September
11: Relevant Questions
By Ramzy Baroud
15 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Osama
bin Laden has once again managed to occupy the stage and to insist on
his relevance to the story of September 11, 2001. In his most recent
video message, released by Reuters a few days before the sixth anniversary
of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, bin Laden voiced
some typically absurd statements, calling on Americans to embrace Islam
and so forth.
What is really worth noting
in bin Laden's message, however, is not the message itself, but the
underlying factors that can be deduced from it. First, bin Laden wished
to convey that he is alive and well and thus the US military efforts
have failed miserably.
Second, his reappearance
- a first since October 2004 - will be analyzed endlessly by hundreds
of "experts" who will inundate widespread audiences with every
possible interpretation - the fact that he looked healthy, that he dyed
his beard, that he dressed in Arab attire as opposed to a military fatigue
and a Kalashnikov by his side, that he read from a paper and so on.
Conspiracy theorists are
already up in arms, some questioning whether the character in the video
is bin Laden at all, and others wondering why the tape was promoted
by a US terrorist watch group - SITE (Search for International Terrorist
Entities) Intelligence Group - even before its
release by Reuters, and why it didn't make it directly to the various
extremist websites first, as is usually the case.
The news and the Internet
are already rife with stories that are connected with bin Laden's re-emergence.
A prominent Muslim scholar told Agence France-Press that the dyed beard
is a "sign of war" according to the Salafi Islamic school
to which bin Laden belongs. Go figure.
Others, who wish to highlight
the fact that US security efforts have managed to prevent further attacks
on US soil, would rather emphasize factors such as bin Laden not having
made any direct threats (a supposed sign of weakness).
Bin Laden has indeed succeeded
in diverting attention from the legacy and meaning of September 11 by
reducing it to a mere fight between a disgruntled man - whose whereabouts
since the Tora Bora Mountains battle in Afghanistan remains uncertain
- and a president who dragged his country into a costly, unjustified
and unpopular war.
The reality, however, is
starkly different from this caricature reductionism, which the experts
on "Islamic terrorism" fail to explain. For those who have
shaped their careers on deciphering and decoding bin Laden, worrying
about the bigger picture would hardly be self-serving.
But indeed there is a bigger
picture, one that bin Laden's message, and the touting of the importance
of that message, are unfortunately undermining. While there are lessons
that must be gleaned from six years of tragic war, terror and wanton
killing and destruction, these lessons hardly include the need for a
wholesale conversion of Americans to Islam (one need not pose as an
Islamic scholar to claim that such a call is un-Islamic).
For bin Laden somehow to
represent existing opposition to President George W Bush's policy would
indeed be very unfortunate and would actually detract from these important
lessons.
First, although they repeatedly
voice grievances similar to those held by millions of Muslims (and others)
around the world, bin Laden and al-Qaeda do not speak for or represent
mainstream Muslims. Mainstream Islam has historically been grounded
on tolerance and moderation, qualities that bin Laden and his fanatics
hardly represent.
Second, extremism in the
Muslim world may be on the rise, but this doesn't pertain to bin Laden
and his scarce messages. The obvious fact is that extremism (Muslim
or any other) is intrinsically related to areas of conflict and never
happens in a vacuum or under stable socioeconomic realities.
A study of suicide bombings
and foreign occupations, oppression and radical interpretation of religious
(or any ideological) texts, massacres, wanton killings and calls for
revenge will show that each of these factors is greatly related to the
other.
Third, the war on Iraq was
a pre-calculated move that dates to 2002, when US deputy defense secretary
Paul Wolfowitz and his neo-conservative ilk began pushing for forceful
and hostile foreign policy. September 11 merely provided the opportunity
to justify such a war, even though those terrorists had nothing to do
with Iraq.
Fourth, the combination of
fear, public panic and war continue to undermine US democracy. Under
the guise of an ill-defined "war on terror", Americans have
paid an irreversible price - more Americans have died in Iraq than did
in the September 11 attacks; the numbers of Americans wounded in Iraq
top 20,000; Americans are spied on; people with integrity are losing
their jobs for taking a moral stance and opposing the Bush administration;
respected intellectuals are questioned at airports and community groups
of conscientious citizens are monitored as security threats.
Fifth, it is America's war
on Iraq, underreported killing fields in Afghanistan and blind support
and financing of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine that largely
fuel terrorism and extremism and which are costing the US its so-called
battle for "hearts and minds".
The obvious truth is that
such a battle can never be won when a million Iraqis are killed and
4 million are made homeless in their own country. No "hearts and
minds" can be captured when Palestinians are killed in Israel's
"routine" daily missions in Gaza and the West Bank, or when
poor Afghan peasants are blown to bits in random "searches"
for bin Laden.
Indeed, it is in the Bush
administration's interest for bin Laden to disseminate his messages
at a time when some important and overdue questions ought to be asked.
It isn't bin Laden and his dyed beard that should be flashing on our
screens on this tragic day, but the disgraced faces of those who exploited
the tragedy of a stricken nation to inflict tragedies on others.
September 11 should be a
day on which we remember those who died in New York, near Washington
and in Pennsylvania, and also in Kabul, Baghdad and Gaza, so that we
can work together at bringing all the culprits to account.
Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American
author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published
in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The
Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto
Press, London). Read more about Baroud at his website ramzybaroud.net.
Ramzy Baroud is
a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide.
His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about Baroud at his
website ramzybaroud.net
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.