Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

bikerdruid said:
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Click to expand...

This sacred creed of the terrorist apologist is morally and philosophically bankrupt. Intentionally killing uninvolved innocent civilians for a political purpose, no matter how worthy and admirable the political goals may be, is unambiguously terrorism. Furthermore, the terms "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are neither mutually exclusive terms nor mutually compatible. One can be both, neither, or one or the other. This terrorist apologist, post modernist, moral relativist crap disgusts me and I hope that in your heart, you don't actually believe this and are doing it for mere reaction. It's indefensible.
 
It's a matter of record that US policymakers and policy front-men have on several occasions referred to people as "freedom fighters" who were engaged in the crime of terrorism. To say that this has happened is not just expressing a creed or a point of view.
 
Gazpacho said:
It's a matter of record that US policymakers and policy front-men have on several occasions referred to people as "freedom fighters" who were engaged in the crime of terrorism.
Click to expand...
And once the truth came out amid the propaganda how many people call them "freedom fighters"?

Shouldn't a reasonable person base his opinion on the known facts, and alter that opinion as more facts emerge which either support or undermine the previous opinion?
 
portlandatheist said:
This sacred creed of the terrorist apologist is morally and philosophically bankrupt. Intentionally killing uninvolved innocent civilians for a political purpose, no matter how worthy and admirable the political goals may be, is unambiguously terrorism. Furthermore, the terms "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are neither mutually exclusive terms nor mutually compatible. One can be both, neither, or one or the other. This terrorist apologist, post modernist, moral relativist crap disgusts me and I hope that in your heart, you don't actually believe this and are doing it for mere reaction. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that anyone's disgust is going to match this, does that mean portlandatheist wins... or something?
 
WildCat said:
Shouldn't a reasonable person base his opinion on the known facts, and alter that opinion as more facts emerge which either support or undermine the previous opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, people should do that. I can't tell what motivated your questions though.
 
portlandatheist said:
This sacred creed of the terrorist apologist is morally and philosophically bankrupt. Intentionally killing uninvolved innocent civilians for a political purpose, no matter how worthy and admirable the political goals may be, is unambiguously terrorism. Furthermore, the terms "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are neither mutually exclusive terms nor mutually compatible. One can be both, neither, or one or the other. This terrorist apologist, post modernist, moral relativist crap disgusts me and I hope that in your heart, you don't actually believe this and are doing it for mere reaction. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...

Wars are conducted for political purposes.

Civilians are the predominent casualties of war.

War is terrorism.
 
"one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" - yes, indeed. and one man's rapist is another man's rough lover. But we learn a lot about those who consider Hizbullah freedom fighters, just like we learn a lot about those who consider Ted Bundy a rough lover.

also, "Reagan supported terrorists" - perhaps, but he was roundly and correctly condemned for it. His excuse was that he has no choice, otherwise the country he intervened in will go Marxist. perhaps he was wrong, but WHat is forcing Chomsky to support terrorists? The fear some Jews will survive?

Finally, Chomsky met with other Lebanese parties too, so it's Ok. Perhaps Netanyahu, too, when he recently visited the USA, should have visited, not just Democratic and Republican leaders, but also the headquarters of the American nazi party. you
 
JihadJane said:
Wars are conducted for political purposes.

Civilians are the predominent casualties of war.

War is terrorism.
Click to expand...


Except you don't really think that. You think wars by westerners are terrorism. Wars by Muslim with the goal of geocoding non Muslims, such as Hamas an Hizbullah openly declare they are fighting, are mere resistance and freedom fighting or something...
 
Gazpacho said:
Yes, people should do that. I can't tell what motivated your questions though.
Click to expand...
Samir Kuntar for example. He's held up as a hero in Lebanon and Syria, a true freedom fighter! Assad gave him Syria's highest medal for bravely bashing in the skull of a 4-year old Jew with a rifle butt.

Do you think those praising Kuntar are acting rationally?
 
JihadJane said:
Wars are conducted for political purposes.

Civilians are the predominent casualties of war.

War is terrorism.
Click to expand...

Lookie here, Jihad is chanting insipid slogans again. :rolleyes:

Four legs good, two legs beeeeetter!
 
Last edited:
Gazpacho said:
It's a matter of record that US policymakers and policy front-men have on several occasions referred to people as "freedom fighters" who were engaged in the crime of terrorism. To say that this has happened is not just expressing a creed or a point of view.
Click to expand...

So?

I'm trying to understand the logic you're putting forth. Does anyone believe that politicians are not sometimes wrong?

More importantly, don't you understand that if you water-down the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone who wages war, you sabotage the ability to object to support of any group?
 
Mycroft said:
I'm trying to understand the logic you're putting forth. Does anyone believe that politicians are not sometimes wrong?
Click to expand...
Training and arming the contras and UNITA and the Atlacatl batallion for terrorist acts is not a mere innocent mistake.

Mycroft said:
More importantly, don't you understand that if you water-down the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone who wages war, you sabotage the ability to object to support of any group?
Click to expand...
Applying the definition of terrorism as written, without exceptions for acts that have political approval, is not watering it down but rather the opposite. The terms are politicized as a matter of record. I did not politicize them.
 
Pardalis said:
And is Chomsky's support for Hezbollah a mistake?

You know, Chomsky, the guy this thread is about.
Click to expand...
I was starting to wonder if anyone remembered. No, Chomsky's statement that Hezbollah has bona fide deterrence reasons for retaining its arms is not a mistake. Nor were his past statements that the Sandinista government had bona fide deterrence reasons for retaining arms.
 
I get the feeling no matter what he says or endorses you will cut and paste that response.

So you don't think endorsing islamic terrorists is a mistake, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I get the feeling no matter what he says or endorses you will cut and paste that response.
Click to expand...
Now this is funny. I intentionally avoid posting "Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky" and try to focus on the issues that he discusses which are broader than one person. But then someone wants to challenge me directly on his position and maybe try to catch me being a hypocrite. I responded to that. Did you want me to address his position or not?

Israel has invaded southern Lebanon twice and twice Hezbollah has been the base of resistance. It is a credible deterrent, aparrently the only one around.
 
Last edited:
Gazpacho said:
Israel has invaded southern Lebanon twice and twice Hezbollah has been the base of resistance. It is a credible deterrent, aparrently the only one around.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the PLO and Hezbollah started those conflicts?

Thanks for outing yourself as a terrorist apologist though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom