Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Puppycow]

Nope. One debateable claim, one fact, and an equivalence that I am fully entitled to make.

Lie #1: The war was for oil.
Lie #2: The US killed hundreds of thousands of civilians

If you want to be an apologist for bin Laden, you are "entitled" but morally despicable.

 

[Joey McGee]

What a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device. On what do you base your claim that 'you' are the 'good guys'?

Really? You want evidence that the U.S. is better than AQ?

Did they issue you with a white hat?

No but thanks for reminding me to get one, this black hat is too hot in summer.

You're right because you're right? You're right because you have the might?

No I think that the U.S. is a peaceful nation and they just everyone to have secular democracy and the success we have so they can stop policing the world, drink more beer and chase more girls. This is what the TV tells me.

You're not insane because 60% of Americans are not insane either? And this on a critical thinking forum?

The decider reference infers that "Bush was a dictator" blah blah blah. I'm not arguing from authority, I'm arguing that his caricature is alarmingly stupid. It was a democratic war. He can argue it's legality and the virtue of honoring legality until he's blue in the face, who cares? I don't care. Motives are more important than appearance.

Sanity is not a democracy - and a democracy is shamed by univited assassinations on someone else's sovereign territory. I thought lynching was something modern America was slightly ashamed of.

Actually what happened is some primates went and killed another primate that really needed to be dead. In the process they crossed some imaginary lines and pissed off the local idiots who should be grateful for the existence the modern world that they suckle from.

 

[Virus]

What a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device. On what do you base your claim that 'you' are the 'good guys'? Did they issue you with a white hat? You're right because you're right?

There's a simple test. Would you rather live in territory controlled by America or controlled by Bin Laden?

 

[Virus]

A genocidal fascist regime that had already been prevented from committing genocide and with no evidence that further genocide was planned.

Yeah if you want indefinite sanctions and no-fly zones.

Bombs dropped everywhere,

Wrong. Targeted, surgical strikes with precision weaponry. Strict rules about viable buildings.

state infrastructure dismantled,

Fascist state dismantled.

an entire army disbanded and sent home with their guns,

An army selected for loyalty to Saddam Hussein.

most of the public sector shut down to make way for a private sector which in some cases wasn't even employing iraqis,

Wrong.

torture of prisoners,

Isolated incidences with the offenders punished.

and a transfer of oil contracts into american hands.

Never happened. Lie.

And yet, you don't think america is responsible for the deaths that occurred following the invasion? Fascinating.

What were Syrian, Iranian and Al-Qaeda backed terrorists reacting to when they bombed mosques, hospitals and markets?

 

[stokes234]

Lie #1: The war was for oil.
Lie #2: The US killed hundreds of thousands of civilians

If you want to be an apologist for bin Laden, you are "entitled" but morally despicable.

Nobody can prove either way what motivated the war, but I suspect oil was a large part of it. A lie is when you intentionally tell something not true, but my claim could be true. And the US caused a large number of deaths and also created the situation that resulted in the total of ~200,000, and they had no need to do so. As far as i'm concerned, that makes them responsible.

Ironically, you're the only one actually telling lies here, by saying that I am an apologist for bin laden when nothing i've said actually suggests that.

 

[Virus]

More Moonbats:

Robert Fisk;

The real problem, however, is that the West, which has constantly preached to the Arab world that legality and non-violence was the way forward in the Middle East, has taught a different lesson to the people of the region: that executing your opponents is perfectly acceptable.

I don't think the Arabs needed lessons on that.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-us-has-turned-bin-laden-into-martyr-by-robert-fisk

It seems all the radical leftists have to spoil the moment and sneer. I guess they're upset they don't have their vicarious ideological lash any more.

 

[JoelKatz]

The man was shot while unarmed, with no request for him to surrender, no evidence of him posing an immediate threat to the people who shot him, and it was done for political reasons. I suppose you could call it a standard assassination if you prefer.

Those are not the factors that make something a political assassination. Suppose, in the middle of World War II, a soldier happened upon Hitler on the side of the road. Hitler is unarmed as far as he can see. He shoots Hitler.

Now, you have two choices, you can say that's a political assassination, but then political assassinations are sometimes good. Or you can say that's not a political assassination, in which case, your standards are wrong because this meets all the standards that you claim make the bin Laden killing a political assassination.

IMO, your standards are wrong. The crux of a political assassination is that it is way to institute regime change without war by killing an actor of a foreign state. However, we were as at war with bin Laden as it was possible for us to be, having already declared that we wanted him dead or alive and having given public 'shoot on sight' authorization to the CIA.

This was a targeted killing, fully justified because targeted killings minimize the wartime killing of non-targets, that is, innocents.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Chomsky opposes political assassination, and says that invading a country for oil and killing hundreds of thousands of people is worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Doesn't seem so "moonbat" to me.

