----- Original Message -----

From: cl271@...

To: sywhatever@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:58 AM

Subject: : - ) SY, Not SY, Whatever 2nd Draft DOJ Anti- Terrorism & Surveillance Bill

Hi List:
For anyone interested, here is the link to view the 2nd Draft of the
DOJ Anti-Terrorism and Surveillance Bill

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/20010919_ata_bill_draft.html




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sywhatever-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Ongoing discussion on the sywhatever board reminds me that I haven't
forwarded this very useful information from Leslie and C.

Thanks to both.

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

From Leslie:
Here's yet another resouce, but if you like Chomsky and Tariq Ali
you'll probably love http://www.counterpunch.org

----- Original Message -----
From: cl271@...
To: sywhatever@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: : - ) SY, Not SY, Whatever Noam Chomsky on the Events of 9-11

For anyone who holds an interest in the thoughts and views of Noam
Chomsky, I will now attach a copy of a radio interview he held on the
events that transpired in NYC and DC on 9-11. After Mr. Chomsky's
interview, I will attach another recent article which speaks of
the "enormous" obstacles and complexities of the humanitarian aid
efforts which have begun in the Afghanistan, Pakistan areas. It is,
in may ways, in conjunction with Mr. Chomsky's interview.

I will now mention that these two articles are approximately eight
(8) pages in length, for those who do not wish to read something of
this length.

Begin quoted materials:

Noam Chomsky On The Events Of 9-11
As Interviewed On Radio B92, Belgrade
9-27-01

Q. Why do you think these attacks happened?

A. To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of
the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is
the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to
the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,
doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his
control. Let us assume that this is true. The to answer your question
a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Landen's views, and the
sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the
region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information.

Bin Landen has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly
reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent
correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London Independent), who
has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience
over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a
militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of
Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist
extremist recruited, armed and financed by the CIA and their allies
in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians --
quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect --
though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the
CIA is unclear, and not particularly important.

Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel
fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a
moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly
financed by the Americans" (London Times correspondent Simon Jenkins,
also a specialist on the region). These "Afhanis" as they are called
(many, like Bin Landen, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror
operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these
after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they
despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes
against Muslims.

The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They
joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not
object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex
reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern
for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them.
The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite
possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist atacks in Moscowe
and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Landen and his "Afghanis"
turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases
in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the
Ruissian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because
of Sauid Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest
shrines.

Bin Landen is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including
the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islanmic fundamentalist
regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally
since its origins. Bin Landen despises the US for its support of
these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-
standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in
its 35th year. Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and
economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and
destructive seige over many years, the daily humiliation to which
Palentinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to
break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take
control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva
Conventions, the other actions that are recognized as crimes
throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime
responsibility for them.

And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for
these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the
civilian population of Iraq, which has devasted the society and
caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam
Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain
right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the
Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners
perfer to forget the facts.

These sentiments are very widely shared. The Wall Street Journal
(Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged
Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with
close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views:
resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and
blocking the international concensus on a diplomatic settlement for
many years while devasting Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh
and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and
imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up
oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering
deep poverty and opopression, similar sentiments are far more bitter,
and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide
bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the
facts.

The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (Sept. 16), the
perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the
West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious puralism and
universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrevelant, and therefore need
not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient
picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual
history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be
completely at variance with everything we know, but has all of merits
of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assult on Muslim states," which will
cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.)
That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically
welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a
fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite
only one of many cases.

Q. What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the
American self perception?

A. US policy has already been officially announced. The world is
being offered a "stark chice": join us, of "face the certain prospect
of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force
against any individuals or countries the President determines to be
involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as
ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same
people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine
after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to
terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had
vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe
international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and
destructive even than this atrocity.

And for how these matters are preceived here, that is far more
complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual
elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the
answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of
decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and
energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission
to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

Q. Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest
of the world?

A. The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies
that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of
support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the
agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased
militarizations, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs.
That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating
cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the
authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elelments of
a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this
course.

Q. After the shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be.
Are you afraid, too?

A. Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the
one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers
Bin Landen's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of
violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater
scale.

The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and
other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,
unknown numbers of poeple who have not the remotest connection to
terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has
demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are
themselves victims of the Taliban. This is nothing to do even with
revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The
significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in
passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can
learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual
culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think
we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had
the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be
utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical
percendents.

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may
come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If
Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the
government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who
in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect
throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this
point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy
much of human society.

Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack of Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin
Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little
difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed
throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a
martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one
suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove
the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The
opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are
very hard to prevent.

Q. "The world well never be the same after 11.09.01." Do you think so?

A. The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite
new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the
target. For the U.S., this is the first time since the War of 1812
that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's
colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.
During these years the U.S. virtually exterminated the indigenous
populations, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the
surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing
hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century
particularly, extended it resort to force throughout much of the
world. The number of victims is colossal.

For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The
same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered
murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering
much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under
attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in
England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally
to the support of the U.S.; hundreds of years of imperial violence
have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture. It is
correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of
the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme
importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their
traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they
will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a
familiar dynamic, with long-term consquences that could be awesome.
Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within
the more free and democratic socities can direct policies towards a
much more humane and honarable course.

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

1.5 Million Afghans Heading For the Borders
By David Blair in Penshawar
The Telegraph - London
9-26-1

Aid workers in Pakistan were bracing themselves for a flood of
refugees from Afghanistan yesterday and gave warning that the looming
humanitarian "disaster" could be deepened by a poor choice of sites
for new camps.

Abdul Latif cradles his six-month old nephew, Olia Kahn, who will die
unless his family take the risk of being caught by police if they go
for medicine.

Yusuf Hassan, spokesman of the UN High Commission for Refugees, said
nearly one million refugees could arrive in Pakistan and nearly half
a million in Iran. Plans are underway in Tajkisistan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan to accommodate a further 150,000.

"The UNHCR is planning for an expected 1.5 million Afghans fleeing
into neighbouring countries," said Mr. Hassan.

The agency said that tens of thousand of Afghans were on the move
inside the country to try and avoid threatened strikes against Osama
bin Laden and his Taliban protectors.

Pakistan is planning 200 refugee camps in North West Frontier
Province, near the Afghan border, for the tide of people expected
from any American strike on Afghanistan. Yet all the locations
identified are isolated, drought striken and at risk of attack.

Aid agencies and the United Nations are mounting the world's largest
relief effort to cope with the coming crisis. "We are facing a
humanitarian disaster of epic proportions", said Mr. Hassan.

Crucial to alleviating the impending castrophe will be the siting of
the refugee camps.

Relief workers fear that decisions already taken by Pakistani
government will make the situation worse. None of the camps will be
ready for at least two weeks. "We've got to hope that the war does
not begin before then," said one aid worker.

All the new camps are in barren areas, with little access to water.
The camps will be controlled and sealed off by the Pakistani army,
effectively rendering the refugees prisoners.

Moreover, all will be located in semi-independent tribal areas like
Waziristan and Mohmand. These are strongholds of Islamic
fundamentalism  where many of the local people are fiercly supportive
of Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

They will view both refugees and western aid workers with open
hostility.

Pakistan already hosts two million Afghan refugees and President
Musharraf's government views any new influx as a major security
problem.

Aid workers symphathise with the prediciment of the Pakistani
authorities, but are deeply worried by the decisions made over the
refugee camps.

Many will be very small, holding no more than 10,000 people. "That's
so that the Pakistanis can control them," said one aid worker.

Existing camps, where facilities are already in place, will not be
expanded. Pakistan's concerns about pouring more people into camps
that are already hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism are thought to lie
behind this.

Instead, new camps will be constructed in arid areas where the water
table is 1,000 feet below the surface, making the drilling of bore-
holes extremely difficult. Oxfam will provide water and sanitation
for camps and its workers are preparing to face a myriad of obstacles.

Alex Renton, spokesman for Oxfam, said, "We have alot of sympathy
with the Pakistani government in the crisis they are facing and we're
very relieved that they will help with the refugees from Afghanistan."

"The camps are far from ideal They are in drought striken areas, they
are extremely unsafe, and it will be very difficult for us to work,
but we're pulling together to get this enormous job done."

Aid workers fear that camps will become little more than lightly
guarded, temporary holding centers, from which refugees will be
returned to Afghanistan as soon as possible.

But many point out that Pakistan already has one of the highest
refugee populations in the world and commend its willingness to host
more.

Mr. Hassan said: "The siting of camps is not really an issue we want
to haggle over. The Pakistanis have been hosting refugees from
Afghanistan ever since the war in 1979."

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/26/wref26.xml


End of quoted materials






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sywhatever-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----
From: cl271@...
To: sywhatever@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: : - ) SY, Not SY, Whatever Noam Chomsky on the Events of 9-11


For anyone who holds an interest in the thoughts and views of Noam
Chomsky, I will now attach a copy of a radio interview he held on the
events that transpired in NYC and DC on 9-11. After Mr. Chomsky's
interview, I will attach another recent article which speaks of
the "enormous" obstacles and complexities of the humanitarian aid
efforts which have begun in the Afghanistan, Pakistan areas. It is,
in may ways, in conjunction with Mr. Chomsky's interview.

I will now mention that these two articles are approximately eight
(8) pages in length, for those who do not wish to read something of
this length.


Begin quoted materials:

Noam Chomsky On The Events Of 9-11
As Interviewed On Radio B92, Belgrade
9-27-01

Q. Why do you think these attacks happened?

A. To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of
the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is
the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to
the Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,
doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his
control. Let us assume that this is true. The to answer your question
a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Landen's views, and the
sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the
region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information.

Bin Landen has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly
reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent
correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London Independent), who
has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience
over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a
militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of
Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist
extremist recruited, armed and financed by the CIA and their allies
in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians --
quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect --
though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the
CIA is unclear, and not particularly important.

Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel
fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a
moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly
financed by the Americans" (London Times correspondent Simon Jenkins,
also a specialist on the region). These "Afhanis" as they are called
(many, like Bin Landen, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror
operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these
after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they
despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes
against Muslims.

The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They
joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not
object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex
reasons that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern
for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them.
The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite
possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist atacks in Moscowe
and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Landen and his "Afghanis"
turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases
in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to the
Ruissian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because
of Sauid Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest
shrines.

Bin Landen is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive
regimes of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including
the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islanmic fundamentalist
regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally
since its origins. Bin Landen despises the US for its support of
these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-
standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in
its 35th year. Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and
economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh and
destructive seige over many years, the daily humiliation to which
Palentinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to
break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take
control of the resources, the gross violation of the Geneva
Conventions, the other actions that are recognized as crimes
throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime
responsibility for them.

And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for
these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the
civilian population of Iraq, which has devasted the society and
caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam
Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain
right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the
Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners
perfer to forget the facts.

