Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Here's JJ excusing the Taliban :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6235406&postcount=84

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4474827#post4474827

"They are seeking to reject a violent, colonial occupation."

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4497317#post4497317

One of the main reasons for letting off bombs is to make the country ungovernable. Whoever gets killed is "collateral damage", not meant personally. The target is the Occupation. That's war, gumboot.
Click to expand...

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4510843#post4510843

What is called "terrorist" violence has strategic logic just as State violence does. States exist because they have a monopoly on violence. Sometimes successful terrorists take over the State by undermining the State's former controllers' monopoly. Then their violence becomes respectable.
Click to expand...
 
JihadJane said:
I asked you "for link to a single post of mine in which I have referred to the Taliban as "freedom fighters", something you claimed I have done "again and again." Please do so or retract your claim. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I did.

The fact that you can't understand the implications of your own words is not my problem.


I'm not excusing anybody.
Click to expand...

Yes you are.
 
Whenever an American does something bad, you call him an Evil Capitalist-Occupier-Colonialist monster, whenever a radical Islamist does something bad, he's only human...

Funny in't it?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Here's JJ excusing the Taliban :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6235406&postcount=84

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4474827#post4474827

"They are seeking to reject a violent, colonial occupation."

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4497317#post4497317



and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4510843#post4510843
Click to expand...

You appear to confusing "explain" with "excuse".

Pardalis said:
Whenever an American does something bad, you call it Evil Capitalist-Occupier-Colonialist monster, whenever a radical Islamist does something bad, he's only human...

Funny in't it?
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence to support your previous wild claims before airing new ones. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Please provide evidence to support your previous wild claims before airing new ones. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I did, you can't accept your own words as evidence.

You said they are justly resisting a violent "occupier", ergo, they are freedom fighters.
 
Pardalis said:
Your words are there for everyone to judge for themselves.

Your refusal to accept the implications of your own words is noted.
Click to expand...

Heroic "freedom fighters" was Ronald Reagan's term for Islamic fundamentalist militias in Afghanistan, not mine.
 
Last edited:
So you refuse to answer.

We simply can't get a straight answer from you, the tell-tale sign of a dishonest person.
 
Pardalis said:
So you refuse to answer.

We simply can't get a straight answer from you, the tell-tale sign of a dishonest person.
Click to expand...
Actually, Pardalis, it is you who have refused to answer my question: " Better than what?" which I need you to answer in order to make your question comprehensible so that I can answer it.
 
JihadJane said:
What evidence do you have for your "honest mix-up" theory?
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have for your "fabrication" theory? Do you have a problem with grasping probability? There's no "evidence" except for the stories being put out, you know this, another silly question. The probability of it being a mix-up vastly overwhelms the probability of it being a fabrication based on the version of events that has been settled now.
I see, so now you have decided to stick with your "ran away" story after all!
Click to expand...
I see you have abandoned rationality and are making a ludicrous argument about some pedantic confusion you are having over the use of the English language! Amazingly this is the third time we've had such a ridiculous conversation. You have a problem with this kind of thing, I suggest you figure it out.
How do you know your version isn't wrong?
Click to expand...
It's based on the best available evidence and reason not my warped biases.
"Enhanced interrogation" is a duplicitous (Orwellian) euphemism for torture.
Click to expand...
It's official now, you take pleasure in stating the obvious for the point of having something to say.
"Proven war criminals and terrorists" are people.
Click to expand...
They are people who actually torture people on purpose for sick reasons. Waterboarding may be torture and cause nightmares and ptsd but it's nothing compared to what these people have already inflicted or showed a desire to inflict on others. You have no moral ground against my stance on torture, just more rabid persecution of any grey in your black and white vision of the world.

Osama bin Laden deserved to be tortured for next to infinity for what he did, but I wouldn't take pleasure in it, I'd simply do away with him to spare my memories and experience of something so horrible. If he wouldn't talk I'd support trying to break him but not with any pleasure of mine.

Love of torture eh, waste of time. Hysterical argumentation. Don't forget you called me a lover of torture, your words. Doesn't it seem odd that you jump to these twists and contortions constantly? Doesn't it sometimes make you second guess yourself?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I asked my question first.

Answer it.
Click to expand...

"Better' is a comparative word. Better than what? Better than US occupation? Better than Russian Occupation? Better than what?

Joey McGee said:
What evidence do you have for your "fabrication" theory? Do you have a problem with grasping probability? There's no "evidence" except for the stories being put out, you know this, another silly question. The probability of it being a mix-up vastly overwhelms the probability of it being a fabrication based on the version of events that has been settled now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing no evidence to support your "honest mix-up" theory besides abstract speculation about probabilities based on who knows what.

I see you have abandoned rationality and are making a ludicrous argument about some pedantic confusion you are having over the use of the English language! Amazingly this is the third time we've had such a ridiculous conversation. You have a problem with this kind of thing, I suggest you figure it out.

It's based on the best available evidence and reason not my warped biases.
It's official now, you take pleasure in stating the obvious for the point of having something to say.
Click to expand...

Where does this "best available evidence" come from?

They are people who actually torture people on purpose for sick reasons. Waterboarding may be torture and cause nightmares and ptsd but it's nothing compared to what these people have already inflicted or showed a desire to inflict on others. You have no moral ground against my stance on torture, just more rabid persecution of any grey in your black and white vision of the world.

Osama bin Laden deserved to be tortured for next to infinity for what he did, but I wouldn't take pleasure in it. If he wouldn't talk I'd support trying to break him but not with any pleasure of mine.

Love of torture eh, waste of time. Hysterical argumentation.
Click to expand...

You claim to love human rights while simultaneously supporting torture. The two are incompatible.
 
Last edited:
I'll take that as a "yes" then.

Since you think the Taliban are fighting the good fight, you are implying that the Taliban would be a better choice for the Afghans. You just refuse to admit it.

So much for human rights.
 
Pardalis said:
I'll take that as a "yes" then.

Since you think the Taliban are fighting the good fight, you are implying that the Taliban would be a better choice for the Afghans. You just refuse to admit it.

So much for human rights.
Click to expand...

Solipsistic rubbish. Byeeeeeeeeeeee!
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Thanks for providing no evidence to support your "honest mix-up" theory besides abstract speculation about probabilities based on who knows what.
Click to expand...
I've already explained it so why would I repeat myself? There were two women shot in front of their husbands, one was killed, bin Laden ran into his room, they followed him in and his wife charged them and was shot in the leg. With the fog of war and excitement of the event, it's more probable that a "human shield" story would come out of that than someone would consciously make up a story that they would later retract. This is common sense, not so common to you? Actually I think you get some self-importance out of asking these meaningless questions kind of like "Yep, keepin' em honest!"
Where does this "best available evidence" come from?
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm even more sure of that now. What kind of question is this? :rolleyes:
You claim to love human rights while simultaneously supporting torture. The two are incompatible.
Click to expand...
Bull. If you commit crimes against humanity or are involved in terrorism you lose your right not to be psychologically broken for the benefit of the people you were trying to terrorize. And we don't "go medieval" on people, it's psychologically based. The problem I have with you is that you disgustingly accuse people of "loving torture" Will you admit that is a sick thing to insinuate and that you've lost all connection with reality?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom