Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Virus]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a radical Islamist would give an asswipe about Bin Laden's demise. Who honestly wishes he was still alive?

I tell a lie. I don't find it hard to believe. Like a fundamentalist preacher claiming a hurricane is punishment for sin, the radical left have been using Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and a vicarious lash against the society and culture they despise.

Chomksy is a known supporter of the Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist group; Hezbollah.

Chomksy is upset of course, that we "invaded Pakistani territory" and "carried out a political assassination".

He claims George Bush is more evil than Bin Laden, and comparable to Nazi war criminals.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

If you start war, you get war. Al-Qaeda are not entitled to any sort of kid gloves.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have been sickened by the far lefts reaction to the Abbottobad raid. To an outside observer, they all look like savages.

 

[JoelKatz]

Someone doesn't seem to understand the difference between State actors and non-State actors. Hint: Saddam Hussein was a State actor.

 

[egslim]

To be honest, the whole operation was basic 'law of the jungle' with a thin legal veneer.

Strictly speaking bin Laden should have been arrested and put on trial. But few people wanted to give him that kind of media exposure and speech-time.

Outright killing him was indeed a form of savagery, but one I sympathize with.

 

[epepke]

This is pretty high on the not much of a surprise list. Now all we need is Susan Sontag, and it'll be perfect.

 

[lionking]

Apart from spelling Chomsky incorrectly, I agree with the OP. Why is this idiot given any publicity?

 

[stokes234]

Chomsky opposes political assassination, and says that invading a country for oil and killing hundreds of thousands of people is worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Doesn't seem so "moonbat" to me.

 

[zooterkin]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a radical Islamist would give an asswipe about Bin Laden's demise. Who honestly wishes he was still alive?

There's a big difference between not wishing he was still alive, and having misgivings about the way he died. A lot of the misgivings are to do with the way that the impression was given in the early reports that bin Laden was killed during a gunfight, and was using his wife as a shield, only for the apparent truth to emerge later. If the US had no doubts about their actions in assassinating him, why not be up front about it? It also seems quite legitimate to be concerned about the action of shooting an unarmed man; the argument about the SEAL team being concerned for their own safety seems spurious since they put themselves in that position. The last report I saw said that there was only one gunman shooting at the SEALs, who was apparently dealt with early on, yet they killed a total of six people, which does nothing to dispel the stereotype of trigger-happy American forces.

It may well be that the outcome was the best possible; that doesn't mean that we should just accept it without question. It also raises wider issues; if it is legitimate for a nation to send a hit squad into another country, then the circumstances in which that is allowable need to be very clearly defined. For example, is it acceptable for the Taliban to send a squad to kill the operators of the remotely piloted drones in their homes back in the US? If not, why not?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Chomsky opposes political assassination, and says that invading a country for oil and killing hundreds of thousands of people is worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Doesn't seem so "moonbat" to me.

What were the alternatives to nailing Bin Laden? Putting him on trial, and risking terrorist attacks demanding that he be released?

And is there ANY evidence that bush removed Saddam for oil and went about slaughtering Iraqis? I don't recall Fallujah's population being turned into skull pyramids.

 

[Virus]

Chomsky opposes political assassination, and says that invading a country for oil and killing hundreds of thousands of people is worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Doesn't seem so "moonbat" to me.

Like Chomsky, your problem is that you ignore intent, context and the difference between liberal democracies and Islamic fascists.

 

[stokes234]

Like Chomsky, your problem is that you ignore intent, context and the difference between liberal democracies and Islamic fascists.

Well, it seems to me that Chomskys position is that whatever government a country has, it's not ok to storm in and kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians, devastate their infrastructure and take their natural resources - and that from a utilitarian point of view, since this affects more people, it's a worse act than the WTC attacks. I can't see how that's crazy, unless you're saying that people's lives are less important if they live in a fascist islamic state. In which case, I would say it is you that is the sonar-wielding flying mammal from outer space.

 

[stokes234]

[qimg]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t275/kirb94/headdesk.gif[/qimg]

What were the alternatives to nailing Bin Laden? Putting him on trial, and risking terrorist attacks demanding that he be released?

And is there ANY evidence that bush removed Saddam for oil and went about slaughtering Iraqis? I don't recall Fallujah's population being turned into skull pyramids.

Arresting him, and having him stand trial for war crimes. Killing him outright risks reprisals as well.

No, there isn't evidence that bush removed saddam for oil. But american oil companies and defence companies made alot of cash money from iraq, hundreds of thousands of people did die - estimate being around 200,000, and no WMDs were found.

It might not be the correct position, and it's certainly up for debate. On balance I agree with bin ladens killing - it probably would have been harder to arrest him, and fair enough, if anyone in the world is going to be wearing a bomb vest, it would be him. But opposing his death - or at least, the manner of his death - isn't a "moonbat" position.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

strange, most of the oil went to the Chinese, not the Americans, contrary to Chomsky's version of events. I don't recall how this would benefit Exxon Mobil or Texaco.

And it was only a matter of time before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam would rearm. That, or one of his psychopathic sons gets into power and be far worse.

And most of the Iraqi deaths were due to the "resistance" blowing up car bombs in m marketplaces or outside mosques.

Anyway, Bin Laden was of the sort that would not be caught alive. He'd have blown himself up or gone the way he did.

 

[Virus]

it's not ok to storm in and kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians, devastate their infrastructure and take their natural resources

Edit: NSW Sentryman got there first but anyway;

If you're talking about Iraq it was an attempt to liberate the population from a genocidal fascist regime and replace it with a democracy. Done and done. Hundreds of thousands of civilians weren't killed by coalition forces. Most casualties came from Arab terrorists sponsored by Syria, Iran and wealthy Saudis. There were no resources taken. That is a pure lie.

 

[Earthborn]

What were the alternatives to nailing Bin Laden?

Do what Bush did: mostly ignore him?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a radical Islamist would give an asswipe about Bin Laden's demise.

I think the fundamental error you are making is that you assume people who feel uncomfortable about the way Bin Laden was dealt with do so because they care about Bin Laden rather than the principles at stake.

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the idea that the US can decide to send military forces unannounced into a foreign, sovereign, nominally friendly, nation in order to shoot and kill a private individual that they find objectionable without trial.

Just like I am uncomfortable with the 'pre-emptive strikes' on foreign nations based on what they might/could do and a general, hand waving threat of 'terrorism'.

Now the fact that this was Bin Laden may mean that I am not all that fussed about the end but I can still be a bit concerned about the means.

 

[JoelKatz]

Chomsky opposes political assassination ...

Most people oppose political assassinations, but that has nothing to with anything. A political assassination is when you kill an agent of a State you are not at war with to effect a political change in that State. Bin Laden was not a State actor and to the extent it was possible for the United States to be at war with him or his organization, it was.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

LOTF,

I wouldn't describe Pakistan as "nominally friendly" if wikileaks is anything to go by.

And as i noted earlier on, Bin Laden would be the sort that wants to go down.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Most casualties came from Arab terrorists sponsored by Syria, Iran and wealthy Saudis.

As a wise man on this very thread stated: If you start war, you get war.

If you start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people then you need to be big enough to take responsibility for the deaths.

 

[Virus]

As a wise man on this very thread stated: If you start war, you get war.

If you start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people then you need to be big enough to take responsibility for the deaths.

Then I'll be waiting for the terrorist militias and their sponsors in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to do that. Saddam's regime was dust after a few weeks. It's the terrorists fault for setting the country on fire. They didn't have to do that. It wasn't rational to do it. It accomplished nothing. But they chose to do it.