Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[bikerdruid]

This post is a cop out and doesn't address the issue in any way.

wtf, dude?
it's as good as it gets.
let's move along now....

 

[trustbutverify]

wtf, dude?
it's as good as it gets.
let's move along now....

That's as good as you can do? Oh well.

 

[atavisms]

What were the alternatives to nailing Bin Laden? Putting him on trial, and risking terrorist attacks demanding that he be released?

There is no real case against bin ladin for the 9-11 attacks or we would have heard what it is. Shooting an unarmed man in bed will never be morally defensible. Part of the myth we are told by our corporate media about the lead up to the preemptive war against Afghanistan was that when we demanded Bin Ladin from the Taliban they refused to hand him over. In fact their response was "Show us the evidence of his involvement and we will hand him right over."

Is there ANY evidence that bush removed Saddam for oil and went about slaughtering Iraqis? .

Overwhelmingly so on both counts. Though I wouldnt say it was 'Bush' so much as the neocons who had plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11

I don't recall Fallujah's population being turned into skull pyramids.

That doesnt mean this isnt a massive and shameful crime against humanity and that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been murdered as a result. Millions displaced, it's museums pillaged, and the much of the infrastructure of the country destroyed. Billions unaccounted for from 'reconstruction money, -http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11

Wars are engineered for profit; that's what Vietnam was about and that's what these 2 wars are about. Annual military budgets have climbed from 20bn in 2001 to over 80bn today.

FALLUJAH_THE_HIDDEN_MASSACRE: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/63810/FALLUJAH_THE_HIDDEN_MASSACRE/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And what do you imagine these guys were up to?
http://aliveandbitchin.wordpress.co...shback-2005-sas-terrorists-arrested-in-basra/
and the British response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra_prison_incident

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no real case against bin ladin for the 9-11 attacks or we would have heard what it is.

Sure, it wasn't Bin Laden. Perhaps it was gay martians.

You know what, Stuart, I like you.

Shooting an unarmed man in bed will never be morally defensible.

Sure it is. It's called war. That's what you do in a war: you kill the enemy. If you're not stupid, you try to do it so that they can't kill you back.

Care to take a guess as to who started that war?

Part of the myth we are told by our corporate media about the lead up to the preemptive war against Afghanistan was that when we demanded Bin Ladin from the Taliban they refused to hand him over. In fact their response was "Show us the evidence of his involvement and we will hand him right over."

No, actually, that was not their response. Their response (after the war had already started) was that they would be willing to negotiate a trial for him in Afghanistan, by the Taliban, if we stopped the attack. Not that they would actually HOLD a trial, but only negotiate about one. It was never more than a stalling tactic. We had already given them evidence for his complicity in earlier terrorist attacks (like the Africa embassy bombings) and they had done nothing about that. The idea that this time would somehow be different is the delusion of a fool. The Taliban have never negotiated in good faith.

You're clearly working from a position of ignorance on this topic. You've been told some things which made you upset, but you never probed deeper to find out what really went on.

 

[trustbutverify]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[atavisms]

No, actually, that was not their response. Their response (after the war had already started) was that they would be willing to negotiate a trial for him in Afghanistan, by the Taliban, if we stopped the attack.

That is what you 'know' because you dont live in Afghanistan or have friends there to tell you otherwise. You get your 'truth' from the corporate media which of course would never lie. And NBC (to take one example) isn't owned by GE (the 4th largest military contractor in the United States) either. So no conflict of interest there. Golly, you must be correct

 

[Ziggurat]

That is what you 'know' because you dont live in Afghanistan or have friends there to tell you otherwise. You get your 'truth' from the corporate media which of course would never lie. And NBC (to take one example) isn't owned by GE (the 4th largest military contractor in the United States) either. So no conflict of interest there. Golly, you must be correct

You only believe that aliens aren't kidnapping people and anally probing them because you don't live in Roswell or have friends there to tell you otherwise. You get your 'truth' from the corporate media which would never lie about the existence of aliens. And NBC (to take one example) isn't owned by GE (the 4th largest military contractor in the United States) either. And the military hasn't covered up the Roswell crash. So no conflict of interest there. Golly, you must be correct.

We could play this game all day, but tin foil hat paranoia gets boring pretty quickly. Your response is really just a crazier way of shouting, "Lalalala! I'm not listening! Lalalalala!"

 

[trustbutverify]

That is what you 'know' because you dont live in Afghanistan or have friends there to tell you otherwise. You get your 'truth' from the corporate media which of course would never lie. And NBC (to take one example) isn't owned by GE (the 4th largest military contractor in the United States) either. So no conflict of interest there. Golly, you must be correct

Which is why I check Prison Planet first, and last.