Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Michael Keefer: The So-Called War on Terror is A Criminal Fraud, Fars News
Agency (26 May 2014), http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930228001613; also available at
Information Clearing House (26 May 2014), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38618.htm, and
at four other websites. The text of this interview is followed by an exchange of letters with Professor Richard
Pious of Columbia University.]
Michael Keefer
followed in this by the U.S., Australia and Canada) have been attempting to criminalize
the human rights activism of BDS supporters as an incitement of hatred.
policies have made repeated attempts in this directionto which human rights activists
have reacted with calm, rational, evidence-based arguments. The book I edited and coauthored in 2010, Antisemitism Real and Imagined, brought together responses to one
such attempt; my recent essay Criminalizing Criticism of Israel in Canada analyzes a
current attempt by the Canadian government to make pro-Palestinian human rights
discourse vulnerable to prosecution as hate speech.
for oil and other energy resources available in the region. Whats
your idea on that? Does the United States really intend to bring
democracy to the countries it invades and attacks, or are there other
reasons at work?
I've begun to answer this question in my response to the previous one. U.S. wars
of aggression have had a number of goals: gaining control over oil and gas reserves
(Iraq, Libya); denying or controlling access by competing powers (such as China, or
Western European nations) to these reserves; gaining control over important pipeline
routes (Afghanistan, Ukraine); preventing nations that possess important oil and gas
deposits from using the revenues from them to fund social infrastructure or a civil
commons (Iraq, Libya); preventing oil and gas-exporting countries from moving
outside the petrodollar exchange system; and attempting to weaken and intimidate
opposing powers like Iran and Russia (Syria).
The notion that the U.S. has any interest in 'exporting democracy' is absurd.
and on the U.S.'s ability to finance and sustain its military aggressions.
The U.S. was indeed seeking to bully and intimidate Iranand has continued to
do so. But threats of aggression, coming from a country with the U.S.'s record in such
matters, should be taken very seriously.
an impudent fiction, and should be catalogued in the same section of libraries as the
equally tendentious fictions of Tom Clancy.
The key facts about the events of 9/11, in my opinion, are the following. First,
the U.S. air defense system in the northeastern U.S. was effectively disabled on
September 11, 2001 by overlapping exercises which transferred many of the available
interceptor aircraft out of the region and confused the military control systems, whose
operators were for an extended period of time uncertain as to which of the information
on their screens was simulated and which represented actual aircraft, and which of those
real aircraft were part of an exercise and which had actually been hijacked. Secondly,
the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon could not have been flown by the
supposed hijackers; the hijacking was carried out electronically, and not by suicidal
fanatics wielding box-cutters. Thirdly, there is conclusive scientific evidence that the
Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed by controlled
demolitions.
The official story that a gang of Muslims controlled by Osama bin Laden carried
out these terror attacks is therefore false.
Israeli operatives appear to have been involved in some peripheral aspects of the
plot; I don't believe their role was significant. To the best of my knowledge, the story
that Israelis working in the Twin Towers were warned to stay away is quite simply false.
Q: The War on Terror project ensuing the 9/11 attacks has so far
claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in different
Muslim countries and nobody has been held responsible over the
excessive, brutal killings. Do you agree that the War on Terror is in
practice a war on Islam and the Muslims?
The so-called War on Terror is a criminal fraud, designed to frighten Americans
and the citizens of its allies into supporting systematic violations of international law. It
was from the outset Islamophobic both in intention and in the wars of aggression it has
been used to justify.
Q: Do you agree with the premise that the 9/11 attacks laid the
groundwork for the U.S. government to impose restrictions and
At this moment in history, more than any other, we are in desperate need of
creativity, open-mindedness, cross-cultural and inter-faith generosity, and a commitment
to justice and human solidarity, based on a firm assertion of the dignity and equality of
our brothers and sisters everywhere.
Two days after the publication of my interview with Kourosh Ziabari, Professor
Richard Pious of Columbia University sent me a message that one might initially have
mistaken for a request for informationbut that quickly revealed itself to be an attempt
at academic bullying.
Professor Pious was not amused to have his nose pulled in return.
The exchange may be of some small interest for what it reveals of this political
scientist's methodological and philosophical naivety: having offered a genuinely silly
distinction in his first message between mediated sources and (presumably unmediated)
evidence and facts on the ground, he then thought in the second that he could make
an intimidating show of interpretive sophistication by alluding to two basic terms in
early Arabic theological and philosophical disputations....
mkeefer@uoguelph.ca
p.s. I regret that I haven't yet read your The War on Terrorism and the Rule of Law; it's on
my to-do list. I may have touched on some of the same subjects in an essay published on
the 10th anniversary of 9/11: 9/11, Torture, and Law, ADCS (2011), available online.
Dr. Keefer,
I may have been impolite, but your response (as well as your interview with
FARS) is a clear indication that you know nothing on the subjects upon which you
bloviate so eloquently.
Ad hominem argumentation, which seems to be your specialty, is no substitute for
actual knowledge of a discipline or an areaespecially when political and environmental
issues are involved.
I'm glad you indicate the importance of Russian sources. I speak, read and write
the language, and have published in Russian journals. Also in Spanish and French
journals. I converse in Hebrew and Arabic (and Russian) when I am in the Middle East
which is quite useful in doing any research on US policy in the region. I'm also published
in law reviews as I do a great deal of constitutional law and statutory law research.
I'm familiar with the sources you indicate about 9/11. They are rubbish,
conspiracy theorist nonsense. About the level of 'grassy knoll' literature.
I taught for a year at York University and at that time (1972) was quite impressed
with my Canadian colleagues. No doubt most remain wedded to disciplinary standards
but obviously, from your evasive non-response to my call for evidence based
argumentation, not all.
Ask your friends who speak Arabic the difference between taqlid and ijtehad
rhetoric. It might educate you a little about argumentationa thousand year old tradition
in Arabic that enables listeners to distinguish between sectarian ideology and logical
thinking.
Cheers (and this will be our last communication, so don't bother to reply),
Richard Pious
rhetorical skill, you denounce me in the second as a know-nothing bloviator, and dismiss
the very-much-evidence-based scholarly and scientific sources to which I alluded as
rubbish, conspiracy theory nonsense. This would of course imply that their authors are
likewise blow-hard ignoramuses. You are, it must be said, even-handed in the manner in
which you dish out abuse.
In the midst of this, you blame me for ad hominem argumentation. Psychologists
have a word for this: it is projection.
I have responded to very particular pieces of rudeness and arrogance in your
messages to me, but I have said nothing whatsoever about your character in other regards,
about which I indeed know nothing.
Your messages leave me with no desire for further acquaintance with you. But I
have no reason to feel anything other than respect for your scholarly record and
achievements, and for your admirable linguistic attainments. I confessed in my first
response to not having read your book on The War on Terrorism and the Rule of Law: I
look forward to finding it scholarly, informative, and stimulating.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Keefer, D.Phil.
Professor Emeritus
School of English and Theatre Studies
University of Guelph,
Guelph ON N1G 2W1
mkeefer@uoguelph.ca