Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

ehyy
so either I support America's right to commit war crimes as deemed expedient by front-line soldiers, or I'm somehow part of a Leftist plot to make America lose in Afghanistan.

:P


also ftr I am not in the slightest perturbed about OBL being shot
 
Last edited:
Havel is the hero of Czech democracy. Unlike Chomsky he is a real dissident who faced real risks for criticism of a real Stalinist regime.

Maybe you think spitting bile at him is kosher.

But that's nothing compared to him being an avowed terrorist supporter. Chomsky's Hezbollah boys are now in Syria helping kill unarmed demonstrators for their fascist patrons. How splendid.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between 'hating' Western culture being critical of the actions Western countries take.

Yes, and Chomsky isn't someone who does the latter. The quoted screed is scarcely even a litany of complaints, let alone a criticism. It's all over the map, follows Godwin almost immediately, and fails to argue, well, anything much. Chomsky does that with everything, including linguistics and the mind/body problem. It's a bag of whatever he thinks is true at the time, with little coherence other than a kind of cultishness.
 
"They all died heroicly following my rules of engagement to the letter...They died trying to take him alive...We think UBL is dead, but we can't know for sure, because...well...we didn't get a good look at him before he set off the bomb...but we're sure that was him..."

So you're advocating shooting anyone (or everyone?!) in the head? If they can't be sure it is bin Laden, it still might be a suicide bomber (indeed, in your example it was). Suspected suicide bombers need to be shot in the head, according to your dogmatic rules of war. Funny thing about dogmatic rules of law, how some of them suit you and some don't. Anyway, in your high-pathetical example, SEALs should be shooting everyone they meet in the head (by 'everyone', I'm perhaps unfairly assuming you mean only those brown, furrin, godless people, but if you think good god-fearing americans should be shot in the head in case they're wearing suicide vests speak up).

I'm still waiting for those simple questions you insisted I was avoiding, by the way. When I made it clear I'd be happy to answer any that weren't strawmen or false dichotomies etc you suddenly went very quiet on the topic.
 
ehyy
so either I support America's right to commit war crimes as deemed expedient by front-line soldiers...

Staying alive is deemed somewhat more than merely "expedient" by front-line soldiers. As is staying out of Leavenworth. I'm not against prosecuting war criminals, but if it turns out to be a wrongful prosecution, then I think the prosecutor should do time in Leavenworth. It's only fair. Share the risk, right?

...or I'm somehow part of a Leftist plot to make America lose in Afghanistan.

Not really. Chomsky is part of a plot to make America lose any and every war. You are merely Chomsky's unknowing puppet.;)
 
So you're advocating shooting anyone (or everyone?!) in the head?

In combat? Yes, definitely. I think that would be an excellent combat tactic. Shoot every swinging dick in the head, on sight. Except friendlies and obvious noncombatants. Ideally, that 's what you do in combat. It's amazing I even have to explain that to you.

If they can't be sure it is bin Laden, it still might be a suicide bomber (indeed, in your example it was). Suspected suicide bombers need to be shot in the head, according to your dogmatic rules of war.

In combat, you don't need to worry about who it is or whether they're suicide bombers or not. Just shoot them. Don't even give them time to surrender or explode. You're not required to. It's a fire fight. Whoever shoots firstest and straightest, lives. If you're going to stand around waiting to see whether the bandits are going to shoot you or surrender, you'll find out the hard way. It's amazing I even have to explain that to you.

After the shooting stops, any random survivors can wave white flags from behind their exellent cover. If they're smart, they won't expose themselves while they're waving the whities. Then they can be given surrender instructions. Obviously, they had sense enough to keep their heads down, so they're unlikely to be suicidal.

Funny thing about dogmatic rules of law, how some of them suit you and some don't.

Nothing funny about that. It's just natural to favor rules that maximize your chances of survival. Unless you're stupid.

In combat, there is no need to worry too much about dogmatic rules of war. It is unlikely that anyone will actually try to surrender to you during combat, especially if you keep up a steady drizzle of bullets, which I recommend. Most combatants instinctively know better than to expose themselves during combat. It's amazing that I even have to explain that to you.

Anyway, in your high-pathetical example, SEALs should be shooting everyone they meet in the head (by 'everyone', I'm perhaps unfairly assuming you mean only those brown, furrin, godless people, but if you think good god-fearing americans should be shot in the head in case they're wearing suicide vests speak up).

In combat? Yeah. Shoot every swinging dick in the head on sight except friendlies and obvious noncombatants. You don't need to worry about what color they are. Trust me. You'll live longer that way.

I'm still waiting for those simple questions you insisted I was avoiding, by the way.

How much will you pay me to be your step-and-fetch-it boy?

You were obviously avoiding something. You put Virus on ignore. What it was you were avoiding, I can only surmise. Based on the avoidance technique, I surmised you were avoiding some of his questions you complained about.

It's not worth it (to me) to go back through the thread and resurrect Virus' questions for you. If you want that, you can do it yourself.

When I made it clear I'd be happy to answer any that weren't strawmen or false dichotomies etc you suddenly went very quiet on the topic.

Well, that's very interesting, I'm sure. But not interesting enough to dig up the questions you complained about. If you are still obsessing about the questions, may I suggest resurrecting them yourself and confronting them? It might be cathartic for you.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky is part of a plot to make America lose any and every war.

perhaps chomsky, like other reasonable people, feels that it is stupid that america is embroiled in foreign wars at all.
imagine the good that cold have been done, if the american taxpayers hard-earned trillion dollars, had been spent to house and feed and teach the poor rather than bombing the **** outa them.
 
perhaps chomsky, like other reasonable people, feels that it is stupid that america is embroiled in foreign wars at all.
imagine the good that cold have been done, if the american taxpayers hard-earned trillion dollars, had been spent to house and feed and teach the poor rather than bombing the **** outa them.

Don't get embroiled? They started it.

Like I said right at the beginning. Radical leftists ignore three crucial things;

1. Context.
2. Intent.
3. The nature of the protagonists.
 
Last edited:
Don't get embroiled? They started it.

Iraq started it? Libya started it? Grenada started it? Noriega's Panama started it? Allende's Chile started it? Mossadeq's Iran started it? Pakistan started it? Guzmán's Guatemala started it?

3. The nature of the protagonists.

Oh, yay, back to the good-guy bad-guy self appointed classifications.

If we no longer believe in our culture, we'll fall to someone who isn't shackled with guilt and self-loathing.

Yah dude.. totally, like... if we don't keep bombing people, and overthrowing their governments, like... you know, Panama could totally overthrow western civilization.
 
Last edited:
The problem is you can use this argument, or an argument very similar to it, to justify anything from using human shields to raping women so enemy soldiers desert to protect their families back home to sawing the head off of a captured American soldier on Youtube to try and sap the will of America to fight.
One has time to rape women or a noisy beheading during a mission?

Toontown, to me, has a firm and realistic understanding of engagement scenarios whilst you (and others) are simply ridiculing...
 
One has time to rape women or a noisy beheading during a mission?

Toontown, to me, has a firm and realistic understanding of engagement scenarios whilst you (and others) are simply ridiculing...
What Sassy is doing is declaring war crimes a legitimate tactic of warfare, as legitimate and moral as following the LOAC.

Thus, the US can be condemned for fighting by the LOAC while its enemies are excused for purposefully violating it.
 
America has been carrying out targeted hits of key Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders for the last ten years. Everyone that's doing combat operations in Afghanistan is doing it. Why all the complaints about the tactic just now?

Let's face it. If they captured Bin Laden and hauled him off the Gitmo the chomskyites and radicals wouldn't be pleased about it either.
 
Last edited:
What Sassy is doing is declaring war crimes a legitimate tactic of warfare, as legitimate and moral as following the LOAC.

Thus, the US can be condemned for fighting by the LOAC while its enemies are excused for purposefully violating it.

Could you link me to the post where the taliban, or whoever you are referring to as "enemies", were excused for committing war crimes?
 
What Sassy is doing is declaring war crimes a legitimate tactic of warfare, as legitimate and moral as following the LOAC.

Thus, the US can be condemned for fighting by the LOAC while its enemies are excused for purposefully violating it.

All Sassy did was take exception to a ridiculous claim that was made on these pages that if someone is trying to surrender, shooting them is as acceptable as taking them captive. It's not- deliberately shooting dead someone who is trying to surrender is an actual war crime.

I see no reason to believe Bin Laden was trying to surrender, however.

As for war crimes being a 'legitimate' tactic of warfare, that depends on how you define 'legitimacy'. They are certainly a tactic, in that commiting certain war crimes can help you achieve a military goal more expeditiously or more efficiently. This doesn't mean that they are 'legitimate'.

In a domestic parallel, yes, selling drugs is a way to get money, but it is not a legitimate way to get money.
 
America has been carrying out targeted hits of key Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders for the last ten years. Everyone that's doing combat operations in Afghanistan is doing it. Why all the complaints about the tactic just now?

Actually, a while back there was a discussion on the JREF about releasing the targeting rules for how these strikes are used.
 
These people are absolutely insane. President Obama has recommended psychiatric evaluations with potent wisdom. I have had no way to fathom these arguments and this is my conclusion. I have one simple theory to describe this bonehead snap from reality.

The further you get away from the winning mass of humanity, the more your anxiety and bodily states begin to cloud your thinking, your primitive social mind goes into overdrive and you're spending just as much energy warding off imaginary enemies as thinking about what you're doing. The evolutionary psychology of conspiracism. Think about it, if your own kind is starting to turn against you, conspiracy thinking is a survival tool, but you've got less energy and resources to actually think correct stuff. Plus your requirements for "certainty states" goes down because you're in danger, pattern-seeking goes up and recognition goes down. And you make grandiose statements arguments and gestures because again, situation critical, the risk of being wrong and inaccurate is much less than acquiescing to the massive hoard that's turned against you.

This is what has always bothered me about Chomsky that I could never quite put my finger on. He tries to sound nonchalant but ends up sounding creepy. What he's really hiding is the awkward biological state of the conspiracist that he experiences beyond reason or logic, something unmentionable his subconscious would say if he had the clarity of mind to receive the message.

Hitchens wrote an amazing article, in my mind a true naturalistic thinker.

Bless his soul he has written another one recently, this time on life, and death, but epic.
 
Also it's 100% ******* crazy to claim that the reason the US isn't winning in Afghanistan is cause they are handicapped in their ability to kill people. You have the most sophisticated military in (quite probably) the galaxy going up against a bunch of mostly illeterate tribesmen with assault rifles and not much else. I'm hard pressed to think of another war where the relative capabilities of the combatants has been so lopsided.

I think if the West is going to win in Afghanistan (a fairly unlikely proposition at this point unfortunately) it will have to have an occupying force in every single village for the next 10 years and accept the fact that many many many more soldiers are going to die and likely at a much higher rate.

Either that or eke out a quasi-victory by de-facto partitioning the country and getting the Central Asian States to the north and Russia to help protect the northern, non-Pashtun parts of the country.
 

Back
Top Bottom