Terrorism and Revolution

It was with disbelief and shock that people around the world saw footage of the terrorist attacks in the
US on on September 11, 2001 when the planes-turned-missiles slammed into the World Trade Center
towers and damaged the Pentagon.

This ultimately resulted in the US declaring and waging a war on “terror”. Osama Bin Laden was
eventually tracked down and killed some 10 years later. But the way the war on terror has been
conducted has led to many voicing concerns about the impact on civil liberties, the cost of the
additional security focused changes, the implications of the invasions and wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and more.

It is now over a decade since the terrorist attacks in the US, simply dubbed “9-11” shocked the world,
and ushered in a global “war on terror”.

And looking back, what has the US to show for its decade of effort? Has it been winning the war on
terror? It depends how it is measured. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was of course a major success.
But the cost of vengeance (instead of justice) has also been high:

 A further turn towards hatred and a rise in those who think most Muslims are terrorists, that
Islam is a threat to the world, etc.
 Wars that have seen far more than the 3,500 deaths that the US saw, and a self-fulfilling
prophecy; creating more anger and resentment against the US, more potential terrorists, and the
complete opposite of what the neo-cons wanted; global downturn and US decline instead
consolidating their power and position in the world.
 Over 6,000 US soldiers killed in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Possibly 100 times that number
of civilians in those countries (in Iraq, at an early point, there was an estimated range of 400,000
to 900,000 civilian deaths, which of course Bush had to reject, claiming it used flawed
techniques, even though it used estimation techniques his own government agencies taught
others to use).

 The rest of Jim Lobe’s article provides a useful summary of why Bush’s focus on Iraq (under
the clearly false and fear-mongering excuses of weapons of mass destruction and links to
terrorism), instead of tackling terrorism, was “perhaps the single-most disastrous foreign
policy decision by a U.S. president in the past decade, if not the past century.” This is because
 it allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan leading to more expensive military operations
and strengthening Al Qaeda’s resolve further. Meanwhile, various US actions in Iraq and
elsewhere damaged its reputation around the world.
 The above summary also matches concerns raised further below (in the section on Bush
Losing the War on Terror) which was written quite some time ago, so it did not have to take a
decade to look back and see a change in course should have been possible. But maybe the
impact of the enormous cost this would have (US tax payers have had to fork out trillions of
dollars) was somewhat unimaginable?
 For many years even before 9-11, neoconservatives had called for the US to consolidate its
position in the world as the sole superpower and dominate further. 9-11 appeared to give them
an excuse to push these ideas further and their ideology permeated throughout top-level
thinking of the Bush Administration. It is therefore quite ironic, as Jim Lobe also notes, that
“leading the charge [for such an aggressive foreign policy approach] were precisely those
hawks whose fondest wish was to extend, rather than cut short, Washington’s global
hegemony.”
 By framing this as a war on “terror” (which, as a concept can almost never end), an excuse is
now afforded to all governments to put in place tough security measured on any potentially
flimsy basis. And the predicted “war” on civil liberties and human rights has unfortunately
proven true as human rights organizations around the world feared from the start of the war on
terror (as discussed further below).
 If the US public mood at the time was understandably full of anger and vengeance as well as
shock and disbelief, it also reflects badly on US society that voices for more measured and
appropriately calculated responses could be drowned out; an individual acting in a regrettable
way due to a moment of anger is very different than an entire state apparatus (that should have
time to think things through more thoroughly) doing that.
 Maybe it could be argued that with hindsight it is easy to make these criticisms.
Unfortunately, however, these concerns were there from the start, and re-iterated many times
by many people and organizations during the past decade.
 But not all have wanted vengeance. Many families of the victims of the 9-11 atrocity have
campaigned for a more peaceful approach to combating terrorism, for example.
 Accompanying this has been media propaganda, media manipulation, sensationalism, sound-
bite journalism and all the various other problems that have minimized coverage of deeper
issues and understanding while allowing various claims to go almost unchallenged. (Some
examples and links are presented further below.)
 The rest of the article below started shortly after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 and was updated a
few times up to 2007. It barely covered any details but still showed these numerous concerns
from so many people and organizations were already there and are still relevant.
 With disbelief and shock around the world people saw the news footage of the events on
September 11, 2001 when the planes-turned-missiles slammed into the World Trade Center
towers and into the Pentagon. What is probably the worst terrorist attack on the United States,
was totally inexcusable and roundly condemned.
 Some 3000 were killed. Initial fears were that it was over 6000 »
 The subsequent bombing of Afghanistan to attack Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist
network and the Taliban for harboring them has also led to some 3,500 civilian deaths,
according to an independent study released at the beginning of December 2001.
 The ghastly terrorist attacks led to a mixture of political, social and economic reaction around
the world.
 Hatred and anti-Islam sentiment, (without distinguishing the despotic militants from ordinary
Muslims) increased, even though most of the Muslim communities around the world
condemned this act.
 While visible efforts were seen by politicians to try to separate terrorists from Muslims in
general, it has not been easy. On the one hand, after years of economic and geopolitical
history, there are some aspects of distrust, while on the other hand, extremists in the Muslim
and Christian communities are adding to the antagonisms. For example, during the height of
the shock and anger to the September 11 attacks, extremist tendencies in the West resulted in
beatings and even killings of Muslims. Even non-Muslims that just happened to have long
beards or in some way resembled Taliban/Al Qaeda members were targeted. Others saw this
as “proof” that Islam is inherently violent or that it is the primary threat to the rest of the
world, etc. On the Muslim side, there have also been equally extreme reactions, from support
of these terrorist acts to even being convinced that this was some sort of Zionist conspiracy to
blame Muslims! In both cases these seem to be a minority of people with such extreme views
but of course the concern is always that it will increase over time.
 There was no question that there was going to be some sort of retaliation and response from
the United States. One could not have expected them seriously to refrain from wanting to take
revenge. Yet the fear was in what form this revenge would be and how it would be carried out
as well as what the impact on ordinary Afghans would be, who have already suffered at the
hands of the Taliban and outside forces for years.
 In addition, some eight months after the attacks it was revealed in the mainstream press
around the world that the CIA had warned George Bush of the threats weeks before September
11. This caused an uproar in many places, including the United States Congress, where
members demanded more information to understand if all those deaths could have been
prevented.
 The terrible events of September 11 saw the considerable quieting of what was until then
growing domestic and international criticism of the Bush Administration. The September 11
 events resulted in a “war on terror” which saw support for Bush and his popularity soar at the
time.
 Up to September 11, 2001, the Bush administration was being criticized around the world for
its stances on various issues domestically and internationally. Even European and other allies
were very critical of positions on numerous global issues.
 But even before the Bush Administration, throughout the world, many nations and groups of
people had expressed their frustrations at how U.S. foreign policies had affected them on all
sorts of issues, ranging from economic/globalization issues that have deepened poverty and/or
inequality for most people around the world; geopolitics/arms/missile defense; environmental
issues and so on. Protests either directly, or indirectly at U.S. policies have occurred all around
the world—especially on globalization issues—as mentioned on this web site. (See the section
on global protests for more on that, for example).
 Yet that cannot be an excuse for the atrocity of September 11 as it killed many innocent
people. At the same time, people have correctly pointed out that when other regions around
the world have faced similar terrorist attacks, the outpouring of concern and condemnation has
not been as much. The Washington Post (September 12, 2001) even dared to admit this at such
a sensitive time shortly after the attacks. (Their article is no longer online.)
 However, behind the unity of the American people in the shock of September 11, a heightened
sense of security resulted with concerns reverberating throughout the world. Many were
concerned about the resulting crackdown of freedoms and civil liberties in various nations.
Many worried that various countries around the world would also use this “war on terror” as
an excuse to pursue more aggressive options on their own citizens.
 For example, consider the concerns Amnesty International raised in October 2001, shortly
after the September 11, 2001 attacks: “In the name of fighting ‘international terrorism’,
governments have rushed to introduce draconian new measures that threaten the human rights
of their own citizens, immigrants and refugees…. Governments have a responsibility to ensure
the safety of their citizens, but measures taken must not undermine fundamental human rights
standards. It appears that some of the initiatives currently being discussed or implemented
may be used to curb basic human rights and to suppress internal opposition. Some of the
definitions of ‘terrorism’ under discussion are so broad that they could be used to criminalize
anyone out of favor with those in power and criminalize legitimate peaceful exercise of the
right to freedom of expression and association. They could also put at risk the right to privacy
and threaten the rights of minorities and asylum-seekers.”
 In May 2003, Amnesty International charged, “The ‘war on terror’, far from making the world
a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of
international law and shielding governments from scrutiny. It has deepened divisions among
 people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict. The overwhelming
impact of all this is genuine fear—among the affluent as well as the poor.”
 Even in the U.S. some of the resulting policies on how suspects will be treated, on how access
to personal information will be made available for security concerns and so on, led to debates
at all levels on what is considered an attack on civil liberties, and what is reasonable for
security. On the foreign policy arena, there was increasing concern that the U.S. would be able
to use the “war on terror” to pursue aggressive policies that were previously criticized by
many other people. This can range from economic, to political and even military policies. The
Iraq war was one such example, where among other things, the concern of terrorism was used
to justify a war against Iraq, even though the terrorism links were not real.
 Also of importance, with its loose definition of terror, there is concern that the “war on terror”
, will also affect all those working honestly for peace and social justice for all, as even they
will come under scrutiny for perhaps appropriately criticizing policies of any number of
nations and organizations around the world, including those from the West.
 Interestingly, the prevention of a renowned constitutional lawyer and former US Marine
revealed that peace marchers and those who criticized George Bush could find themselves on
the US government’s no-fly list. In early 2007, Walter Murphy, a constitutional law scholar
and professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University (described as “the most
distinguished constitutional scholars of the 20th century”) had criticized the Bush
administration for abusing the US Constitution. Shortly after that as he tried to fly somewhere
he was stopped by authorities because he was on the “terrorist watch list” as they had put it.

