The Spirit of the Internet Weekly

[Note: The following essays arrived in email sent by our friends. Thank you Sirius and all the others who have forwarded these messages to us. Due to the large volume of email we are receiving, we can only post a sampling here, but we thank everyone for sending stories like this. We read them all and post what we can as time permits.]

Posted on October 9, 2001

Opinion from the Libertarian Party

“Given that 101 armed conflicts flared somewhere on the planet between 1989 and 1996, it's likely that our government was involved -- whether with money, arms, or military personnel -- in a majority of those clashes. And every time we got involved in another nation's war, we made more enemies.”

Posted on or before October 3, 2001

The Bastards Have Changed The Rules by Uri Avnery

“Then the atrocity in New York and Washington took place. Sharon jumped at the chance. He was certain that this was a historical opportunity: the Americans were busy with Bin Laden, the world was chasing elusive terrorists, so who would care about the actions of the Israeli army? Now, at long last, under the slogan "Arafat is our Bin Laden", it could invade, kill, crush and destroy, in order to liquidate the intifada and perhaps Arafat, too. As the journalist Gideon Levy put it: the teacher is sick, the pupils are happy, everyone can do what he wants.

“To the utter amazement of Sharon, the exact opposite occurred. Only a few hours after the outrage, when America was still in a state of shock, Colin Powell convened his first press conference and there, instead of speaking exclusively about Bin Laden, as seemed appropriate, he devoted considerable time to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He demanded that the Arafat-Peres meeting take place at once.”

Some thoughts from Howard Rheingold

Editor’s Note: In an exchange on Howard Rheingold’s “brainstorms” discussion forum, someone asked him what he would say to our leaders right now and what he sees as the best outcome of the current situation. Here are his answers:

“What would I have them [U.S. leaders] learn? That massive civilian casualties in other nations, while a politically expedient substitute for sending US youth home in body bags, does not solve any political problems but creates new ones. That support of extremely unsavory characters in pursuit of other unsavory characters has enormous potential for blowback. That Cruise missiles that blow up mud huts and mosques are counter-effective. That history counts more than today's political polls. That people who know the history should not be discounted in planning.”

“Best outcome in my mind would be the eradication of the Hussein regime in Iraq and the Taliban regime, replaced by regimes that aren't US puppets, have some chance of surviving; destruction of large-scale factories for manufacture of CBN weapons; diplomatic action in lieu of military action that removes the training and support camps for terrorists in the Bekaa valley and elsewhere; massive humanitarian aid to the Iraqi and Afghani people; something resembling the Barak offer that ceases hostilities in Palestine and Israel, followed by massive infusions of economic relief for Palestinians, funded largely by the Saudis; some kind of deal with Iran and North Korea regarding the support of terrorism.”

The algebra of infinite justice by Arundhati Roy

As the US prepares to wage a new kind of war, Arundhati Roy challenges the instinct for vengance. . . . Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of itsenemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle. . . .The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place.

Muhammad Ali Delivers a Stunning Punch

When Ali went to pray for the thousands who lost their lives or were injured, white, yellow, red and black, at the site of the collapsed twin towers in aftermath of the jetliner assault by presumably Muslim 'terrorists', Christian reporters asked how he felt about the suspects sharing his Islamic faith. “How do you feel about Hitler sharing yours?” the champ responded, in astounding speed, with a heavy blow that left his opponents dazzled and unconscious.

Open Letter from the Dalai Lama

Apparently the letter that circulated shortly after September 11th was a hoax.

There is more than one response to what happened (by Charlotte Raven)

By turning what should have been a criminal manhunt into an all-out war, Bush was asserting his right to define America's reality. Instead of submitting to the reality, he created the situation he wanted, fashioning a plausible, beatable enemy that bore only a passing relation to the ragbag of loons in Bin Laden's camp. They weren't a worthy enemy of America, so rather than confront what this might mean, Bush has made one up. "International terrorism" has been talked up in the past week to the point where it almost looks like an ideology.

An Afghan-American Speaks (by Mir Tamim Ansary)

But the Taliban and bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."

America and Islam (by John Pilger)

As Robert Fisk points out, in the Middle East, people will grieve the loss of innocent life, but they will ask if the newspapers and television networks of the west ever devoted a fraction of the present coverage to the half-a-million dead children of Iraq, and the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The answer is no. There are deeper roots to the atrocities in the US, which made them almost inevitable.

The End of History (by Jean Bricmont)

Let us be perfectly clear. We do not share the attitude expressed by Madeleine Albright when she was asked whether pursuing the embargo against Iraq was worth the price of half a million Iraqi children who have died: "this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it", she replied. The massacre of innocent civilians is never acceptable. But this does not mean we should not try to understand the underlying meaning of that incredible attack.

Palestinians Who Share Our Grief (from the Beit Sahour Municipality)

As Palestinians who suffer daily form acts of Israeli aggression against our innocent people, we cannot find the words to express how shocked we were to see the horrific scenes on TV. We condemn such acts and we do not accept such horrific acts in the 3rd millennium where peace, prosperity, and freedom should cover the whole world.

Palestinians Fear The Price They Will Pay (by Phil Reeves)

People in the streets of the occupied territories approached by The Independent yesterday expressed conflicting emotions. They condemned the massacre - along with their own leader, Yasser Arafat, and the entire Middle East, including some of its most extreme elements. Mr Arafat donated blood yesterday for the victims of the terror attacks while other Palestinians held a vigil in Jerusalem.

Americans Cannot Ignore What Their Government Does Abroad (by Seumas Milne)

Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world. . . .But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences.

Arab World Offers Condolences (by Suzanne Goldenberg, et al)

"The anger due to American politics in the world, and in our region should not blind us to see that those who were killed and wounded in these horrific carnages are our brothers and sisters."

Orient Express (a view from Israel) (by Israel Shamir)

Israelis used the event to the max. They even killed some ten Palestinians and destroyed five Goyiish houses in Jerusalem. The reports were rather gleeful, in the style 'we told you', and the experts of Israeli TV concluded by one o' clock, the attack 'was good for the Jews'. Why? It would strengthen American support of Israel.

In Defense of Freedom Coalition
“We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”

The Complex Issue of Aid (Robert Scheer, © Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2001)
“Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. . . .That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today.”

Return to Opinions

[Home] [World Events] [Take Charge] [Links] [Hagerty Home Page] [About Us] [Store] [Search] [Site Map]
[What's New]