Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[stokes234]

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.

Chomsky basically claims that since Bush is responsible for a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he is worse than Bin Laden who launched an attack that resulted in the death of roughly three thousand. You're twisting this around into a ridiculous theory in an attempt to portray those on the opposite side of the political spectrum as suffering from psychiatric delusions, when the truth of the matter is that they simply disagree with you.

America (and the UK) launched a war in iraq that devastated the economy, killed hundreds of thousands, resulted in the torture of prisoners, decreased american standing in the international community, stirred up middle eastern resentment towards the west, may have reduced the ability and political will of the west to engage in more humanitarian military interventions, and may have actively increased global jihadi terrorism. You're welcome to disagree with my opinion that this was a mistake, but you're arguing like a fool if you believe you can brand any opponents of the iraq war as clinically insane.

 

[Joey McGee]

Chomsky basically claims that since Bush is responsible for a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he is worse than Bin Laden who launched an attack that resulted in the death of roughly three thousand.

Which is absolutely insane. Anyone who thinks this either does not understand the facts of surrounding these two events or has mentally distorted those facts due to the conspiracy virus.

You're twisting this around into a ridiculous theory in an attempt to portray those on the opposite side of the political spectrum

You assumed this incorrectly. I would like to ask you, what is my political affiliation?

as suffering from psychiatric delusions, when the truth of the matter is that they simply disagree with you.

It's obvious that they "simply disagree with me". But the underlying theory as to why they hold such ridiculous positions intrigues me. Not in the least because it's prudent to hold them up against my own to see if my own judgements are found lacking. In this strain of thinking, this Michael Moorish wasteland of people questioning his right to a fair trial and killing him in Pakistan, I have found the slightest tinge of conspiracism, a strange biological state brought on by the fact that reality(the masses) doesn't agree with their agenda. Hitchens was right to pick up on it. It's there for a biological reason and can be compared to other expressions of the virus, truthers, which he did.

America (and the UK) launched a war in iraq that devastated the economy, killed hundreds of thousands, resulted in the torture of prisoners, decreased american standing in the international community, stirred up middle eastern resentment towards the west, may have reduced the ability and political will of the west to engage in more humanitarian military interventions, and may have actively increased global jihadi terrorism. You're welcome to disagree with my opinion that this was a mistake, but you're arguing like a fool if you believe you can brand any opponents of the iraq war as clinically insane

Way to argue against an argument I didn't make. A real dramatic finisher. Any high school debate team can make a case against how the war was waged given what happened. Remember what the arguments were before the invasion when you try and paint a picture of this aspect of history. I don't question the sanity of questioning the Iraq War, I question the sanity of some of it's most vocal critics for the insane things they have said and done over the years. Michael Moore and his horrible 9/11 movie case in point. Hey Mikey, thanks for starting the "US smuggled the bin Laden's out of the country" conspiracy theory, douche. See? This whole crew is suspect.

 

[jiggeryqua]

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.

They weren't in combat, they were in Pakistan. Shooting people in the head isn't the best way to move through life, whether you do it yourself or pay people to do it for you...even if they like it. I'm amazed I have to explain that to you.

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.

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.

You do remember that we're having this 'conversation because it mattered to you that I put Virus on ignore, and because you are obsessed with the questions you think I should have addressed. You expect to be paid for telling me what they were, but you give this enormous but pointless post for free? It's not worth you getting them, but it is worth harping on about them in a tiresome rant that barely stays the right side of the MA.

The 'avoidance' inherent in my ignoring someone is an avoidance of the sort of people I don't care to engage with in any other area of my life and even less so on the interwebz. I hang up on cold callers. I close the door on Jehovah's Witnesses. I cross the road to avoid mean drunks. I don't make eye contact with beggars. I put Virus on ignore. Now, as I predicted, I'm putting you on ignore. I also predict that, like Virus, you will continue to post snide personal comments. Furthermore, I predict you will consider this a victory. In the hope that you will understand how little that means to me, here's a shiny medal, with a big red ribbon and a certificate to frame and put on your wall saying 'I iz the winner!'.

 

[jiggeryqua]

From The Guardian (UK daily newspaper), in their radio review column:

"Speaking from his home in New York State, 91-year-old Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz was astonishingly acute and wise as he recalled his work to secure justice for concentration camp victims and related it to the death of Osama bin Laden. 'It seem the US has forgotten the lessons it tried to teach the world at Nuremberg,' he said. He understood the desire for revenge against bin Laden, and the temptation to cheer on hearing that he had been killed. 'Our team won the game,' he noted. 'But I did not jump for joy. I hope we don't kill the rule of law with him.'
"Ferencz's account of when he had the chance to kill an SS offcier who refused to co-operate with his investigations was chilling in the retelling and illuminating. 'The temptation to squeeze that trigger under his nose? That was a real temptation,' he said, 'a temptation that has to be resisted for the sake of our own humanity.' I could have listened to more of this dignified, humane assessment."​

But he's just some old geezer, what does a moonbat like that know?

 

[applecorped]

From The Guardian (UK daily newspaper), in their radio review column:

"Speaking from his home in New York State, 91-year-old Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz was astonishingly acute and wise as he recalled his work to secure justice for concentration camp victims and related it to the death of Osama bin Laden. 'It seem the US has forgotten the lessons it tried to teach the world at Nuremberg,' he said. He understood the desire for revenge against bin Laden, and the temptation to cheer on hearing that he had been killed. 'Our team won the game,' he noted. 'But I did not jump for joy. I hope we don't kill the rule of law with him.'
"Ferencz's account of when he had the chance to kill an SS offcier who refused to co-operate with his investigations was chilling in the retelling and illuminating. 'The temptation to squeeze that trigger under his nose? That was a real temptation,' he said, 'a temptation that has to be resisted for the sake of our own humanity.' I could have listened to more of this dignified, humane assessment."​

But he's just some old geezer, what does a moonbat like that know?

Well, he's one old geezer, who has an opinion. So?

 

[theprestige]

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.

You put it like that, what's not to like about the Osama thing?

Dude goes to war with the US, pulls off a few big strikes early on, and then goes on the run.

In the end, though, hiding out in a mansion in Pakistan doesn't mean much when you're at war with the most sophisticated military in (quite probably) the galaxy. Really, when you think about it, what happened to Bin Laden was probably inevitable. He died, if not on a battlefield of his own choosing, then at least on a battlefield of his own making.

I mean, once you realize that he went to war against the most sophisticated military in the galaxy, why on earth would you complain when that military brings some of its most sophisticated weapons to bear on him?

ETA: No, seriously, under what possible line of reasoning should Bin Laden not have brought a 100 meter radius war zone with him wherever he went, liable to an outbreak of hostilities from his sworn enemies at any moment?

 

[Toontown]

They weren't in combat, they were in Pakistan. Shooting people in the head isn't the best way to move through life, whether you do it yourself or pay people to do it for you...even if they like it. I'm amazed I have to explain that to you.

Look. If you fly deep into hostile territory and hop off a chopper square in the middle of your worst enemy leader's compound with orders to storm the place, you are in combat. Your first clue might be when you begin to receive automatic weapons fire, although it is to be hoped that the timing of your clue might substantially precede that moment.

And I am no longer surprised that I have to explain that to you.

You do remember that we're having this 'conversation because it mattered to you that I put Virus on ignore, and because you are obsessed with the questions you think I should have addressed. You expect to be paid for telling me what they were, but you give this enormous but pointless post for free? It's not worth you getting them, but it is worth harping on about them in a tiresome rant that barely stays the right side of the MA.

Well, that's all very interesting, I'm sure, but I'm still not interested in entering service as your step-and-fetch-it boy.

It was you who pitched a fit about Virus' questions and put him on ignore. Therefore it is you who knows which of Virus' questions offended you. Therefore it is you who who must take Virus off ignore, find the offending questions, and address them, if that is truly your burning desire.