These sentiments are very widely shared. The Wall Street Journal
(Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged
Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with
close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views:
resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and
blocking the international concensus on a diplomatic settlement for
many years while devasting Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh
and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and
imposing barriers against economic development by "propping up
oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering
deep poverty and opopression, similar sentiments are far more bitter,
and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide
bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the
facts.

The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (Sept. 16), the
perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the
West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious puralism and
universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrevelant, and therefore need
not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient
picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual
history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be
completely at variance with everything we know, but has all of merits
of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assult on Muslim states," which will
cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.)
That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically
welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a
fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite
only one of many cases.

Q. What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the
American self perception?

A. US policy has already been officially announced. The world is
being offered a "stark chice": join us, of "face the certain prospect
of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force
against any individuals or countries the President determines to be
involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as
ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same
people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine
after the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to
terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had
vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe
international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and
destructive even than this atrocity.

And for how these matters are preceived here, that is far more
complex. One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual
elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the
answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of
decision: as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and
energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission
to authority can be reversed. We all know that very well.

Q. Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest
of the world?

A. The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies
that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of
support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the
agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased
militarizations, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs.
That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating
cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the
authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elelments of
a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this
course.

Q. After the shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be.
Are you afraid, too?

A. Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the
one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers
Bin Landen's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of
violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater
scale.

The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and
other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,
unknown numbers of poeple who have not the remotest connection to
terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has
demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are
themselves victims of the Taliban. This is nothing to do even with
revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The
significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in
passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can
learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual
culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think
we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had
the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be
utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical
percendents.

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may
come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If
Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the
government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who
in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect
throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this
point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy
much of human society.

Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack of Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin
Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little
difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed
throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a
martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one
suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove
the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The
opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are
very hard to prevent.

Q. "The world well never be the same after 11.09.01." Do you think so?

A. The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite
new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the
target. For the U.S., this is the first time since the War of 1812
that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's
colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.
During these years the U.S. virtually exterminated the indigenous
populations, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the
surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing
hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century
particularly, extended it resort to force throughout much of the
world. The number of victims is colossal.

For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The
same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered
murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering
much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under
attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in
England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally
to the support of the U.S.; hundreds of years of imperial violence
have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture. It is
correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of
the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme
importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their
traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they
will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a
familiar dynamic, with long-term consquences that could be awesome.
Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within
the more free and democratic socities can direct policies towards a
much more humane and honarable course.

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

1.5 Million Afghans Heading For the Borders
By David Blair in Penshawar
The Telegraph - London
9-26-1

Aid workers in Pakistan were bracing themselves for a flood of
refugees from Afghanistan yesterday and gave warning that the looming
humanitarian "disaster" could be deepened by a poor choice of sites
for new camps.

Abdul Latif cradles his six-month old nephew, Olia Kahn, who will die
unless his family take the risk of being caught by police if they go
for medicine.

Yusuf Hassan, spokesman of the UN High Commission for Refugees, said
nearly one million refugees could arrive in Pakistan and nearly half
a million in Iran. Plans are underway in Tajkisistan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan to accommodate a further 150,000.

"The UNHCR is planning for an expected 1.5 million Afghans fleeing
into neighbouring countries," said Mr. Hassan.

The agency said that tens of thousand of Afghans were on the move
inside the country to try and avoid threatened strikes against Osama
bin Laden and his Taliban protectors.

Pakistan is planning 200 refugee camps in North West Frontier
Province, near the Afghan border, for the tide of people expected
from any American strike on Afghanistan. Yet all the locations
identified are isolated, drought striken and at risk of attack.

Aid agencies and the United Nations are mounting the world's largest
relief effort to cope with the coming crisis. "We are facing a
humanitarian disaster of epic proportions", said Mr. Hassan.

Crucial to alleviating the impending castrophe will be the siting of
the refugee camps.

Relief workers fear that decisions already taken by Pakistani
government will make the situation worse. None of the camps will be
ready for at least two weeks. "We've got to hope that the war does
not begin before then," said one aid worker.

All the new camps are in barren areas, with little access to water.
The camps will be controlled and sealed off by the Pakistani army,
effectively rendering the refugees prisoners.

Moreover, all will be located in semi-independent tribal areas like
Waziristan and Mohmand. These are strongholds of Islamic
fundamentalism  where many of the local people are fiercly supportive
of Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

They will view both refugees and western aid workers with open
hostility.

Pakistan already hosts two million Afghan refugees and President
Musharraf's government views any new influx as a major security
problem.

Aid workers symphathise with the prediciment of the Pakistani
authorities, but are deeply worried by the decisions made over the
refugee camps.

Many will be very small, holding no more than 10,000 people. "That's
so that the Pakistanis can control them," said one aid worker.

Existing camps, where facilities are already in place, will not be
expanded. Pakistan's concerns about pouring more people into camps
that are already hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism are thought to lie
behind this.

Instead, new camps will be constructed in arid areas where the water
table is 1,000 feet below the surface, making the drilling of bore-
holes extremely difficult. Oxfam will provide water and sanitation
for camps and its workers are preparing to face a myriad of obstacles.

Alex Renton, spokesman for Oxfam, said, "We have alot of sympathy
with the Pakistani government in the crisis they are facing and we're
very relieved that they will help with the refugees from Afghanistan."

"The camps are far from ideal They are in drought striken areas, they
are extremely unsafe, and it will be very difficult for us to work,
but we're pulling together to get this enormous job done."

Aid workers fear that camps will become little more than lightly
guarded, temporary holding centers, from which refugees will be
returned to Afghanistan as soon as possible.

But many point out that Pakistan already has one of the highest
refugee populations in the world and commend its willingness to host
more.

Mr. Hassan said: "The siting of camps is not really an issue we want
to haggle over. The Pakistanis have been hosting refugees from
Afghanistan ever since the war in 1979."

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/26/wref26.xml


End of quoted materials






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sywhatever-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

From: Michael Snell

To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them illogical.

 

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.

 

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment of nirvana for one and all?

 

Michael S

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I agree with Dave's points as I undertand them:

1.    To criticise the USA and UK over its response to the atrocity DOES NOT
mean that the action is being condoned.
2.    The USA and UK are claiming that Western society is "democratic" and
must therefore act democratically themselves, including allowing dissenting
opinion to be expressed, AND must not misuse its powers to escalate violence
and suffering.

rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Backwith
To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ;
disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ;
sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ;
sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
Kofi Annan


FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:

It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and
elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and death
among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally
there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers
Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To
recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions which
they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing
the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism is
not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS WERE
JUSTIFIED.

Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as
do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent response
which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent
people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence
generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to
escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own
terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has
enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and
opportunity, to respond constructively.


Dave Backwith


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Snell
To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ;
PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ;
profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ;
mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
Kofi Annan


I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade
towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate
areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as
writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some
justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility
for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans.
For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the
trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the
suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the
Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology
that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them
illogical.

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with
reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as
ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for
the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal
of improving the lives of people around the world.

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily.
The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power
Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the
past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment
of nirvana for one and all?

Michael S

Here is a briefing just received from Asylum Magazine about the play on
hearing voices  "Other Voices"  to be broadcast tomorrow, (details already
posted by Duncan Double).  This gives also the number for the phone-in
following broadcast of the play.

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

Asylum
the magazine for democratic psychiatry
incorporating the Newsletter of Psychology Politics Resistance
BRIEFING

ATTENTION MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS OF HVN
HEARING VOICES NETWORK

The afternoon play on BBC Radio 4 on Thursday 4th October at 2.15 is
OTHER VOICES by Sarah Maitland

It is followed by a phone in at 3pm on hearing voices
0870 010 0444

The phone in has been organised in association with HVN and the BBC
encourages the participation of members and supporters of the Network.


To subscribe to Asylum for 4 issues make a cheque payable to Asylum
UK rates individuals £12
        organisations £24
International rates individuals £18
        organisations £36
and send to:

Stella Thomas
Lane Head Farm Cottage
Heptonstall
Hebden Bridge
West Yorkshire
HX7 7PB
UK
rstellathomas@...


----- Original Message -----
From: D B Double
To: Critical Psychiatry
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:28 PM
Subject: [criticalpsychiatry] Fw: radio 4 play Thursday 4th October



----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Thomas
To: p.thomas@...
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:50 AM
Subject: radio 4 play Thursday 4th October


The afternoon play on 4th October is by Sarah Maitland and concerns hearing
voices. Strongly recommended. It is followed by a phone in

Phil

Dr. Phil Thomas
Consultant Psychiatrist Bradford Community Health Trust
Senior Research Fellow, University of Bradford


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 AM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:

 

It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and death among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions which they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism is not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS WERE JUSTIFIED.

 

Well i DISAGREE. The manner in which this issues seem to invariably preface one and another by so many commentators does clearly imply this..at least to me and

numerous others.

 

Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent response which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and opportunity, to respond constructively.

 

 

Dave Backwith

 

Well now the US is being ciriticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?

 

Michael Snell

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them illogical.

 

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.

 

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment of nirvana for one and all?

 

Michael S

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>; <criticalpsychiatry@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
Kofi Annan


> I agree with Dave's points as I undertand them:
>
> 1.    To criticise the USA and UK over its response to the atrocity DOES
NOT
> mean that the action is being condoned.
Well as I stated earlier it depends on how one frames this.While there has
been some fairly universal empathy expressed for the victims, the images of
cheering people burning US flags is in stark contrast. It would also inflame
those contemplating a less than measured response. So can we criticize those
people's response to the atrocity? Apparently not.

> 2.    The USA and UK are claiming that Western society is "democratic" and
> must therefore act democratically themselves, including allowing
dissenting
> opinion to be expressed, AND must not misuse its powers to escalate
violence
> and suffering.
Tall order but dissenting opinions continue to be exressed. It is well known
that in times like this, dissent has been frowned upon. Still a big leap to
the trial this week of someone accused of preaching Christianity under the
Taliban.
As far as escalating violence and suffering to innocents, it is quite likely
this will happen if Bin Laden does not turn himself in.
He could do  this in the blink of an eye, if he really seeks to improve the
lot of the people he claims to represent.
However, the Taliban would prefer the present reality in which the US (UK)
appears to be the bad guy.

Michael Snell

>
> rosemary
> www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> "Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Backwith
> To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ;
> disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ;
> sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ;
> sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> Kofi Annan
>
>
> FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:
>
> It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and
> elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and
death
> among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally
> there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers
> Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To
> recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions
which
> they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing
> the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism
is
> not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS
WERE
> JUSTIFIED.
>
> Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as
> do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent
response
> which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent
> people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence
> generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to
> escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own
> terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has
> enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and
> opportunity, to respond constructively.
>
>
> Dave Backwith
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Snell
> To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ;
> PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ;
> profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ;
> mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> Kofi Annan
>
>
> I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the
trade
> towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are
legitimate
> areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However
as
> writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some
> justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility
> for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the
Americans.
> For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the
> trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the
> suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the
> Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology
> that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them
> illogical.
>
> People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with
> reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them
as
> ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless
for
> the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a
goal
> of improving the lives of people around the world.
>
> This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up
easily.
> The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising
power
> Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the
> past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden
moment
> of nirvana for one and all?
>
> Michael S
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

further to this see

http://www1.roanoke.com/columnists/shareef/

partial quote
"Policymakers and theorists have to better understand how nationalist
groups, in the guise of religion, use external causation to view the world.
The leaps from cause to cause and devil to devil is a thinly veiled attempt
to establish racial or tribal superiority. Hoffler found that these people
are a "guilt-ridden hitchhiker who thumbs a ride on any cause from
ultra-conservatism to communism" in an attempt to attain political goals. "

Michael S






----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snell" <msnell@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
Kofi Annan


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rosemary Moore" <rosemary.moore@...>
> To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>; <criticalpsychiatry@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> Kofi Annan
>
>
> > I agree with Dave's points as I undertand them:
> >
> > 1.    To criticise the USA and UK over its response to the atrocity DOES
> NOT
> > mean that the action is being condoned.
> Well as I stated earlier it depends on how one frames this.While there has
> been some fairly universal empathy expressed for the victims, the images
of
> cheering people burning US flags is in stark contrast. It would also
inflame
> those contemplating a less than measured response. So can we criticize
those
> people's response to the atrocity? Apparently not.
>
> > 2.    The USA and UK are claiming that Western society is "democratic"
and
> > must therefore act democratically themselves, including allowing
> dissenting
> > opinion to be expressed, AND must not misuse its powers to escalate
> violence
> > and suffering.
> Tall order but dissenting opinions continue to be exressed. It is well
known
> that in times like this, dissent has been frowned upon. Still a big leap
to
> the trial this week of someone accused of preaching Christianity under the
> Taliban.
> As far as escalating violence and suffering to innocents, it is quite
likely
> this will happen if Bin Laden does not turn himself in.
> He could do  this in the blink of an eye, if he really seeks to improve
the
> lot of the people he claims to represent.
> However, the Taliban would prefer the present reality in which the US (UK)
> appears to be the bad guy.
>
> Michael Snell
>
> >
> > rosemary
> > www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
> > "Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dave Backwith
> > To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ;
> > disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ;
> > sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ;
> > sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> > Kofi Annan
> >
> >
> > FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:
> >
> > It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East
(and
> > elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and
> death
> > among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally
> > there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers
> > Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To
> > recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions
> which
> > they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without
redressing
> > the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism
> is
> > not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS
> WERE
> > JUSTIFIED.
> >
> > Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds -
as
> > do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent
> response
> > which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent
> > people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence
> > generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to
> > escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's
own
> > terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has
> > enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation,
and
> > opportunity, to respond constructively.
> >
> >
> > Dave Backwith
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Snell
> > To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ;
> > PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ;
> > profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ;
> > mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> > Kofi Annan
> >
> >
> > I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the
> trade
> > towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are
> legitimate
> > areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present.
However
> as
> > writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some
> > justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the
responsibility
> > for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the
> Americans.
> > For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the
> > trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the
> > suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the
> > Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology
> > that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them
> > illogical.
> >
> > People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond
with
> > reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines
them
> as
> > ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless
> for
> > the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a
> goal
> > of improving the lives of people around the world.
> >
> > This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up
> easily.
> > The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising
> power
> > Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the
> > past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden
> moment
> > of nirvana for one and all?
> >
> > Michael S
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> > URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:07 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 AM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:

 

It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and death among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions which they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism is not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS WERE JUSTIFIED.

 

Well i DISAGREE. The manner in which this issues seem to invariably preface one and another by so many commentators does clearly imply this..at least to me and

numerous others.

 

Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent response which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and opportunity, to respond constructively.

 

 

Dave Backwith

 

Well now the US is being ciriticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?

 

Michael Snell

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them illogical.

 

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.

 

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment of nirvana for one and all?

 

Michael S

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Dear all I'd just like to let you know Wokingham & West Berkshire
Mind have launched their website (www.wokinghammind.org.uk).  I built
the site myself although the text was written by our president Pam
Jenkinson.  I'd be interested in any comments from anyone you can
send them to webmaster@....

Dear Keith

Congratulations on the website for Wokingham & West Berkshire Mind.  As you
know, I've already checked it out and am very impressed - really great.
Along with Zyra's and Symon Price's websites, I think yours shows genuine
"user empowerment".

I'm forwarding your message to a number of other discussion boards, and
including a copy of the message I posted to the boards on 29 March about the
10-year anniversary celebrations.  To quote Pam from that message:
"As in 1991, our Executive Committee is composed entirely of users and
carers and
all the current elected officers are mental health service users."

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care

----- Original Message -----
From: <ireallyam.aladdinsane@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Wokingham Mind Website

Dear all I'd just like to let you know Wokingham & West Berkshire
Mind have launched their website (www.wokinghammind.org.uk).  I built
the site myself although the text was written by our president Pam
Jenkinson.  I'd be interested in any comments from anyone you can
send them to webmaster@....

See also -
Message Rosemary posted on mentalmagazine Yahoo! board 29 March 2001:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/33
The Crisis House in Wokingham was opened on 2 April 1991.
Pam Jenkinson, its founder and manager, has issued an open invitation for
people to take part in the tenth anniversary celebrations.   This Crisis
House is unique in that it is an example of a truly "user-led" facility, run
entirely by volunteers and no paid management, which at the same time works
in co-operation with all the statutory authorities.  It has also managed to
remain an affiliated member of National MIND.  (Wokingham MIND is a separate
charity.)
I have known Pam since the days when she was an active member of the
National Schizophrenia Fellowship and I attended several of the conferences
she organised on mental health issues.  Pam was the first person to give me
an opportunity (in 1991) to speak on Guardianship (Sections 7 and 37 of the
1983 Mental Health Act).  Pam also gave talks to the NSF group I run
(Weybridge, Surrey) on the 1983 Mental Health Act and her Crisis House in
its early days.

The following is her invitation to the tenth anniversary celebrations:

From PAM JENKINSON, President of Wokingham & District MIND, and founder and
manager of the Wokingham MIND Crisis House, Station House, Station Approach,
Wokingham, Berkshire, RG11 2AP.  Tel: 0118-979 2620.  Email:
minddropin@... :

"I am writing to all our friends who have supported the Wokingham MIND
Crisis House over the years.  Monday 2nd April 2001 is the tenth anniversary
of our collecting the keys to the House.  To mark the occasion we are
holding a special OPEN DAY at the Crisis House on MONDAY 2ND APRIL 2001 - to
which you are all warmly invited.
The House will be open from 10AM to 10PM.
Although visitors will be welcome THROUGHOUT THAT WEEK, Monday 2nd is the
actual anniversary and the day on which we hope that most of you will join
us.
We are inviting a wide range of people - not only those who have so
generously supported us financially over the years, but also those who have
given us support in terms of publicity.  All the Mayors of Wokingham for the
last decade - who all, without exception, have supported our work, MIND,
other local MIND Associations, and numerous people working in mental health
throughout the UK.
The Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, is unable - due to heavy
commitments - to be with us on 2nd April, but he has arranged for John
Mahoney, Joint Head of the Mental Health Services Branch at the Department
of Health, to represent him at the anniversary celebrations.  Refreshments
will be available throughout all the time of our opening and we hope that
guests will take the opportunity of having a good look at our facilities
which have improved enormously over the ten years.  We started with one
shrot-term single bed - and now have three doubles - one short-term and two
longer-term.  Our most recent improvement - due to the kind generosity of
the Berkshire Health Authority - is internet access in our library.

Entering its second decade is an important rite of passage for a user-run
crisis house.  By then initial euphoria will have worn off and long-term
commitment will have emerged.  If the Crisis House is to earn a respected
place in the local community, it will have done so by then, and any attempts
to undermine the project will have failed.
Our services have improved and developed enormously in ten years, but our
management remains as it was the day we walked through the door.  As in
1991, our Executive Committee is composed entirely of users and carers and
all the current elected officers are mental health service users.
I have written a Ten Year Souvenir History of the Crisis House for the
anniversary and this will be available for all guests on the day, or can be
sent by post to anyone not able to get to the anniversary celebrations.
For those who have not visited us before, the Crisis House is directly
opposite Wokingham Railway Station.
We look forward to seeing you.
Best wishes.  Pam Jenkinson - President"

Well done, Pam and team!
  Rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Hi all

 

3 points in reply to Michael's various posts on this:

 

1) If discussion of attacks is 'invariably prefaced' with discussion of conditions which might have gave risen to them, couldn't this indicates attempts to understand or explain - not justify?.  Shouldn't people's opinions be judged on what they actually say (and do) rather than read in 'implications' that may or may not be there? 

 

2) In response to a point in my first post Michael says: "Well now the US is being criticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?"  I certainly didn't do this - so Michael why don't you tell us who did, where, etc.?  Or is this another 'implication' you've spotted?

 

3) Re. Taliban giving up bin Laden, I heard on news that Taliban said (a) they wanted to talk with US and (b) they would only give up bin Laden if US provided hard evidence of his involvement - but US refuses to negotiate.  So who is being unreasonable here?  Doesn't extradition require a legal process and proof that there's a case to answer?  And, BTW, isn't there a bit of a double standard here compared to fiasco last year in UK over attempt to extradite General Pinochet - when Jack Straw bent over backwards to uphold the nice old gentleman's rights.   Pinochet, if you don't know, only used jets and tanks to overthrow an elected government, turned the National stadium into a death camp and had thousands tortured and murdered.  Which might be called terrorism - unless done by someone with backing of the CIA, and lots of other friends in high places in Washington and London.

 

Finally, Michael, just to be clear: nothing I've said here implies any support for bin Laden or Taliban - I oppose everything they stand for but, hey, I didn't train, arm and bankroll them for years.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

  

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:07 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 AM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:

 

It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and death among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions which they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism is not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS WERE JUSTIFIED.

 

Well i DISAGREE. The manner in which this issues seem to invariably preface one and another by so many commentators does clearly imply this..at least to me and

numerous others.

 

Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent response which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and opportunity, to respond constructively.

 

 

Dave Backwith

 

Well now the US is being ciriticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?

 

Michael Snell

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them illogical.

 

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.

 

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment of nirvana for one and all?

 

Michael S

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:39 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I appreciate and agree with many of your comments. Can 't think of anything to add that would not just be circlular and or redundant.

thanks

mike snell 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:05 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Hi all

 

3 points in reply to Michael's various posts on this:

 

1) If discussion of attacks is 'invariably prefaced' with discussion of conditions which might have gave risen to them, couldn't this indicates attempts to understand or explain - not justify?.  Shouldn't people's opinions be judged on what they actually say (and do) rather than read in 'implications' that may or may not be there? 

