 
affinity groups, and decentralized networks are extremely hard to 
penetrate. And it's quite possible that they just don't know. When Osama 
bin Laden claims he wasn't involved, that's entirely possible. In fact, 
it's pretty hard to imagine how a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, who 
doesn't even have a radio or a telephone could have planned a highly 
sophisticated operation like that. Chances are it's part of the background.
You know, like other leaderless resistance terrorist groups. Which means
it's going to be extremely difficult to find evidence.

Establishing Credibility

And the US doesn't want to present evidence because it wants to be able to
do it, to act without evidence. That's a crucial part of the reaction. You 
will notice that the US did not ask for Security Council authorization 
which they probably could have gotten this time, not for pretty reasons, 
but because the other permanent members of the Security Council are also 
terrorist states. They are happy to join a coalition against what they 
call terror, namely in support of their own terror. Like Russia wasn't 
going to veto, they love it. So the US probably could have gotten Security
Council authorization but it didn't want it. And it didn't want it because 
it follows a long-standing principle which is not George Bush, it was 
explicit in the Clinton administration, articulated and goes back much 
further and that is that we have the right to act unilaterally. We don't 
want international authorization because we act unilaterally and therefore
we don 't want it. We don't care about evidence. We don't care about 
negotiation. We don't care about treaties. We are the strongest guy around;
the toughest thug on the block. We do what we want. Authorization is a 
bad thing and therefore must be avoided. There is even a name for it in 
the technical literature. It's called establishing credibility. You have 
to establish credibility. That's an important factor in many policies. It 
was the official reason given for the war in the Balkans and the most 
plausible reason.

You want to know what credibility means, ask your favorite Mafia Don. 
He'll explain to you what credibility means. And it's the same in 
international affairs, except it's talked about in universities using big 
words, and that sort of thing. But it's basically the same principle. And 
it makes sense. And it usually works. The main historian who has written 
about this in the last couple years is Charles Tilly with a book called 
Coercion, Capital, and European States. He points out that violence has 
been the leading principle of Europe for hundreds of years and the reason 
is because it works. You know, it's very reasonable. It almost always 
works. When you have an overwhelming predominance of violence and a 
culture of violence behind it. So therefore it makes sense to follow it. 
Well, those are all problems in pursuing lawful paths. And if you did try 
to follow them you'd really open some very dangerous doors. Like the US is
demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden. And they are 
responding in a way which is regarded as totally absurd and outlandish in 
the west, namely they are saying, Ok, but first give us some evidence. In 
the west, that is considered ludicrous. It's a sign of their criminality. 
How can they ask for evidence? I mean if somebody asked us to hand someone
over, we'd do it tomorrow. We wouldn't ask for any evidence. [crowd 
laughter].

Haiti

In fact it is easy to prove that. We don't have to make up cases. So for 
example, for the last several years, Haiti has been requesting the United 
States to extradite Emmanuel Constant. He is a major killer. He is one of 
the leading figures in the slaughter of maybe 4000 or 5000 people in the 
years in the mid 1990's, under the military junta, which incidentally was 
being, not so tacitly, supported by the Bush and the Clinton 
administrations contrary to illusions. Anyway he is a leading killer. They
have plenty of evidence. No problem about evidence. He has already been 
brought to trial and sentenced in Haiti and they are asking the United 
States to turn him over. Well, I mean do your own research. See how much 
discussion there has been of that. Actually Haiti renewed the request a 
couple of weeks ago. It wasn't even mentioned. Why should we turn over a 
convicted killer who was largely responsible for killing 4000 or 5000 
people a couple of years ago. In fact, if we do turn him over, who knows 
what he would say. Maybe he'll say that he was being funded and helped by 
the CIA, which is probably true. We don't want to open that door. And he 
is not the only one.

Costa Rica

I mean, for the last about 15 years, Costa Rica which is the democratic 
prize, has been trying to get the United States to hand over a John Hull, 
a US land owner in Costa Rica, who they charge with terrorist crimes. He 
was using his land, they claim with good evidence as a base for the US war
against Nicaragua, which is not a controversial conclusion, remember. There
is the World Court and Security Council behind it. So they have been trying
to get the United States to hand him over. Hear about that one? No.

