[JNV] The London Blasts: An Anti-War Response

[Milan Rai]

1) The London Blasts: An Anti-War Response
2) Counter Terror: Build Justice
3) How To Stop Bin Laden

(Our apologies for cross-posting)


1) The London Blasts: An Anti-War Response

Today's horrific events in London demand an active response from the  
movements for peace and justice.

Justice Not Vengeance and Voices in the Wilderness UK are proposing that  
anti-war and other groups around the UK hold silent vigils in their town  
centres at some point over this weekend (in Hastings, a vigil is being  
held in front of the town hall at 6pm on Friday), on the following themes  
(please amend as you see fit):

*****

SOLIDARITY with those who are suffering directly as a result of the London  
atrocities - and all those who have suffered violence in the course of the  
"war on terror"

We stand silently to remember those who have lost their lives, those who  
have been injured, and those who have been bereaved by the terrorist  
attacks in London. We also remember all those who have died as a result of  
violence in the course of the "war on terror" - in the United States, in  
Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Indonesia, in Spain, and elsewhere.

SOLIDARITY with those who are now threatened with a violent backlash

We stand silently to express our determination to defend the Muslim  
community, Arab communities, and other groups who face abuse and violent  
attacks in the wake of these outrages in London. We condemn all attempts  
to hold Islam itself responsible for the attacks in London or for any  
other acts of terrorism.

COMMITMENT to true security and justice

We are determined to resist military retaliation against other nations,  
believing that military action undermines our security rather than  
strengthening it.

We resolve to resist repressive legislation which deepens grievances  
rather than building justice and reconciliation.

*****

If you hold a vigil, please let the press/radio know in advance (take your  
own photograph and send it in to your local paper if they don't send a  
photographer) AND please also send a report to us at <info@j-n-v.org>.

There will be more materials appearing on the JNV and Voices websites over  
the next 48 hours.

<www.j-n-v.org> <www.voicesuk.org>

Best wishes


Milan Rai
Justice Not Vengeance

Gabriel Carlyle
Voices in the Wilderness UK

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

2) Counter Terror: Build Justice

Quotes from the Counter Terror: Build Justice statement (the Counter  
Terror: Build Justice month of action was 19 March - 15 April 2005):

'In the face of global terrorism, we believe that our community, our  
nation, and our world, must choose the path of peace, human rights, and  
justice. We believe that what is presented to us as 'the war on terrorism'  
is a campaign of violence and repression that actually generates more  
anti-Western terrorism.

'We believe that the world needs a different agenda in order to end the  
terrorism of the weak and halt the terrorism of the powerful. We reject  
the logic of war and invasion, the erosion of basic rights, and the  
demonisation of Muslims and Arab communities...

'In the event of a major terrorist attack against our country, we commit  
ourselves to supporting victims and their relatives, defending the rights  
of those threatened by a vengeful backlash - particularly Muslims and Arab  
people in our communities, and nonviolently resisting any military  
response by our government.'


Signatories included: Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp, Bertrand Russell  
Peace Foundation, Children Against War, Edinburgh People and Planet, Green  
Party UK, Hands Up for Peace, Justice Not Vengeance, Pax Christi, Red  
Pepper magazine, Voices in the Wilderness US and UK, Women in Black  
(London)

Individual signatories included: Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, Bruce Kent,  
Caroline Lucas (MEP), Kamil Mahdi, George Monbiot, John Pilger, Haifa  
Zangana, and Howard Zinn (US)


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

3) How To Stop Bin Laden


How To Stop Bin Laden

The World Needs Justice, Not More Terror
JNV Briefing 77
(pdf available from  
<http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing077.htm>)


EXPLAINING AL QAEDA-THE WRONG ANSWERS
Five days after the 11 September attacks, President Bush said that Osama  
bin Laden was 'the prime suspect'. He added, 'Now, I want to remind the  
American people that the prime suspect's organization is in a lot of  
countries-it's a widespread organization based upon one thing:  
terrorizing. They can't stand freedom; they hate what America stands for.'


Addressing Congress on 20 Sept. 2001, President Bush said, 'Al Qaeda is to  
terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its  
goal is remaking the world-and imposing its radical beliefs on people  
everywhere.' He added, 'Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They  
hate what we see right here in this chamber-a democratically elected  
government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms-our  
freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and  
assemble and disagree with each other.'


Prime Minister Blair told the House of Commons on 14 Sept. 2001 that  
Parliament had been specially recalled because 'these attacks were not  
just attacks upon people and buildings; nor even merely upon the USA;  
these were attacks on the basic democratic values in which we all believe  
so passionately and on the civilised world'.


EXPLAINING AL QAEDA-THE REAL ANSWERS
The US Government's official '9/11 Commission' reported that bin Laden's  
grievance with the United States 'started in reaction to specific US  
policies'. Bin Laden and his group 'say that America had attacked Islam...  
Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians  
fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when  
the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands.'  
The US is also 'held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries,  
derided by al Qaeda as "your agents".


Such charges, says the Commission, 'found a ready audience among millions  
of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging  
 from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries'  
repressive rulers.' (The 9/11 Commission Report, New York: Norton & Co,  
2004, p. 51)


WHAT THE CIA'S BIN LADEN EXPERT SAYS
The Commission's analysis may have drawn on the writings of Michael  
Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA  
Counter-Terrorism Centre's bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer, who  
retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as 'Anonymous': Through Our  
Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on  
Terror. (He was unmasked in the Boston Phoenix.)