The 'avoidance' inherent in my ignoring someone is an avoidance of the sort of people I don't care to engage with in any other area of my life and even less so on the interwebz. I hang up on cold callers. I close the door on Jehovah's Witnesses. I cross the road to avoid mean drunks. I don't make eye contact with beggars. I put Virus on ignore. Now, as I predicted, I'm putting you on ignore. I also predict that, like Virus, you will continue to post snide personal comments. Furthermore, I predict you will consider this a victory. In the hope that you will understand how little that means to me, here's a shiny medal, with a big red ribbon and a certificate to frame and put on your wall saying 'I iz the winner!'.

I'm on ignore? At long last?

Free at last, free at last, thank Gawd almighty, I'm free at last!

Oh no. I just realized...my entire belief system is in ruins. There really is a God after all.

Oh well. Could be worse. He is obviously not that maniac Christian one. Or the equally maniacal Muslim one. Apparently the real one ain't half bad.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Well, he's one old geezer, who has an opinion. So?

And all opinions are equal, of course. Immature ignorant internet tough guy opinion = venerable respected Nuremburg prosecutor opinion.

So? There's his opinion. One old geezer. In this thread full of opinions, is that the first time you've posted something no more substantial than "Well, that's your opinion. So?" Why hold back? You can insult him if you like, I don't suppose he's a member.

 

[jiggeryqua]

when you're at war with the most sophisticated military in (quite probably) the galaxy.

[...] he went to war against the most sophisticated military in the galaxy

In the galaxy? So now the USA are The Space Police too? Cool, bro!

Do you know much of the history of war in Afghanistan? Every army that ever attempted to impose itself on that harsh landscape and its tribes and factions was pretty sophisticated. They all failed, the USA is failing, just as it did when it took its sophisticated army to Vietnam and got taught some serious lessons by a low-tech army in pyjamas . Shiny kit and self-belief do not win wars.

 

[Virus]

In the galaxy?
Do you know much of the history of war in Afghanistan? Every army that ever attempted to impose itself on that harsh landscape and its tribes and factions was pretty sophisticated. They all failed.

That's actually a myth. The Afghans have always been benighted primitives that get slapped around by superior cultures.

 

[Virus]

IIRC, the question that made Jiggery flip out is when I asked him if he'd rather live in America or in Bin-Laden territory. I use that question as a shorthand whenever some silly person, indoctrinated into relativism and equivalence, claims to be unable to distinguish good guys from villains. He refused to answer, saying that he'd rather live in an imaginary place. (well, duh! who wouldn't?)

 

[stokes234]

Which is absolutely insane. Anyone who thinks this either does not understand the facts of surrounding these two events or has mentally distorted those facts due to the conspiracy virus.

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

Way to argue against an argument I didn't make. A real dramatic finisher. Any high school debate team can make a case against how the war was waged given what happened. Remember what the arguments were before the invasion when you try and paint a picture of this aspect of history.

I remember the arguments before the invasion. They were extremely flimsy and suspect. Remember how roughly half of the population of your country at the time of invasion thought that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11? The people I relate to politically staged the biggest demonstration in the history of the uk against the iraq war, because they saw right though the WMD claims and they knew the dangers of invading, so trying to claim that this argument is only being made in hindsight is dead wrong.

I don't question the sanity of questioning the Iraq War, I question the sanity of some of it's most vocal critics for the insane things they have said and done over the years. Michael Moore and his horrible 9/11 movie case in point. Hey Mikey, thanks for starting the "US smuggled the bin Laden's out of the country" conspiracy theory, douche. See? This whole crew is suspect.

I don't care about a questionable claim made by michael moore - he's a propaganda merchant, one that I usually agree with politically but one that I recognise distorts the truth to enforce his points. The point of this topic is whether or not bush's crimes are worse than bin ladens, and while i'm undecided on that point myself, chomsky's position doesn't make him insane.

 

[dtugg]

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

Al qaeda and other terrorisst groups are responsible for those deaths. They certainly don't have set off bombs and kill innocent people. But they do. Probably because they know people will blame the Great Satan for it.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Proximate and Ultimate causes are not the same.

 

[Virus]

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

So the terrorists and their Syrian and Iranian sponsors then? Since did most of the killing.

I remember the arguments before the invasion. They were extremely flimsy and suspect. Remember how roughly half of the population of your country at the time of invasion thought that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11?

So?

The people I relate to politically staged the biggest demonstration in the history of the uk against the iraq war,

Organized by Communist front groups that supported Saddam and sympathized with terrorists.

I don't care about a questionable claim made by michael moore - he's a propaganda merchant, one that I usually agree with politically but one that I recognise distorts the truth to enforce his points. The point of this topic is whether or not bush's crimes are worse than bin ladens.

Who says it's a crime to overthrow a genocidal fascist regime and replace it with a democracy?

 

[dtugg]

If somebody does something that pisses me off, and I go kill and bunch of innoccent people in order to make them look bad, who bears responsibility for those deaths?

 

[portlandatheist]

I think Chomsky's stance here is not the least bit surprising giving his outspoken support for totalitarian leftist oppression and as an apologist for anti Western violence in general. His ideology is much different than OBL's but they do share a consuming hatred for the West as do many posters here it would appear.

 

[zooterkin]

IIRC, the question that made Jiggery flip out is when I asked him if he'd rather live in America or in Bin-Laden territory. I use that question as a shorthand whenever some silly person, indoctrinated into relativism and equivalence, claims to be unable to distinguish good guys from villains. He refused to answer, saying that he'd rather live in an imaginary place. (well, duh! who wouldn't?)

Do you really need the flaws in your argument pointed out? America being the preferable place to live doesn't make it absolutely 'good', and especially it does not give the self-described 'good guys' the right to do whatever they want to, justifying it by saying, "But we're the good guys!".

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

In order: Arguing with Virus about the Iraq war is useless. Don't bother.

Dtugg: I was pointing out the difference between causes, but I generally agree with what you're saying.

(Also, hating the west fallacy? Sigh.)

 

[stokes234]

So the terrorists and their Syrian and Iranian sponsors then? Since did most of the killing.

It's my opinion that if you invade a country and you are the initial aggressor (ie. they didn't invade you or an ally first) then you are responsible for the state of the country following the invasion, particularly any new problems that arise. As before, you may disagree, but this isn't a "moonbat" position.

So?

Joey's implication was that in retrospect the war may look bad, but the intentions were good, or something. I was pointing out that part of the support for the war was based on a false premise.

Organized by Communist front groups that supported Saddam and sympathized with terrorists.

Show evidence that the million or so people who marched against the iraq war, or their organisers, were communists, supported saddam, or sympathized with terrorists. I checked with my dad about this one as he's been to enough protests over the years, and he says back when he was in university he was attending protests against america's original support for saddam. Remember when your government gave saddam hussein lots of weapons? That.

Who says it's a crime to overthrow a genocidal fascist regime and replace it with a democracy?

Well, for one thing, show evidence there were any more plans for genocide or any indication that it might reoccur. I support the first gulf war, as preventing genocide is a justified cause.

If it were possible to fly a plane over a country and send out some kind of radio signal that painlessly switched their country from dictatorship to democracy, i'd pay tax towards that. But what america and the uk did was an invasion that had little international support and was based largely on lies (such as the false connection between saddam and 9/11, tony blairs dodgy "sexed up" dossiers, or the fake "iceman" informant). And as david cameron (who i dislike, but like the quote) recently said, "you can't drop democracy from 40,000 feet." Middle eastern intervention has a bad history, even if you decide that you do have a right to go around replacing dictatorships with democracies through extreme force.

And if regime change was genuinely the only motivation, why do it to the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world, instead of, say, zimbabwe?