They did actually confiscate the land of another American landholder, John
Hamilton. Paid compensation, offered compensation. The US refused. Turned 
his land over into a national park because his land was also being used as
a base for the US attack against Nicaragua. Costa Rica was punished for 
that one. They were punished by withholding aid. We don't accept that kind
of insubordination from allies. And we can go on. If you open the door to 
questions about extradition it leads in very unpleasant directions. So 
that can't be done.

Reactions in Afghanistan

Well, what about the reactions in Afghanistan. The initial proposal, the 
initial rhetoric was for a massive assault which would kill many people 
visibly and also an attack on other countries in the region. Well the Bush
administration wisely backed off from that. They were being told by every 
foreign leader, NATO, everyone else, every specialist, I suppose, their 
own intelligence agencies that that would be the stupidest thing they 
could possibly do. It would simply be like opening recruiting offices for 
bin Laden all over the region. That's exactly what he wants. And it would 
be extremely harmful to their own interests. So they backed off that one. 
And they are turning to what I described earlier which is a kind of silent
genocide. It's a.... well, I already said what I think about it. I don't 
think anything more has to be said. You can figure it out if you do the 
arithmetic.

A sensible proposal which is kind of on the verge of being considered, but
it has been sensible all along, and it is being raised, called for by 
expatriate Afghans and allegedly tribal leaders internally, is for a UN 
initiative, which would keep the Russians and Americans out of it, totally.
These are the 2 countries that have practically wiped the country out in
the last 20 years. They should be out of it. They should provide massive 
reparations. But that's their only role. A UN initiative to bring together
elements within Afghanistan that would try to construct something from the 
wreckage. It's conceivable that that could work, with plenty of support 
and no interference. If the US insists on running it, we might as well 
quit. We have a historical record on that one.

You will notice that the name of this operation....remember that at first 
it was going to be a Crusade but they backed off that because PR (public 
relations) agents told them that that wouldn't work [audience laughter]. 
And then it was going to be Infinite Justice, but the PR agents said, wait
a minute, you are sounding like you are divinity. So that wouldn't work. 
And then it was changed to enduring freedom. We know what that means. But 
nobody has yet pointed out, fortunately, that there is an ambiguity there.
To endure means to suffer. [audience laughter]. And a there are plenty of 
people around the world who have endured what we call freedom. Again, 
fortunately we have a very well-behaved educated class so nobody has yet 
pointed out this ambiguity. But if its done there will be another problem 
to deal with. But if we can back off enough so that some more or less 
independent agency, maybe the UN, maybe credible NGO's (non governmental 
organizations) can take the lead in trying to reconstruct something from 
the wreckage, with plenty of assistance and we owe it to them. Them maybe 
something would come out. Beyond that, there are other problems.

An Easy Way To Reduce The Level Of Terror

We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it.
There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. 
Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level
of terror enormously. But that you can't discuss. Well we ought to make it 
possible to discuss it. So that's one easy way to reduce the level of 
terror.

Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan is 
not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. That 
has effects. We're seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is one.
Rethink it.

Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of support. Exactly 
what the bankers, lawyers and so on are saying in places like Saudi Arabia.
On the streets it's much more bitter, as you can imagine. That's 
possible. You know, those policies aren't graven in stone.

And further more there are opportunities. It's hard to find many rays of 
light in the last couple of weeks but one of them is that there is an 
increased openness. Lots of issues are open for discussion, even in elite 
circles, certainly among the general public, that were not a couple of 
weeks ago. That's dramatically the case. I mean, if a newspaper like USA 
Today can run a very good article, a serious article, on life in the Gaza 
Strip...there has been a change. The things I mentioned in the Wall Street
Journal...that's change. And among the general public, I think there is 
much more openness and willingness to think about things that were under 
the rug and so on. These are opportunities and they should be used, at 
least by people who accept the goal of trying to reduce the level of 
violence and terror, including potential threats that are extremely severe
and could make even September 11th pale into insignificance. Thanks.

Source:
Talk Transcript: http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
Talk (RealAudio): http://web.mit.edu/tac/www/chomsky-18oct01-16k.ram