Here's why we are losing the war for Arab opinion

[Roger Baker]

Our basic problem is that any reasonable definition of terrorism 
condemns the previous and current foreign policy of the US government 
just as much as Osama bin Laden. Therefore the Arab world sees bin 
Laden as a brave underdog who fights US terrorism with Islamic terrorism,
much like Pancho Villa or Emiliano Zapata were seen by the Mexicans, 
I think. This point of view is predictable among those who have stored 
up smoldering resentment against the USA based on this double standard; 
one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

This is the way humans think (we're all tribal apes, right?) and no 
amount of bombs dropped on Afghanistan in the name of "Enduring Freedom"
can wipe out the human instinctive tendency of underdogs to side with 
the many other underdogs caught up in a barbaric war without any rules 
involving morality or justice. Look at the piece at the bottom.
 
If you don't like it that way then you can scream and jump around and 
pull your hair out until the cows come home to roost, and little difference 
will it make. Our president is a fool and those who make his decisions 
for him are by their background beholden only to corporate greed, and not 
compassion toward those who reap the results of the resulting policies.

Such is life. The history on mankind is the history of class struggle, 
as Marx pointed out. And furthermore those who cannot learn from history 
are condemned to repeat it, etc.

(and, BTW, anthrax can be dispersed as an effective bio-warfare weapon 
with crop dusters if and only only the spores are dispersed as dry clusters 
of powder of the right size to float over a city and get deep into the lungs,
rather than as a liquid aerosol of spores or bacteria in water base 
suspension, which is not a very infective mode of transmission. The guys
putting the stuff in the envelopes apparently have engineered the right sort 
of spore clusters but may lack the crop dusters, or they may oppose taking 
the lives of too many innocent civilians in favor of targeting the government 
and media, etc.)

-- Roger 

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

"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly 
who they were," he said. "It was us vs. them, and it was clear who 
them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know 
they're there."

- George W. Bush, Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000


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

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm 
want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come 
back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither 
in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. 
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and 
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, 
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice 
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. 
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and 
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to 
danger. It works the same in any country."

--Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering

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

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=98659

Robert Fisk: Bush and Blair have already lost the talking war across the
Middle East

10 October 2001

Messrs Bush and Blair may tell the world they are going to win the "war 
againstterrorism" but in the Middle East, where Osama bin Laden is 
acquiring almost mythic status among Arabs, they have already lost.

Whether it be a Lebanese minister, a Saudi journalist, a Jordanian bank clerk
or an Egyptian resident, the response is always the same: Mr bin Laden's
voice, repeatedly beamed into millions of homes, articulates the demands and
grievances – and fury – of Middle East Muslims who have seen their
pro-Western presidents and kings and princes wriggling out of any serious
criticism of the Anglo-American bombardment of Afghanistan.

Viewing Mr bin Laden's latest video tape, Western nations concentrated (if
they listened at all) on his remarks about the atrocities in the United States. If
he expressed his approval, though denied any personal responsibility, didn't
this mean that he was really behind the mass slaughter of 11 September?

Arabs listened with different ears. They heard a voice which accused the West
of double standards and "arrogance'' towards the Middle East, a voice which
addressed the central issue in the lives of so many Arabs: the Palestinian-
Israeli conflict and the continuation of Israeli occupation.

Now, as a long-time resident of Cairo put it yesterday, Arabs believe America
"is trying to kill the one man ready to tell the truth''.

Arab civilians, usually uneasy about identifying themselves when their views
conflict with their government, are now speaking more freely about their anger.
"They say their target is bin Laden,'' Samar al-Naji said in Jordan. "Then they
strike at innocent people in Afghanistan who have nothing to do with terrorism.
"They strike Muslims while ignoring the acts of Israel, the terrorist state 
which is demolishing Palestinian homes and killing women and children.'' 
Mr al-Naji is only a bank clerk, at 29 hardly a seasoned politician.

