<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with much of the content in the article,
but the selective nature of the quoting is astonishing. The last time I
heard anything that was attributed to bin Laden, he was exhorting his fellow
Muslims to rise up and quash the Judeo-Christian menace. Nothing was
mentioned about Israel or Iraq (unsurprisingly, since bin Laden offered to fight
against them if Saddam decided to invade Saudi Arabia)...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=+1>To say that the Manhattan and Pentagon
bombers are 'fascists with an Islamic face' can help whip up a war-frenzy, but
it solves nothing, apart from being a wrong-headed analogy. Pre-war fascism
was based on both mass and corporate support, which they retained till it
became obvious that they were going to be defeated. Likewise the European
'post'- fascists today: Haidar in Austria, Fini in Italy, Le Pen in France and
their friends in Britain base themselves on a certain degree of popular
support.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=+1>The groups that carried out the attack on
the United States are reminiscent of another tradition. They are propagandists
of the deed. They imagine that by sensational terrorist actions they can exert
sufficient pressure to change the course of politics and history. It is
pressure politics of the sort, which deliberately excludes any attempt to
mobilize mass support. Someone once referred to them as 'liberals with a
bomb'. They believe that the spectacle of murder and mayhem can effect change
and usually they're wrong.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=+1>Who were they? How were they recruited?
What made them decide to sacrifice their own lives and thousands of others?
Here the answers are obvious. The question is not what Osama Bin Laden thinks
of the state of the world. His former employers in the CIA are well versed as
far as he concerned. The question is how he recruits middle-class graduates in
Saudi Arabia and Egypt to his cause. For it is they and not the illiterate
bearded fanatics in Afghanistan who carried out these monstrous actions. Here
a quick viewing of Bin Laden's video messages to his followers in Saudi Arabia
and Egypt makes his appeal obvious. What he says (and I've seen one of them)
is that the Gulf War was a crime against the people of Iraq. He and Hitchens
agree on that. Secondly he denounces the continued occupation of Palestine and
Western complicity with the suffering of the Palestinians. Hitchens would
agree with that as well. Thirdly he denounces the corrupt and hypocritical
Arab regimes and venal political leaders who refuse to re-distribute
wealth.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=+1>He refers to them as bloodsuckers living
off the oil that is a 'common property'. Here, too, I think, Hitchens would be
in agreement. Of course, Bin Laden's solution is a nightmare Pax Talibana
throughout the world of Islam, which few Muslims or non-Muslims want. But his
appeal for educated young men in the Middle-East lies in what he demands and
therefore our response must surely be to insist on political solutions that
drain away support from terrorist groups. When the IRA attempted to blow up
the British Cabinet in Brighton, the British state, horrified though it was,
did not declare war on Ireland. In fact, soon afterwards it began to search
for political solutions.</FONT></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>