Scheuer contests the view put forward by George W. Bush and Tony Blair:  
'We in the United States and the West make a mistake when we argue, as has  
[New York Times columnist] Thomas L. Friedman, that bin Laden's attacks  
are "not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. foreign policy," or, as  
Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin did in Survival in early 2002, that bin  
Laden has "no discrete set of negotiatiable political demands".' (Through  
Our Enemies' Eyes, p. 256)


Scheuer argues that Osama bin Laden has 'clear, focused, limited and  
widely popular foreign policy goals', including:

'the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;  
the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other  
Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by  
Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive,  
apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and  
the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at  
higher prices.'


Scheuer observes that, 'Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and  
Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy  
America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical warrior,  
not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.' (Imperial Hubris,  
p. xviii)


Scheuer wrote, while still a serving CIA officer, 'Bin Laden has been  
precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the  
reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but  
have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.'  
(Imperial Hubris, p. x) Scheuer goes further, arguing that 'the United  
States, and its policies and actions, are bin Laden's only indispensable  
allies'. (Imperial Hubris, p. xi)


WHAT CAN WE DO?
The 9/11 Commission also asked the question, 'What can we do to stop these  
attacks?' It suggested that, while bin Laden's campaign had begun in  
reaction to US policies, 'it quickly became far deeper': 'To the second  
question of what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America  
should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality  
and godlessness of its culture... If the United States did not comply, it  
would be at war with the Islamic nation'. (The 9/11 Commission Report, pp.  
50-51)


The Commission produced no evidence that al Qaeda had such a maximalist  
programme. Michael Scheuer vigorously disputes this view, drawing a  
distinction between 'the things a Muslim would find offensive', and things  
which a Muslim might regard as an attack on Islam or on Muslims. 'Part of  
bin Laden's genius is that he recognized early on the difference between  
those issues Muslims find offensive about America and the West, and those  
they find intolerable and life threatening.' (Imperial Hubris, p. 10)


Jason Burke, Chief Reporter for the London Observer, points out in his  
book Al-Qaeda, 'While bin Laden's discourse may be based on an  
interpretation of Islamic history, his power is derived from playing on  
the current social, economic and political problems of the Muslim world.'  
(Al-Qaeda, Penguin, 2004, p. 25)


In the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, bin Laden and other  
non-Afghan Muslims 'went there to fight the Red Army not because the  
Soviets were atheists and communists' but because of their brutal  
invasion. (Imperial Hubris, p. 10) After the invasion was reversed, the  
mujahideen did not continue armed action against the atheist and  
anti-Islamic Soviet Union. When the grievance ended, so did the mujahideen  
war.


Scheuer, as already pointed out, argues that Osama bin Laden has 'clear,  
focused, [and] limited' foreign policy goals. The goal is not the  
establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state in the US, whatever the  
9/11 Commission asserts, but deep change in US foreign policy.


WHAT WOULD MAKE AL QAEDA STOP?
After 11 September, bin Laden said, 'Just as they are killing us, we have  
to kill them so there will be a balance of terror... We will do as they  
do. If they kill our women and innocent people, we will kill their women  
and innocent people until they stop.' (Cited in Through Our Enemies' Eyes,  
p. 247, emphasis added)


Intervening in the closing days of the 2004 presidential election, bin  
Laden told the American people, 'Your security does not lie in the hands  
of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and  
every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically  
assured its own security.' (BBC, 30 Oct). This was translated by CNN as,  
'Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.' 'Us' is meant  
to refer to the community of Muslim nations and populations, and 'attack'  
has a broad meaning, as former CIA official Michael Scheuer explains.


Writing before the invasion of Iraq, Scheuer commented: 'How will [al  
Qaeda] recognise victory? Easy, by forcing drastic changes in U.S. foreign  
policy... when U.S. and British forces evacuate Saudi Arabia and the rest  
of the Arabian peninsula; when the United States has terminated all aid to  
Israel; and when the U.S. and UN embargoes on Iraq are lifted.' (These  
achievements, bin Laden believes, 'will lead inevitably to destruction of  
Israel and what bin Laden has called the regimes of "hypocrites" in Saudi  
Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere.') (Through Our Enemies' Eyes, p. 256)


To these goals, one might add the ending of the US-UK occupation of Iraq  
and presence in Afghanistan.



LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES
Underlying these demands are legitimate grievances against the West:  
Western support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians; the invasion  
of Iraq and Afghanistan; the brutal sanctions imposed on Iraq (now  
lifted); and US-UK support for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East.  
These are immoral policies which should be reversed because they are  
wrong. So is the policy of ignoring-or supporting-oppression in Chechnya  
and elsewhere.


It so happens that reversing these immoral policies would drain most if  
not all of the hatred which fuels al Qaeda. This is how we can stop bin  
Laden. War, retaliation and violence simply adds to his appeal.


PUNISHMENT OR SURVIVAL
The governments of Britain and the United States can pursue the path of  
punishment and preventive violence, or they can seek to bring this wave of  
terrorism to an end. Bringing al Qaeda-style terrorism to an end means,  
above all, reducing the motivation that exists to carry out terrorism.


This does not mean 'negotiating with terrorists' or 'capitulating to their  
demands', but seeking justice and human rights for all, including the  
peoples of Palestine and Iraq.


The answer to terrorism is justice, not more terrorism. London and  
Washington must also stop practising the terrorism of the powerful -  
invasion, occupation, and indirect terrorism via oppressive states.


'We should recognise that in much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a  
leading terrorist state, and with good reason.' Noam Chomsky (Chomsky,  
9/11, Seven Stories, 2001, p. 23)




-- 

Justice Not Vengeance
landline 0845 458 9571 (UK) +44 1424 428 792 (int)
mobile phone (0)7980 748 555
www.j-n-v.org