Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[lionking]

Australia is also one of the few countries that has apologized for its horrific racist abuse of indigenous peoples and to attempt to make reparations.

Respect to Australia.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


''Hug me till you drug me, honey;
Kiss me till I'm in a coma;
Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny;
Love's as good as soma."

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

Australia has been a staunch ally of America when fair weather friends have headed for the hills. A member of the Coalition of the Willing, and side by side with GIs in Afghanistan.

Respect to Australia.

 

[JihadJane]

Australia has been a staunch ally of America when fair weather friends have headed for the hills. A member of the Coalition of the Willing, and side by side with GIs in Afghanistan.

Respect to Australia.

I assume you're referring to the Coalition of the Coerced.

 

[lionking]

I assume you're referring to the Coalition of the Coerced.

Dream away Jihad.

 

[Virus]

What makes you think that I support "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran"?

We can sort this out right now.

Do you condemn Hezbollah as a terrorist organization?

Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Do you condemn the Taliban as a terrorist organization?

Do you condemn Iran as a gross human rights violator and sponsor of terrorism?

It is also worth noting that many of the founding ideologues of al Qaeda were radicalized towards violence by being tortured in Egypt.

Actually they were tortured because that's what Egypt did do to revolutionary Islamists who tried to overthrow the government.

 

[stokes234]

What makes you think that I support "groups (sic) like X"?

We can sort this out right now.

Do you condemn X as a terrorist organization?

I don't support man utd, but that doesn't mean I condemn them as a terrorist organisation.

 

[Virus]

Because they're a soccer team, not a terrorist organization. Anyone who called them that would be an idiot.

 

[stokes234]

Because they're a soccer team, not a terrorist organization. Anyone who called them that would be an idiot.

More clearly for you perhaps, I don't support man utd but that doesn't mean I condemn them as a football team. "Lack of condemnation" =/= "Support for". While in most cases I would probably agree with you in "condemning" the organisations that you list, you don't get to demand it through the action of labelling someone a terrorist. For example, Thatcher famously labelled Mandela a terrorist, but you'd have trouble getting me to condemn him even if I didn't support the actions that resulted in the aforementioned label.

 

[Resume]

Barack Obama masterminds and sanctions acts of extreme violence that kill civilians. He knows that his violence will inevitably kill civilians and that it has regularly killed civilians and will carry on killing civilians and yet he doesn't stop using it.

Please provide evidence that I admire jihadiists.

This is an unfortunate by-product of war; it is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians for terror purposes.

Your constant apology for jihadists suggest your admiration.

 

[jiggeryqua]

For example, Thatcher famously labelled Mandela a terrorist, but you'd have trouble getting me to condemn him even if I didn't support the actions that resulted in the aforementioned label.

I think people tend to forget, if they ever knew, that Mandela was a terrorist. He was in prison because he refused to renounce violence as a means to his ends.

"In 1961 Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group. [...]

Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid government in which many civilians became casualties. Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Until July 2008 Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States—except to visit the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan—without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid government era designation as terrorists" [wikipedia]

 

[HoverBoarder]

What makes you think that I support "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran"?

Your argument is undermined by your faulty assumptions. Links to my expressions of support, please.

Other people have provided links on this very thread which you have ignored and continued your apologetic behavior for terrorist organizations or Countries that kill innocent people on a mass scale.

Like this:

It is also worth noting that many of the founding ideologues of al Qaeda were radicalized towards violence by being tortured in Egypt.

Holy crap! How many times do you have to apologize for them? They just HAVE to kill thousands of innocent people because they were abused as a child, or picked on when they were younger. Plus, if you met them, you would think they would be really nice and well mannered people too... before they tried to kill you that is.


So let's just get to the heart of it. The part that you, Chomsky, and other terrorist apologists leave out:

If you do not dispute that Countries across the Muslim world legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, what can be done to address this?

The only answer I have heard from Chomsky is to just ignore the problem and spend all of his time on red hearings and criticizing those people that do stand up to people that kill innocents for their own pleasure like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The reason for this is simple. Chomsky's tactic, and the one that you have adopted, has nothing to do with advocating policies that uphold the declaration of Human rights or standing up for innocent people who are killed by tyrants and terrorists, but it has everything to do with shifting the blame to something that you feel good pointing your finger at. Which is the people who are putting their lives on the line to protect those innocent people. It is a tactic that has nothing to do with trying to make things better in the world, and everything to do with making yourself feel better about yourself.

 

[JihadJane]

Dream away Jihad.

Sorry, I should have said the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced.

What makes you think that I support "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran"?

Your argument is undermined by your faulty assumptions. Links to my expressions of support, please.

Other people have provided links on this very thread which you have ignored and continued your apologetic behavior for terrorist organizations or Countries that kill innocent people on a mass scale.

No-one has provided links showing my support for "groups (sic) like Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hamas, and Iran" on this thread or any other thread, nor have they linked to examples of my alleged "apologetic behavior for terrorist organizations or Countries that kill innocent people on a mass scale". Perhaps you'd like to provide some yourself.

Like this:

It is also worth noting that many of the founding ideologues of al Qaeda were radicalized towards violence by being tortured in Egypt

Please explain how this statement of what I believe to historical fact represents an apology for terrorists.

Holy crap! How many times do you have to apologize for them?

I have never apologized for them.

They just HAVE to kill thousands of innocent people because they were abused as a child, or picked on when they were younger. Plus, if you met them, you would think they would be really nice and well mannered people too... before they tried to kill you that is.

So let's just get to the heart of it. The part that you, Chomsky, and other terrorist apologists leave out:

If you do not dispute that Countries across the Muslim world legally kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy, what can be done to address this?

The only answer I have heard from Chomsky is to just ignore the problem..

You obviously haven't heard (or read) much Chomsky.

What's your solution, HoverBoarder? More military violence? Ten years of it doesn't seem to have done much for women and gay people in Afghanistan. Women, in fact, are even worse off than before the invasion. I don't know how gay people are faring there. Do you?

...and spend all of his time on red hearings and criticizing those people that do stand up to people that kill innocents for their own pleasure like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda...

Please explain what supports your claim that people in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban kill innocents for their own pleasure.

The reason for this is simple. Chomsky's tactic, and the one that you have adopted, has nothing to do with advocating policies that uphold the declaration of Human rights or standing up for innocent people who are killed by tyrants and terrorists, but it has everything to do with shifting the blame to something that you feel good pointing your finger at. Which is the people who are putting their lives on the line to protect those innocent people. It is a tactic that has nothing to do with trying to make things better in the world, and everything to do with making yourself feel better about yourself.

Meaningless psycho-babble! Where did you learn such rubbish mind reading?

How have US military invasions protected women, children and gay people in any predominantly Muslim country on the planet?

 

[JihadJane]

It's just a garbage appeal to emotion, I support torture of terrorists and war criminals so I hate human rights. Too ridiculous to respond to.

And too ridiculous to be true.

I never said you hate human rights, only that you don't love them. If you loved them, you wouldn't be prepared to give them up.

 

[IDB87]

How have US military invasions protected women, children and gay people in any predominantly Muslim country on the planet?

Is this where someone should mention Kosovo? Or does that not count in any way?

 

[Joey McGee]

And too ridiculous to be true.

I never said you hate human rights, only that you don't love them. If you loved them, you wouldn't be prepared to give them up.

I think a better interpretation would be that I don't subscribe to "rule utilitarianism" so I wouldn't enforce a rule such as "no torture" because it supposedly will lead to greater well-being for all in the future. I agree that's true a lot of the time, just not all of the time. The Bush/Cheney policy on torture was largely stupid and extremely damaging to all of us. A lot of shameful stuff happened that should have been prevented.

I think you should be free from torture unless you have information in your head that can save lives, then you have turned your head into a weapon against humanity and you can't blame anyone for trying to access that information. But I hope we can invent something that will allow us to gain access without using pain as soon as possible.

 

[stokes234]

Is this where someone should mention Kosovo? Or does that not count in any way?

That was a UN/NATO action, not a purely US action. The US did supply a large part of the military hardware and air force, which I feel they should be thanked for and should not be obliged to do, but it was not a US military intevention. Of the ground troops (wiki), the largest contribution was from the UK with 19k troops, followed by Germany with 8.5k troops, then the US and France with 7k.

 

[stokes234]

I think people tend to forget, if they ever knew, that Mandela was a terrorist. He was in prison because he refused to renounce violence as a means to his ends.

Oh yeah, I realise that. Not sure if you're misunderstanding me or if I explained poorly or whatever, but my point was that even though Mandela by many classifications was a terrorist, I still wouldn't condemn him for it.

 

[Virus]

And too ridiculous to be true.

I never said you hate human rights, only that you don't love them. If you loved them, you wouldn't be prepared to give them up.

If you loved human rights you wouldn't support crazed gangsters like Gaddafi.

The Nazis used to decry the atrocities of the Soviet Union. The Soviets did the same. Human rights are not a propaganda stick to beat the countries you hate.

So do you condemn Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban as terrorist organizations? Do you condemn Iran as a human rights abuser and sponsor of terrorism?

 

[epepke]

That was a UN/NATO action, not a purely US action. The US did supply a large part of the military hardware and air force, which I feel they should be thanked for and should not be obliged to do, but it was not a US military intevention.

Tell that to Chomsky.

The U.S. will not tolerate the institutions of world order, so the problems have to be handled by NATO, which the U.S. pretty much dominates. The divisions within NATO are understandable: violence is Washington’s strong card. It is necessary to guarantee the “credibility of NATO”—meaning, of U.S. violence: others must have proper fear of the global hegemon.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Oh yeah, I realise that. Not sure if you're misunderstanding me or if I explained poorly or whatever, but my point was that even though Mandela by many classifications was a terrorist, I still wouldn't condemn him for it.

Well it wasn't aimed specifically at you, just prompted by your post. But you did say at the start of it, as I recall, that he had been labelled a terrorist by Thatcher. She wasn't alone. Far from it. I suspect it was his determination to use violence against civilian targets to further his agenda that led the civilised world to regard him as a terrorist.

By what classification was he not a terrorist? The one that says "I agree with these legitimate political aims so despite any terror caused by actions against civilian populations by their adherents, I shall not call them 'terrorists' but rather 'freedom fighters'"?

 

[stokes234]

Well it wasn't aimed specifically at you, just prompted by your post. But you did say at the start of it, as I recall, that he had been labelled a terrorist by Thatcher. She wasn't alone. Far from it. I suspect it was his determination to use violence against civilian targets to further his agenda that led the civilised world to regard him as a terrorist.

By what classification was he not a terrorist? The one that says "I agree with these legitimate political aims so despite any terror caused by actions against civilian populations by their adherents, I shall not call them 'terrorists' but rather 'freedom fighters'"?

Well... yes. As the saying goes, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. While the tactics used weren't the most ethical available, in this case I would say that the ends justified the means.

I'm not sure "determination to use violence against civilian targets" is accurate, either. They did use it against civilian targets, but they weren't the primary targets.