Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

stokes234 said:
Chomsky opposes political assassination
Click to expand...

Well, apart from those of Americans and/or Jews and/or non-communist cambodians or anybody else he dislikes, in which case it is "resistance to imperialism" or something.
 
Virus said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was bloody obvious it could happen and if the US didn't think it was a possibility then they are culpable by negligence.

They invaded a sovereign state in the Middle East and thought that it wouldn't spark unrest? I don't think even you believe that.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
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.
Click to expand...

So does Al-Qeada in Iraq and the Iranians get the blame for starting the insurgency and the deaths it caused then?
 
stokes234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two lies and a false equivalence.
 
SOT, you are aware that they are "people's resistance" against the great satan of the west right? ;)

Poe's law and all that. :p
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
So does Al-Qeada in Iraq and the Iranians get the blame for starting the insurgency and the deaths it caused then?
Click to expand...

So you want to have your cake and eat it then?

It's ok for the US to react to something 'they' started but when 'they' react to something the US started they have to take the blame for it too?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
What were the alternatives to nailing Bin Laden? Putting him on trial, and risking terrorist attacks demanding that he be released?
Click to expand...

Because the terrorists weren't attacking while we left him alone, eh? Nor will they attack in revenge for Bin Laden's assassination, or just because that's what terrorists do and nobody's given them a reason to stop. In fact, they've been given a reason to excel themselves in retaliation.

The alternative was to take the moral high ground, where justice is seen to be done rather than being redefined to include extra-judicial murder. Who else deserves to be set apart from one of the systems that defines the US? Are there defined categories for those subhumans, or do you get to add people to the list whenever your emotions are riding high?

On the plus side, Obama will probably be re-elected.
 
Bin Laden would NEVER have gone down alive, and the SEALS would shoot him anyway because of the risk that he was wearing a bomb vest.

And AQ will just scream about how it's a show trial.
 
His subheading...
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.
Click to expand...
We would be pissed. But we're the good guys Norm, we're the people that aren't insane. (Mostly) I find this a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device.
Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”
Click to expand...
There is a difference between having court-ready proof and knowing what you're dealing with in a war you nitpicking *******. Liar? Really?
Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s
Click to expand...
Yep, this guy is woo alright.
uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime
Click to expand...
Yeah him and the 60 plus percent of Americans who supported the invasion at the time. Oh I forgot, the propagandized sheeple just thought they had a say in their own thinking.
Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
Click to expand...
The reason they named it Geronimo is because of his ability to evade capture. The people who work for a living (yeah I'm talking to you Mr. Hapless Windbag) don't keep themselves up at night worrying who is going to get their panties in a knot over their use of a bloody word.
 
JoelKatz said:
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.
Click to expand...

The man was shot while unarmed, with no request for him to surrender, no evidence of him posing an immediate threat to the people who shot him, and it was done for political reasons. I suppose you could call it a standard assassination if you prefer. Like I said, on balance I agree with his being killed, but the assumption by the US that it is entitled to go into other countries and shoot unarmed men makes me uneasy and I can fully understand why it would be opposed.
 
Virus said:
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.
Click to expand...

A genocidal fascist regime that had already been prevented from committing genocide and with no evidence that further genocide was planned.

Bombs dropped everywhere, state infrastructure dismantled, an entire army disbanded and sent home with their guns, most of the public sector shut down to make way for a private sector which in some cases wasn't even employing iraqis, torture of prisoners, and a transfer of oil contracts into american hands. And yet, you don't think america is responsible for the deaths that occurred following the invasion? Fascinating.
 
stokes234 said:
The man was shot while unarmed, with no request for him to surrender, no evidence of him posing an immediate threat to the people who shot him, and it was done for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. It was done for practical reasons.
I suppose you could call it a standard assassination if you prefer. Like I said, on balance I agree with his being killed, but the assumption by the US that it is entitled to go into other countries and shoot unarmed men makes me uneasy and I can fully understand why it would be opposed.
Click to expand...
I'm fully in favor of the good guys being allowed to kill the bad guys whenever it doesn't do net damage to society somehow. Weapons from space, stopping their heart with telepathy, couldn't give a **** less. And there is no moral argument against that. The only thing you can argue about is "How good are the good guys really?" To which I would say never good enough, naturalism leaves room for near-infinite improvement.
 
I love how Chomsky uses the word "uncontroversially". It seems to mean "this must be accepted by everybody as a given" in his mind.
 
Joey McGee said:
We would be pissed. But we're the good guys Norm, we're the people that aren't insane. (Mostly) I find this a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device.
Click to expand...

What a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device. On what do you base your claim that 'you' are the 'good guys'? Did they issue you with a white hat? You're right because you're right? You're right because you have the might? You're not insane because 60% of Americans are not insane either? And this on a critical thinking forum? Sanity is not a democracy - and a democracy is shamed by univited assassinations on someone else's sovereign territory. I thought lynching was something modern America was slightly ashamed of.
 
stokes234 said:
Bombs dropped everywhere,
Click to expand...

I don't recall Iraq being turned into post-rolling thunder Vietnam

state infrastructure dismantled,
Click to expand...

Source please, and i don't see how that caused the car bombs and massacres.

an entire army disbanded and sent home with their guns,
Click to expand...

A **** up, yeah, but does not bame the US for deaths.

most of the public sector shut down to make way for a private sector which in some cases wasn't even employing iraqis,
Click to expand...

Source please, and how does that cause car bombs and massacres.

torture of prisoners, and a transfer of oil contracts into american hands.
Click to expand...

The first part is true, but the last part is not. They mostly went to malaysian, russian or chinese oil companies.

But i guess it's a good soundbite for the left if they can say that the US is behaving like the Nazis on the eastern front for teh oilz.

And yet, you don't think america is responsible for the deaths that occurred following the invasion? Fascinating.
Click to expand...

Yep, let's blame the deaths caused by the shi'ite militias or baathist revanchists or other "freedom fighters" on the US. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom