9-11 Read Free Page B

victims of the Taliban, but also that it will answer the most fervent prayers of bin Laden and his network.
    The second question is: “why?” This question is rarely raised in any serious way.
    To refuse to face this question is to choose to increase significantly the probability of further crimes of this kind. There have been some exceptions. As I mentioned earlier, the Wall Street Journal , to its credit, reviewed the opinions of “moneyed Muslims,” people who are pro-American but severely critical of U.S. policies in the region, for reasons that are familiar to anyone who has paid any attention. The feelings in the streets are similar, though far more bitter and angry.
    The bin Laden network itself falls into a different category, and in fact its actions for 20 years have caused great harm to the poor and oppressed people of the region, who are not the concern of the terrorist networks. But they do draw from a reservoir of anger, fear, and desperation, which is why they are praying for a violent U.S. reaction, which will mobilize others to their horrendous cause.
    Such topics as these should occupy the front pages—at least, if we hope to reduce the cycle of violence rather than to escalate it.

3.

The Ideological Campaign
    Based on separate interviews with Radio B92 (Belgrade) on September 18, 2001, Elise Fried and Peter Kreysler for DeutschlandFunk Radio (Germany) on September 20, 2001, and Paola Leoni for Giornale del Popolo (Switzerland) on September 21, 2001.
    Q: How do you see the media coverage of this event? Is there a parallel to the Gulf War in “manufacturing consent”?
    CHOMSKY: Media coverage is not quite as uniform as Europeans seem to believe, perhaps because they are keeping to the New York Times , National Public Radio, TV, and so on. Even the New York Times conceded, this morning, that attitudes in New York are quite unlike those they have been conveying. It’s a good story, also hinting at the fact that the mainstream media have not been reporting this, which is not entirely true, though it has been true, pretty much, of the New York Times .
    The Times now reports that “the drumbeat for war … is barely audible on the streets of New York,” and that calls for peace “far outnumber demands for retribution,” even at the main “outdoor memorial to loss and grief” for the victims of the atrocity. In fact, that’s not unusual around the country. There is surely virtually unanimous sentiment,which all of us share, for apprehending and punishing the perpetrators, if they can be found. But I think there is probably strong majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing plenty of innocent people.
    But it is entirely typical for the major media, and the intellectual classes generally, to line up in support of power at a time of crisis and try to mobilize the population for the same cause. That was true, with almost hysterical intensity, at the time of the bombing of Serbia. The Gulf War was not at all unusual.
    And the pattern goes far back in history.
    Assuming that the terrorists chose the World Trade Center as a symbolic target, how does globalization and cultural hegemony help create hatred towards America?
    This is an extremely convenient belief for Western intellectuals. It absolves them of responsibility for the actions that actually do lie behind the choice of the World Trade Center. Was it bombed in 1993 because of concern over globalization and cultural hegemony? Was Sadat assassinated 20 years ago because of globalization? Is that why the “Afghanis” of the CIA-backed forces fought Russia in Afghanistan, or in Chechnya now?
    A few days ago the Wall Street Journal reported attitudes of rich and privileged Egyptians who were at a McDonald’s restaurant wearing stylish American clothes, etc., and who were bitterly critical of the U.S. for objective reasons of policy, which are well-known to those who wish to know: they had a report a few days earlier on attitudesof