That peace marchers would be on terrorist watch lists seems shocking. However, in some regards, this
revelation is not as surprising as it may first seem. For years it has been suspected that this happens—
around the world, not just in the US. In addition, towards the end of 2006, it was revealed that
the Pentagon is keeping secret surveillance on peaceful protest activities. Furthermore, thousands have
been mistakenly put on the no-fly list, and it is very hard to know why and get off it.

Many might feel they are willing to give up some of their rights for more security, but as Irene Khan
notes “Human rights matter because they offer a powerful and compelling vision of a better and fairer
world, and a concrete plan of how to get there. These global values of justice are the most effective
route to security and peace.”

The “war on terror” has in some respects, led to what has been described as a “war on freedom”.

While citizens everywhere, especially Americans, were rightly outraged at the attacks, the mainstream
media has largely concentrated on the effects, the various aftermaths and impacts, and reporting what
political leaders are doing, saying or not doing, or not saying, etc. They have also reported immense
detail on some of the aspects of the actual bombing in Afghanistan, etc. As with most other conflicts in
recent history though, while enormous in quantity, media reporting appears comparatively lacking in
depth, historical context, and investigative analysis on the causes that fuel such outrageous militant
extremism and terrorism.
The so-called range of discourse then, is quite narrow, but within it, coverage is quite detailed. The
reporting of some aspects is indeed very moving and very good. There is, however, appropriate
criticism of some extremism creeping into some aspects of the mainstream media as well, in certain
circumstances. Importantly though, our range of perspectives is also affected by the range of
discourse. This is especially relevant now, as citizens seek answers on how and why such a terrible
atrocity could be committed. (For more on the coverage of the media, with analysis and critique of the
mainstream media itself, see this web site’s section: War on Terror Mainstream Media and
Propaganda)

As the 10 year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks approached, having managed to kill Osama Bin Laden,
the US officials as well as the public felt quite relieved and victorious.

