Why Bin Laden did it

[Paul Mackin]

P-listers shouldn't miss the interesting analysis embedded rather deeply
within Kurt-Werner's post. Has to to with possible nonAmerico-centric
motives of bin Laden and the terrorists that lie fairly  far outside
mainstream thinking on the subject at least as far as might be gathered from
the morning newspapers.

The analysis seems to me pretty good and naturally it struck my own trivial
and self centered thought processes that it also meshed arguably with my
farfetched post a day or so after the events speculating that we might be
surprised to find out down the road somewhere that the War Against Terrorism
(then being called Infinite Justice) was  actually settled for the moment by
a secret agreement to withdraw all American presence from holy Islamic
territory if the suicide bombings etc would stop.

        P.


----- Original Message -----
From: <KXX4493553 at aol.com>
To: "Pynchon-L" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Cc: <an.meyer at freenet.de>; <amorpheustrier at yahoo.de>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:00 AM
Subject: FWD: Why Bin Laden did it


> Datum:  26.09.01 08:15:18 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit
> From:   twintowers at DISCOVERYNET.COM (Twin Towers Educational Productions)
> Sender: NETDYNAM at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU (NetDynam / Network Group Dynamics
> Mailing List)
> Reply-to:   NETDYNAM at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU (NetDynam / Network Group
Dynamics
> Mailing List)
> To: NETDYNAM at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>
> Hi, this came from my Uncle Mal--wondered what you thought:...and isn't
> email incredible?   I would not have gotten this nearly as fast if it were
> not for such a creation!
>
> Marlena
>
> Subj:   Sept. 11 - Seeking the Source
> Hi
> A good friend who is now the DCM in Lithuania but who for 3 years in the
> mid-90's was DCM and Acting Ambassador to Tajikistan just sent me this
piece
> which I thought you might find interesting.
>
>  Love
>  Mal
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:35 PM
>  Subject: Sept. 11 - Seeking the Source
>
>
>  > Since all the other pundits are offering their views,
>  > I thought I'd offer mine as well, on issues I don't
>  > think are getting the attention they deserve.  I
>  > believe one underlying problem is that both the left
>  > and the right in America are unduly Americo-centric in
>  > their analysis, and assume the target of Sept. 11 was
>  > the U.S., and therefore the solution is also with us
>  > -- be it changing our Middle East policy or clobbering
>  > the bad guys.  I think this misses a couple of key
>  > points.
>  >
>  > First, bin Laden's radicalizing moment had almost
>  > nothing to do with U.S. policy toward Israel and the
>  > Palestinians, despite frequent op-ed inferences to
>  > this effect.  It was the Gulf War, and specifically
>  > the introduction of American troops into Saudi Arabia,
>  > the Muslim holy land, in 1990, that has been the focus
>  > of his rhetoric.  Whatever one's views of that war, it
>  > has only a marginal connection with our Israeli
>  > policy.  Bin Laden, however, holds to a physical
>  > understanding of holiness that is the antithesis of
>  > diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance, etc.  In many
>  > ways, the target of the Sept. 11 attacks was less the
>  > U.S. than Saudi Arabian public opinion, in particular,
>  > and Arab opinion in general.  He seeks to become the
>  > defining force in the Arab and broader Muslim world,
>  > and the strikes against the U.S. give him profile and
>  > fame with which to pursue that goal.  He doesn't
>  > really seek to defeat the U.S. -- he wants to topple
>  > Muslim regimes which do not conform to his view of
>  > Islam.
>  >
>  > Secondly, most Arab regimes, and other Muslim
>  > governments, have track records with respect to social
>  > and economic progress (to say nothing of political
>  > reform) that are little short of abysmal -- Syria,
>  > Iraq, Algeria, Yemen, etc.  When Iran is the closest
>  > thing to a functioning democracy with some press
>  > freedom among Muslim states in the region, something
>  > is wrong.  Over the past two or three decades it has
>  > been highly convenient for these governments to
>  > tolerate astonishing levels of venomous invective and
>  > sheer lies about U.S. actions in the region, in order
>  > to deflect popular discontent away from actual
>  > internal change.  Consult the Arabic press, the Friday
>  > sermons, and the Arabic internet chatroomsm and the
>  > level of inflammatory disinformation is amazing.   The
>  > tolerance of that rhetoric, however, has permitted the
>  > development of a radicalized, extremist base, whose
>  > immediate goal (returning to my first point) is the
>  > toppling of those Arab/Muslim regimes, not of the
>  > United States.  Short-term convenience is coming back
>  > to haunt.  The Arab and other Muslim regimes need to
>  > deal more responsibly and honestly with their own
>  > problems, and their own peoples, if Muslim
>  > fundamentalism if to be answered on its own turf.  And
>  > if it's not answered there, the real victims will end
>  > up being the governments and non-extremist Muslims of the Middle East,
> because destabilized countries will
>  > harm all citizens.
>  >
>  > Finally, it might be noted that these extremists are
>  > not creations of poverty and economic oppression.  As
>  > is usually the case with revolutionaries, most come
>  > from the educated middle class, with a smattering from
>  > the wealthy -- like bin Laden.  The regimes being
>  > discussed here are in serious need of social, economic
>  > and political reform, but none of them have the
>  > poverty of a Brazil, a Mexico City, an India.
>  > Whatever is wrong with American foreign policy -- and
>  > I certainly don't dispute we're cheap on foreign aid
>  > -- it's not convincing to say that these extremists
>  > have been created by poverty.
>  >
>  > Bill Davnie
>
>
> Kurt-Werner Pörtner
>
>