Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Skeptic]

not at all....ww2 was not a one-sided offensive.

Yes, but relative weakness does not mean moral superiority. If it did, then the Nazis would have been the "wrong" side in 1939 but the "right" side in 1945. Every wanted criminal is fighting against a law enforcement agency much more powerful than himself. Does this mean escaped murderers are morally superior to the police because it's a "one-sided offensive"?

In any rate if things have been reversed -- if the Israeli offensive had suffered heavy casualties -- it isn't as if the same people blaming Israel for the offensive being "one sided" would side with Israel for being "balanced". They would be doing victory laps about how this proves the Palestinians' bravery and willingness to fight against the evil zionists -- even, indeed especially, if the Israelies were to suffer much heavier casualties than Hamas. All concerns of a "one-sided conflict" would, of course, be dismissed so long as more Jews than Palestinians are killed.

Since Israel would be condemned anyway, it's far better for it to be condemned for the struggle being "one sided".

 

[bikerdruid]

Does this mean escaped murderers are morally superior to the police because it's a "one-sided offensive"?

your casual comparison between gazan palestinians and 'escaped murderers' speaks volumes.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah yeah yeah. Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could. I wasn't comparing the Palestinians to murderers, I was illustrating the point that weakness doesn't imply moral worth. But of course you know this. If you want to walk off in a huff by pretending I "insulted" the Palestinians instead of answering my question, be my guest; but I don't think you're fooling anyone.

So, again: is weakness an indication of moral worth? Does a "one sided conflict" mean the weaker side is just? If so, the Nazis were the just side in 1945, and an escaped murderer is on the just side against the police. If you admit, on the other hand, that just because a conflict is one-sided doesn't mean the weaker side is just, well, what exactly is the relevance of your noting that WW2 "not being a one-sided conflict"?

If only it were! If only Hitler's invading forces been quickly wiped out by the Poles and French with a 1:100 kill ratio! Hitler and the Nazis would not have been one iota less evil in their intentions in such case, but millions would have spared.

Then again, had this happened, the same "weak = just" folks who today support Hamas would have been crying to this day about the poor, just socialist Hitler, who stopped unemployment and raised the German worker to his rightful place, only to be crushed by the evil forces of the world's imperialistic plutocracy -- less than a month after his great man of peace, Ribbentrop, had signed a non-agression pact with the protector of the workers, the USSR.

After all, ignoring Hitler's murderous antisemitism and the fact that he had started a war of annihilation, although he happened to lose it, would be in such a case no more difficult than ignoring Hamas' murderous antisemitism and the fact that it had started a war of annihilation on the Jews, which is precisely what you in fact do.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yeah yeah yeah.

Can you say "analogy"?

I knew you could.

ok...the referents in your analogy.....speak volumes.

 

[Skeptic]

So, Okay, you WILL pretend to not get my point and be off in a huff, instead of answering my argument.

Care to reconsider? Yes, it's degrading to you to speak to a (yeeeech) Israeli like myself for long, but perhaps you'd stop a bit longer and explain yourself about why weakness = moral right. I'm sure you could do it. After all, you are already on record supporting mass murderers like Castro and Hamas, so having a casual talk with a lowlife like myself for a little bit longer won't hurt your reputation any, and you'd have a chance to explain your views.

 

[bikerdruid]

So, Okay, you WILL pretend to not get my point and be off in a huff, instead of answering my argument.

Care to reconsider? Yes, it's degrading to you to speak to a (yeeeech) Israeli like myself for long, but perhaps you'd stop a bit longer and explain yourself about why weakness = moral right. I'm sure you could do it. After all, you are already on record supporting mass murderers like Castro and Hamas, so having a casual talk with a lowlife like myself for a little bit longer won't hurt your reputation any, and you'd have a chance to explain your views.

i wonder, would it be possible to be a little more self-deprecating?
my sainted catholic mother (at 93) is a master of catholic guilt.
you definitely are a master at playing at being the victim.
you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Skeptic]

i wonder, would it be possible to be a little more self-deprecating?
my sainted catholic mother (at 93) is a master of catholic guilt.
you definitely are a master at playing at being the victim.
you are embarrassing yourself.

Okay.

Now, care to answer the question: if weakness = moral right, and one sided conflict = stronger side is in the wrong, doesn't it follow that a criminal running from the police is in the right? Or the Nazis in 1945 were in the right?

If not, just what moral relevance does the fact that the conflict with Israel was "one sided" have to do with who is right between Israel and Hamas? It's quite a simple question.

 

[bikerdruid]

Okay.

