Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As I posted on another thread, I'm curious what people like Chomsky would say about the targeted killing of Admiral Yamamoto in World War II.

AKA "Operation Vengeance". I've brought it up several times myself over the last few days. None of Osamas defenders seem willing to address the fact that OBL was a legitimate military target.

Sixteen P-38 Lightnings each with four .50 caliber machine guns and one 20mm cannon would have given OBL one helluva bad beard day though.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

None of us have ever killed 100,000 muslims, but we're all islamophobes for cheering the death of the one who did.

Brilliant logic there pal.

 

[Joey McGee]

I do care about the feelings of these people. I already said my first thought was that it's too bad that so much ink will be spilled over this one. But I also sympathize with people who are being unfairly labeled as racist.

a Veteran speaks..

Their complaints are understandable, but misguided. The code name doesn’t denigrate the Apache war captain, a hero to some students of Native American history, through comparison to the Saudi terrorist leader. The similarities are not in the men themselves but in the military campaigns that targeted them.

And he goes on to make a case. I wouldn't be surprised if someone does make a statement of apology, but I think much anger and unfair criticism could be averted with some patient analysis of the reality by both sides.

 

[Joey McGee]

So some local members of the Islamic faith dropped by the house earlier today. They essentially just wanted to let us know who they were in the community and that bin Laden went directly against their peaceful beliefs. It was pretty nice of them, they weren't preachy and their pamphlet was just about who they were and that bin Laden wasn't anything to do with them.

I can understand why they would reach out in a community like this that has no mosque and little direct experience with Muslims. They were dressed traditionally which is rare around here too. I'll be happy for them the day they set up a mosque. It's kinda too bad that it's probably a necessary kind of action that they are taking, as in they really shouldn't have to prove themselves to us and should be treated equally.

 

[bikerdruid]

So some local members of the Islamic faith dropped by the house earlier today. They essentially just wanted to let us know who they were in the community and that bin Laden went directly against their peaceful beliefs. It was pretty nice of them, they weren't preachy and their pamphlet was just about who they were and that bin Laden wasn't anything to do with them.

I can understand why they would reach out in a community like this that has no mosque and little direct experience with Muslims. They were dressed traditionally which is rare around here too. I'll be happy for them the day they set up a mosque. It's kinda too bad that it's probably a necessary kind of action that they are taking, as in they really shouldn't have to prove themselves to us and should be treated equally.

that's really cool.

 

[Joey McGee]

The President on 60 Minutes (transcript included)

Final quote of the interview:

"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

 

[Virus]

Need to have their heads examined. Wise words.

 

[egslim]

Let's say that one million is about right, for the sake of the argument.

Just to be clear. I referred to two figures of 66,000 and 104,000 respectively when I talked about gross underestimations. The 104,000 figure was subsequently revised upward to about 150,000. This revision occurred because it was found about 50,000 deaths from the list of 66,000 were not included in the 104,000 tally.

Wildcat misread my post, thinking I claimed a figure of 1,000,000 was a gross underestimation.

If we're the New Nazis, it appears that we aren't doing a very good job of it.

Is that a strawman, or can you show us who actually made that accusation?

As far as I can tell, Chomsky wanted the US to bring bin Laden in alive, and put him on trial. I disagree with that for pragmatic reasons, but from a principled POV it's a fair point.

Second, Chomsky wants to put Bush on trial for the misery caused in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command. He uses Nuremberg as a precedent for holding the leaders of a nation responsible for the consequences of its actions. He does not compare Americans with Nazis.

I disagree with Chomsky for pragmatic reasons, but most of the people who criticize him in this thread are just burning straw.

 

[egslim]

"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

Obama has always been good with words.

Of course there were very good reasons for wanting to take Osama alive:
1) To gain information. Bin Laden must have had useful information that was not in any of his files.
2) To put him on trial. That's how justice is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, kept alive bin Laden could have become a major embarassment to the US. While very few people who matter will complain much about his death now. So Obama made the right call.

In addition, Obama did not say people who wanted to take bin Laden alive need to have their head examined. He said bin Laden deserved to die, and any court of law would have sentenced him to death anyway.

 

[Cuddles]

Several posts removed to AAH. Remain on topic and stop the personal attacks and bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Joey McGee]

I can see where you're coming from.

In addition, Obama did not say people who wanted to take bin Laden alive need to have their head examined. He said bin Laden deserved to die, and any court of law would have sentenced him to death anyway.

Heh, we better tell the news that then.

The president also said anyone who questions whether the US should have killed bin Laden needs to have their "head examined" Sky News

"Osama bin Laden mission critics 'need to have their heads examined"
Despite encountering some opposition worldwide for the way the American troops appear to have killed the terror chief while he was unarmed, Mr Obama said he still felt it was right to give the order. He continued "the quote..."
Metro

Also that is how it is being read by people in the comments of the video, I think it's fair to say that's what he meant, unless there is a clarification, because clearly people are pissed.

I think it could also apply to people who think he deserved to go to trial. Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky both are in the headlines for saying exactly that.

 

[egslim]

Also that is how it is being read by people in the comments of the video, I think it's fair to say that's what he meant, unless there is a clarification, because clearly people are pissed.

I went only by the quote of what Obama actually said.

I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.
The way I read that is Obama meant bin Laden deserved to die, and people who disagree with that need to have their head examined.

A jury would undoubtedly have reached the same conclusion.

I think it could also apply to people who think he deserved to go to trial. Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky both are in the headlines for saying exactly that.

That's why I said Obama has always been good with words.

On the one hand, he has to justify his decision. And he can't very well say he didn't want to offer bin Laden a platform to embarass the US.
On the other hand, he can't explicitely state bin Laden did not deserve a trial either, because that's clearly unconstitutional.

So he simply stated bin Laden deserved to die, and left it to the audience to read into it what they like.

 

[stokes234]

There's also the danger that it wasn't him. Obviously we know now that it was, but when he was shot, we didn't know for sure. This time it worked out fine, but it sets a precedent that could increase the likelyhood of future mistakes in the vein of Jean Charles de Menezes.

 

[Joey McGee]

You certainly have a point with him having a way with words. It's a good distinction you are making. To me I think the meaning is implied further by the fact that the previous question was

KROFT: Is this the first time that you've ever ordered someone killed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA Well, keep in mind that, you know, every time I make a decision about launching a missile, every time I make a decision about sending troops into battle, you know, I understand that this will result in people being killed. And that is a sobering fact. But it is one that comes with the job.

KROFT: This was one man. This is somebody who's cast a shadow in this place, in the White House for almost a decade.

It could be that a clarification is forthcoming because people don't seem to like having to read into it

 

[NWO Sentryman]

There's also the danger that it wasn't him. Obviously we know now that it was, but when he was shot, we didn't know for sure. This time it worked out fine, but it sets a precedent that could increase the likelyhood of future mistakes in the vein of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Apples and oranges. JCdM was an "on the spot case" (for want of a better phrase to describe it), while Bin Laden has been tracked for years

 

[Toontown]

Och, you should read some of Virus's posts.

No...YOU should have read some of Virus' posts. And you should have answered his very easy questions instead of throwing a hissy fit, preaching a sermon, and putting him on ignore.

That way, perhaps your distress at the simplicity of Virus' ownage of you might be less obvious.

 

[Toontown]

On the other hand, he can't explicitely state bin Laden did not deserve a trial either, because that's clearly unconstitutional.

When will you people stop parroting this nonsense?

It is NOT "unconstitutional" to kill an enemy who has declared war and then made good on the declaration. OTC, it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to stop that enemy by "all necessary means".

 

[stokes234]

Apples and oranges. JCdM was an "on the spot case" (for want of a better phrase to describe it), while Bin Laden has been tracked for years

The raid was carried out at night. OBL wasn't questioned, no DNA tests were taken - he was simply "recognised" and shot.

To me, that carries with it a danger of the wrong person being shot, and is one of many important reasons that we put people on trial. As an act utilitarian this is justified, but as a rule utilitarian looking at the long run it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Stokes,

This isn't CSI where the criminal is always caught due to DNA being considered the holy grail.

And there was no way in hell Bin Laden would not go down fighting, and Obama knew that.

 

[Toontown]

I would tend to agree with this assessment. I think Chomsky's achilles heel might be in thinking the USA did this, which they quite clearly did not.

I disagree. I think Chumpski's Achilles heel is his insane brain, which constantly drives battalions of filthy, stinking lies out of his mouth.