I'm Against Terrorism.
Now, If Only We Could Get Washington On Side

by Stephen Gowans

October 15, 2001

Share this story by E-mail

The meanings of some perfectly good words have been distorted through frequent abuse by politicians, journalists and other propagandists. One such word is "radical," which has come to mean "extremist" (itself a distortion, now denoting anyone who rejects the dominant ideology of the day) or someone prepared to resort to violence for political ends (which would make the current US administration and dozens of its predecessors the biggest radicals around.) But contrary to these corruptions, radical means neither extremist nor bomb thrower. Instead, the word shares a common antecedent with the words radish, eradicate and deracinate. They all come from the Latin "radix," or root.

Radicals, as the etymology suggests, are concerned with the roots of problems, and their solutions, therefore, involve attacks on root causes, not on the symptoms or outward manifestation of things. Were a radical to awake one morning to find his prized lawn maculated by the sight of millions of dandelions, he would immediately set out to deracinate the offending weeds (remove them by the roots), find out where the seeds come from, and take measures to prevent more seeds from finding purchase in his lawn in future.

The non-radical approach would be to immediately head for the shed, pull out the Weed Whacker, fire it up, and as it belched smoke into the now broken morning clam, set the clamorous machine to work beheading every dandelion in sight, all the while launching clusters of seeds into the wind to resettle on the lawn, and leaving all the roots intact. Needless to say, a few days later the problem would be worse, but the Weed Whacker warrior would at least have a few days to crow triumphantly about he how took on the scourge of dandelions and kicked ass. The more cunning non-radical might councel patience, point out that the war on dandelions will be a long one requiring many sacrifices, and that Weed Whacker attacks on other lawns may be necessary, too. And even more cunningly, he might say, "this isn't a war on dandelions; this is a war on weeds."

Another perfectly useful word frequently abused by journalists and press secretaries is "terrorism." So thoroughly corrupted is the word that some make it a practice to dress it up in apologetic quotes, to point out that people like presidents and prime ministers and official spokespeople only use the word to denote heinous acts directed at their side, while reserving much more heroic equivalents like "humanitarian bombing," "fighting for freedom and justice," "justified acts of rebellion" and "just cause" to denote heinous acts committed by their own side. But let's, for our purposes, use terrorism to describe any act of violence directed at civilians or civilian targets for political ends, and let's allow that those acts can be committed by regular forces (a country's military or police) or irregular forces (any other group). We'll call terrorism in the first sense, terror by regular forces, and terrorism in the second, terror by irregular forces.

How then would a "radical" deal with "terrorism"?

Curiously, while the number of words uttered on the subject of the September 11th attacks could fill a large heavenly body from bottom to brim, precious few of those words have directly addressed what's at the top of the minds of ordinary people on the street , namely, what needs to be done to ensure that a hijacked kamikaze aircraft, or Sarin gas, or anthrax doesn't take me or my loved ones out? The gaseous windbags who traipse through CNN's studios don't talk about that. Newspaper columnists don't talk about that. The President doesn't talk about that. Not really. They talk about increasing security at borders, and boosting defense and intelligence budgets, and reinforcing cockpit doors, and arming pilots with sidearms, and where the hijackers ate on the night of September 10th. But does any of this have anything to do with making Americans safer? When Washington launched its attacks on Afghanistan, Americans were immediately told "brace yourself for retaliatory strikes." That's making people safe? It's like saying, "brace yourself for more dandelions; what we've done ensures your lawn's going to have even more weeds."

Peace-movement people don't talk much about how to make ordinary people safe, either. Not really. They talk about how Washington has caused suffering around the world so great that some of the victims may be driven to strike out in terrorist attacks. Some talk about how the war is really a cover for a US assault aimed at winning control of the oil rich Caspian Sea. Some point to Osama bin Laden being a creation of the CIA, or how the raids on Afghanistan are illegal under international law and therefore are "the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to Americans on September 11." All of which is true. But that doesn't address what's on the top of ordinary people's minds, either. "I don't give a shit whether the raids are illegal and whether bin Laden was on the CIA payroll," they say. "What I care about is whether I'm going to end up like one of the 6,000 who died on September 11th."

So, what follows is a radical approach to making sure you don't end up like one of the unfortunates who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on September 11th, an approach that doesn't make the chances of future terrorist attacks, as the administration's current approach does, "100 percent certain."

The very first thing a radical approach recognizes is that if you've made a practice of sowing the lawns of people you don't like with dandelions seeds, you'd better stop, because those seeds may some day be borne on a gentle breeze to land on your own lawn. Maybe, they already have. A patch of garden in an empty lot down the street maintained to grow and harvest dandelions seeds, to menace your neighbors' lawns, isn't a good idea. Recommendation #1: Get rid of it.

As it happens, Washington has been doing the equivalent of growing dandelion seeds, which it then broadcasts here and there, to menace certain other countries, except the dandelions seeds are Islamist terrorists, and the patch of garden in the deserted lot down the street is Afghanistan, where the CIA paid to set up Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps.

Little is said about the history of Afghanistan, the discussion instead focused on the deservedly reviled Taliban, a convenience that allows the war on the country to be elevated to the status of a war to eradicate rodents, without mentioning these are rodents Washington carefully nurtured. But Afghanistan, at least for a brief time, was pulling itself out of its hell-hole, before Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's fanatical anti-communist national security advisor, decided that an Islamist government would be infinitely preferable to the nationalists who were implementing literacy programs, building hospitals and schools, and replacing a corrupt medieval, feudal society with something that smacked too much of communism for Brzezinski's liking. And so the fellow with the funny accent and austere hair cut arranged for money and material aid to be funnelled to Islamist guerillas to draw the Soviet Union into their own Vietnam. Thus was created the patch of garden in the deserted lot down the street for growing dandelion seeds.

Recommendation #2. Stop meddling in the affairs of other governments simply because they've decided to make the lives of their citizens better in ways that aren't consistent with fattening the bottom lines of US firms. Forbid the CIA, the NED and other government agencies and affiliates from undertaking covert or overt operations abroad designed to subvert, menace, overthrow, and harass other governments.

By some estimates the seeds that Brzezinski so carefully sowed in Afghanistan have wafted across the border of some sixty countries -- some would say have been painstakingly transported with the full knowledge of Washington across some borders -- but they've conspicuously taken root in a few that Washington doesn't like to mention -- Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. There, Islamist guerillas have behaved decidedly like terrorists -- kidnapping and murdering civilians, destroying churches, driving people from their homes. But they are Washington's terrorists, doing Washington's work. That's why you don't hear about them. At least, not often.

In November, 1998 The Sunday Times revealed that bin Laden operated a terrorist network out of Albania. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's 70-point history of the Saudi rich boy's connection to terrorism -- released with much fanfare on the eve of the Afghanistan attack in a vain effort to show that there is proof that bin Laden was behind the September 11th attacks -- somehow failed to mention the Albanian connection. Blair, who claimed to have overwhelming, irrefutable proof of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11th atrocities, later had to admit that though incontrovertible, his "proof" would never stand up in a court of law, "incontrovertible" now another word that will have to be dressed in apologetic quotes. Blair could do an invaluable service to the English language by shutting up -- or renewing his acquaintance with the truth (assuming he ever had one in the first place.)

On May 4th, 1999, The Washington Post reported that in 1998 "State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization, saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden...The officials charged that the KLA used terrorist tactics to assault Serbian and ethnic Albanian civilians in a campaign to ruthlessly induce Western media sympathy and achieve independence." Tony Blair left that one out too, conveniently, since the KLA are Washington's and London's boys.

On September 24, 1999 Agence France Presse reported that bin Laden was granted a Bosnian passport in 1993. The report pointed out that "Islamic fighters battled alongside Muslim soldiers in central Bosnia against Bosnian Serbs." Hmm. Wasn't Washington on the side of the Muslim soldiers in that conflict, too?

On June 22, 2001 The Washington Times reported that a bin Laden representative "is the main financial supporter of the National Liberation Army," the NLA, which has terrorized Macedonia.

Scott Taylor knows a thing or two about the connection between Washington and bin Laden backed Islamist terrorists.