Hundreds of thousands?

Well, it seems to me that Chomskys position is that whatever government a country has, it's not ok to storm in and kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians, devastate their infrastructure and take their natural resources - and that from a utilitarian point of view, since this affects more people, it's a worse act than the WTC attacks. I can't see how that's crazy, unless you're saying that people's lives are less important if they live in a fascist islamic state. In which case, I would say it is you that is the sonar-wielding flying mammal from outer space.

OK, so. If you go and attack a country, sheltered by the government you should expect.. what?

(Also, evidence on the natural resources...)

Arresting him, and having him stand trial for war crimes. Killing him outright risks reprisals as well.

No, there isn't evidence that bush removed saddam for oil. But american oil companies and defence companies made alot of cash money from iraq, hundreds of thousands of people did die - estimate being around 200,000, and no WMDs were found.

It might not be the correct position, and it's certainly up for debate. On balance I agree with bin ladens killing - it probably would have been harder to arrest him, and fair enough, if anyone in the world is going to be wearing a bomb vest, it would be him. But opposing his death - or at least, the manner of his death - isn't a "moonbat" position.

Sure. Having him arrested would have been better. Incidentally, you do know that defense companies also specialize in rebuilding and such, right?

They're going to get the contracts because they're the market FOR such contracts

His subheading...

We would be pissed. But we're the good guys Norm, we're the people that aren't insane. (Mostly) I find this a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device.

There is a difference between having court-ready proof and knowing what you're dealing with in a war you nitpicking *******. Liar? Really?

Yep, this guy is woo alright.

Yeah him and the 60 plus percent of Americans who supported the invasion at the time. Oh I forgot, the propagandized sheeple just thought they had a say in their own thinking.
The reason they named it Geronimo is because of his ability to evade capture. The people who work for a living (yeah I'm talking to you Mr. Hapless Windbag) don't keep themselves up at night worrying who is going to get their panties in a knot over their use of a bloody word.

Chomsky is a linguistics professor, he's probably going to care. That said, yeah, we do have some proof who initiated the 9/11 attacks.

Two lies and a false equivalence.

Nope. One debateable claim, one fact, and an equivalence that I am fully entitled to make.

We did not start it for oil, we didn't deliberatly kill that many civilians (and the body count is in dispute anyway-) and most people consider a deliberate terriorist attack an act of war. Hm.

A genocidal fascist regime that had already been prevented from committing genocide and with no evidence that further genocide was planned.

Bombs dropped everywhere, state infrastructure dismantled, an entire army disbanded and sent home with their guns, most of the public sector shut down to make way for a private sector which in some cases wasn't even employing iraqis, torture of prisoners, and a transfer of oil contracts into american hands. And yet, you don't think america is responsible for the deaths that occurred following the invasion? Fascinating.

Potentially responsible, but you're missing proximate cause for ultimate cause. Also, I bolded what you may want to relook at. (Also, shockingly, American companies don't hire Iraqi employees.)

What a pathetic and illogical rhetorical device. On what do you base your claim that 'you' are the 'good guys'? Did they issue you with a white hat? You're right because you're right? You're right because you have the might? You're not insane because 60% of Americans are not insane either? And this on a critical thinking forum? Sanity is not a democracy - and a democracy is shamed by univited assassinations on someone else's sovereign territory. I thought lynching was something modern America was slightly ashamed of.

Probably he said we're the good guys based on our values.

Nobody can prove either way what motivated the war, but I suspect oil was a large part of it. A lie is when you intentionally tell something not true, but my claim could be true. And the US caused a large number of deaths and also created the situation that resulted in the total of ~200,000, and they had no need to do so. As far as i'm concerned, that makes them responsible.

Appeal to ignorance; special pleading.

More Moonbats:

Robert Fisk;



I don't think the Arabs needed lessons on that.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-us-has-turned-bin-laden-into-martyr-by-robert-fisk

It seems all the radical leftists have to spoil the moment and sneer. I guess they're upset they don't have their vicarious ideological lash any more.

And the US did. Please stop letting your rampant ideological bias run away. It is perfectly fine to say we did without agreeing with it. It's also perfectly fine to point out we act in a hypocritical nature when it suits us.

 

[jiggeryqua]

There's a simple test. Would you rather live in territory controlled by America or controlled by Bin Laden?

I think that's what we call a false dichotomy, no? I'd rather live in a world where no country thought it was so superior to all others that it could turn up uninvited and execute anyone it had decided deserved it. I'd rather live in a world in which nobody blew anybody else up, for any reason. The US can do a lot about the first but very little about the other.

I'd rather not live in a country controlled by Bin Laden, even if it were America. I'd rather not live in a world where Trump controlled America - is it OK if I pop over and whack him (and his wife), just in case he wins? I'm the good guy, after all.

Here's another simple test: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And another: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" Foolish of me to expect moral guidance from the USA, really.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I think that's what we call a false dichotomy, no? I'd rather live in a world where no country thought it was so superior to all others that it could turn up uninvited and execute anyone it had decided deserved it. I'd rather live in a world in which nobody blew anybody else up, for any reason. The US can do a lot about the first but very little about the other.

I'd rather not live in a country controlled by Bin Laden, even if it were America. I'd rather not live in a world where Trump controlled America - is it OK if I pop over and whack him (and his wife), just in case he wins? I'm the good guy, after all.

Here's another simple test: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" And another: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" Foolish of me to expect moral guidance from the USA, really.

Strawman, Strawman & False Equivalance & Loaded Question & Missing the Point.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Nobody can prove either way what motivated the war, but I suspect oil was a large part of it.

Concession accepted on grounds of failure to provide evidence.

A lie is when you intentionally tell something not true, but my claim could be true.

You said that the US invaded Iraq for the oil, and failed to substantiate that claim, so we'll take it as a lie.

And you claimed that the US killed 200k Iraqis, without providing evidence. Another lie, otherwise, we'd be seeing mountains of skulls in Baghdad or Fallujah.

And the US caused a large number of deaths and also created the situation that resulted in the total of ~200,000, and they had no need to do so. As far as i'm concerned, that makes them responsible.

o rly? What about those car bombings that the insurgents were committing and the suicide bombings?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Probably he said we're the good guys based on our values.

We declare what we do 'good', therefore we're the good guys? Yeah, he probably was saying that, eh? Do you suppose AQ look at their values and realise they're the 'bad' guys?

Which 'good' values make it OK to enter sovereign territory surreptitiously and execute someone without trial? Might is not right.

 

[Joey McGee]

Nobody can prove either way what motivated the war, but I suspect oil was a large part of it. A lie is when you intentionally tell something not true, but my claim could be true. And the US caused a large number of deaths and also created the situation that resulted in the total of ~200,000, and they had no need to do so. As far as i'm concerned, that makes them responsible.

This is exactly how conspiracy theorists talk.

Ironically, you're the only one actually telling lies here, by saying that I am an apologist for bin laden when nothing i've said actually suggests that.

In a round about way that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You said that the US invaded Iraq for the oil, and failed to substantiate that claim, so we'll take it as a lie.

Who are 'we'? If you mean, 'all the people who agree with me', well, that's a given. You'd sound a lot more honest yourself if you spoke of yourself in the first person. Who did you speak for, exactly? Can I have names, evidence that you sought a concensus opinion? Or shall I take it as a lie?

 

[jiggeryqua]

This is exactly how conspiracy theorists talk.

Except that with conspiracy theorists you could show how wrong they were. Show us how it wasn't or coudn't have been about oil.

Is there a CT equivalent of Godwinning? "This is exactly how Hitler talked".

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Who are 'we'? If you mean, 'all the people who agree with me', well, that's a given. You'd sound a lot more honest yourself if you spoke of yourself in the first person. Who did you speak for, exactly? Can I have names, evidence that you sought a concensus opinion? Or shall I take it as a lie?

I was talking about the jref forum.

 

[Joey McGee]

Except that with conspiracy theorists you could show how wrong they were. Show us how it wasn't or coudn't have been about oil.

Show me that God cannot exist jiggerqua! Spend a half an hour on the internet looking for proof!

Is there a CT equivalent of Godwinning? "This is exactly how Hitler talked".

He IS spinning a conspiracy narrative. Weaving pseudofacts. My choice of words was a dry attempt at humor.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Do you?



Wait, wait, wait... what was Al-Qeada in Iraq reacting to?

Well I'm not a member of Al-Qaeda in Iraq so I'm only speculating but I'd think it would be connected with the invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces.

At this point I'm going to remind you that it's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong and that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'm fully in favor of the good guys being allowed to kill the bad guys whenever it doesn't do net damage to society somehow.

My 2 issues with this would be:

1. If the good guys are allowed to self-identify as good guys and identifiy who the bad guys are then anyone can justify doing anything

2. If the good guys don't follow the rules or indulge in bad guy methods then what's the point of having good guys?

This is basically boiling down to whether the ends always justify the means.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

We declare what we do 'good', therefore we're the good guys? Yeah, he probably was saying that, eh? Do you suppose AQ look at their values and realise they're the 'bad' guys?

Which 'good' values make it OK to enter sovereign territory surreptitiously and execute someone without trial? Might is not right.

I doubt it. And uh.. yes. You do realize I'm being facetious, but ultimately speaking, 'good' and 'bad' do define to what declare 'good' and 'bad' are in most cases.