Bush and his conservative supporters tried to take false credit for Bin Laden’s killing, when it was
Bush that in 2002 claimed he wasn’t concerned much with finding Bin Laden (instead more interested
in Iraq). In 2005 He had also shut down the CIA unit responsible for hunting him down, and in 2009 it
was revealed that Bush’s top officials missed a chance to nab Bin Laden in 2001 when US forces were
closing in on him; top Bush national security officials had rejected repeated pleas for reinforcements
from commanders and intelligence officials, despite available resources. (Has Bush taken any “credit”
for the enormous financial mess the US is now in?)

There was also much reflection on attitudes and opinions of the past decade.

A major investigative report by the Center for American Progress found that a small group of inter-
linked foundations, think tanks, pundits, and bloggers is behind the 10-year-old campaign to promote
fear of Islam and Muslims in the U.S.
Despite coming from a small group, their influence has permeated through the right-wing in the US, as
another report finds that this these kind of views are typically reflected along partisan
lines (Republicans typically being anti-Islam, Democrats being typically more liberal), it is important
to note how such a vast swathe of people’s views can be manipulated by a minority (that has been
quite influential). Groups like the Tea Party and News outlets such as Fox end up entertaining what
would otherwise be considered extremeviews in most societies to become quite a mainstream view in
the US.
All that being said, the media is still important. There are signals in global media reporting that could
have been used to help discover Bin Laden’s location much sooner, for example, according to
the BBC.
(For additional insights, see also this site’s sections on propaganda during the war on terror, and an
example of how Britain’s Tony Blair used fear and spin to fight a war on terror.)

With all the vivid imagery, we can only now begin to imagine how other people and societies around
the world have suffered in other situations. With often worse results, albeit not so sudden and
shocking, entire cities/regions have been leveled and/or enormous amount of life has been lost in
places like Kosovo, Iraq, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, all over
Europe during the World Wars, and too many other places to be able to list here.

With the US-led bombing campaign on Afghanistan, there has always been more and more concern
about civilians being caught in the middle. Indeed, by early December 2001, some 3,500 Afghan
civilians were believed to have been killed by U.S. bombing. Furthermore, many aid agencies
criticized the food drops for not delivering much actual aid and being a token gesture, rather than an
effective one.

Perhaps one of the biggest fears, voiced before the retaliation started, is that retaliated violence could
result in more retaliated violence and we risk tit-for-tat violence that looks hard to get out of. In all
this, civilians on all sides will always be affected. We only need remind ourselves of that shuddering
speech by Osama Bin Laden on his threats of retaliation against civilians and of various “hawkish”
politicians in the West asking for the equivalent of no mercy.

Yet, how does one get out of this vicious circle? Of course it is not easy, and even a lot of the “peace
movement” struggle on this answer, but perhaps if more voice was given in the media to these broader
views, then alternative thoughts could be considered. True, more on peace-related alternatives are
discussed in TV forums and debates, but when it comes to the actual reporting and one-on-one
discussion and analysis, the context is limited to the current actions and options. The discussions are
therefore within those confines, mostly.

On the foreign policy front, even recent history of the last 50 years or so has been questionable by both
Western leaders and Middle Eastern leaders. For example, thesupport by the west of brutal leaders in
the middle east has contributed to an extremist backlash. In their fight to get the Soviet Union out of
Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden himself, as well as other jihadists, were supported by the US,
encouraging the training of jihadists and the rise of miltantism to galvanize opposition to the
communists. As the article in the previous link implies, while it seems that the lesser of two evils was
supported, perhaps the long term consequences were not fully explored and it does seem that violence
and fear breeds more violence and fear.
October 27, 2004, the BBC aired one of its documentaries in the Fear series. This episode was
titled The Power of Nightmares.
In this program, the BBC detailed how before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bin Laden’s
movement was a failing movement, that had not succeeded in arousing the masses in the Middle East
against what it saw as corruption coming from the West. The only place they could go where masses
had not turned away from their gruesome and violent means was Afghanistan. In 1996/1997 they
announced a jihad on America itself which, they believed, was the source of this corruption.

At the same time, the BBC noted, the neo-conservatives in the U.S. were also failing to get their
message through to the American people that their country had become corrupted by liberal politics.
After failing to fully undermine Clinton in a few scandals, the Monica Lewinksy affair became a major
opportunity. They gained power in 2000.

September 11, the BBC noted, became the opportunity for the neo-cons to create a new enemy to
replace the now defunct Soviet Union. In effect then, they made out Bin Laden’s failing movement to
be a serious revolutionary organization. Ironically, the BBC also pointed out, this was the same image
Bin Laden seemed to dream of aspiring to.

Fear, used by Islamic extremists on Muslim people throughout the Middle East, could once again be
used, as the BBC ended. This time it would be used by the neo-conservatives upon American citizens
in order to gather support for what used to be considered an extremist ideology, even by many
conservatives. All this would now fall under the banner of a war on terror.

Yet, a cycle of violence is what should also be feared. Fear may be used to rally support for more
extreme measures both upon citizens of America, and upon people of other countries. Yet, using fear
in such a way may fuel harsh reactions, leading to further harsh retaliations, and so on. Once again
ordinary citizens may suffer the most.

For more on this aspect, see this site’s section on the middle east and in particular aboutsupport by the
west of brutal leaders in the middle east where there is more context as to why some Islamic
extremism arose, why support for it was failing, and the impact on ordinary citizens.
Three years after the initial terrorist attacks, it was leaked that U.S. Defence Secretary himself, Donald
Rumsfeld felt that it was not possible to know how the war on terror was progressing.
“Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror,” he wrote in a
memo to his top staff 11 months ago. “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more
terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying
against us?”

Inter Press Service added that “If that is how success in the Bush administration’s ‘war on terrorism’
is to be measured, then Rumsfeld would have to conclude that he is failing badly.”

And some five years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite the Bush Administration’s
insistence that the US is winning this difficult war on terror (especially in Iraq, which they consider to
be the forefront of this battle), experts and considerable public opinion the world over think otherwise.

For example, the situation in Iraq, and recently Afghanistan has worsened.
In addition, as the New York Times revealed (September 24, 2006), the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall
terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Importantly, this assessment is not from the NY Times itself, but from the classifiedNational
Intelligence Estimate, an authoritative and comprehensive report based on the detailed analysis of all
16 of America’s intelligence agencies.
Alternet reported (March 1, 2007) on another authoritative study that also found that the war on terror
was the leading cause of terrorism. The study looked at terrorist attacks after the Iraq invasion in 2003
and found an increase in terrorism as a result.
Such reports contradict Bush and Blair’s predictable insistence otherwise. The Whitehouse refused to
release the full National Intelligence Estimate report, stating national security fears and concerns about
safety of agents, instead releasing only a four page summary, which has been used by both critics and
supporters alike. Supporters of the Bush policy note that this report is proof that the US must stay the
distance in Iraq, while critics decry the Bush Administration’s terrible planning and the string of
disasters, such as torture abuses and worsening situation, made by the the US presence there.

On numerous fronts there are many, many things going on which readers have asked me to write on. It
is difficult to keep up with all the angles with the view to write on all of them. As a result, for now,
until I am able to catch up, included below, under this section on the war on terrorism are articles
reposted from other web sites and authors from around the world that offer a variety of deeper and
wider perspectives and views. They are broadly categorized into the sections listed below, although
many articles can easily fit other categories too.
Also, in the More Information page is a growing collection of links and sources to other web sites that
offer deeper perspectives.

I do not necessarily agree with all of the views of all the links and sources provided, and by no means
are they a comprehensive list, rather an example.

Some of the more mainstream sources concentrate much more on the effects and aftermaths, while
some of the other sources also offer deeper analysis on causes as well as ramifications around the
world. These sites have more links that you can follow to other web sites. More sites will be added as
time goes on.