Hariri murder probe: Hizbulla to blame?

[fuelair]

No. I'd happily holiday in Beirut, though.

Oddly, I knew a guy who worked for the International Criminal Court and was flying to Beirut to investigate the Hariri murder. (as part of a big team, I should add).
The plane had to turn back because the Israelis had just started their last shooting war and had bombed the airport.

To clarify my previous Chomsky remark: I actually have read quite a lot of his work and I actually think that he has some very interesting ideas.
I was even getting ready to defend him in the latest Chomsky thread, but lacked the time to back up my points with research. Chomsky being a divisive issue, that would have gotten me eaten alive around these parts.

Now I see Chomsky doing a complete Hanoi Jane and showing up as guest of honor at the opening of some Hezbollah propaganda fun-park.

The man has just lost all credibility in my view.

Not unlike Jimmy Carter of the recent past.

 

[Peephole]

Yeah, the only way Hezbollah is going to lose power is if they are stupid enough to do something which pisses off Syria.

I'm no Lebanon expert, but aren't you seriously overestimating Syria's power in Lebanon? They might support Hezballoh, but just as Israel wouldn't cease to exist if the US dropped its support, I doubt Syria is that necessary for Hezbollah to survive. They'd make do.

 

[Skeptic]

Now I see Chomsky doing a complete Hanoi Jane and showing up as guest of honor at the opening of some Hezbollah propaganda fun-park.

The man has just lost all credibility in my view.

(Sigh)

Well, it's good for you that you finally discovered Chomsky for the liar and terrorist supporter that he is, but we kept telling y'all long ago: "interesting ideas" about "the need for objective look at the world post-colonialist power structure" (blah blah blah blah) really means, nine times out of ten, "I support whomever terrorist dictatorial thug kills Jews / Americans, but am still too ashamed to admit it out loud".

Your mistake was to think that Chomsky's "interesting arguments" had anything to do with looking for the truth from the start. They had nothing to do with that, but always had everything to do with blaming the west / USA / Israel. Sure, he could hide that for a while as "just wanting to be objective and see the other side", but the reality was clear from the start to those who know the type.

So long as he exercised enough care, he could, for a few years, claim "plausible deniabililty" of his antisemitic and anti-western hatreds, and have his gang of supporters claim that those who see him for what he (now) obviously is, a supporter of genocide and terrorism against Jews and Americans, are just "smearing" him.

But now that he had slipped and was caught in stupid lies time and time and time again (e.g., supporting holocaust denier Faurrisson publicly, claiming the Khmer Rouge didn't actually kill those millions they did, claiming there is a law in Israel that makes it "punishable by a year in prison" for a non-Jew to impersonate a Jew but that it's "perfectly legal" for a Jew to impersonate a non-Jew, etc.), and all those lies invariably and consistently are lies that make the Jews or Americans look bad and the terrorists look good, he simply has no credibility any more.

Apparently he too realizes this, and figured that, having nothing more to lose in the credibility department, he might as well go all out in support of Hizbullah, as per his recent trips to Lebanon to meet with the would-be genociders.

 

[WildCat]

I'm no Lebanon expert, but aren't you seriously overestimating Syria's power in Lebanon? They might support Hezballoh, but just as Israel wouldn't cease to exist if the US dropped its support, I doubt Syria is that necessary for Hezbollah to survive. They'd make do.

Where do you think Hezbollah's weapons come from?

 

[Virus]

Chomsky, the guy who after seeing Al-Qaeda suicide murderers immolate themselves and 3000 innocent civilians for no reason, scarcely raised an eyebrow and after clearing his throat by calling it an atrocity, calmly told us that it was America's fault, America deserved it and America made them do it. He then absurdly compared the actions of a fanatical death-cult to Bill Clinton killing one person, by accident, when he bombed what he thought was an Al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory in Sudan.

As Skeptic rightly put it, Chomsky lost his credibility as soon as he opened his mouth on the Khmer Rouge's slaughter of fellow Cambodians. Which he denied until he was finally forced to admit that it happened, but America made them do it.

He's a revolting little crank and liar. Always has been.

 

[Peephole]

Where do you think Hezbollah's weapons come from?

You think Syria is Hezbollah's sole weapons merchant?

And even if it were the case, do you actually think no one else would step in?

 

[Virus]

Doubt it. It means being put on the US's **** list.

 

[WildCat]

You think Syria is Hezbollah's sole weapons merchant?

No, Iranian weapons also go through Syria to Hezbollah.

And even if it were the case, do you actually think no one else would step in?

No one else would allow the flow of heavy weapons to Hezbollah.

 

[Skeptic]

You think Syria is Hezbollah's sole weapons merchant?

No, but it is used by Iran as its main supply route. I think that's what he means.

Any comment about Chomsky, that great human rights man, cheering for Hizbullah, by the way?

 

[dudalb]

I'm no Lebanon expert, but aren't you seriously overestimating Syria's power in Lebanon? They might support Hezballoh, but just as Israel wouldn't cease to exist if the US dropped its support, I doubt Syria is that necessary for Hezbollah to survive. They'd make do.

Syria has been a huge factor In Lebanese politics since the collapse in 1975.

 

[bit_pattern]

Chomsky, the guy who after seeing Al-Qaeda suicide murderers immolate themselves and 3000 innocent civilians for no reason, scarcely raised an eyebrow and after clearing his throat by calling it an atrocity, calmly told us that it was America's fault, America deserved it and America made them do it.

Yes, because American foreign policy exists in a vacuum and it NEVER has an impact on America and any attempt to understand the consequences of foreign policy is an anti American plot

You do realise that even the CIA identified "blowback" as a factor that led to 9/11, no? I suppose they were saying that America "deserved it" too, right?

 

[Virus]

Yes, because American foreign policy exists in a vacuum and it NEVER has an impact on America and any attempt to understand the consequences of foreign policy is an anti American plot

You do realise that even the CIA identified "blowback" as a factor that led to 9/11, no? I suppose they were saying that America "deserved it" too, right?

Al-Qaeda are a psychotic, pathological mass movement. The only thing that needs to be understood is how to defeat them. Just like how we defeated Nazism and Communism.

 

[bit_pattern]

Al-Qaeda are a psychotic, pathological mass movement. The only thing that needs to be understood is how to defeat them. Just like how we defeated Nazism and Communism.

And America is the great Satan!

The main problem with reducing an argument down to simplistic slogans isn't so much that it makes one look like an ignorant douche, more the fact that means that one can never understand the complexities of a situation, and unless you can actually understand your enemy then you can never defeat them.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, because American foreign policy exists in a vacuum and it NEVER has an impact on America and any attempt to understand the consequences of foreign policy is an anti American plot

There are numerous people who try to understand American foreign policy, from journalists and writers to history professors and economists.

Chomsky isn't one of them.

He says he "tries to understand", but his "understanding" is simply the usual USA-is-the-great-Satan, let's-blame-it-for-everything conspiracy theory. He's simply lying. He wants to blame the USA for everything, not to "understand" anything.

This is why his books are choke-full of silly factual mistakes, omissions, and downright lies. Actual understanding -- trying to get to the truth -- would not be conductive to the "Blame America and Israel for everything" thesis.

Those who try to understand American foreign policy end up in, say, modern American history departments. Those who mere blame everything on the USA end up cheerleading for Hizbullah, a murderous terrorist organization, like Chomsky does.

You do realise that even the CIA identified "blowback" as a factor that led to 9/11, no? I suppose they were saying that America "deserved it" too, right?

No, but that might be that this factor is not the only thing that the CIA claims led to the attack. It also identifies, say, religious extremism in the Islamic world -- something Chomsky doesn't mention, since it would ruin his "evil USA" thesis.

This sort of cherry-picking -- claim anything the CIA says which criticizes the USA's policy is gospel truth, ignore or belittle anything the CIA says which criticizes (or shows unpleasant facts) about the Islamic terrorists as "paranoia" or "propaganda" -- is typical of Chomsky and his fans, and shows that their concern for facts ends the moment the facts no longer support their "evil USA" thesis.

And since when do you believe the CIA anyway? According to Chomsky the CIA is more or less the only truly evil organization on the face of the planet, being nothing but a tool for the evil American imperialists.

You can bet your life Chomsky would never in a million years appear in something so evil and disgusting as a fun day for children organized by the CIA, for example. It's only moderate, reasonable groups like Hizbullah that he cheers for...

Yet apparently, the moment the CIA says something that helps the "evil USA" thesis, they're honest injuns'.

See what I mean about caring nothing for the truth, only for blaming America?

 

[bit_pattern]

He says he "tries to understand", but his "understanding" is simply the usual USA-is-the-great-Satan, let's-blame-it-for-everything conspiracy theory. He's simply lying. He wants to blame the USA for everything, not to "understand" anything.

Obviously you've never actually read anything Chomsky has said, other than what has been selectively quote-mined by ideologues with an axe to grind.

And since when do you believe the CIA anyway? According to Chomsky the CIA is more or less the only truly evil organization on the face of the planet, being nothing but a tool for the evil American imperialists.

Again, a total load of crap, but let's run with it for a moment anyway; I don't "follow" Chomsky so even if he does think that about the CIA it has absolutely no bearing on what i think. Do you enjoy building those straw men? Blowcback is a well recognised phenomenon, whether it be Chomsky or the CIA making the claim. Only the most visceral ideologue would deny that American foreign policy played a part in the rise of AQ and militant Islamism in general, and recognising that fact doesn' excuse AQ or radical Islamism in the slightest.

 

[Virus]

Obviously you've never actually read anything Chomsky has said, other than what has been selectively quote-mined by ideologues with an axe to grind.

Well, I've read heaps of Chomsky and I agree with Skeptic. Chomsky is a nasty little liar and has covered for genocide, fascism and totalitarianism.

Again, a total load of crap, but let's run with it for a moment anyway; I don't "follow" Chomsky so even if he does think that about the CIA it has absolutely no bearing on what i think. Do you enjoy building those straw men? Blowcback is a well recognised phenomenon, whether it be Chomsky or the CIA making the claim.

And the CIA's list of erroneous assessments and predictions is as long as Chomsky's.

Only the most visceral ideologue would deny that American foreign policy played a part in the rise of AQ and militant Islamism in general, and recognising that fact doesn' excuse AQ or radical Islamism in the slightest.

That's ass. Islamism came from Said Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. America barely even knew he existed.

You're kind of correct, but for the wrong reason. Islamism despised Western culture for it's liberalism and secularism. They feared it would infiltrate Muslim countries and turn Islam into a personal, private issue, separated from the state like Christianity is in the West. This horrified them and they believed that the only way to prevent this corruption of Muslim lands was to unite the Muslims under Sharia rule and destroy the West in an apocalyptic Jihad.

To cut a long story short, their ideology is mad. The left's efforts to find "root grievances" and "causes" makes about as much sense as looking for it in the Heaven's Gate cult.

 

[Virus]

Left wing hate and collaboration with terror:

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, I've read heaps of Chomsky and I agree with Skeptic. Chomsky is a nasty little liar and has covered for genocide, fascism and totalitarianism.

No surprise there. but excuse me if I don't believe for a second that you've ever sat down and read a a book or essay of his in its entirety.

And the CIA's list of erroneous assessments and predictions is as long as Chomsky's.

It's entirely more reliable than whatever hack, neocon think tanks that you seem to have constructed your weltanschauung from.

That's ass. Islamism came from Said Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. America barely even knew he existed.

And America NEVER encouraged the rise of Islamism to counter the Soviets, oh no, american foreign policy has NEVER had any unintended consequences

You're kind of correct, but for the wrong reason. Islamism despised Western culture for it's liberalism and secularism. They feared it would infiltrate Muslim countries and turn Islam into a personal, private issue, separated from the state like Christianity is in the West. This horrified them and they believed that the only way to prevent this corruption of Muslim lands was to unite the Muslims under Sharia rule and destroy the West in an apocalyptic Jihad.

Except, of course, that the Brotherhood concerned itself virtually exclusively with the going on of Muslim countries, and that the 'global Jihad' brand was almost entirely a construct to arise from the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

To cut a long story short, their ideology is mad. The left's efforts to find "root grievances" and "causes" makes about as much sense as looking for it in the Heaven's Gate cult.

Yes, the CIA is "the left"

As I said, you can pretend that Islamism is entirely the product of a "mad ideology", and ignore the more nuanced understandings of the phenomenon, but you can never beat an enemy you don't understand and your reductionist 'good v. evil' narrative is as stupiud and counterproductive as the reductionist 'monolithic Communism' fallacy that dominated thinking during the Cold War.

 

[lionking]

Left wing hate and collaboration with terror:

Indeed.

When Hamas acknowledges Israel's right to exist some progress is possible.

 

[bit_pattern]

And when Israel not just acknowledges but stops actively preventing the Palestinian right to exist then progress can be made.