Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

BStrong said:
Chomsky and others simply turned a blind eye to the facts, and in some instances tried to place blame on the United States for the KR's genocide.
Click to expand...


What concrete evidence leads you to believe that Chomsky “simply turned a blind eye to the facts”? Details, please, from your own finger tips.
 
Shrek said:
..and the first country for expense in the military.
Click to expand...
Which everyone loves to have when it comes time to stop a genocide in Bosnia, or protect rebels in Libya, or protecting shipping from piracy off Somalia. Not to mention subsidized the defense of western Europe and Canada for the last 60 years.
 
btw, the "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" has just started.

Pepe Escobar said:
[...] It may be tempting to have historical perspective dissolve in bustling Phnom Penh, among the young, educated and connected drinking mojitos in terrace bars facing the Tonle Sap River and the glitzy headquarters of pan-Asian trading companies.
But it's impossible not to connect the Khmer Rouge and the American Empire. It was Richard Nixon's illegal war in Cambodia - call it VietCam, a precursor to the current AfPak - plus support for yet another tin-pot dictator, Lon Nol, instead of King Sihanouk, that created the conditions for the emergence of the Khmer Rouge and its power grab in 1975, just as the last American helicopter was abandoning Saigon in disgrace.

Washington didn't care much about the Asian genocide and even grumbled when Vietnam toppled the Khmer Rouge.

And that takes us to the circular ways of Empire; Khmers would portrait it as a naga biting its own tail. Think of eternal Cold Warrior US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, recently arguing that failure in Afghanistan is "unacceptable", regardless of the costs of war (just as failure in Vietnam was unacceptable).

Think of Gates telling Newsweek, "I've spent my entire adult life with the United States as a superpower, and one that had no compunction about spending what it took to sustain that position." Functionaries of Empire parroting His Master's Voice can't get clearer than this. There's more; "Frankly, I can't imagine being part of a nation, part of a government ... that's being forced to dramatically scale back our engagement with the rest of the world."

"Engagement" meant extending a war, illegally, from Vietnam to Cambodia, and creating the conditions for an Asian holocaust. "Engagement" means extending a war, illegally, from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and sowing extra chaos in South Asia. "Engaging" means extending an illegal war over Libya - sowing extra chaos in Northern Africa. "Engaging" means letting the House of Saud bribe everyone in sight in its reactionary, counter-revolutionary drive all across MENA (Middle East/Northern Africa). [...]
Click to expand...


Doesn't take a Chomsky to tell the world about this, but a Chomsky is very useful to break it down to the propagandized Yankistanis.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Doesn't take a Chomsky to tell the world about this, but a Chomsky is very useful to break it down to the propagandized Yankistanis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because he got it so right the first time around, when it was actually happening. :rolleyes:

But I particularly like the last paragraph from your quote, what with its internal contradictions. We can't stop the Saudis from bribing people unless we attack them, but of course that would be doing exactly what the author says we're doing wrong everywhere else. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Which is ultimately the point, isn't it? But then, I'm just a Yankistani, and you're obviously an enlightened, benighted, international being of pure moral virtue.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Glad to see we're eventually making progress. :p
Click to expand...

Only you are, not me. You're becoming so enlightened that you'll reach Nirvana. Me, I'm still stuck in the mud. I guess I just can't get ignore the fact that Chomsky denied that genocide was taking place when it did, and alleged that it was taking place when it didn't. This sort of thing still matters to me. I haven't learned to let go of such earthly concerns like you have.
 
On a serious note, I think Shrek made a good point. The people who are outraged over Chomsky's research and activism are, consciously or subconsciously, not measuring human lives or deaths as equal, regardless of the citizenship of that human. If they would, the problem would indeed be "self-evident".
 
Childlike Empress said:
On a serious note, I think Shrek made a good point. The people who are outraged over Chomsky's research and activism are, consciously or subconsciously, not measuring human lives or deaths as equal, regardless of the citizenship of that human. If they would, the problem would indeed be "self-evident".
Click to expand...

Yeah, not so much. The problem is not that Chomsky values all lives equally. That's got nothing to do with the issue of him getting the facts themselves so abysmally wrong. Furthermore, he doesn't view all deaths as equal. He rather clearly prioritizes deaths which can be attributed to the US. Whether or not any of his opponents ALSO prioritize some deaths over others doesn't change the fact that he does. I guess that, technically, that's not on the basis of the citizenship of the victim, but I'm not exactly seeing that as a major improvement.
 
Substantiate your claims. A subtext of this thread. Nothing coming from the Chomsky bashers. I think it was JihadJane who said that the "lies" attributed to Chomsky by the usual suspects more often than not turn out to be just instances of Chomsky not giving in to the newspeak and using words like they were meant to use. True dat.
 
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...

wow...just ...wow...see above.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Substantiate your claims.
Click to expand...

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyterror.html

"On September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people."

According to Chomsky, the United States demaned that millions of Afghanis be starved. And he didn't misspeak either. That accusation was quite explicit. And he repeated it:

"Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that."

"Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks...."

Of course, none of that was true, and none of it came to pass.

A subtext of this thread. Nothing coming from the Chomsky bashers. I think it was JihadJane who said that the "lies" attributed to Chomsky by the usual suspects more often than not turn out to be just instances of Chomsky not giving in to the newspeak and using words like they were meant to use. True dat.
Click to expand...

Again, not so much. First off, I didn't say Chomsky lied. I said he was wrong. Whether he was wrong through malice or honest error is not part of my claim. My claim was that he was wrong. And he was wrong. And not just a bit wrong, but completely and totally 180-degrees backwards wrong. If you can't recognize how terribly wrong Chomsky was about Afghanistan, well, then you're just not interested in the truth.
 
Shrek said:
I am joining this discussion a little bit late.
My apologizes.

As for the Chomsky issue, I more or less agree with what Chomsky says, looks like self-evident to me.
Bin Laden was not executed for the murder of about 3000 people, in fact, this is more or less irrelevant in the whole discussion.
Bin Laden was killed for the murder of about 3000 American people, had the victims been Vietnamese or Iranian, nobody would have cared.
Click to expand...

very true.

general p.s....pardon my string of replies, but our rural phone service has been out for several days, and with it my internet. this is an in-town' catch up day.
 
Shrek said:
Really?
Let` s speak about you.

I assume you are American, so there is another American citizen I would like to speak about.

Henry Kissinger extended an already criminal war of aggression in Vietnam by 4 years justified solely by "trying to save face".

He hatched a plan with the rest of the Nixon gang to disrupt the Paris peace negotiations; they secretly offered south Vietnam a better deal than what they could achieve at the negotiating table if they withdrew from the negotiations. Kissinger was the one who reported to Nixon the current position of the US peace negotation to keep him up to date. Private, secret diplomacy is highly illegal in the US(see Logan act) and anywhere else with a functioning justice system as well as blatantly treasonous. This act probably won Nixon the election and definitely derailed the peace negotiations.

The saturation bombing campaign in french indochina was extended by 4 years, it was extended by Kissinger into neutral Laos and Cambodia(contributed greatly to bringing Pol Pot to power), directed largely at civilian populations; this "secret" bombing was of course not secret to the Cambodians or Laotians; it was only secret for american citizens and the congress.

Kissinger and Nixon were intimately involved in the "two track" policy for Chilé, which involved a public, ostensibly diplomatic approach and a secret(even to the state department and US embassadors) policy of assasinations, kidnap and destabilization to foment a military coup in Chilé. It took 3 tries to get general René Schneider, but the predictable consequences of the military dictatorship that ensued was torture and political assasinations on a massive scale(especially predictable given the presense of chilean military officers as the infamous "school of the americas", which has trained more dictators than any other school in history).

Kissinger is still alive.

How many times you went out in the street publicly asking for Mr. Kissinger to be put on trial and killed?

JP
Click to expand...

wow....excellent post.
welcome to the forum. another voice of reason is a very welcomed treat.:)
 
Ziggurat said:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyterror.html

"On September 16th, the Times reported, I'm quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people."

According to Chomsky, the United States demaned that millions of Afghanis be starved. And he didn't misspeak either. That accusation was quite explicit. And he repeated it:
Click to expand...


He got it from the New York Times, like it's more than obvious from his piece. The part right before your quote:

Well let's start with right now. I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I'll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom