Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Your sad desperation to defend Al-Qeada from responsibility for blowing up street markets all over Iraq speaks volumes.

Not true. The US and Canada have signed treaties pledging assistance to eachother if attacked by foreign powers.

No such mutual defense treaties existed between AQ and Iran and Saddam Husseins regime.

You'll notice I haven't defended anyone on this thread. It's you who are defending not me.

How do you know what treaties AQ had made with whom?

You try to excuse your government's actions by painting them as ignorami. They couldn't possibly have been expected to know that invading Iraq without any provocation would spark a reaction in the region.

 

[qayak]

So Al-Qeada and Iran definitely chose to go into Iraq.

This makes Al-Qeada and Iran responsible for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by their fund and arming of the insurgency.

No. It means the invading force is responsible for allowing those insurgents in. They removed the government that was holding insurgents at bay and have been unable to stop the flow themselves. Simple facts.

 

[qayak]

i'm sure they would tell us they were trying to liberate their brothers from american occupation. The us has no need to enter iraq either.

As the 'good guys' i have different expectations of how the us will behave than i do of al-qaeda or other terrorists.

Actually, 'need' is a very strange word to use here. Nobody really has any 'need' to do any of this.

^^^^this^^^^

And I would say that the word "desire" is more apt in regard to the original invasion than "need."

 

[Joey McGee]

So we're dead certain this guy was responsible for a heap of murders. So it's OK just to shoot him in almost cold blood. I heard a commentator who looked about 12 say that on TV the other night.

We were dead certain Shipman was responsible for a heap of murders. It would have been OK to shoot him in cold blood then?

Yes, different circumstances. But that's one helluva slippery slope you have there.

Rolfe.

If Osama didn't want to get shot in the face he shouldn't have taken credit for 9/11 end of story.

 

[Sunstealer]

Ah, the hell with rule of law. There's always some liberal claiming we should have a trial rather than just lynch the redheads and cripples and all the others touched by witchcraft. Tyranny, that's the answer, and if they don't like it it's because they're guilty.

Oh don't get me started on crippled redhead witches.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh don't get me started on crippled redhead witches.

They are so the tastiest.

Those silly humans think there's an objective viewpoint of morality and goodness that can be tracked and measured! The audacity. Philosophy, that will save us all.

 

[Giz]

So we're dead certain this guy was responsible for a heap of murders. So it's OK just to shoot him in almost cold blood. I heard a commentator who looked about 12 say that on TV the other night.

We were dead certain Shipman was responsible for a heap of murders. It would have been OK to shoot him in cold blood then?

Yes, different circumstances. But that's one helluva slippery slope you have there.

Rolfe.

But it's all about the different circumstances... if Bin Laden hadn't been (expected to be) armed, if we didn't expect bodyguards, if he wasn't in a foreign country, if he wasn't near foreign military assets who might interfere with the op, if the location of the perp had been within domestic US law enforcements jurisdiction, etc... then maybe capture would have been the default option.

It's like asking; why shoot did they default to shooting Germans on Omaha beach rather than trying to arrest them... ?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You'll notice I haven't defended anyone on this thread. It's you who are defending not me.

Your attempt to shift responsibility from Al-Qeada to the US is a defense of Al-Qeada.

You try to excuse your government's actions

According to prime Minister Steven Harper, Canadas participation in the Afghanistan mission is "just retribution" for the 24 Canadians murdered by the enemy on 9/11.

There is nothing my government has done that needs excusing.

by painting them as ignorami. They couldn't possibly have been expected to know that invading Iraq without any provocation would spark a reaction in the region.

Al-Qeada should have been expected to know that their attacks on 9/11 would have resulted in an American incursion into the middle-east. You attempt to excuse Al-Qeadas actions by painting them as ignorami.

Your attempted defense of Al-Qeada damns them instead.

 

[lionking]

So we're dead certain this guy was responsible for a heap of murders. So it's OK just to shoot him in almost cold blood. I heard a commentator who looked about 12 say that on TV the other night.

We were dead certain Shipman was responsible for a heap of murders. It would have been OK to shoot him in cold blood then?

Yes, different circumstances. But that's one helluva slippery slope you have there.

Rolfe.

Almost in cold blood? There was no firefight? Where is your evidence he surrendered, had his hands up and was waiting to be taken into custody? Or do you have another definition of "almost in cold blood".

This whole thread seems to assume that OBL was actually assassinated, and his death was not the result of his resistance and concern of the SEALs for their safety.

 

[Sunstealer]

One of the biggest problems is that the decision to shoot was carried out by one man, who was a member of the SF group sent on the operation. It was down to his judgement, in that split second, whether to fire or not. So any rights or wrongs are just skirting the issue - it's down to that individual and whether he perceived a threat. Unless the US administration directly ordered the killing in every circumstance then there is never going to be an answer as to the niceties of bringing OBL alive for trial.

At least this event shows that the US is serious and will hunt the figurehead terrorists who are hell bent on killing all and sundary for their extremist beliefs. It means they are going to be restricted in their operations and forever looking over their shoulders. That's got to be a good thing, not just for the west, but every country that suffers from this extremism.

 

[bigjelmapro]

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.

Principle of what? Killing of a legitimate military target? I find it laughable that raid bin Laden is somehow classified as a political assassination. And from what I've read, bin Laden's death occurred during a raid and there were orders to detain if possible...

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.

The US was invited to Pakistan. The US had leigitmate reasons to assume that the ISI of Pakistan was infiltrated by the Taliban/Al Qaida/etc.

Perhaps you could explain how bin Laden is a private individual, or even what this term means in any legal sense, or just in general. Bin Laden not a civilian, just so you know, and does not receive any protection (except torture, etc.) under any international law/statute regarding war.

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'.

Where was the pre-emptive bit? It was post 9-11 and there was an official declaration on Al Qaida.

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.

You're a bit concerned about the concept of war and what this entails, which is normal...

As for Chomsky, I'm sure he'll have a memorial at sea where bin Laden was dumped along with Nasrallah, Mashaal, and the rest of the friendly lot Chomsky spends time with.

 

[bigjelmapro]

At least this event shows that the US is serious and will hunt the figurehead terrorists who are hell bent on killing all and sundary for their extremist beliefs. It means they are going to be restricted in their operations and forever looking over their shoulders. That's got to be a good thing, not just for the west, but every country that suffers from this extremism.

...but just as long as those leading the operation have the right paperwork (ie passports), right?

 

[epepke]

So we're dead certain this guy was responsible for a heap of murders. So it's OK just to shoot him in almost cold blood. I heard a commentator who looked about 12 say that on TV the other night.

Look, Rolfe. The latest reports I've seen are as follows. Of course they are hearsay, but so is all of your information.

bin Laden fell back into a bedroom with no lighting which contained a pistol and an AK-47, a room that he knew. Members of Seal team 6 entered with only lighting they carried on their persons. They shot him twice.

Now, I don't know if there's any point in asking you if that's in "almost cold blood," because you're pretty clear about that. I do think that conclusion is more than a bit questionable. This is not Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot in the head at point-blank range in a well lit tube car.

 

[Virus]

You don't have to include Iraq if you're looking for justification for armed resistance to American imperialism. You want to be world police, all on your own, get used to the idea that the perps will fight back.

There you have it. Jiggery thinks Al-Qaeda are freedom fighters and a lash for our sins.

 

[bikerdruid]

There you have it. Jiggery thinks Al-Qaeda are freedom fighters and a lash for our sins.

you continually use self inclusive pronouns when referring to the united states and americans.
you are not american....you are australian.

 

[qayak]

According to prime Minister Steven Harper, Canadas participation in the Afghanistan mission is "just retribution" for the 24 Canadians murdered by the enemy on 9/11.

I don't think you will find too many Canadians who disagree which is why Prime Minister Chretien committed Canadian troops. I think you will also find that the killing of those 24 Canadians was not the reason Canada went in. The reason was that one of our allies had been attacked and requested support to go after the perpetrators.

However, most Canadians, including Chretian but not Harper, disagreed with going into Iraq which is why Canada isn't there.

 

[bikerdruid]

However, most Canadians, including Chretian but not Harper, disagreed with going into Iraq which is why Canada isn't there.

...thankfully.

 

[gumboot]

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

I would tend to agree with this assessment. I think Chomsky's achilles heel might be in thinking the USA did this, which they quite clearly did not.

 

[gumboot]

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.

Given that the initiating event for the Iraq War was 9/11, by Chomsky's logic that means Osama Bin Laden is responsible for all those dead people, in which case killing him was a good thing again.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Good for Noam Chomsky for standing up for what is human, not barbarian.

If we are going to bring Law and Order to the world, we have to obey the laws. We have to set an example. We can't say "Hey we have this great Court of Law System that your country should follow" if we don't follow it ourselves.

It was against the law, immoral, unnecessary, and harmful to America's reputation, to kill an unarmed man and shoot an unarmed WOMAN. Bin Laden was killed, like Oswald, so he could not talk about his CIA connections in court, and be the fall guy for 9/11.

There is no evidence that Bin Laden planned 9/11. He had questionable motive, and no opportunity. He had no access to the nano-thermite explosives found in the WTC dust.

Rogue elements of the Bush-Cheney Administration had much more motive, opportunity, and access to cyanide knock-out gas, remote controlled aircraft technology, and nano-thermite explosives.