Institute for Public Accuracy

915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045

(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org

___________________________________________________

PM Sunday, October 7, 2001

Bombing Afghanistan: Interviews Available

JOHN QUIGLEY, quigley.2@osu.edu,

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1006-03.htm

Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said today: "We have to ask, 'Will this protect the U.S. from further attacks?'.... Military action should have been done through the Security Council at the United Nations. As it is -- a U.S. and U.K. military action -- it is illegal under international law."

RAHUL MAHAJAN, rahul@tao.ca, http://www.nowarcollective.com,

http://www.commondreams.org,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011007/aponline085710_000.htm

National board member of Peace Action and a specialist on South and Central Asian affairs, Mahajan said today: "The Taliban have recently shown willingness to negotiate -- just releasing a British journalist and, within the last 24 hours, offering to try bin Laden before an Islamic court. Instead of making a reasonable counteroffer, the Bush and Blair governments started bombing."

LAMIS ANDONI, LamisAndoni@yahoo.com, http://www.meionline.com

An independent journalist and analyst, Andoni has covered the Mideast for over two decades. She said today: "The Arab people are obviously opposed tothe Sept. 11 attacks, but the U.S. is again proving that the only way it deals with the region is coercion, extortion and violence. Once again the U.S. is perpetuating the conditions of injustice in the region, which will feed the extremists."

ANITA WEISS, aweiss@oregon.uoregon.edu

Weiss was in Pakistan on Sept. 11. She is co-editor of "Power and Civil Society in Pakistan" (Oxford University Press, 2001) and professor of international studies at the University of Oregon.

AS'AD ABUKHALIL, abukhali@toto.csustan.edu

Associate professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus and a fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, AbuKhalil is author of the article "Islam and the Study of Central Asia."

RANIA MASRI, rania@nc.rr.com

A national board member of Peace Action, Masri is at a peace vigil Sunday in North Carolina.

KEVIN DANAHER, http://www.globalexchange.org

Co-founder of Global Exchange and author of "Globalize This," Danaher wrote a recent Washington Post op-ed article titled "Justice, Not War."

BEAU GROSSCUP, bgrosscup@csuchico.edu

Author of the book "The Newest Explosions of Terrorism," Grosscup is a professor of international relations at the California State University in Chico.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:

Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked -- a situation such as we are now in -- pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain's pacifists:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Americans opposed to violence against Afghans, such as myself, are not in favor of violence against Americans. By opposing a war against 'them,' one is not necessarily supporting a war against 'us.' That's the train of thought Mr.Bush would love for all U.S. citizens to take. But there are non-violent solutions to every problem. In this case, non-violence would be much easier and much less costly than violence. International law is already sufficient to try and sentence the perpetrators of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. To solve the problem of terrorism in general, a change in U.S. foreign policy would be sufficient. There's no need to rush to arms at a time like this.

& rushing to arms is likely to provoke and justify a violent response in return

how can violence be moral?

were does it end?

You say: But there are non-violent solutions to every problem.

You are wrong. It's nice to think that we could resolve this problem by talking.

But, sadly, that is not the case. Militant fundamentalist Islam wants the "infidels" destroyed. They want Israel wiped off the map.

Militant fundamentalist Muslims have created a situation where non-violent resolution is not possible.

You say: International law is already sufficient to try and sentence the perpetrators of the WTC/Pentagon attacks.

International did not prevent the WTC/Pentagon attacks, despite our reliance on international law after Lockerbie, after the 1993 WTC attack, after the 1998 embassy bombings, etc.

International law is a joke to the enemy. They are willing to die for their cause. You think they're afraid of an indictment?

You say: To solve the problem of terrorism in general, a change in U.S. foreign policy would be sufficient.

In otherwords, "to solve the problem of terrorism, we should go along with the demands of anyone who would use terror. . . capitulate."

That is immoral.

are you so naive as to believe that if we do NOTHING in response to 9/11, then we won't be attacked again?

Please. These people want us all dead. Said so himself.

And yes, violence is moral.

If you have a gun and a clean shot, and you see a man about to machine gun down 75 school kids. He's already killed a bunch and he's just reloading.

Whatchagonna do? Use your arms for hugging?

If you don't shoot that guy before he kills the 75 school kids, you are immoral.

is it moral to kill thousands of civilians one country in blind retaliation against an illusive organization with cells across the world.

oppressive governments don't give a fuck about how many of their own citizens they hurt, do you think the taliban cares how many we injure/kill?

u.s. military strategy seeks to murder innocent civilians in mass numbers in an attempt to control the policies and actions of their government. how did this strategy fare in vietnam? how did it fare in iraq? it always fails because there is little understanding of government hunger for power above life. we never "fought off the communism" of vietnam despite all the people we murdered there. we never caught sadam hussein despite all the innocent iraqis we murdered and CONTINUE to murder...i guess that in a self-centered, overconsumptive, power-hungry, wealth-based nation we can only think of a violent response to violence.

violence never works to create sustainable positive changes

doing nothing is being passive. that is not the same as being a pacifist. killing indiscriminately is blind, petty rage, not a solution to international relations

This "war"(terrorist attack) is about aquiring (mainly for the U.S. and U.K.) a huge supply of oil in Central Asia-NOT "countering" terrorism(how do you counter terrorism with MORE terrorism?). Georgy-Porgy's dad does business with the likes of Osama bin Laden(so Georgy and Osama and Unocal, etc. can get rich off the oil). His grand-pappy's banking institution helped finance Adolf Hitler.

Can you say INSIDE JOB?

Hey steveo - didn't I see you down on the frontline, firing a .50 at the savage darkies? Kill-kill-kill-maim-maim-main-gimme-more-blood...

Lashing out against the savage world justifies the 911 attacks.

I know. I helped enforce US foreign policy. I made the world SAFE for big profits.