Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[WildCat]

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.

So how much oil did we take stokes?

 

[WildCat]

For example, is it acceptable for the Taliban to send a squad to kill the operators of the remotely piloted drones in their homes back in the US? If not, why not?

You think they wouldn't if they had the means?

 

[WildCat]

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,

So now you're claiming the insurgents were acting on orders of Bush?

devastate their infrastructure and take their natural resources

Again, do you have a cite for how much oil was taken?

 

[WildCat]

Do what Bush did: mostly ignore him?

So how is it that much of the intel for determining his location occured during the Bush years?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the current invasion. It was the invasion that led to the removal of Sodamn Insane and allowed them to move in.

Sodamn Insane did not allow Bin Laden into Iraq because he recognized that Bin Laden had a better than fair chance of taking over in any country he went to. Insane did not allow religious fundamentalists to wield any real power because that threatened his authority. Iran on the other hand encourages religious crazies (the right sort of course) because it is how they maintain power.

So Al-Qeada and Iran definitely chose to go into Iraq.

This makes Al-Qeada and Iran responsible for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by their fund and arming of the insurgency.

 

[WildCat]

The man was shot while unarmed, with no request for him to surrender,

They asked him to surrender very clearly... in Klingon.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Excellent post.
I have some ideas about why it has been largely ignored so far.

In Politics, the more reasoned and well thought out you post is, the less likely you are to get a reply.

 

[jiggeryqua]

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

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

Excuse me? Who brought god into it? I'm genuinely struggling to understand your twist here. Religion is one thing, CTs another.

You say he is spinning a conspiracy narrative. Weaving pseudofacts. At worst, what he is suggesting is that the US gov talks amongst itself about the best ways to maintain power in an oil-hungry nation. And then decided to go to war for control of more oil.

If that was your attempt at humour, I'd leave it to the pros.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Bin Laden started it and is an Islamofascist.

What do you prefer? Liberal democracy or Islamic totalitarianism?

Bless, I tried to raise the issue of your ridiculous dichotomous questions. You called them 'simple' and I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Simple. Challenged. Retarded. Dumb. I'm popping you on ignore now, luvvie, ok?

 

[jiggeryqua]

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.

You doubt what? You weren't clear. If it's the last thing I said in the post you quoted, 'might is not right', you doubt that? When AQ had the 'might' to destroy the twin towers, they were right? Or is it just that 'we' are 'right' in whatever 'we' do, because 'god is on our side'?

Or was it something else you doubted, but your communication skills are so poor you forgot to say what it was?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Arresting him would have lead to hundreds of westerners being kidnapped with the demand that bin laden be released. The trial would drag on and on giving him front page news coverage everyday for months.

Even if all due process was performed to the highest of standards you's still get people moaning and whinging, wringing their hands along with the conspiracy nutters and jihadis going crazy too. You can't win. Better to slot the bastard and get on with it.

Ah, the hell with rule of law. There's always some liberal claiming we should have a trial rather than just lynch the redheads and cripples and all the others touched by witchcraft. Tyranny, that's the answer, and if they don't like it it's because they're guilty.

 

[Giz]

Ah, the hell with rule of law. There's always some liberal claiming we should have a trial rather than just lynch the redheads and cripples and all the others touched by witchcraft. Tyranny, that's the answer, and if they don't like it it's because they're guilty.

Wow, I think that is the best example of the fallacy of the excluded middle that I have ever seen!

 

[jiggeryqua]

Wow, I think that is the best example of the fallacy of the excluded middle that I have ever seen!

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

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Al-Qeada in Iraqs parent organization declared holy war on the US and carried out its first attack against the US in 1998.

How were they reacting to the 2003 liberation of Iraq 5 years before it happened?

We're giving up "the one who started it is responsible" then? Or are we just trying to salvage some cake?

You might want to read back and see that 'you started it' was the argument used by another poster and I was pointing out that it also works both ways.

If you invade a country and occupy it and several hundred thousand people die during the occupation then you have a responsibility for those deaths. That's simply obvious.

You seem to think I'm absolving or trying to absolve the insurgents of their responsibility which I am not. There's enough blame to go round everyone involved.

Its a bit of a stretch to claim these activities in Iraq are related to a general campaign against the US and not in any way linked to the invasion of Iraq.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Its a bit of a stretch to claim these activities in Iraq are related to a general campaign against the US and not in any way linked to the invasion of Iraq.

You don't have to include Iraq if you're looking for justification for armed resistance to American imperialism. You want to be world police, all on your own, get used to the idea that the perps will fight back.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

And do you think the bad guys care about how the good guys self identify? Do you think bad guys care about whether the good guys limit themselves to legal, UN sanctioned operations?

What do you think will deter future bad guys from sending Panzers into Poland?
a) International Law and a lack of UN authorization
or
b) The USA

If you answered (b) then welcome to the real world.

Effectively, and this may be galling to some, we should all be thankful that the current superpower is the most fair, restrained and enlightened of all the hegemons to have graced the pages of history (and we should be damn glad that it isn't one of Russia, China, etc in its place).

i don't give a flying funk what the bad guys care about. I care about what the so call good guys do in the name of good.

Seems like some Americans have a problem getting out of the Wild West mindset. Yehaa cowboy!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you invade a country and occupy it and several hundred thousand people die during the occupation then you have a responsibility for those deaths. That's simply obvious.

So Al-Qeada and Irans incursions into Iraq are responsible for thousands of deaths then.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Yehaa cowboy!

Yipeekiyay, ************!

 

[Giz]

You don't have to include Iraq if you're looking for justification for armed resistance to American imperialism. You want to be world police, all on your own, get used to the idea that the perps will fight back.

Would the world be better without the (US) world police? At a guess:

No limits to Soviet expansion - say goodbye to Western Europe having been free after 1945.
Soviet Union would have nuked China during their late 60's border disputes.
China would have conquered Taiwan.
North Korea and friends would have conquered South Korea.
India and Pakistan would have had an all out (nuke) war.
Little dictators would kill far more of their people without fear of world condemnation.
Vast amounts more little wars and regional empire building.
Far less trade, freedom and standard of living for the vast amount of the world.

For any reasonably free country that behaves reasonably well, having the US active in the world is a godsend.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Its a bit of a stretch to claim these activities in Iraq are related to a general campaign against the US and not in any way linked to the invasion of Iraq.

Whether or not it's part of a larger campaign against the US or not is irrelevant. Iran and Al-Qeada had no need to enter Iraq. They chose of their own free will to go in there.

The deaths they caused are therefore the fault of Iran and Al-Qeada.