 

2) In response to a point in my first post Michael says: "Well now the US is being criticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?"  I certainly didn't do this - so Michael why don't you tell us who did, where, etc.?  Or is this another 'implication' you've spotted?

 

3) Re. Taliban giving up bin Laden, I heard on news that Taliban said (a) they wanted to talk with US and (b) they would only give up bin Laden if US provided hard evidence of his involvement - but US refuses to negotiate.  So who is being unreasonable here?  Doesn't extradition require a legal process and proof that there's a case to answer?  And, BTW, isn't there a bit of a double standard here compared to fiasco last year in UK over attempt to extradite General Pinochet - when Jack Straw bent over backwards to uphold the nice old gentleman's rights.   Pinochet, if you don't know, only used jets and tanks to overthrow an elected government, turned the National stadium into a death camp and had thousands tortured and murdered.  Which might be called terrorism - unless done by someone with backing of the CIA, and lots of other friends in high places in Washington and London.

 

Finally, Michael, just to be clear: nothing I've said here implies any support for bin Laden or Taliban - I oppose everything they stand for but, hey, I didn't train, arm and bankroll them for years.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

  

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:07 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Backwith

To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 AM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:

 

It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering and death among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.  Equally there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions which they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without redressing the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions terrorism is not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.  11TH ATTACKS WERE JUSTIFIED.

 

Well i DISAGREE. The manner in which this issues seem to invariably preface one and another by so many commentators does clearly imply this..at least to me and

numerous others.

 

Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it responds - as do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A violent response which flouts or manipulates international law and which kills innocent people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts of violence generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are likely to escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by it's own terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and which has enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable obligation, and opportunity, to respond constructively.

 

 

Dave Backwith

 

Well now the US is being ciriticized for even contemplating action...could they be expected to do nothing?

 

Michael Snell

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Snell

To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM

Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There  are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun, they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to them illogical.

 

People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.

 

This is about power and control. People seldom give these things up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some golden moment of nirvana for one and all?

 

Michael S

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM

Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

 

From: Tony OBrien

To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan

Rosemary

 

In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action. But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism', Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.

 

Tony O'Brien

Auckland, New Zealand

 

 

Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11 September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.  I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the statement from the Canadian nurses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave, another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.

 

Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.) 

You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee. 

 

Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the sannyas board  -

 

From: ruchi
To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky

On the Bombings

Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing
of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the
US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak
of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a
horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working
people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be
a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It
is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible
ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense."

As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts,

if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction,

they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate
destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically
unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the
pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin
cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the
flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to
use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US
actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one,
or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be
before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the
crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely
perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to
listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into
affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of distinguished
reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and
humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus
terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells
crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by
America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their way through
refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to
understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.
Noam Chomsky

 

 

I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted effort to help the refugees has been ignored.

 

Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.  Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency. 

 

rosemary

www.mentalmagazine.co.uk

"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>From: "Dave Backwith" <Dave.Backwith@...>
>Reply-To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com
>To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
>Kofi Annan
>Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:08:05 +0100
>
>Cheers Michael,
>
>Sorry if I was a bit OTT
>
>Dave

over the top I am guessing? no offense taken at this end..It is a
complicated area, even just defining who is who in this for starters,
as difficult as it can be I am more interested in understandings of all of
this, not just trying to shove my feeble thoughts down anyone's
throats...far too much grey area in all of this..
glad to have made your acquaitance
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Michael Snell
>   To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:39 PM
>   Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
>Kofi Annan
>
>
>   I appreciate and agree with many of your comments. Can 't think of
>anything to add that would not just be circlular and or redundant.
>   thanks
>   mike snell
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Dave Backwith
>     To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com
>     Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:05 PM
>     Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees
>- Kofi Annan
>
>
>     Hi all
>
>     3 points in reply to Michael's various posts on this:
>
>     1) If discussion of attacks is 'invariably prefaced' with discussion
>of conditions which might have gave risen to them, couldn't this indicates
>attempts to understand or explain - not justify?.  Shouldn't people's
>opinions be judged on what they actually say (and do) rather than read in
>'implications' that may or may not be there?
>
>     2) In response to a point in my first post Michael says: "Well now the
>US is being criticized for even contemplating action...could they be
>expected to do nothing?"  I certainly didn't do this - so Michael why don't
>you tell us who did, where, etc.?  Or is this another 'implication' you've
>spotted?
>
>     3) Re. Taliban giving up bin Laden, I heard on news that Taliban said
>(a) they wanted to talk with US and (b) they would only give up bin Laden
>if US provided hard evidence of his involvement - but US refuses to
>negotiate.  So who is being unreasonable here?  Doesn't extradition require
>a legal process and proof that there's a case to answer?  And, BTW, isn't
>there a bit of a double standard here compared to fiasco last year in UK
>over attempt to extradite General Pinochet - when Jack Straw bent over
>backwards to uphold the nice old gentleman's rights.   Pinochet, if you
>don't know, only used jets and tanks to overthrow an elected government,
>turned the National stadium into a death camp and had thousands tortured
>and murdered.  Which might be called terrorism - unless done by someone
>with backing of the CIA, and lots of other friends in high places in
>Washington and London.
>
>     Finally, Michael, just to be clear: nothing I've said here implies any
>support for bin Laden or Taliban - I oppose everything they stand for but,
>hey, I didn't train, arm and bankroll them for years.
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>       ----- Original Message -----
>       From: Michael Snell
>       To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com
>       Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:07 PM
>       Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan
>refugees - Kofi Annan
>
>
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: Dave Backwith
>         To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ;
>disability-awareness@egroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ;
>sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ;
>sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
>         Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 AM
>         Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan
>refugees - Kofi Annan
>
>
>         FWIW, I think Michael is profoundly wrong on 2 counts:
>
>         It seems very clear to me that US (and UK) actions in the Middle
>East (and elsewhere) have created conditions which cause a lot of suffering
>and death among people who largely are powerless to defend themselves.
>Equally there's clearly a racist aspect to this: to Western power-brokers
>Arab/Muslim lives are cheap compared to Christian/White/Jewish ones. To
>recognise that Western powers have responsibilities for the conditions
>which they create and which give rise to terrorism - and that without
>redressing the genuine grievances of people subjected to those conditions
>terrorism is not going to be eradicated - IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT SEPT.
>11TH ATTACKS WERE JUSTIFIED.
>
>         Well i DISAGREE. The manner in which this issues seem to
>invariably preface one and another by so many commentators does clearly
>imply this..at least to me and
>         numerous others.
>
>         Second, yes the US state does have responsibility for how it
>responds - as do other states that support whatever actions it takes.  A
>violent response which flouts or manipulates international law and which
>kills innocent people will  serve only to foster more terrorism.  With acts
>of violence generally people can often choose to respond in ways which are
>likely to escalate violence - or not.  For the US state apparatus, which by
>it's own terms should uphold 'justice, democracy and freedom', etc. and
>which has enormous power to achieve its ends, there is a inescapable
>obligation, and opportunity, to respond constructively.
>
>
>         Dave Backwith
>
>         Well now the US is being ciriticized for even contemplating
>action...could they be expected to do nothing?
>
>         Michael Snell
>
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>           From: Michael Snell
>           To: danmail@yahoogroups.com ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ;
>PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ;
>profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ;
>mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
>           Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:03 PM
>           Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan
>refugees - Kofi Annan
>
>
>           I am concerned about what seems to me the linking of the attack
>on the trade towers and the actions the US have taken in the past. There
>are legitimate areas to be critical of US policy in the past and at the
>present. However as writers continue to refer to them it implies, however
>loosely ,some justification for what has happened. And oddly enough ,the
>responsibility for what happens next seems to keep being put in the hands
>of the Americans. For whatever aggressive actions happen next , the
>americans may pull the trigger but the architects of this  loaded the gun,
>they had to know the suffering  would continue and envelope those they did
>not consider the Enemy. Of course for a group that uses suicide as a weapon
>a methodology that assures their own destruction as a consequence is not to
>them illogical.
>
>           People who are very delusional have many thoughts that do
>correspond with reality. However it is where they go with this thoughts
>that defines them as ill. So when we talk about senseless acts, the attack
>to me is senseless for the sufferning it will bring to all sides and in no
>way contribute to a goal of improving the lives of people around the world.
>
>           This is about power and control. People seldom give these things
>up easily. The people attempting to grasp it have no better record in
>exercising power Do we expect the U.S. to act any differently than others
>have in the past...What did the people who did this expect to occur?  Some
>golden moment of nirvana for one and all?
>
>           Michael S
>             ----- Original Message -----
>             From: Rosemary Moore
>             To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com ;
>mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ;
>profoundintrospection@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ;
>PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ;
>danmail@yahoogroups.com
>             Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 12:45 PM
>             Subject: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan
>refugees - Kofi Annan
>
>
>
>             From: Tony OBrien
>             To: criticalpsychiatry@yahoogroups.com
>             Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:29 PM
>             Subject: Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees - Kofi Annan
>
>
>             Rosemary
>
>             In an interview on New Zealand's National Radio on Saturday
>Sept 29 Noam Chomsky was asked about his views of the pending US strike
>against Afghanistan. He said it's already happening. The humanitarian
>crisis you refer to is destroying what is left of Afghanistan without the
>US being seen to lift a finger. It might appear that the US us exercising
>restraint, but in fact all the guns point to Afghanistan, and that is
>sufficient. There is no need to invade or fight a traditional war. The US
>is well aware of the potential political fallout from an invasion, not to
>mention the practical difficulties asssociated with this course of action.
>But simply by posturing, threatening, massing weaponry and using its
>influence to build an alliance supporting the 'war against terorism',
>Afgahnistan is being destroyed, as it were, by remote control.
>
>             Tony O'Brien
>             Auckland, New Zealand
>
>
>             Thank you, Tony.  Noam Chomsky is an inspiration to many
>people, including myself.  He is featured on my website, and since 11
>September I have been referring constantly to the book of interviews with
>him from 1985 that I advertise on the site - "Chronicles of Dissent".  He
>says in there that he is more or less banned from mainstream media in
>America.  He says that he gets into the media in Europe and Canada easily.
>I am surprised that he reckons the UK is ok because I think we're all hype
>and spin, but Canada I can believe.  Mike Snell is from Vancouver and the
>statement from the Canadian nurses
>(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/358) was
>extraordinary and I think evidence of real openness and concern.  The
>censorship of the media in America at the moment is fierce, what The
>Independent called today "emotional correctness" is in place.  Obviously NZ
>is pretty good, letting Chomsky speak on their national radio.  Dave,
>another NZ bloke, on the profoundintrospection board has drawn attention to
>the article by Andrew Gumbel about the talk show host Bill Maher.  This
>article also appeared in our UK The Independent on 28 September under the
>title "Free speech has become second casualty of war".  You can find the
>article at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=96458.
>
>             Noam Chomsky's views have been mentioned on a few lists and he
>is referred to in the Michael Moore article (Mike Snell posted that article
>to the mentalmagazine board, you can read at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.)
>             You can also read the article on Michael Moore's own website
>at www.michaelmoore.com, where he pays tribute to Barbara Lee.
>
>             Ten days ago, Ruchi posted an article by Chomsky on the
>sannyas board  -
>
>             From: ruchi
>             To: sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com
>             Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:36 PM
>             Subject: [neosannyas] Noam Chomsky
>
>             On the Bombings
>
>             Noam Chomsky
>
>             The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale
>             they may not reach the level of many others, for example,
>Clinton's bombing
>             of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its
>pharmaceutical
>             supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows,
>because the
>             US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue
>it). Not to speak
>             of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this
>was a
>             horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as
>usual, were working
>             people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to
>prove to be
>             a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed
>people. It
>             is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many
>possible
>             ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal
>freedom.
>
>             The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the
>project of "missile defense."
>             As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by
>strategic analysts,
>             if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including
>weapons of mass destruction,
>             they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus
>guaranteeing their immediate
>             destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are
>basically
>             unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be
>exploited to increase the
>             pressure to develop these systems and put them into place.
>"Defense" is a thin
>             cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR,
>even the
>             flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened
>public.
>
>             In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right,
>those who hope to
>             use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside
>the likely US
>             actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks
>like this one,
>             or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they
>appeared to be
>             before the latest atrocities.
>
>             As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express
>             justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led
>to the
>             crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the
>likely
>             perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no
>better, I think, than to
>             listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and
>insight into
>             affairs of the regionis unmatched after many years of
>distinguished
>             reporting. Describing "Thewickedness and awesome cruelty of a
>crushed and
>             humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of
>democracy versus
>             terror that the worldwill be asked to believe in the coming
>days. It is
>             also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes
>and US
>             helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996
>and American shells
>             crashing into avillage called Qana and about a Lebanese
>militia ­ paid and uniformed by
>             America's Israeli ally ­hacking and raping and murdering their
>way through
>             refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may
>try to
>             understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood
>that much
>             worse lies ahead.
>             Noam Chomsky
>
>
>             I was feeling a hopeful last week when the UK newspapers had
>front page stories about the refugees but today in the Sunday papers there
>is very little.  A lot of scaremongering and hate inducing stuff.  Indeed a
>small story in The Independent today confirmed my impression that the tiny
>amount being done for the refugees (a bit of food and clothing) is all that
>is considered necessary.  That in fact the refugees are really just
>considered as part of the bin Laden/Taliban package.  The story basically
>says that the charities are holding back on fundraising for the Afghan
>refugees because of public opinion.  Kofi Annan's plea for a concerted
>effort to help the refugees has been ignored.
>
>             Chomsky has seen it all very clearly.  There will be no war.
>Just innocent people suffering to serve political expediency.
>
>             rosemary
>             www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
>             "Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for
>everyone"
>
>
>
>               Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
>
>
>
>             To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>             mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>             This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>             URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>             Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
>
>
>
>           To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>           mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>           This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>           URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>           Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
>
>
>
>         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>         mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>         This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>         URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
>
>
>       To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>       This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>       URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>       Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>     This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>     URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>   This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
>   URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

