Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[jiggeryqua]

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.

An interesting, and untestable, set of predictions that have little or nothing to do with the brunt of my post, which was that of course some people take exception to the US export of 'good' - not least because, by their definition, it's bad. At best, you're merely repeating that what you do is right, therefore you're right, because you're right and so they're wrong.

 

[fuelair]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't a radical Islamist would give an asswipe about Bin Laden's demise. Who honestly wishes he was still alive?

I tell a lie. I don't find it hard to believe. Like a fundamentalist preacher claiming a hurricane is punishment for sin, the radical left have been using Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and a vicarious lash against the society and culture they despise.

Chomksy is a known supporter of the Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist group; Hezbollah.

Chomksy is upset of course, that we "invaded Pakistani territory" and "carried out a political assassination".

He claims George Bush is more evil than Bin Laden, and comparable to Nazi war criminals.



http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

If you start war, you get war. Al-Qaeda are not entitled to any sort of kid gloves.

Amazingly, I would be hard pressed to be upset with anyone invading and taking out Bush,etc. It is thanks to it and it's butt boys that our country went to hell and is going to be there for a while so I just can't lose sleep or give up any care for whatever ill befalls it. BUT I would still want the terrorists found and killed in horrible ways, not because of what they did to it, just because they, also, commited evil deeds to the people of the US.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The international communities grief over the death of Bin Laden has taken an even stupider turn:

Judge Files Complaint against Merkel over Bin Laden Comments

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Meanwhile a new poll reveals that a majority of Germans do not see the terrorist's death as a reason to celebrate.

Schadenfreude, the enjoyment of others' suffering, may be a famously German concept, but it is apparently not a feeling that many Germans aspire to. The political and public fallout following Chancellor Angela Merkel's statement on Monday that she was "glad" Osama bin Laden had been killed was among the most hotly debated topics in the German media this week.

Politicians, including those within her own center-right coalition, said that no death was cause for celebration, and reproved the remark as un-Christian and vengeful.

But Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann went even further. He alleges that the chancellor's statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday​

Eleven German citizens were murdered by Al-Qeada at Osama Bin Ladens orders on September 11th, 2001.

 

[fuelair]

I have been sickened by the far lefts reaction to the Abbottobad raid. To an outside observer, they all look like savages.

What is the far left's reaction (other than Chomsky and Russia - the only far left I have heard from? I ask because I am definitiely left - except for my attitudes on guns and criminals, and I was happy about it!!

 

[Giz]

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.

You're proud of prioritizing utopian idealism of real-world practicality? Doesn't seem very adult to me...

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

Well, I'm not American actually... (and, unlike you, I don't consider it an insult)

 

[jiggeryqua]

Well, I'm not American actually...

Location: UK/US. Did you mean "for a given value of 'American'"?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Iran and Al-Qeada had no need to enter Iraq.

I'm sure they would tell us they were trying to liberate their brothers from American occupation. The US has no need to enter Iraq either.

As the 'good guys' I have different expectations of how the US will behave than I do of Al-Qaeda or other terrorists.

Actually, 'need' is a very strange word to use here. Nobody really has any 'need' to do any of this.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is the far left's reaction (other than Chomsky and Russia - the only far left I have heard from? I ask because I am definitiely left - except for my attitudes on guns and criminals, and I was happy about it!!

Then you're not far left.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You're proud of prioritizing utopian idealism of real-world practicality? Doesn't seem very adult to me...

Well, I'm not American actually... (and, unlike you, I don't consider it an insult)

Well I guess that just depends on whether you think 'not invading countries pre-emptively' is a utopian idealist dream or not.

Strange that you take from my post I consider the term American an insult.

 

[Giz]

An interesting, and untestable, set of predictions that have little or nothing to do with the brunt of my post, which was that of course some people take exception to the US export of 'good' - not least because, by their definition, it's bad. At best, you're merely repeating that what you do is right, therefore you're right, because you're right and so they're wrong.

So?

I am sure that Japan took exception to the USA demanding that the invasion and massacres in China (Nanking etc) were stopped. Does that mean that the USA should have just minded it's own business? (That's a serious question - if the USA had not imposed an oil embargo and signaled that it wouldn't have gotten involved then Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War might have been avoided... would that have been better? I mean, it's not as if we in the West can judge Imperial Japan's militarism to be bad and unreasonable, right? Not while the Japanese thought it was just dandy)

 

[Joey McGee]

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

Really man, I've been on a number of threads where numerous people have called for evidence of an oil conspiracy. I really can't see it. I've tried. You want me to provide evidence, I've been looking for it a long time. If you have some forthcoming I will be gushing with enthusiasm.

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.

I just don't know why people even bother thinking up stories anymore when there is so much untouched evidence to go over that could possibly be relating to their thesis.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Though I will accept the oil thing potentially, invading a country that gives the type of things that fly planes into our country's buildings protection or assists those who do, etc. is fine. I prefer living where I know that if some rectum eating religious nut cases from somewhere else come in and kill me or anyone I know and love, they will be handed their butts to chew on and so will those who choose to harbor them (for fear or for belief) - not one where lightweight brain holders say "Oh they are just unenlightened and we must help and protect them!" I prefer everyone living in peace, keeping their religion shut up in a little compartment for them alone and dealing nicely with others. BUT if that is not possible, I want the one's who cannot handle that removed from my world, permanently and with great prejudice.

 

[jiggeryqua]

So?

I am sure that Japan took exception to the USA demanding that the invasion and massacres in China (Nanking etc) were stopped. Does that mean that the USA should have just minded it's own business? (That's a serious question - if the USA had not imposed an oil embargo and signaled that it wouldn't have gotten involved then Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War might have been avoided... would that have been better? I mean, it's not as if we in the West can judge Imperial Japan's militarism to be bad and unreasonable, right? Not while the Japanese thought it was just dandy)

You are determined to show that their are times that US foreign policy might fit my definition of 'right' or 'good'. I am determined to establish that there is no definitive...well, definition.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm sure they would tell us they were trying to liberate their brothers from American occupation.

I'm not seeing how this translates into AQ and Iran being unable to choose not to go into Iraq. They could have stayed home if they wanted to. But they didn't and the majority of the deaths you complain about were the result.

 

[Giz]

Well I guess that just depends on whether you think 'not invading countries pre-emptively' is a utopian idealist dream or not.

This isn't a new discussion... in WW2 Churchill decided to mine Norwegian waters, despite it being a flagrant violation of Norwegian neutrality, in order to hinder the Germans. Churchill justified this by saying that it was important to not have their hands tied by over-respecting the niceties of neutrality while they were fighting to defend the rights of neutrals everywhere.

In other words... will all states may profess to be good, some will breech others neutrality (or invade) for good or ill reasons. We should examine each case on its merits rather than having a blanket rule that is applied in 100% of cases.

 

[Giz]

You are determined to show that their are times that US foreign policy might fit my definition of 'right' or 'good'. I am determined to establish that there is no definitive...well, definition.

Of course there is no universal definition of good/bad... if there was then there would be no Nazis/Communists/Al-Quaida etc and all of mankind would sit round the fire singing kumbaya.

All I am saying is that sometimes we have to make judgements on others as best we can... obviously the conclusions we draw will depend on our system of values. There is nothing to be done about that - if you think that refusing to judge will help then I have bad news for you; you are just abdicating the judgment to those who will make decisions...

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We should examine each case on its merits rather than having a blanket rule that is applied in 100% of cases.

Yes, we probably should and think that's what people are trying to do in the OBL case. Even if we think the case merits the actions it doesn't mean we still can't be uncomfortable with taking them.

There are aspects of the OBL case that concern me. It obviously a case where there are good reasons to have concerns. You can have concerns and still think overall that it was probably the right thing to do.

Anyone asserting that it was undebatably right and that there is no justification for concern and dismissing people with concerns as 'moonbat' well its not exactly suggesting that they've given it much thought.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'm not seeing how this translates into AQ and Iran being unable to choose not to go into Iraq. They could have stayed home if they wanted to. But they didn't and the majority of the deaths you complain about were the result.

Yes they could choose. Just like the US could choose not to invade and occupy the country and provoke a reaction.

If China invaded Canada tomorrow there would be no 'need' for the US to respond but I'd hope they would and I think the Chinese would be expected to expect a response.

If several hundred thousand people were killed trying to push back the Chinese invasion of Canada I'd be holding the Chinese responsible for the deaths as much if not more than the Americans.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes they could choose. Just like the US could choose not to invade and occupy the country and provoke a reaction.

Your sad desperation to defend Al-Qeada from responsibility for blowing up street markets all over Iraq speaks volumes.

If China invaded Canada tomorrow there would be no 'need' for the US to respond

Not true. The US and Canada have signed treaties pledging assistance to eachother if attacked by foreign powers.

No such mutual defense treaties existed between AQ and Iran and Saddam Husseins regime.

 

[Rolfe]

So we're dead certain this guy was responsible for a heap of murders. So it's OK just to shoot him in almost cold blood. I heard a commentator who looked about 12 say that on TV the other night.

We were dead certain Shipman was responsible for a heap of murders. It would have been OK to shoot him in cold blood then?

Yes, different circumstances. But that's one helluva slippery slope you have there.

Rolfe.