Now, care to answer the question: if weakness = moral right

no, weakness does not equal moral right.
however, the treatment of palestinians in east jerusalem , the west bank and gaza, also do not equal moral right.


we will not agree on this. that much is known.
i believe that your nation is morally bankrupt in it's treatment of palestinians.
that much is also known.

move along now, nothing more to be seen here, or accomplished.

 

[Skeptic]

i believe that your nation is morally bankrupt in it's treatment of palestinians.

You also believe communism is morally superior, and compatible with anarchism.

 

[bikerdruid]

You also believe communism is morally superior, and compatible with anarchism.

yup.

 

[Mycroft]

ok...the referents in your analogy.....speak volumes.

If you're going to read something into that, then can I also read something into the fact of your objecting to escaped murderers being used as an analogy for Palestinians but not Nazis? Shall I take that as tacit agreement that you don't disagree with that comparison?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Not taking anything away from your point about Mandela being labelled as a terrorist by a number of people for his actions and beliefs. I just would shy away from using Mrs. Thatcher as an example.

I suggest you take that up with the person who raised her as an example. I was merely responding to that.

 

[bigjelmapro]

we will not agree on this. that much is known.
i believe that your nation is morally bankrupt in it's treatment of palestinians.
that much is also known.

This coming from the Canadian, ta. And you're doing so well in the other threads regarding this subject matter. Love the italics and underlining. If only we can work on the substance of your posts, then we'll be making progress. But alas...

 

[HoverBoarder]

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.

Last time I checked, Manchester United was not holding public executions of fair weather fans, or sending their more poor and fanatic fans to blow themselves up in their competitors training camps.

I am just interested in the facts. It is a well established fact that Countries like Iran and others throughout the Middles East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.

It really doesn't matter what you label that kind of action, it is still a fact that we have to deal with, and Chomsky's response has been to ignore the problem and attack those who do bring it up.

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.

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.

Does any of this explain why "not condemning" someone is the same as "supporting" someone? Or did you not read the series of posts to which I was responding?

I read your posts, but there is not really an argument to respond to. Since Jihad J. had made a whole line of posts that excused groups that engaged in the purposeful mass killings with no condemnation of those of groups that engaged in those actions, it was a reasonable question to ask if she supported or condemned those groups. Defending the actions of groups can be classified as support.

All of this is addressed in the part of my post that was not included in your response:

I am just interested in the facts. It is a well established fact that Countries like Iran and others throughout the Middles East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.

It really doesn't matter what you label that kind of action, it is still a fact that we have to deal with, and Chomsky's response has been to ignore the problem and attack those who do bring it up.

 

[HoverBoarder]

or just look at your screen name which glorifies those that pointlessly blow up innocent children, men, and women.

that statement could just as well explain the actions of the israeli military during 'operation cast lead'.

As you are so fond of saying, that is a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch

Plus, that argument has already been addressed here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I am not a fan of Israel's aggressive actions, or Hamas's aggressive actions. However, there is more than enough justifications on both sides to keep the violence going on FOREVER, and one-sided condemnations don't achieve anything but to further feed the flames of violence.

Many Israelis feel that they need the wall, the blockade of Gaza, civil restrictions on the rights of Palestinians, and that they need to engage in deadly attacks on the Palestinians because of the attacks from Palestinian groups on Israel and the aspect of Hamas's charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Many Palestinians feel that they have no choice but to fight against Israel because of the attacks of Israel on Palestinians, the settlement expansions, and their fight to gain their rights, statehood, and access to their holy sites.

The propaganda on both sides dehumanizes those on the opposite side of the struggle and stunts real progress towards peace. Some outside actors like Iran also work to exacerbate and perpetuate the conflict for their own political advantage.

It is a never ending cycle of with many ardent reasons on both sides to keep it going forever.

I think that the three major things that need to be addressed for real peace is for the loaded demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" be amended to include the protection of rights for now Jewish Israelis as well. Second, there needs to be some reasonable safeguards set in place to address the fact that Hamas has said that they would use any future Palestinian State to base more attacks on Israel.

I just read all 107 pages of the General Israel/Palestine thread, and ultimately, Thunder had the best post for what should be done to bring peace (I would add that #4 should also apply to Palestinians visiting holy sites in Israel):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

what does Hamas need to do before Israel can negotiate with them?

#1. they need to agree that the creation of a Palestinian state, based for the most part on the 1967 borders, will mean an end to the conflict and all territorial claims.

#2. they need to agree that as long as negotiations go on, there will be no military operations against the IDF or terrorist attacks upon Israeli non-combatants.

#3. they need to agree that any recognition of a Palestinian Right-of-Return will only involve 100,000 or so Palestinians, most Palestinians will settle in the new Palestinian state or receive full-citizenship in the nations where they reside. An international fund to compensate refugees for lost property will be set up.

#4. they need to acknowledge the right of Jews to visit their holy sites in the new Palestinian state, free of intimidation and violence.

#5. they must agree to allow any Israeli settlers who wish to remain in their homes within the territory of the new state, will have that right and will become dual Israeli-Palestinian citizens.

..but if Hamas cannot agree to these very common-sense ideas, then Israel really has little to talk about and needs to start considering alternative solutions...such as annexing all the land west of the Separation Wall, accepting back zero refugees , and washing its hands of the WB until the Palestinians have a responsible govt.

This is an issue that you have definitely spent a lot of time thinking about, and I would like to hear your ideas about what you think should be done to work towards a peaceful solution.

 

[HoverBoarder]

This video is exactly the disconnect from reality that I have been talking about. Malalai seems like a nice women, but she starts out by stating her opposition to the Taliban for their abuse of women's rights, and then goes on to praise Chomsky's books and the condemnation of the US presence there.

So who does she think is going to fight the Taliban, the Warlords, and the drug kings that she rails against?? Chomsky's books and his followers are not going to do it, but Chomsky will make a lot of money getting people to delude themselves into thinking that he can.


In the same type of situation, I saw a person walking around campus yesterday with two buttons. One said "Free Libya" with the colors of the Libyan resistance. The other button said "No War." I thought "What?! Are you kidding? Did you look at what you were wearing when you got up in the morning?" I mean, how can she think those two messages can possibly go together? Are we going to send tersely worded letters to the Mad Dog of Africa and hope that he sits down and rationally considers them??

I consider myself a supporter of left politics in just about every issue, but COME ON, we have to get somewhat realistic if we are going to solve our problems.

You consider yourself to be "a supporter of left politics"? Really? Sure. I hope you don't expect anybody here to buy this.

I suppose we are all entitled to our own labels. I have just always considered myself "Left." I have always voted for and supported Democrats, I have always been a supporter of environmental issues, I strongly supported the Democratic plan to fix health care, and I support the Democratic plans to fix our financial system. I do not support the GOP supported Paul Ryan Plan to end Medicare, or the plans to attack teachers and give money to the rich, or the GOP attacks on STD testing and women's rights, or the GOP financial plans that cut our GDP to support their cultural wars.

My views on war is somewhat similar to my views on abortion. For abortion, I support polices that produce less abortions through access to birth control, family planning, low income reproductive support, and reproductive education. While I am Pro-Choice, that does not mean that I think that it is a choice that should be taken lightly. It is a serious decision that will stay with a person for the rest of their life, but I also cannot just pretend that you can have a world with no abortions.

For war, I support polices that produce the least war, but I cannot pretend that we can live in a world that can exist without war either. Obama was bound by his duty as President to protect our Nation from Osama Bin Laden who was actively planning more attacks on American citizens. According to OBL's diary, he coordinated attacks to kill innocent civilians in order to obtain media attention all for the impossible goal of establishing a caliphate. There is nothing that is freedom fighting in that. There is nothing in that coordination of attacks on innocent civilians that can be blamed on Egypt, or the US, or anyone else but those leaders of Al-Qaeda that are choosing to kill those thousands of innocent people. Chomsky's deplorable actions on this subject do nothing to help prevent more war or more innocent deaths.

We need realistic plans, and realistic policies to prevent wars, and I am happy to stand up to people on the Left like Chomsky that do the opposite. That is what makes us better than the Right who cannot stand up to the counterproductive polices of the Tea Party and who sell their souls and votes to the highest corporate bidder.

I have always defined myself as being a supporter of the Left because of my stances on these and other issues, and I am defined as "Left" in this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

She expands on your "questions" quite a bit.

I have watched this video three times now, and all of Malalai's points hinge on the premise that the people in Afghanistan are fighting three groups, the Taliban/Islamic fundamentalists, the Warlords/Drug kings, and the US/Coalition forces. Her idea that if the US leaves, that the fight against the other two will be easier is not realistic at all. She singles out all of the major fighting groups in Afghanistan and says that the fight will be easier against them if we leave, but she doesn't have anybody to do the fighting.

The US is going to leave Afghanistan, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has a done a lot to help that, but we have to be honest about what peace and women's rights in Afghanistan after we leave are actually going to mean.

 

[stokes234]

I am just interested in the facts. It is a well established fact that Countries like Iran and others throughout the Middles East kill thousands of innocent women, gays, and those accused of blasphemy every year.

It really doesn't matter what you label that kind of action, it is still a fact that we have to deal with, and Chomsky's response has been to ignore the problem and attack those who do bring it up.

I'm not convinced that is correct. For example, here is chomsky on iran in 2009 from a simple google search:

Interviewer - "Mr. Chomsky, you have supported the civil movement of the Iranian protesters. In the first place, what makes you do that?"

Chomsky - "Well, I think they're right to protest the prosecution of political prisoners, violent repression, and other autocratic authoritarian procedures of the Iranian regime...

...Well, protests against the nature of the regime… It's a clerical, military regime. Putting aside the details of the election, about which we do not know much, the whole structure of the regime is oppressive and authoritarian and undermines basic civil and other human rights; and protesting against it is not only honorable, but courageous, because it faces extreme violence."

 

[HoverBoarder]

I notice that you didn't explain how the statement, quoted below, of what I believe to historical fact, represents "an apology for terrorists":


EXTRACT:
Many analysts have argued that the birth of Al Qaeda can be traced by to the humiliation of torture within Egypt’s prisons.

“Zawahiri emerged a hardened radical whose beliefs had been hardened into brilliant resolve,” according to Lawrence Wright, author of ‘The Looming Tower.””
/EXTRACT

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/casbah/ayman-al-zawahiri-osama-bin-laden-dead

That is not justification for the actions of Al-Qaeda... "brilliant resolve?!?"

Al-Qaeda was not performing peaceful bake sales and flower arrangements for caliphates before the evil Egypt came along and made them kill thousands of innocent people instead.

They are a group that chooses to kill innocent people for a goal that is physically impossible, and they alone should answer for that.

Firstly I'd refer you to your own comment about complex problems and also remind you that, historically, it wasn't that long ago that Europe was terrorizing and burning women and other resisters to the emerging capitalist order, in huge numbers. Europe grew out such atrocities, mostly. It is possible the Muslim world will reject such atrocities too, assuming, of course, the entire world doesn't revert to tribal gangsterism in the future. The Arab Spring revolutions have shown that Islamic Fundamentalism is already being sidelined as a force for revolutionary change and liberation.

It is important to assert that women, gays and many other oppressed groups everywhere deserve equal human rights and to never give up asserting it.

The role of women in the "Arab Spring" shows that cultural change is already happening. An organized working class has also been central to enabling political resistance in those countries.

What a terrible non-answer.

I suggest you look more into the statements of people who have participated in the Arab Spring before making a statement like that.

There is nothing in the Arab Spring to show that they would do anything to stop or even decrease the pointless legalized executions of gay people across the Muslim world.

The position that you have taken and the position that Chomsky has taken who parades around his $50,000 "human rights" prize while actively supporting those groups that perpetrate some of the largest human rights abuses in the world is financially savvy, but morally reprehensible.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I'm not convinced that is correct. For example, here is chomsky on iran in 2009 from a simple google search:

Interviewer - "Mr. Chomsky, you have supported the civil movement of the Iranian protesters. In the first place, what makes you do that?"

Chomsky - "Well, I think they're right to protest the prosecution of political prisoners, violent repression, and other autocratic authoritarian procedures of the Iranian regime...

...Well, protests against the nature of the regime… It's a clerical, military regime. Putting aside the details of the election, about which we do not know much, the whole structure of the regime is oppressive and authoritarian and undermines basic civil and other human rights; and protesting against it is not only honorable, but courageous, because it faces extreme violence."

Better, but ALL of his responses started out with, or found some way on connecting the protests to the Shaw or the West.

This does not change that Chomsky is still a purveyor of false hope and a blame based understanding system that blames the West, and specifically the US for almost all of the worlds problems. No matter if his views are not true at all or if they do major damage towards finding real solutions for peace, that is what he makes his money on.

Chomsky only made the statement about the makeup of the Iranian regime after the interviewer had to directly confront Chomsky on his misdirections to the 'evil West.' The best part is when the interviewer asked Chomsky about how the Iranian People were under "constant repression and abuse" and Chomsky just ignored the question and started talking about Bolivia. The interviewer responded with "Then, talking about the recent uprising..."

 

[stokes234]

Better, but ALL of his responses started out with, or found some way on connecting the protests to the Shaw or the West.

This does not change that Chomsky is still a purveyor of false hope and a blame based understanding system that blames the West, and specifically the US for almost all of the worlds problems. No matter if his views are not true at all or if they do major damage towards finding real solutions for peace, that is what he makes his money on.

Chomsky only made the statement about the makeup of the Iranian regime after the interviewer had to directly confront Chomsky on his misdirections to the 'evil West.' The best part is when the interviewer asked Chomsky about how the Iranian People were under "constant repression and abuse" and Chomsky just ignored the question and started talking about Bolivia. The interviewer responded with "Then, talking about the recent uprising..."

He mentioned the oppression in iran plenty of times, but he's a political commentator that likes to draw comparisons between events in different countries. What percentage of his responses need to be condemnations of middle eastern domestic policy before you'll agree that he opposes the oppression there?