"ATTACKS IN AMERICA: SEPTEMBER 11th 2001

    "We condemn the attack in the USA which took place on September 11th 2001. We deplore the appalling loss of life that took place. We salute the response of the workers, emergency services and people of New York and Washington. This Union sends its respects and condolences to the bereaved families.

    "Our Trade Union, in the historic traditions of the Labour Movement, Internationalism and of the cause of Socialism, totally rejects terrorism or any other forms of aggression, racism and militarism. Therefore, we oppose any war of revenge and call upon the British Labour Movement to oppose any attempts at that. Further any military intervention must be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.

    "We remain vigilant and actively opposed to al racism and violence. We also oppose any Government crackdown on civil liberties including the imposition of compulsory identity cards, any fast track extradition procedures or watering down of the Human Rights Act.

    "Further, we as a Trade Union totally reject any suggestion that we should moderate or give up our primary responsibility to protect our members' interests in all sections of the Union. Specific attention is given to our seafaring members who may be caught up in hostilities. we completely reject any attempt to dilute our right to take industrial action in defence of our members.

    "We reiterate our Socialist beliefs and pledge our Union to this course of action and support the CND demonstration on 13th October 2001 in Trafalgar Square and invite Branches and members to attend with Union banners."

Mike

Yeah, you got OTT right - common usage here in UK but I should have realised
not globally!  Sorry

And, ditto, glad to make your acquaintance also.

Cheers (as we say in the old country)

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "mike snell" <msnell@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
Kofi Annan


>
>
>
> >From: "Dave Backwith" <Dave.Backwith@...>
> >Reply-To: mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com
> >To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: Re: [mentalmagazine] Re: [criticalpsychiatry] Afghan refugees -
> >Kofi Annan
> >Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:08:05 +0100
> >
> >Cheers Michael,
> >
> >Sorry if I was a bit OTT
> >
> >Dave
>
> over the top I am guessing? no offense taken at this end..It is a
> complicated area, even just defining who is who in this for starters,
> as difficult as it can be I am more interested in understandings of all of
> this, not just trying to shove my feeble thoughts down anyone's
> throats...far too much grey area in all of this..
> glad to have made your acquaitance

Dear Dave

Thanks very much indeed for forwarding this statement from the rail union
RMT.  This makes a very clear statement AGAINST military action and asks its
members to attend the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) rally in
Trafalgar Square on Saturday, 13 October.  More details of the rally on the
CND website http://www.cnduk.org/campains/13Oct.htm.

To explain this paragraph in the statement:
"Further, we as a Trade Union totally reject any suggestion that we
should moderate or give up our primary responsibility to protect our
members' interests in all sections of the Union. Specific attention is given
to our seafaring members who may be caught up in hostilities. We completely
reject any attempt to dilute our right to take industrial action in defence
of our members."
There are two unions involved with a curent dispute (involving strike
action) over pay and conditions of London Underground staff.  The RMT that
has 8,000 across-the-board blue collar members, including 900 drivers, and
Aslef, the principal drivers' union that has around 2,200 members .  (This
information is taken from a story in the London Evening Standard, 27
September.)  The unions are being told they are "selfish" for taking this
action now.

People outside the UK (particularly those in America) should be made aware
that the proposed military action is by no means supported by everyone in
the UK (although some people do, of course).  And despite the fact that
"President" Blair (as he is now frequently designated) appears determined to
involve the UK in war, many commentators in the mainstream media are
questioning this and, indeed, his behaviour generally.   Nevertheless - as
I've just heard him say on the radio - Mr Blair maintains there is a strong
consensus world-wide for taking military action.

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
forwarded by Dave Backwith -
From: db2@...
To: dave.backwith@...
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: Fwd: RMT POLICY STATEMENT - "ATTACKS IN AMERICA: SEPTEMBER 11TH
2001"

Subject: RMT POLICY STATEMENT - "ATTACKS IN AMERICA: SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001"
To: RMT list <rmt1@yahoogroups.com>

The RMT's Council of Executives met on Thursday 27th September for the first
time since the attacks on New York and Washington and unanimously carried
the following report from our Political Sub-Committee.

Our union has adopted a clear policy on the attacks and the world events
triggered by them. Please feel free to use and disseminate the following
statement as widely as possible.

"ATTACKS IN AMERICA: SEPTEMBER 11th 2001

  "We condemn the attack in the USA which took place on September 11th
2001. We deplore the appalling loss of life that took place. We salute the
response of the workers, emergency services and people of New York and
Washington. This Union sends its respects and condolences to the bereaved
families.

     "Our Trade Union, in the historic traditions of the Labour Movement,
Internationalism and of the cause of Socialism, totally rejects terrorism or
any other forms of aggression, racism and militarism. Therefore, we oppose
any war of revenge and call upon the British Labour Movement to oppose any
attempts at that. Further any military intervention must be sanctioned by
the United Nations Security Council.

     "We remain vigilant and actively opposed to al racism and violence. We
also oppose any Government crackdown on civil liberties including the
imposition of compulsory identity cards, any fast track extradition
procedures or watering down of the Human Rights Act.

     "Further, we as a Trade Union totally reject any suggestion that we
should moderate or give up our primary responsibility to protect our
members' interests in all sections of the Union. Specific attention is given
to our seafaring members who may be caught up in hostilities. We completely
reject any attempt to dilute our right to take industrial action in defence
of our members.

     "We reiterate our Socialist beliefs and pledge our Union to this course
of action and support the CND demonstration on 13th October 2001 in
Trafalgar Square and invite Branches and members to attend with Union
banners."


------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I asked Janet to write something on the theme of political prisoners in the
democratic system and she's sent me the essay below entitled "What is a
Dissident".  This essay, together with others and her short stories are in
the files of the mentalmagazine discussion board at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/files.  And the messages about
and from Janet can be found on the discussion board by going to the home
page at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine and putting "Janet
Cresswell" in the Search box.  The first message, February 2001, is about
the email I
sent to several boards on 7 September 2000 (before I had set up the MMuk
website and board) and the reception it received from the nursing board.
The questions raised by Len Bowers at that time have, I think, now been
answered.
the MMuk website also includes information about Janet, including the
article she
wrote for The Sunday Times that was published in 1987, which was where I
first heard of her. Go to  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk/#janet.

By chance, a thread has just started on the nursing board about the role of
psychiatrists which Janet is talking about also.  You can find this
discussion by going to the nursing home page at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psychiatric-nursing.html, click on archives
for October and look for the thread called "In the typists chair".

rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

What is a Dissident
by Janet Cresswell

Thirty years ago the term 'political prisoner' was understood to apply to
Russian dissidents in psychiatric hospitals.  There was a lot of media
publicity on the subject which stressed that their treatment was
exceptional.  Over-drugging - largely with haloperidol which causes
dribbling - did not apply to mental patients in the UK.  Western mental
patients at the time were quick to protest that their treatment was also
debilitating but that our authorities refused to recognise there were any
dissidents in their system. IRA prisoners were labelled 'terrorists' and all
other opposition insane.

There were several Russian releases to the West -  Solzhenitsyn from the
gulags, Victor Feinberg, Bukovsky and others from psychiatric hospitals.  I
attended a talk by Victor Feinberg in Red Lion Square, London W1 postal
district, to learn that he had been arrested and had his front teeth knocked
out for protesting at the Russian invasion of Hungary.  After a mock trial
he was committed to a mental hospital where he made friends with his female
psychiatrist; when threatened with injections she shielded and hid him, his
friends meanwhile distributing leaflets to publicise his plight to tourists
in Moscow.  Feinberg maintained that it was British psychiatrists who
engineered his expatriation and waved a list of them - his female
psychiatrist came too.  When the audience was invited to speak I received an
ovation for saying that the list of psychiatrists Feinberg waved was the
'pot calling the kettle black'.  When quiet was restored and Feinberg
understood the expression meant there was no difference between them, he
grinned.  I went on to say that the world over, the same kind of person was
being persecuted.  They were labelled Schizophrenic; I listed a few of the
valuable characteristics of this dreaded complaint.  Nobody disagreed with
me.

When I came to Broadmoor I looked hard at the attendant psychiatric staff
and decided my lot was forlorn.  I had delivered a petition to No.10 Downing
Street appealing for the abolition of forced psychiatric treatment on the
grounds that at best it did little good and at its worst it did an
astronomical amount of damage.  I asked for monies thereby saved to be
expended on bettering communities.  I was arrested and without a trial
committed to a mixed locked ward along with prison transfers, arsonists and
suicides.  I escaped, spent 3 months trying to obtain an explanation for
the invasion into my property and person but received nothing but
prevaricating, silly answers.  To bring the case to court I stabbed a
psychiatrist in the bottom; the ensuing fight resulted in him being stabbed
elsewhere. Nasty, but not fatal; the last I saw of him he had walked into
his office and was giving orders for his staff to call an ambulance.  Since
then the treatment I have received among those who are sometimes grateful to
the mental health system has not made me change my views.  In the same way
that God always forgives, the psychiatrist pronounces recovery if his
prescription is consumed.  Some can tolerate the medication, others cannot.

After 25 years in Broadmoor I have been put on the Admittance Ward, a record
even for Broadmoor.  I have wondered if the Russian psychiatrists had
revolted at the Communist regime and had appealed secretly to their Western
counterparts.  They, in turn, gained prestige for contributing to the
downfall of the Iron Curtain.  The same condition does not apply in this
country; it is hard to believe that psychiatrists are being made to medicate
where unnecessary and one can only assume that the heavy-handed approach
stems from their own doctrine.  If this is the case, then psychiatrists are
running their own system, thereby using party politics as convenient.  IRA
terrorists are treated better than dissidents of psychiatry; the former have
Christmas home leave which is never applied for by Broadmoor psychiatrists.
All branches of the medical profession should be concerned solely with
curative practices.  Their failure should be acknowledged and rectified, as
far as possible.  The victims should not be penalised to conceal the errors
at public expense.

© Janet Cresswell
October 2001

Hi!

I'll put a link on my MAD LINKS page if you like.
www.zyra.org.uk/madlinks.htm

We should all link to each other as much as possible to improve the world.

Regards,

Zyra

www.zyra.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: <ireallyam.aladdinsane@...>
To: <mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: [mentalmagazine] Wokingham Mind Website


> Dear all I'd just like to let you know Wokingham & West Berkshire
> Mind have launched their website (www.wokinghammind.org.uk).  I built
> the site myself although the text was written by our president Pam
> Jenkinson.  I'd be interested in any comments from anyone you can
> send them to webmaster@....
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> mentalmagazine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This Yahoo!Group is part of MENTAL MAGAZINE uk
> URL:  http://www.mentalmagazine.co.uk.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Here's something to cheer us up - well some of us.  Michael Moore's response
to the outbreak of hostilities.  You can read his "Tears down the west
highway" on his site (url at the bottom of his message) or on the
mentalmagazine board posted by Mike Snell at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362.  According to the
UK's Sunday Times yesterday Michael Moore is - like Noam Chomsky, Susan
Sontag etc - an extremist lefty (ie bad news in our democratic society).

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Moore" <mike@...>
To: <michaelmoore@...>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 6:47 PM
Subject: All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

10/08/01

Dear Friends,

It's about time! I was beginning to worry that George II didn't have it in
him, that he might wander off to vacation in Omaha again. But finally, the
bombs are raining down on Afghanistan and, as Martha Stewart says, that's a
good thing.

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I deplore war and killing and violence. But, hey,
I'm a pragmatist, I know where I live, this is America and dammit,
somebody's ass had to get kicked!

Our Leader, a former baseball club owner, could have at least had the
decency to wait one more day until the baseball season was over. Poor Barry
Bonds -- will anyone even remember what he did a month from now? At least
Fox had the good grace to get the football game back on the tube within an
hour of the war's start! They KNEW none of us could stomach looking at
Stepford Drones from Fox News for the rest of the day.

Fellow liberals, lefties, Greens, workers, and even you loveable Gore
voters and recovering Democrats -- let me tell you why I think this war on
Afghanistan is good for all of us:

1. Network Unanimity in Naming The War.  It has been so confusing the past
four weeks, what with all the networks calling this thing we are in by so
many names: "America's New War," "American Under Attack," America Fights
Back," "War on Terrorism," etc. Now, nearly every network has settled on
"America Strikes Back."

I like this because, first of all, it honors George Lucas. We're a humble
people, we Americans, so we can't quite bring ourselves to call it "The
Empire Strikes Back." "Empire" sounds a little scary, and there's no use
reminding the rest of the world that we call all the shots now. So "America
Strikes Back" is appropriate (and, as Sunday was the last day of baseball,
"strikes" has the necessary sports metaphor we like to use when bombing
other countries).

2. The Citizenry Can Now Go Back to What They Were Doing.  I don't know
about you, but nearly four weeks of anxious and tense anticipation of what
would happen next was starting to wear me down. I thought nothing could top
what spending the whole summer agonizing over whose baby it was on
"Friends" did to me.

But the last four weeks was worse than a bad classic rock extended drum
solo. NOW we have resolution. NOW we know the ending -- the bombing to
smithereens of a country so advanced it has, to date, laid a total of 18
miles of railroad tracks throughout the entire country! How very 19th
century of them! I hope our missiles were able to take them out. I don't
want this thing going on forever. Best that we obliterate them before they
come up with some smart idea like the telegraph.

3. Dick Cheney Has Been Moved Into Hiding Again.  This can only help. The
farther this mastermind can be kept from young Bush, the better. He's like
that creepy friend of your dad's who has taken a bit too much of a shine to
you. Wait -- he *is* that creepy friend of his dad's! Anytime I hear they
have transported Cheney out of town and into a bunker in the woods, I feel
safe. And don't worry about him having any workable form of communications
with Bush -- remember, this is a government which discovers that a known
terrorist is taking flying lessons in Florida and does nothing.

4. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Orrin Hatch Will All Be Fighting This War
for Us!  These are all honorable men, men of their word, men who would not
expect someone else to fight their battles for them. They have all called
for war, revenge, blood -- and, by God, it is blood I want them to have!
Now that we are at war, let us insist that those who have cried the loudest
for the killing be the first to go and do just that!

I would like to see, by the end of the day, Rush and Bill, Orrin and the
rest of their colleagues down at the recruiting station signing up to join
the U.S. Army. Sure, I know they are no longer young, but there are many
jobs they will be able to do once they get through the Khyber Pass. Surely
these men would not expect our sons and daughters to die for something that
they themselves would not be willing to die for. To make it easy, guys, you
can just go to the Army's website right now!

http://www.goarmy.com/index02.htm

Get your butts over there to Afghanistan and defend a way of life that
allows companies like Boeing get rid of 30,000 people while using the
tragedy in New York as their shameful excuse.

5. Really Cool War Footage. It's been way too long since we've been able to
watch those cruise missiles and smart bombs with their little cameras on
them sail in and blow the crap out of a bunch of human beings. This time,
let's hope the video is in color and that it's attached with a miniature
set of Dolby speaker microphones so we can hear the screams and wails of
those Afghanis as our shrapnel guts them into strips of bacon. Oh, and
let's pray the video can be loaded into my Sony Playstation!!

6. Better a Quickie War Than the Permanent War. Orwell warned us about this
one. Big Brother, in order to control the population, knew that it was
necessary for the people to always believe they were in a state of siege,
that the enemy was getting closer and closer, and that the war would take a
very long time.

That is EXACTLY what George W. Bush said in his speech to Congress, and the
reason he said it is because he and his buddies want us all in such a state
of fear and panic that we would gladly give up the cherished freedoms that
our fathers and those before them fought and died for. Who wouldn't submit
to searches, restrictions of movement, and the rounding up of anyone who
looks suspicious if it would prevent another September 11?

In order to get these laws passed that will strip us of our rights, they
have been telling us that we are in a LONG and PROTRACTED war that has no
end in sight. Don't buy it! We are bombing Afghanistan, and THAT is the
only war in progress. It should be over anywhere from a few days from now
or in about nine years (Soviet-style). Either way, it will end. The good
guys will win. And, if George II is anything like George I, then the bad
guy will win, too, getting to live and go on doing what he enjoys doing
(what were we, like, 40 miles from Baghdad?) while we continue to bomb the
innocents (540,000 Iraqi children killed by U.S. in last ten years from
bombs and sanctions).

As I'm sure you must agree, there are many upsides to this war. Sure, The
Emmys got cancelled again, and, as a nominee this year, I already found out
that I wasn't getting one of those little gold people so who cares if I
can't walk down the red carpet in my Bob Mackie gown? I don't even wear a
gown -- I wear pants, ill-fitting pants at that! Yesiree, I say, BOMBS
AWAY! Rockets red glare! We are all WHITE WITH FOAM!

And please, dear friends, let's look at the bright side for once: The last
time a Bush took us to war and got a 90% approval rating, he was toast and
a ghost the following year. You can't get better than that.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@...
www.michaelmoore.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:

* TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST:

Send an email To:
michaelmoore-unsubscribe@...

... or follow the instructions (below) from Topica.

* TO SIGN UP AS A NEW SUBSCRIBER, GO HERE:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/Note_re_Topica.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosemary Moore

To: mike@... ; mentalmagazine@yahoogroups.com ; sywhatever@yahoogroups.com ; sannyas-list@yahoogroups.com ; PSYCHIATRIC-NURSING@... ; disability-awareness@egroups.com ; danmail@yahoogroups.com ; criticalpsychiatry@egroups.com ; imhn@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 7:42 PM

Subject: : All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

Here's something to cheer us up - well some of us.  Michael Moore's response
to the outbreak of hostilities.  You can read his "Tears down the west
highway" on his site (url at the bottom of his message) or on the
mentalmagazine board posted by Mike Snell at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/362  According to the
UK's Sunday Times yesterday Michael Moore is - like Noam Chomsky, Susan
Sontag etc - an extremist lefty (ie bad news in our democratic society).

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Moore" <mike@...>
To: <michaelmoore@...>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 6:47 PM
Subject: All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

10/08/01

Dear Friends,

 

snip

Dear C

Thanks, as ever, for your contributions to the discussions.  These three
articles you've posted to sywhatever are helpful in giving a wider
perspective on the situation.

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"

----- Original Message -----
From: cl271@...
To: sywhatever@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: : - ) SY, Not SY, Whatever Re: All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance

Dear List:
I am going to attach three articles. In reading them, I found that
they offered a different and more comprehensive perspective/history
to think about in comparison to some of what is being offered
elsewhere on the main media channels.

Begin quoted materials:

Taliban Claims Invading Plane Shot Down
By Phillip Knightley
The Guardian
10-8-1

The way wars are reported in the western media follows a depressingly
predictable pattern: stage one, the crisis; stage two, the
demonisation of the enemy's leader; stage three, the demonisation of
the enemy as individuals; and stage four; atrocities. At the moment
we are at stages two and three: efforts to show that not only Osama
bin Laden and the Taliban are fanatical and cruel but that most
Afghans - even many Muslims - are as well. We are already through
stage one, the reporting of a crisis which negotiations appear unable
to resolve. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of
military retaliation. The media reports this as "We're on the brink
of war," or "War is inevitable."

News coverage concentrates on the build up of military force, and
prominent columinists and newspaper editorials urge war. But there
are usually sizable minorities of citizens concerned that all avenues
for peace have not been fully explored and although the mainstream
media ignores or plays down their protests, these have to be dampened
down unless they gain strength.

We now enter stage two of the pattern - the demonisation of the
enemy's leader. Comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start
because of the instant images that Hitler's name provokes. So when
George Bush Sr. likened Iraq's takeover of Kuwait with the Nazi
blitzkrieg in Europe in the 1930's, the media quickly took up the
theme. Saddam Hussein was painted as a second Hitler, hated by his
own people and despised int the Arab world. Equally, in the Kosovo
conflict, the Serbs were protrayed as Nazi thugs intent on genocide
and words like "Auschwitz-style furnaces" and "Holocaust" were used.

The crudest approach is to suggest that the leader is insane. Saddam
Hussein was "a deranged psycopath," Milosevich was mad, and the
Spectator recently headlined an article on Osama bin Laden: "Inside
the mind of a maniac". Those who publicly question any of this can
expect an even stronger burst of abuse. In the Gulf war they were
labelled "friends of terrorists, ranters, nutty, hyprocrites,
animals, barbarians, mad, traitors, unhinged, appeasers and
apologists". The Mirror called peace demonstrators "misguided,
twisted individuals always eager to comfort and support any country
but their own. The are a danger to all us - the enemy within."
Columist Christopher Hitchens, in last week's Spectator artice, Damn
the Doves, says that intellectuals who seek to understand the new
enemy are no friends of peace, democracy or human life.

The third stage in the patten is the demonisation not only of the
leader but of his people. The simplest way of doing this is the
atrocity story. The problem is that although many atrocity stories
are true - after all, war itself is an atrocity - many are not.

Take the Kuwait babies story. Its origins go back to the first world
war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian
babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off
and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers
bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies
ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the
incubators could be sent back to Iraq.

The story, improbable from the start, was first reported by the Daily
Telegraph in London on September 5, 1990. But the story lacked the
human element; it was an unverified report, there were no pictures
for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead
babies.

That was soon rectified. An organisation calling itself Citizens for
a Free Kuwait (financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile) had
signed a $10m contract with the giant American public relations
company, Hill & Knowlton, to compaign for American military
interventions to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

The Humans Rights Caucus of the US congress was meeting in October
and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year old Kuwaiti girl to tell
the babies' story before the congressmen. She did it brilliantly,
choking tears at the right moment, her voice breaking as she
struggled to continue. The congressional committee knew her only
as "Nayirah" and the television segment of her testimony showed anger
and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her.
President Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks
as an example of the evil of Saddam's regime.

In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force
Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the
incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was
just five votes. John R. Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war
says that the babies atrocity was a definite moment in the campaign
to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.

It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The
story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti
girl coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance
before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur
revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any
more.

So what should we make of stories in the British press this week
about turture in Afghanistan? A defector from the Taliban's secret
police told a reported in Quetta, Pakistan, that he was commanded
to "find new ways of torture so terrible that the screams will
frighten crows from their nests". The defector then listed a series
of chilling forms of torture that he said he and his fellow officers
developed. "Nowhere else in the world has such barbarity and cruelty
as Afghanistan."

The story rings false and defectors of all kinds are well-known for
telling interviewers what they think they want to hear. On the other
hand, it might be true. The trouble is, how can we tell? The media
demands that we trust it but too often that trust has been betrayed.

Phillip Knightley is the author of "The First Casualty, a history of
war reporting" (Prion)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4270014,00.html

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

US Gave Silent Backing to Taliban Rise To Power
By Phillip Knightley
The Guardian
10-8-1

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Afghanistan's Taliban regime, now bracing for
punitive US military strikes, was brought to power with Washington's
silent blessing as it dallied in an abortive new "Great Game" in
central Asia.

Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a US-led
group to build a multi-billion dollar oil and gas pipeline,
Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the
militia's bid fo power in 1996, analysts said.

But is was soon forced to abandon its brief and shadowy flirtation
with the Islamic purists, who US officials now say are unfit, as the
militia began imposing its brutal version of Islamic law, sparking a
violent outcry from US women's groups.

While the United States has denied supporting the Taliban's rise,
experts say that at the time they seized the capital five year ago,
Washington saw the militia as a strange but potentially stabilizing
force.

"Now, years on, the US has to cope with the damage for which it is
partially responsible starting with its role during and after the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," said Radha Kumar of the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.

Ahmed Rashid, a leading author and expert on Afghan affairs, said it
was "clear" Washington, which armed and trained the Afghan mujahedin
during their battle against Soviet invaders in the 1980's, indirectly
supported the Taliban.

"The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support
the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul" on
September 26, 1996, he said from his base in Lahore, Pakistan. "That
seems very ironic now."

One key reason for US interest in the Taliban was a 4.5 billion-
dollar oil and gas pipeline that as US-led oil consortium planned to
build across war-ravaged Afthanistan.

The California-based Unocal Corp., in 1996 hatched plans to stretch
the pipeline from the central Asian state of Turkmenistan to Pakistan
and the United States and the oil consortium wanted most of
Afghanistan to be under the stable control of one government to
ensure the pipeline's security, the analysts said.

In the months before the Taliban took power, former US assistant
secretary of state for South Asia Robin Raphel waged an intense round
of shuttle diplomacy between the powers with possible stakes in the
project.

"Robin Raphel was the face of the Unocal pipeline," said an official
of the former Afghan government who was present at some of the
meetings with her.

The Unocal consortium also included Saudi-based Delta Oil, Pakistan's
Crescent Group and Gazprom of Russia.

The project was to start with a two-billion dollar, 890-kilometer
(556-mile) gas pipeline that would channel 1.9 billion cubic feet of
gas to Pakistan each day.

In addition to tapping new sources of energy, the move also suited a
major US strategic aim in the region: isolating its nemesis Iran and
stifling a frequently-mooted rival pipeline project backed by Tehran,
experts said.

"This was part of what I call a new great game between Russia, the
United States, China, Iran, and European companies for control of the
new oil and gas resources that have been discovered," Rashid said. A
dangerous game for influence in Afgnanistan was played in the 19th
century by Britain and Russia, at a strategic crossroads between
South Asia and Czarist Russia.

The Unocal consortium feared there could be no pipeline as long as
Afghanistan, battered by war since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, was
split among rival warlords. The Taliban, whose rise to power owed
much to their bid to stamp out the drugs trade and install law and
order, seemed attractive to Washington.

"It thought the Taliban might be a stabilizing factor if they
controlled 90 percent of the country," said the CFR's Kumar.

When the Taliban rolled into Kabul, Washington appeared initially
enthusiastic amid signs it would consider recognising the new regime.

The top US diplomat in Pakistan planned a visit to Kabul just days
after it was captured by the Taliban and a State Department official
expressed hope that the Taliban would "move quickly to restore order
and security."

But Washington cancelled the diplomat's trip as protests against the
Taliban's treatment of women erupted in the United States, news
reports said at the time. Unocal withdrew from the pipeline's
consortium two years later.

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

Asia Times - The Oil Behind Bush and Son's Campaigns
By Ranjit Devraj
Asia Times
10-8-1

NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new
conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the
region's abundant petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts.

"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central
Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be
a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analysit and
former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the
prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from
Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now
readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order in
Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin
Laden.

Where the "great game" in Afthanistan was once about czars and
commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian
Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelins to the untapped
petroleum reserves of Central Asia. According to testimony before the
US House of Representatives in March 1999 by the conservative think
tank Heritage Foundation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan together have 1.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
The same countries also have proven gas deposits totaling not less
than nine trillion cubic meters. Another study b the Institute for
Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserved in the
Central Asian republics at around US $3trillion at last year's prices.

Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting
Central Asia to international markets, but the country itself has
significant oil and gas deposits. During the Soviet's decade-long
occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and
probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet and
production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in the mid-1970's.
But sabotage by anti-soviet mujahideen (freedom fighters) and by
rival groups in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal in 1989
virtually closed down gas production and ended deals for the supply
of gas to several European countries.

Major Afghan natural gas fields awaiting exploitation include
Jorqaduq, Khowaja, Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located
within 9 kilometers of the town of Sheberghan in northern Jowzjan
province.

Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Taliban
rulers is the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise which, in
1999, began repair of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif city.
Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves are
placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So far, attempts to
exploit Afghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage of its
unique geographical location as a crossroad to markets in Europe and
South Asia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife.

In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes
in Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious
gas pipeline across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after
several fruitless years. The pipeline was to stretch 1,271km from
Turkmenistan's Dauletabads fields to Multan in Pakistan at an
estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have
brough the pipeline to energy-hungry India.

Energy experts in India, such as R K Pachauri, who heads the Tata
Energy Research Institute (TERI), have long been urging the country's
planners to ensure access to petroleum products from the Central
Asian republics, with which New Delhi has traditionally maintained
good relations. Other partners in CentGas included the Saudi Arabian
Delta Oil Company, the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia
Petroleum (INPEX), the Japanese ITOCHU, Korean Hyundai and Pakistan's
Crescent Group.

According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over who the
beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern
Alliance, the Taliban, the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of
these would benefit at all. But the immediate reason for UNOCAL's
withdrawal was undoubtedly the US cruise missle attacks on Osama bin
Laden's terrorism training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998, done
in retaliation for the bombing of its embassies in Africa. UNOCAL
then stated that the project would have to wait until Afghanistan
achieved the "peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from
international agencies and a government that is recognized by the
United States and the United Nations".

The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George W Bush is
building now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making
UNOCAL's wish come true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it
has the potential of "reconfiguring substantially the energy
scenarios for the 21st century".

(Inter Press Service) @2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd, Room 6301 The
Center 99 Queen's Road, Central Hong Kong
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html

End of quoted materials



----- Original Message -----
From: cl271@...
To: sywhatever@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: : - ) SY, Not SY, Whatever Re: All I Am Saying Is Give War a Chance


Dear List:
I am going to attach three articles. In reading them, I found that
they offered a different and more comprehensive perspective/history
to think about in comparison to some of what is being offered
elsewhere on the main media channels.

It seems that sy is no different than PR firms to be found elsewhere.

By the way, have any of you watched the movie, now on video, "Wag the
Dog"? For anyone interested, I recommend it.

Begin quoted materials:

Taliban Claims Invading Plane Shot Down
By Phillip Knightley
The Guardian
10-8-1

The way wars are reported in the western media follows a depressingly
predictable pattern: stage one, the crisis; stage two, the
demonisation of the enemy's leader; stage three, the demonisation of
the enemy as individuals; and stage four; atrocities. At the moment
we are at stages two and three: efforts to show that not only Osama
bin Laden and the Taliban are fanatical and cruel but that most
Afghans - even many Muslims - are as well. We are already through
stage one, the reporting of a crisis which negotiations appear unable
to resolve. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of
military retaliation. The media reports this as "We're on the brink
of war," or "War is inevitable."

News coverage concentrates on the build up of military force, and
prominent columinists and newspaper editorials urge war. But there
are usually sizable minorities of citizens concerned that all avenues
for peace have not been fully explored and although the mainstream
media ignores or plays down their protests, these have to be dampened
down unless they gain strength.

We now enter stage two of the pattern - the demonisation of the
enemy's leader. Comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start
because of the instant images that Hitler's name provokes. So when
George Bush Sr. likened Iraq's takeover of Kuwait with the Nazi
blitzkrieg in Europe in the 1930's, the media quickly took up the
theme. Saddam Hussein was painted as a second Hitler, hated by his
own people and despised int the Arab world. Equally, in the Kosovo
conflict, the Serbs were protrayed as Nazi thugs intent on genocide
and words like "Auschwitz-style furnaces" and "Holocaust" were used.

The crudest approach is to suggest that the leader is insane. Saddam
Hussein was "a deranged psycopath," Milosevich was mad, and the
Spectator recently headlined an article on Osama bin Laden: "Inside
the mind of a maniac". Those who publicly question any of this can
expect an even stronger burst of abuse. In the Gulf war they were
labelled "friends of terrorists, ranters, nutty, hyprocrites,
animals, barbarians, mad, traitors, unhinged, appeasers and
apologists". The Mirror called peace demonstrators "misguided,
twisted individuals always eager to comfort and support any country
but their own. The are a danger to all us - the enemy within."
Columist Christopher Hitchens, in last week's Spectator artice, Damn
the Doves, says that intellectuals who seek to understand the new
enemy are no friends of peace, democracy or human life.

The third stage in the patten is the demonisation not only of the
leader but of his people. The simplest way of doing this is the
atrocity story. The problem is that although many atrocity stories
are true - after all, war itself is an atrocity - many are not.

Take the Kuwait babies story. Its origins go back to the first world
war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian
babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off
and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers
bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies
ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the
incubators could be sent back to Iraq.

The story, improbable from the start, was first reported by the Daily
Telegraph in London on September 5, 1990. But the story lacked the
human element; it was an unverified report, there were no pictures
for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead
babies.

That was soon rectified. An organisation calling itself Citizens for
a Free Kuwait (financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile) had
signed a $10m contract with the giant American public relations
company, Hill & Knowlton, to compaign for American military
interventions to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

The Humans Rights Caucus of the US congress was meeting in October
and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year old Kuwaiti girl to tell
the babies' story before the congressmen. She did it brilliantly,
choking tears at the right moment, her voice breaking as she
struggled to continue. The congressional committee knew her only
as "Nayirah" and the television segment of her testimony showed anger
and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her.
President Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks
as an example of the evil of Saddam's regime.

In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force
Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the
incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was
just five votes. John R. Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war
says that the babies atrocity was a definite moment in the campaign
to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.

It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The
story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti
girl coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance
before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur
revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any
more.

So what should we make of stories in the British press this week
about turture in Afghanistan? A defector from the Taliban's secret
police told a reported in Quetta, Pakistan, that he was commanded
to "find new ways of torture so terrible that the screams will
frighten crows from their nests". The defector then listed a series
of chilling forms of torture that he said he and his fellow officers
developed. "Nowhere else in the world has such barbarity and cruelty
as Afghanistan."

The story rings false and defectors of all kinds are well-known for
telling interviewers what they think they want to hear. On the other
hand, it might be true. The trouble is, how can we tell? The media
demands that we trust it but too often that trust has been betrayed.

Phillip Knightley is the author of "The First Casualty, a history of
war reporting" (Prion)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4270014,00.html

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

US Gave Silent Backing to Taliban Rise To Power
By Phillip Knightley
The Guardian
10-8-1

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Afghanistan's Taliban regime, now bracing for
punitive US military strikes, was brought to power with Washington's
silent blessing as it dallied in an abortive new "Great Game" in
central Asia.

Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a US-led
group to build a multi-billion dollar oil and gas pipeline,
Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the
militia's bid fo power in 1996, analysts said.

But is was soon forced to abandon its brief and shadowy flirtation
with the Islamic purists, who US officials now say are unfit, as the
militia began imposing its brutal version of Islamic law, sparking a
violent outcry from US women's groups.

While the United States has denied supporting the Taliban's rise,
experts say that at the time they seized the capital five year ago,
Washington saw the militia as a strange but potentially stabilizing
force.

"Now, years on, the US has to cope with the damage for which it is
partially responsible starting with its role during and after the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," said Radha Kumar of the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.

Ahmed Rashid, a leading author and expert on Afghan affairs, said it
was "clear" Washington, which armed and trained the Afghan mujahedin
during their battle against Soviet invaders in the 1980's, indirectly
supported the Taliban.

"The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support
the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul" on
September 26, 1996, he said from his base in Lahore, Pakistan. "That
seems very ironic now."

One key reason for US interest in the Taliban was a 4.5 billion-
dollar oil and gas pipeline that as US-led oil consortium planned to
build across war-ravaged Afthanistan.

The California-based Unocal Corp., in 1996 hatched plans to stretch
the pipeline from the central Asian state of Turkmenistan to Pakistan
and the United States and the oil consortium wanted most of
Afghanistan to be under the stable control of one government to
ensure the pipeline's security, the analysts said.

In the months before the Taliban took power, former US assistant
secretary of state for South Asia Robin Raphel waged an intense round
of shuttle diplomacy between the powers with possible stakes in the
project.

"Robin Raphel was the face of the Unocal pipeline," said an official
of the former Afghan government who was present at some of the
meetings with her.

The Unocal consortium also included Saudi-based Delta Oil, Pakistan's
Crescent Group and Gazprom of Russia.

The project was to start with a two-billion dollar, 890-kilometer
(556-mile) gas pipeline that would channel 1.9 billion cubic feet of
gas to Pakistan each day.

In addition to tapping new sources of energy, the move also suited a
major US strategic aim in the region: isolating its nemesis Iran and
stifling a frequently-mooted rival pipeline project backed by Tehran,
experts said.

"This was part of what I call a new great game between Russia, the
United States, China, Iran, and European companies for control of the
new oil and gas resources that have been discovered," Rashid said. A
dangerous game for influence in Afgnanistan was played in the 19th
century by Britain and Russia, at a strategic crossroads between
South Asia and Czarist Russia.

The Unocal consortium feared there could be no pipeline as long as
Afghanistan, battered by war since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, was
split among rival warlords. The Taliban, whose rise to power owed
much to their bid to stamp out the drugs trade and install law and
order, seemed attractive to Washington.

"It thought the Taliban might be a stabilizing factor if they
controlled 90 percent of the country," said the CFR's Kumar.

When the Taliban rolled into Kabul, Washington appeared initially
enthusiastic amid signs it would consider recognising the new regime.

The top US diplomat in Pakistan planned a visit to Kabul just days
after it was captured by the Taliban and a State Department official
expressed hope that the Taliban would "move quickly to restore order
and security."

But Washington cancelled the diplomat's trip as protests against the
Taliban's treatment of women erupted in the United States, news
reports said at the time. Unocal withdrew from the pipeline's
consortium two years later.

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

Asia Times - The Oil Behind Bush and Son's Campaigns
By Ranjit Devraj
Asia Times
10-8-1

NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new
conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the
region's abundant petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts.

"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central
Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be
a major strategic gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analysit and
former general in the Indian army. Raghavan believes that the
prospect of a western military presence in a region extending from
Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are now
readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order in
Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin
Laden.

Where the "great game" in Afthanistan was once about czars and
commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian
Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelins to the untapped
petroleum reserves of Central Asia. According to testimony before the
US House of Representatives in March 1999 by the conservative think
tank Heritage Foundation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan together have 1.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
The same countries also have proven gas deposits totaling not less
than nine trillion cubic meters. Another study b the Institute for
Afghan Studies placed the total worth of oil and gas reserved in the
Central Asian republics at around US $3trillion at last year's prices.

Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting
Central Asia to international markets, but the country itself has
significant oil and gas deposits. During the Soviet's decade-long
occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and
probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet and
production reached 275 million cubic feet per day in the mid-1970's.
But sabotage by anti-soviet mujahideen (freedom fighters) and by
rival groups in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal in 1989
virtually closed down gas production and ended deals for the supply
of gas to several European countries.

Major Afghan natural gas fields awaiting exploitation include
Jorqaduq, Khowaja, Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located
within 9 kilometers of the town of Sheberghan in northern Jowzjan
province.

Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Taliban
rulers is the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise which, in
1999, began repair of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif city.
Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves are
placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So far, attempts to
exploit Afghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage of its
unique geographical location as a crossroad to markets in Europe and
South Asia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife.

In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes
in Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious
gas pipeline across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after
several fruitless years. The pipeline was to stretch 1,271km from
Turkmenistan's Dauletabads fields to Multan in Pakistan at an
estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have
brough the pipeline to energy-hungry India.

Energy experts in India, such as R K Pachauri, who heads the Tata
Energy Research Institute (TERI), have long been urging the country's
planners to ensure access to petroleum products from the Central
Asian republics, with which New Delhi has traditionally maintained
good relations. Other partners in CentGas included the Saudi Arabian
Delta Oil Company, the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia
Petroleum (INPEX), the Japanese ITOCHU, Korean Hyundai and Pakistan's
Crescent Group.

According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over who the
beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern
Alliance, the Taliban, the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of
these would benefit at all. But the immediate reason for UNOCAL's
withdrawal was undoubtedly the US cruise missle attacks on Osama bin
Laden's terrorism training camps in Afghanistan in August 1998, done
in retaliation for the bombing of its embassies in Africa. UNOCAL
then stated that the project would have to wait until Afghanistan
achieved the "peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from
international agencies and a government that is recognized by the
United States and the United Nations".

The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George W Bush is
building now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making
UNOCAL's wish come true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it
has the potential of "reconfiguring substantially the energy
scenarios for the 21st century".

(Inter Press Service) @2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd, Room 6301 The
Center 99 Queen's Road, Central Hong Kong
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html

End of quoted materials




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sywhatever-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Congratulations Janet!  She has won the bowls final at Broadmoor Hospital -
the first woman there ever to do so.  She told me in a letter that I
received today: "I actually won the bowls final yesterday, much to my
suprise and that of my opponent.  This is the first time ever that a female
has beaten the men to become bowls champion.  In my experience the only ones
who win the event have been off medication.  One requires concentration
which the psych. medication fragments."

Janet was 70 in February this year.  Janet is an example of Joan Collins'
wisdom that 'age is just a number'.

best wishes
rosemary
www.mentalmagazine.co.uk
"Campaigning for good health & social care...it's for everyone"