Post–September 11 anti-war movement

They point to the Project for the New American Century as proof that Bush was merely using the atrocities as an excuse to put the Imperialist plans of the neoconservatives into action.

Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's then-ruling Taliban government, declared, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it.

"[1] Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, said, "Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.

Noam Chomsky's statement in the immediate wake of the attacks begins by condemning this "major atrocit[y]" and "horrendous crime", but also by contextualizing it in terms of the Clinton-era U.S. attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory and prefiguring what would be a widespread concern for the left worldwide: "...the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains.

"[8] Martin Woollacott, writing in The Guardian, called the attacks, "above all a stupendous crime", but also wrote, "America's best defence against terrorism originating from abroad remains the existence of governments and societies more or less satisfied with American even-handedness on issues which are important to them.

"[9] Elected officials generally identified as being on the U.S. "left" also joined in strongly condemning the attacks, in this case almost universally without pointing out a context.

A much larger segment (though still a minority) of the left (both in the U.S. and elsewhere) concurred with the clear majority of Muslims that a military attack on Afghanistan was not the correct answer to the September 11 events.

[15] U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, speaking on September 24, acknowledged that "We must find and hold accountable all those who perpetrated those most terrible crimes against our nation and its people", but denounced what she saw as impending "suspensions of fundamental civil liberties" and said that she was "greatly concerned that we are about to engage in an extremely hazardous military campaign of unknown duration, with unrealistic objectives and perhaps even ultimately harmful long-term consequences for our nation", adding, "Already there is growing disquiet in the Muslim world that the U.S. is poised to turn its terrorist campaign into a war against Islam.

In addition to the many non-leftist Arabs and Muslims in the movement, there were also European nationalists uncomfortable with U.S. unilateralism (their numbers would greatly increase in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq).

Although the Stop the War Coalition includes a broad range of political groups, it is often criticised because of the strong influence of the Socialist Workers Party.

The most prominent U.S.-based movement groups are Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), Not in Our Name (NION), and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

Drawing on that party's tight organization, ANSWER attracted an estimated 8,000 people to their first major action, an "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then impending invasion of Afghanistan.

This rally happened several hours after the first national protest against the war, an unpermitted march of 2,000 through the streets of Washington which had been organized by the Anti-Capitalist Convergence.

In contrast, the list of early endorsers of NION's spring 2002 "Statement of Conscience" reads like a Who's Who of the U.S. left, ranging from celebrities such as Laurie Anderson, Deepak Chopra, and John Cusack, to intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Toni Morrison, and Howard Zinn.

For the RCP, freedom doesn't include the right of a minority to dissent (this is a bourgeois formulation, they say, pushed by John Stuart Mill and Rosa Luxemburg)..." Despite these origins, Albert and Shalom see NION in a rather different light than ANSWER—and this goes far to explain the list of endorsements by prominent members of the U.S. Left.

Albert and Shalom acknowledge the broad endorsements of the "eloquent and forceful" pledge and write, "RCP does not push its specific positions on NION to the degree that IAC does on ANSWER", pointing out the contrast between the contents of the respective organizations' web sites: "[T]he NION website and its public positions have no connection to the sometimes bizarre views of the RCP.

In perhaps the most infamous incident, Rabbi Michael Lerner was banned from speaking at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Contributing to these feelings were the positions taken by the George W. Bush administration on international issues: for example, American policies on global warming and environmental protection, on the International Criminal Court, on pre-emptive attack, and what has long been perceived as a policy of stubborn unilateralism practiced by successive American governments culminating in the Bush administration and especially the neoconservatives within it.

In the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, Ireland declared an unprecedented full national day of mourning for the victims.

The reaction was two-fold: horror at the deaths but also a strong degree of sympathy for the United States, whom Ireland saw as a friend, particularly after US President Bill Clinton's welcome interventions during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement.

America's presence in Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia has been one source of discontent that has served as an excuse to Islamic fundamentalists to commit acts of violence.

Perhaps the most commonly heard criticism, at least outside of the U.S., was that the Bush Administration's reason for going to war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (i.e., oil).

Some critics, such as exiled Iranian writer Amir Taheri, view portions of the anti-war movement in Western Europe as "an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists."

In an article published in a somewhat edited version on June 10, 2004 in the Jerusalem Post,[22] much of which is a rehash of his November 18, 2003 article in National Review,[23] Taheri writes "In this month's election for a new European Parliament, voters in several European Union countries, notably France and Britain, are offered common lists of Islamist and leftist candidates... Europe's moribund extreme Left has found a new lease on life thanks to hundreds of young Muslim militants..." Without actually naming the UK-based Stop the War Coalition, he discusses the membership of its steering committee: "18 come from various hard Left groups: communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Castroists.

he quotes Olivier Besançonneau (who he describes as "leader of the French Trotskyites"), "Is it not natural that they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist system?"

Its ideology is built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system."

There has been an organised Muslim component in many European anti-war rallies, reflecting widespread opposition to the American War on Terror campaign, often because of Arab/Muslim solidarity.

In an interview she gave Maariv correspondent Sefi Handler,[25] she criticized some of her fellow French left-wingers for creating an anti-Israeli atmosphere which encourages antisemitism.

Parallel to the controversy over the flags, Filipetti published an article in the left-oriented French newspaper Libération in which she warned against the antisemitism that seemed to plague their own camp.

The article essentially accused certain members of the French left of being hypocrites (for allegedly tolerating the same kind of racist behavior that they were protesting against), and, as such, it came as a major shock and sparked much controversy.