Visiting a NLA guerilla bunker overlooking the besieged Macedonian city of Tetovo, Taylor, a Canadian journalist, was welcomed with shouts of, "God bless America and Canada too for all they have provided to us." Canada is a member of the US-led NATO coalition. (1)

Taylor says guerrilla commanders showed off their arsenal, which included side arms, sniper rifles and grenade launchers, all marked "Made in the USA." Says Taylor, one commander remarked that, "thanks to Uncle Sam, the Macedonians are no match for us." Yes, and thanks to bin Laden, too. A nice combo -- Washington and bin Laden.

The NLA guerillas have attacked civilians, driven them from their homes, and burned their churches. In other words, they've carried out terrorist attacks.

Taylor isn't the first to charge that Washington is aiding the bin Laden connected guerillas. The Macedonian government alleged that US helicopters were delivering supplies to guerillas in the mountains above Tetovo. US officials don't deny that airdrops were made, but say helicopters were transporting vital humanitarian aid. But Taylor says the local guerilla commander told him that the helicopters were delivering heavy mortars and ammunition. The guerillas have bombarded Tetovo with artillery.

Taylor says ethnic Albanian villagers cheer at the sight of US helicopters, while guerillas at brigade headquarters wear Nike-style T-shirts bearing the phrase, "NATO Air - Just do it!" Meanwhile, one Macedonian police officer lamented to Taylor that "if NATO hadn't been arming and equipping the (KLA) in Kosovo there would be no need for them to disarm these guerillas now."

This isn't the first time complaints about the US and NATO arming ethnic Albanian guerillas have been made. In March, a European K-For battalion commander told the London Observer that, "the CIA has been allowed to run riot in Kosovo with a private army designed to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic...Most of last year, there was a growing frustration with US support for the radical Albanians." And in January the BBC reported that Western forces were training guerillas, then opening a new front in southern Serbia and Macedonia.

In June, when Macedonian forces were closing in on guerillas in the town of Aracinovo, NATO intervened, transporting ethnic Albanian rebels out of the besieged town in air-conditioned busses. Bin Laden must have been pleased. Perhaps he too uttered a "Praise be to Allah, for all Washington has done for us." According to the German newspaper Hamburger Abendblatt, 17 US advisors, belonging to an American mercenary firm involved in other Balkan conflicts, were among the guerillas. And the newspaper pointed out that 70 percent of the equipment carried away by the guerillas was US made.

Days earlier, a American diplomat was slightly wounded by Macedonian gunfire as he emerged from the woods around Aracinovo with two other Americans, according to the International Herald Tribune. The diplomats were emerging from rebel-held territory.

Skopje has been hampered in its response to the guerillas. NATO and the EU have warned Macedonia not to crack down on the guerillas, and Ukraine, which was providing equipment to the under-equipped Macedonian army, was warned to stop shipments of materiel. A curious way to prosecute a war on terrorism -- bomb Afghanistan to get at bin Laden's terrorist network, while preventing Skopje from dealing with bin Laden's terrorism in Macedonian.

Washington's ongoing support for terrorists linked to bin Laden have led some critics to charge that Washington's war on terrorism is phoney. How can you say you're waging a war on terrorism, when you're supporting it in the Balkans?

Indeed, how can you wage a war on countries that harbor terrorists, when you're harboring terrorists yourself? Terrorist like Orlando Bosch. Bosch is the alleged mastermind of the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73, in 1976. Bosch ended up serving time in a Venezuela jail, but was released after US ambassador, Otto Reich, now a nominee to become Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, intervened.

Bosch then journeyed to Florida, entering the US illegally in 1988. He was detained by American authorities for violating U.S. parole, in connection with his release from prison after serving four years of a 10 year prison sentence from 1968 to 1972, for various crimes, including making death threats to the heads of Western European governments for trading with Cuba. Cuba asked that Bosch be extradited to stand trial for the airline bombing. Washington refused.

The U.S. Justice Department tagged Bosch with planning the Cuban airline bombing, describing him as being "resolute and unwavering in his advocacy of terrorist violence," and of repeatedly expressing and demonstrating a "willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death." The U.S. district court said that Bosch was behind "numerous terrorist operations," directed at Cuba. But remember, Bosch's terrorism, like that of the KLA and NLA, was directed at Washington's "enemies," not at Americans, and so was all right. (2)

Today Orlando Bosch, whose terrorist links are well-known, walks the streets of Miami, a free man.

If you're sincere about protecting Americans from terrorism, really sincere, not just committed to it in a rhetorical way, you have to support a comprehensive war on terrorism, not a selective one that's aimed only at terrorists you don't like. You can't declare war on dandelions, while spreading dandelion seeds hither and yon.

Recommendation #3. Sign on to a real war on terrorism, one that roots out terrorism everywhere, not just in some countries, while terrorists are nurtured and protected elsewhere.

"I wish my God destroys their houses, villages, their cities," said Assadullah, a 16-year-old Afghan ice-cream vendor, grimacing in pain. Assadullah had only hours earlier lost his leg and two fingers, when US missiles slammed into an airport near his home. Assadullah is the victim of another kind of terrorism, terror unleashed by regular forces, in this case, the US military.

Just as Scott Taylor knows a thing or two about the unholy matrimony of Washington and Islamist terrorism in the Balkans, the US military knows a thing or two about terrorizing civilian populations. They've been doing it for years.

They did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly vaporizing some civilians, leaving others to die agonizing deaths from radiation sickness days later, and still others to die equally agonizing deaths from cancers in the decades that followed. President Truman, announcing to the world that an atomic bomb had been dropped, said Hiroshima had been selected to minimize civilian casualties. The city, he lied, was a military base. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima left 140,000 dead; the one dropped on Nagasaki a few days later killed 70,000. Another 130,000 died in the next five years. A March 1945 raid on Tokyo by 300 B-29s left a million people homeless and killed 100,000 -- terrorism on an immense scale.

Millions were killed in Washington's carpet bombing of Korea, of Vietnam, of Laos, of Cambodia, most of them civilians. Washington organized Operation Phoenix, terror attacks on South Vietnamese peasants by US forces, led by the likes of Bob Kerry and William Calley. Countless numbers were assassinated, some mowed down by machine guns; some had their throats slit.

And then there are other attacks -- on civilian infrastructure. Thomas Nagy, a business professor at George Washington University, uncovered declassified documents that show Washington is knowingly violating Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining "objects indispensable to the survival of (another country's) civilian population," including drinking water installations and supplies. (3)

Writing in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, Nagy adduces documentary evidence that Washington was aware of the civilian health consequences of destroying Iraq's drinking water and sanitation systems in the Gulf War, and knew that sanctions would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities.

During the Gulf War, coalition forces bombed Iraq's eight multi-purpose dams, destroying flood control systems, irrigation, municipal and industrial water storage, and hydroelectric power. Major pumping stations were targeted, and municipal water and sewage facilities were destroyed.

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention prohibits attacks on "drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works."

Nagy says that not only did the United States deliberately destroy drinking water and sanitation facilities, it knew sanctions would prevent Iraq from rebuilding, and that epidemics would ensue.

One document, written soon after the bombing, warned that sanctions would prevent Iraq from importing "water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

Another document lists the most likely diseases: "diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely.)"

This is bio-terrorism on a massive scale.

Then U.S. Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, but many more have died since. UNICEF estimates that well over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S-led sanctions regime, in place for the last decade. Some 500,000 children have died, and an estimated 4,000 die from various preventable, sanctions-related diseases, every month, says the U.N. agency.

Despite the massive human toll, Washington continues to support the blockade, arguing that sanctions won't be lifted until U.N. inspectors are free to return to Iraq to verify that the country has rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

American Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector, claims that Iraq is effectively disarmed, and has been for some time.

And deaths from sanctions exceed those from weapons of mass destruction. Political scientists John and Karl Mueller say that sanctions have "contributed to more deaths during the post Cold War era than all the weapons of mass destruction throughout history," including deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At one point, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that despite the civilian deaths the sanctions were "worth it."

Meanwhile, Israel, a U.S. ally in the region, is widely believed to have an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons. While in violation of countless U.N. Resolutions ordering its withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, Israel faces no sanctions and no order to disarm. Amnesty International, which has warned that Israel's crackdown on the latest Palestinian uprising, or Intifada, borders on war crimes, condemned Tel Aviv for its "utter disregard for human life in the Occupied Territories" and for its violations of international law. And yet even calls for intervention as mild as placing international observers in the Occupied Territories have been rebuffed.

The Gulf War erupted after Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. After the war, the United Nations imposed sanctions, ordering Iraq to disarm. Iraq's violation of international law in invading its neighbor was cited for the harsh treatment. But critics of the policy say that punishment for violations of international law are being meted out unevenly and hypocritically. Israel's innumerable transgressions go unpunished, while governments that have fallen out with Washington, often over investment or debt repayment issues, are treated severely.

Moreover, say critics, the United States itself has a long track record of violating international law. Washington's undermining of Iraq's water treatment and sanitation facilities in violation of the Geneva Convention is just one of many recent transgressions, including the bombing of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Afghanistan (in 1998), and the continued bombing of Iraq.

U.S.-led NATO forces also targeted civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia. At one point, U.S. Air Force General Michael Short explained that NATO's bombing campaign was aimed at causing misery for the civilian population. "If you wake up in the morning," said Short, "and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, 'Hey, Slobo, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?'" (4)

NATO forces used depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia, as did coalition forces in Iraq. Depleted uranium may be toxic, and may be responsible for an epidemic of cancers and birth defects that have arisen in Iraq over the last decade. Some have charged that Gulf War syndrome, a cluster of mysterious and debilitating illnesses suffered by U.S. and allied soldiers, is related to depleted uranium. Others point to the contamination of soil, water and air by carcinogenic effluent from destroyed industrial facilities and chemical plants as being responsible.

Nagy says that what is most disturbing about the documents is that they reveal a U.S. government concerned more with the potential negative publicity of the deaths, than with the deaths themselves. Dealing with the public relations downside of massive killing is a common theme in U.S. foreign policy. During the Gulf War a bomb that hit a marketplace and killed civilians led CBS News correspondent Dan Rather to remark: "We can be sure that Saddam Hussein will make propaganda of these casualties." Frequent reference is made in the documents Nagy has uncovered to the potential for Iraq to use epidemics for propaganda purposes.

When Nagy sent the documents to the media, only two reporters wrote lengthy articles. One was Felicity Arbuthnot, who wrote in Scotland's The Sunday Herald that the "US-led allied forces deliberately destroyed Iraq's water supply during the Gulf War flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention and causing thousand of civilian deaths." Despite the seriousness of the allegations, and their being backed up by official documents, the story quickly fizzled.

What happens to people victimized by Washington's use of terror on a massive scale, terror that is far in excess of anything that happened on September 11th? Do they wave American flags and feel a warm glow of affection for the American people? Or like Assadullah, do they fervently wish for revenge, for the same atrocities to be visited on the towns and cities and people of the monsters who tore their limbs off, who disemboweled their friends, who smashed their homes, who dropped napalm on their sons and daughters, who slit the throats of their neighbors, who made their lives a living hell? Assadullah will probably never launch a terrorist attack on America. Most victims won't. They haven't the resources. But some will, and as the number of victims swells -- and the attacks on Afghanistan are seeing to it that it does -- the chances will grow that a few, or hundreds, or thousands -- still a small fraction of all the victims of US terrorism by regular forces -- will coalesce into a terror network aimed at exacting revenge on an immensely cruel country. Sow your neighbors' lawns with dandelion seeds and you just might find that in the dead of night, some are creeping onto your lawn, with their own bags of dandelion seeds.

Recommendation #4. Stop creating victims. They have a motivation to exact revenge. And that means stop practicing terrorism by regular forces. Stop bombing civilians. Stop destroying civilian targets. Stop running roughshod over international law. Stop playing cops of the world. Stop making the ground fertile for tomorrow's terrorists. In fact, reorient the military to defense, not war, not terror inflicted on people half way around the world, usually the poor, the defenceless, the weak. Withdraw the hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in over 40 countries abroad. What are they doing there, anyway? What country can deploy that many troops around the world -- and add new military bases in new countries every year -- and not say it's an imperial power bent on world domination? Cut the obscenely bloated military budget -- now larger than the combined budgets of the next 15 largest militaries (5) and many times larger than the combined militaries of all the "states of concern" and put the money to work on useful, humane projects, like health-care for the millions of Americans without health insurance, and aid to the victims of Washington's terrorism by regular forces. And stop selling arms abroad. Starve other terrorist governments that use US military equipment -- governments like Turkey and Israel -- of the means to attack civilians.

"So you mean we should hand over the anti-Cuban terrorists, we should stop training and supplying arms to bin Laden connected terrorists, we should never again build terrorist training camps, we should stop terrorizing civilian populations for political ends, we should stop subverting, undermining, menacing and overthrowing governments that don't share our ideology, we should stop filling million upon million of the world's poor with a burning, seething anger and resentment and lust for revenge?" Well, no actually. There's no "we." It's them -- Washington. We didn't decide to use atomic bombs. We didn't decide to harbor and train and equip and back terrorists. We didn't decide to carpet bomb south east Asia. We didn't decide to impose blockades on Cuba, on North Korea, on Iraq. We didn't decide to bomb Yugoslavia for 78-days. We didn't decide to bankroll the contras. We didn't decide to give Israel carte-blanche to run roughshod over international law, humanitarian law, and the Palestinians. We didn't do any of that. And no one asked us, either. They never do. On the contrary, they've kept us in the dark. We've been lied to, deceived, misled, misdirected, pumped up with patriotic fervor, manipulated, terrorized into submission, intimidated, cajoled, pushed, propagandized, and showered with bullshit.

And that's recommendation #5. Etch this indelibly in your brain. There is no "we." There's us, and there's them.

Folksinger Woody Guthrie once improvised a verse about a visit from the FBI. "Will you bear a gun for your country?" the feds demanded, suspecting Woody of being weak on that most revered of American qualities, patriotism. Woody, despite whatever the FBI suspected, was not unpatriotic. True, he rejected the superficial, wave-the-flag, rally around the president style of patriotism that comedian George Carlin calls patriotism for the symbol-minded. Woody's patriotism was closer to Mark Twain's idea: loyalty to the country always; loyalty to the government when it deserves it -- more along the lines of what the founding fathers had in mind. Woody calmly assured the agents that yes, indeed, he would bear a gun for his country. And then, as they turned to leave, he added: "I just can't say in which direction I'll point it." Jefferson would have applauded. Were he alive today, Woody might give the verse a topical slant, something like this: The FBI arrives at Woody's door and, parroting the president, demands to know, "Are you with us or against us?" "I'm against terrorism," Woody replies. As the agents turn to leave, Woody adds: "I just can't say whether I'm with the president."



1.  Scott Taylor, "Macedonia's Civil War: 'Made in the USA'," August 20, 2001, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/taylor1.html  (back)
2.  National Lawyers Guild Cuba Subcommittee, October 5, 2001.  (back)
3.  Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," The Progressive, September 2001. http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html  (back)
4.  Washington Post, May 24, 1999.  (back)
5.  Gary Wilson, "War spending eats at economy like cancer," Workers World, October 8, 2001 http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/profits1011.php  (back)


       Stephen Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada.

       Please, DO NOT steal, scavenge or repost this work without the expressed written authorization of Swans, which will seek permission from the author. This material is copyrighted, © Stephen Gowans 2001. All rights reserved.

                                  E-mail this article to someone
       Enter her/his E-mail address: 



This Week's Internal Links

What Would You do if You Were in Charge? - by Gilles d'Aymery

Casualties Of War - by Alma A. Hromic

Sparrow - by Michael W. Stowell

10 Years to Peace - by Deck Deckert

Preface: Bingo! Simplicity Itself; Oligarchy - by Milo Clark

Back to Basics on the Way to Going Ahead - by Milo Clark

The Presidential Speech - by Milo Clark

Afterword: Function of Failures - by Milo Clark

Suggestions for Concrete Actions - by Jeff Lindemyer

Change the Education Paradigm - by Philip Greenspan

Wisdom and Compassion Need to Become Action - by Andreas Toupadakis

The Media Marches off to War - by Deck Deckert

A Day in Kafka Land - by Alma A. Hromic

Civil Disobedience (1849) - by Henry David Thoreau


Stephen Gowans on Swans

Essays published in 2001


Published October 15, 2001
[Copyright]-[Archives]-[Resources]-[Main Page]