At the Ain Shams University in Cairo, prayers were performed for the dead of
Afghanistan and in the Nile delta town of Zagazig, students went to the heart
of the problem in all pro-Western Arab regimes. "Our rulers, why are you
silent?'' they chanted. "Have you got orders from America?'' This is rubbish, of
course. Rulers of what we like to call "moderate" Arab states don't need orders
to give their discreet support to the West. And Mr bin Laden is, after all, 
calling for their own overthrow.

Only in the freer Arab countries could ministers speak their minds. The
Lebanese information minister, Ghazi Aridi, regards Mr bin Laden's video tape
as "a stroke of intelligence''. There was, he said, "an international incitement
against one person. If he is killed, he will become a symbol and if he survives
he will become a stronger symbol.''

In the Gulf, feelings are very fragile. "Look, I know old women who are staying
up late at night to say prayers for Mr bin Laden,'' a Saudi journalist says. "His
appearance on television was very good public relations for him, especially
when he talked about Palestine. In public, people don't praise him; there has
been no comment in the mosques. But in private, they are all talking about
him.''

A Saudi editor, Jamal Kashoggi, insisted that many Saudis were far more
critical of Mr bin Laden – believing that he is defaming Islam – and ready to
see a less pessimistic outcome in Afghanistan. "Kandahar contains supporters
of the monarchy as well as the Taliban,'' he said. "Afghans who were
disappointed by the anti-Russian mujahedin and turned to the Taliban are now
disappointed with the Taliban and may accept a royalist comeback.'' But this, a
view that would most certainly coincide with Saudi Arabia's own royal family,
may be a minority one.

In countries which have been afflicted by a "terrorism'' far greater in suffering
and death than the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington, the
very language used by President Bush has been a cause for great anger.

"I'm sick of hearing about terrorism, terrorism, terrorism,'' a prominent Lebanese
construction manager shouted at me. "When you have enemies, they are
'terrorists' or 'madmen' or 'evildoers'. When we have enemies, we are asked to
compromise with them. You have bin Laden. We have Sharon – who is your
friend and whose hand Mr Bush shakes".

Many Lebanese believe that Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, should be
indicted as a war criminal for his role in the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian
camps massacre of 1982, in which up to 1,800 civilians – almost half the
number of victims slaughtered in America on 11 September – were killed in
three days by Israel's Christian militia allies while Israel's army watched from the
camp perimeters. 

What the press says

Saudi Arabia

"Unless Washington can do a better job of proving that the violent retribution
on which it is now embarked is against all forms of terrorism, Israel included, its
support will disappear... and the world will become an even darker place."
(Arab News)

Jordan

"Nothing is more crucial and urgent than a just and lasting resolution of the
Palestinian problem and an end to Iraq's stand-off with the United Nations and
the US...We are confident the people of this country will... dismiss bin Laden's
pathetic attempts to portray himself as the defender of Palestine, Iraq, and all
the causes of our nation" (Jordan Times)

Iran

"History has never witnessed such impudence and dictatorship." (Siyaset-e
Ruz)

United Arab Emirates

"By granting the right to strike all those it considers its enemies, nobody knows
when the bombs will hit the spots that Washington will choose. Our region,
unfortunately, does not enjoy immunity because of the absence of a joint Arab
action and does not even enjoy strategy to face up to an emergency
situation." (Al-Khaleej)

Israel 

"Israel could once again find itself in a key role that could cause the coalition
to crumble. It must be hoped that Ariel Sharon... will attempt to maintain as low
an Israeli profile as possible." (Ma'ariv)

Syria

"Even if the reasons which led to the US war against terrorism are important,
the US, as the great political and economic power, should have been more
objective and refrained from hasty reactions. Syria, like other Arab and Muslim
countries, sees as useless any political or military anti-terrorist action, as long
as Israel is not targeted." (Tishrin)

Iraq

"A criminal act... carried out unilaterally by America in violation of the UN
charter and international law... applying the law of the jungle." (Al-Qadissiya)