Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

The link works fine for me as well.

What are the chances this .pdf is bogus ?

I don't have a lot of time atm, but I did pick one item at random (Trnopolje camp), went agoogling and, yep, Chomsky lied.
 
bikerdruid said:
link doesn't work.
still waiting for your proof that chomsky lies all of the time.
Click to expand...

The dishonest and mendacity of Chomsky would require its own jumbo-thread.

His approach to history is little more than cherry-picking quotes and context-free snippets then hashing them together to form the story he wants. Actual historians like Arthur Schlesinger considered his work shoddy and feeble.
 
Yeah I generally agree with all of those criticisms of Chomsky, and I would also add that he is terrible at sourcing his stuff.

But GOD DAMN can that man bring it with the factoids!

Seriously.

There is some stuff that I only ever would have known about or of through reading Chomsky (occasionally). Like the muted Western response to Turkey's village burning campaign against the Kurds.

I would probably not quote Chomsky, but I would definitely follow up on an interesting Chomsky lead.


http://home.ku.edu.tr/~dyukseker/ayata-yukseker-NPT.pdf

ETA: Just read the Guernica thing and maybe Chomps is getting a little old.
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
Yeah I generally agree with all of those criticisms of Chomsky, and I would also add that he is terrible at sourcing his stuff.

But GOD DAMN can that man bring it with the factoids!

Seriously.

There is some stuff that I only ever would have known about or of through reading Chomsky (occasionally). Like the muted Western response to Turkey's village burning campaign against the Kurds.

I would probably not quote Chomsky, but I would definitely follow up on an interesting Chomsky lead.


http://home.ku.edu.tr/~dyukseker/ayata-yukseker-NPT.pdf

ETA: Just read the Guernica thing and maybe Chomps is getting a little old.
Click to expand...


I think you'll find "factoids" merely look like facts but generally have no basis in truth.

I do know what you mean about his ability to suddenly produce obscure news unreported by any Western media and only appearing in a coffee morning leaflet in Azerbaijian etc... etc... but sometimes he does a lot of rather confusing jumping from one topic to the next which seem to drive his fans wild and which they attempt to emulate:

I'm paraphrasing one of his admirers: we keep hearing about how we're supposed to stand up for plucky little Denmark against Islamic intolerance and yet when we look at the record we can see that the Faroe Islands, a dependency of Denmark, has been for years slaughtering pilot whales usually with knives far larger than those alleged to be weilded against provocative cartoonists. And while one or two of these cartoonists have claimed to have been threatened the pilot whales themselves have no defence whatsoever in any Danish jurisdiction and have undeniably been slughtered and photographed. This is all on the public record. So, who is the more civilized?

etc...
 
Chumpsky is ready with the factoids because he has spent most of his waking hours since 1969 searching out that which he can use in his endless verbal assault on the West, and the U.S. in particular, spending endless hours repeatedly fitting the various factoids and acontextual snippets together to form various contradictory images of his "case".

He is intelligent, but his prodigious memory of all his tediously-collected factoids and snippets and how they can be pieced together in dishonest debate is more an indication of his insanity than anything else.

It is amusing to watch the looks on W.F. Buckley's face as he incrementally realised, during his debate with Chomsky, just how crazy the cunning loon was.

Chomsky is an implacable enemy. Whatever makes us unhappy, pleases him. Whatever pleases us, galls him. But unlike the brutish bin Laden, this is an enemy we must continue to feed, clothe, and house, because he has wormed his way into one of our ivory towers, and he knows not to physically attack us. That being he case, we should at least get some use out of him by analysing his mentality.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Chumpsky is ready with the factoids because he has spent most of his waking hours since 1969 searching out that which he can use in his endless verbal assault on the West, and the U.S. in particular, spending endless hours repeatedly fitting the various factoids and acontextual snippets together to form various contradictory images of his "case".

He is intelligent, but his prodigious memory of all his tediously-collected factoids and snippets and how they can be pieced together in dishonest debate is more an indication of his insanity than anything else.

It is amusing to watch the looks on W.F. Buckley's face as he incrementally realised, during his debate with Chomsky, just how crazy the cunning loon was.

Chomsky is an implacable enemy. Whatever makes us unhappy, pleases him. Whatever pleases us, galls him. But unlike the brutish bin Laden, this is an enemy we must continue to feed, clothe, and house, because he has wormed his way into one of our ivory towers, and he knows not to physically attack us. That being he case, we should at least get some use out of him by analysing his mentality.
Click to expand...


I've actually enjoyed some of Chomsky's attacks on pseudoscience and postmodernism. On conspiracy theories too he's usually pretty good.
 
angrysoba said:
I think you'll find "factoids" merely look like facts but generally have no basis in truth.
Click to expand...

That's why I said I wouldn't quote him, but would follow up on a lead. If you can find a Chomsky factoid corroborated elsewhere then it's fair to say he wasn't making it up. Which is why I found his sourcing so frustrating- he'll drop all of these factoids but won't give you a link to them, you have to follow up on them almost from scratch. If you can't find anything, it's hard to say if he was making it up, exaggerating, misinterpreting something, etc.

I also agree with you re. Chomsky's attacks (formerly) on conspiracy theories... but this most recent ouvre definitely brushes up against that category- he seems to imply that Bin Laden never took responsibility for 9-11.
 
