Decade 9/11 Conversation: Tariq Ali and Chris Dickey

Friday, September 02, 2011

Part five of our Decade 9/11 series of conversations: Writer, filmmaker, and an editor of New Left Review, Tariq Ali, and Paris bureau chief and Middle East regional editor at Newsweek and the Daily Beast, Christopher Dickey, discuss America's image around the world post 9/11.


Tariq Ali and Christopher Dickey

Comments [16]

rose ellen from jackson hts

Full spectrum dominence, might makes right has been our foreign policy in the mid east since 9-11. Before that we hid behind mass murdering dictators who did our bidding. Alquada was a reaction to our imperialist meddling for our[ cold war and oil and military bases] interests which took precedence over the human rights of the populations living under these regimes. Hence our narrative of us being exceptional upholders of human rights is a fraud. Alqquada was an anti neo imperialist movement and supported the arab spring uprisings that emerged from the people -not a religious counquorers movement.The longer we occupy and murder the afghan and pakisrani or iraqi populations the more they will resist. We brought their ire on ourselves and it is right that the rest of the world recognizes this reality which the american media and the politicians are unwilling to even discuss.We're blinded by our own hubris 10 yrs. after our hubris brought on the crime of 9-11.The host of the program tried that self serving narrative on his guests[alls well that ends well and we don't count the dead if we use the word democracy in the sentence as we drop our bombs on men,women and children] but for the first time on the main stream media it was exposed as a fraudulent. Most insightful segment yet on 9-11-10 yrs after.Though the young Muslim girl who yesterday spoke of how her being american means she is free to dress and believe as she chooses was also the only insigtful answer to the [unamerican] demands that islamophobes make on muslims to jump through their hoops to prove their americanness.

Sep. 02 2011 01:03 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

What started the "clash of civilizations" was the Arab Muslim attacks on the Christian Byzantine Empire and on Zoroastrian Persia around 636 AD, and the Arab occupation of most of the Middle East.

Sep. 02 2011 12:00 PM
Joel from Westchester

The match that lit the fuse for 9/11 might well have been the CIA involvement in the assassination of a democratically-elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. It was carried out at the behest of British Petroleum (!) whose oil fields were to be nationalized by that social democratic government. ****

In 2002 I was in Paris on 9/11. The city had lit two beams of light in a reminder of the terrorist acts of the previous year.

Sep. 02 2011 11:51 AM
Shlomo from Brooklyn

@dark - he most certainly was incorrect. How do you claim to be vindicated on a situation that has yet to be played out? He simply illustrated the well-intentioned but completely naive attitude of many in the media and the west in general.

Sep. 02 2011 11:51 AM
Chris from Brooklyn

From my reading of 20th century history, I'd say nothing changed after 9/11. Still imperialism in the guise of "free markets." Only difference is waving the "terrorism" false flag, rather than the "communism" false flag. We just notice more because the government at home is finally hollowed out and corrupt enough to hit our pocket books.

Sep. 02 2011 11:47 AM

A new definition related to your subject today


How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their core operate.
Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered conversation between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public's morality model perspective.

A model in which leadership can choose an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the publics morality model.

Where plausible deniability can be claimed when "immoral" acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.
In this conversation, leadership steps "down" to the public's level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their "higher" level, formulates and executes "necessary" agenda and strategy where the public's interpretation of morality is not relevant.

CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core feduciary responsibility requires that leadership is neccessarily void of morality.


PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implimentation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, power and treasure.

Related questions:

1. Who's benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ?

2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

3. When does morality trump power and money ?

4. What influences leadership and agenda ?

Answers and Rules of operation:

1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

3. In order for morality to be employed it is allways initially trumped by power and money.

4. The possessors of power and money allways influence leadership and agenda.

Sep. 02 2011 11:45 AM
Fuva from Harlemworld

The caller from Brazil was dead on. Income inequality and citizen unawareness are serious threats not taken seriously enough.

Sep. 02 2011 11:42 AM

As for the caller asking about how the drone attacks have affected American security interests: it is clear that the drone attacks are crippling Al Qaeda's coordination activities and development of operatives capable off pulling anything notable. The side effects of the drone attacks may include motivating Muslims to want to fill in for bin Laden, but they cannot result in Muslims becoming capable of filling in for bin Laden.

As for why the drone attacks have stepped up, it's because the only other option Pakistan has left to us is to ask Al Qaeda, "Please stop attacking us in Afghanistan." If Pakistan either undertakes effective countermeasures against Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban or allows us to do so, the drone attacks will stop.

Sep. 02 2011 11:42 AM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!


Any grassroots democratic rebellion / revolution / movement can be hijacked by forces that aren't democratic...happens all the time throughout history. Doesn't mean his point wasn't correct.

Sep. 02 2011 11:40 AM
Cathy from Bronx

Totally agree with the Brazilian listener's comment about the "Brazilianization of the US". I have seen this myself for the last 15 years, but even more so now. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The only difference is that right now the middle class in Brazil is expanding -- unlike here.

Sep. 02 2011 11:40 AM

To echo what Robert from Brazil said regarding the US looking more and more like a Third World country, Paul Krugman and other notable economists have said the same.

Sep. 02 2011 11:38 AM
RBC from NYC

The last caller has it dead on!! The US is becoming a 3rd world country.

Sep. 02 2011 11:38 AM
Shlomo from Brooklyn

Your guest says he is 'vindicated' about a claim that the Arab spring is really about democracy. How does he know how this will turn out? It's very possible that Egypt will soon be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy happened in Gaza, and Hamas (a Brotherhood offshoot) was elected. The naivety of many in the West may come back to haunt us. FYI I'm originally from Israel.

Sep. 02 2011 11:33 AM
Jerry from nyc

it's often not what bad regime the U.S. supports, but what would be the alternative, what other regime would be in power

Sep. 02 2011 11:31 AM

To pick up a point made by Tariq Ali, Richard Hofstadter wrote "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" almost 50 years ago. Paranoid hatred has been a persistent, damaging strain in the United States for a very long time.

@Omatunde — Give us an example. If you want to libel somebody, support the claim.

Sep. 02 2011 11:19 AM
Omatunde from Hamilton Heights

Tariq Ali has been so justifiably discredited over theyears...youcan almost feel the snakes coming out of this slick propogandists mouth from word #1....

Sep. 02 2011 11:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.