Chomsky clearly implies that each and every enemy who attacks us and then self-importantly crows about the deed for years thereafter, cannot be taken at their word. Nor should any other evidence be used to clarify the enemies' roles as actual combatant enemies. Instead, these enemies must, each and every one, be apprehended alive at great risk and expense, and then treated to a trial by jury.

Failing that, we must simply lie still and take the enemies' repeated kicks to the ribs - which is what Chomsky is really trying his damnedest to talk us into doing - which is in itself an insult deserving of a Jap-slapping.
 
Toontown said:
Instead, these enemies must, each and every one, be apprehended alive at great risk and expense, and then treated to a trial by jury.
Click to expand...

Or maybe just the unarmed ones. I'm pretty sure taking unarmed enemy soldiers prisoner in wartime instead of executing them has been standard practice for at least a few hundred years.
 
stokes234 said:
Or maybe just the unarmed ones. I'm pretty sure taking unarmed enemy soldiers prisoner in wartime instead of executing them has been standard practice for at least a few hundred years.
Click to expand...

Capture is optional in a combat situation, particularly when dealing with enemies who are prone to explode violently. If it is clear that the enemy is not armed or booby-trapped, and is in fact surrendering, then capture might be the correct course of action, depending on the totality of the circumstances. None of which you can prove applied to bin Laden. In no circumstance is capture required at the risk of the mission and the lives of comrades.

However, as soon as you have your first documented live capture of a batty suicide bomber in a dark building, without risking the the mission or the lives of your comrades, we will sit quietly as you tell us how that is done.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Capture is optional in a combat situation, particularly when dealing with enemies who are prone to explode violently. If it is clear that the enemy is... in fact surrendering, then capture might be the correct course of action,
Click to expand...

Not that I have a big problem with OBL being shot rather than taken alive (so long as this doesn't become a habit), I am pretty sure that shooting someone who is clearly trying to surrender (as per your above post) is not optional but rather a war crime.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Not that I have a big problem with OBL being shot rather than taken alive (so long as this doesn't become a habit), I am pretty sure that shooting someone who is clearly trying to surrender (as per your above post) is not optional but rather a war crime.
Click to expand...

And as soon as you prove bin Laden was clearly trying to surrender, you might have a point - depending on the totality of the circumstances. For example, what is the probability that an aspiring martyr will feign surrender for the sole purpose of getting the Seal team well inside the blast radius before blowing them away and destroying the entire mission? Did the Seal who shot bin Laden know bin Laden was not wired? Did he know the building was not wired? Did he know bin Laden was not near a detonator?

Troops are not required to risk their lives in an attempt to save the lives of enemies. That is why the rules of engagement require a head shot if there is any significant risk that an enemy will detonate. Suicide bombers have no one but themselves to blame for the existence of that rule of engagement.

Frankly, I'm surprised that so many of you so stubbornly ignore the realities involved in fighting martyrdom-seeking suicide bombers. The refusal to acknowledge these realities almost seems studied.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not I demonstrate anything about OBL wanting to surrender, I still have a point: if someone is clearly trying to surrender (as per your post), then shooting them is a war crime- it is not one of several equally defensible options.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Whether or not I demonstrate anything about OBL wanting to surrender, I still have a point: if someone is clearly trying to surrender (as per your post), then shooting them is a war crime- it is not one of several equally defensible options.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Again, troops are not required to risk their lives or the lives of their comrades or the success of the mission in an attempt to save the life of an enemy. Particularly an enemy who might be attempting to lure them to their deaths.

To wit: if there is any significant risk that an aspiring martyr will detonate, the rules of engagement require a head shot. The mere appearance of an enemy surrendering is insufficient. He could simply be luring the troops into the blast radius. All of which I laboriously explained before.

It is too bad these mass-murdering suicide bombers forced the rules to change. But it's all on them. They are what they are, and we must respond to what they actually are, rather than what we might like them to be, or what others may have been in the past.
 
Last edited:
You're silly.

Here's the post I commented on:

If it is clear that the enemy is not armed or booby-trapped, and is in fact surrendering, then capture might be the correct course of action, depending on the totality of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

So in your own example it is "clear the enemy is not armed nor booby-trapped". In this case, it is a war crime to shoot the surrendering combatant. It is not, as you implied, one of several equally defensible actions, along with accepting the combatant's surrender.
 
bikerdruid said:
link doesn't work.
still waiting for your proof that chomsky lies all of the time.
Click to expand...

Works for me.

Here's one.
The Lie: “The [9/11] terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).”181


The Truth: After al-Qaeda destroyed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds, America bombed an alleged chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The bombing was conducted at night so that civilians would not be hurt.182 One security guard died. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders were all free to
investigate and none alleged that the bombing caused mass deaths surpassing 9/11.
Click to expand...

Here's another

The Lie: “Only a few months before he spoke [in June 1984], [George] Shultz’s UNITA friends in Angola were boasting of having shot down civilian airliners with 266 people killed…”175


The Truth: UNITA claimed to have shot down government planes carrying hundreds of military personnel. The authorities said that first plane made an emergency landing because of technical problems, with no-one killed.176
Click to expand...

There's plenty more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom