Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[stokes234]

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.

I'm not sure where CSI comes into anything, unless you see DNA evidence as only existing in fictional tv programs. I'm fairly sure they use it in real life to prove identity as well.

And if Bin Laden had a weapon, or looked like he could have been wearing a bomb vest, or was trying to escape, or the special forces team were under fire or had been or had evidence that they were going to be, then killing rather than capturing him would be justified. But i'm uneasy about killing him when there were alternatives without having proven his identity. On balance, it probably is the utilitarian action, but my point in this thread is that opposing it most certainly isn't a "moonbat" position.

 

[jiggeryqua]

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.

Well I'm loathe to take him off ignore just to garner the evidence that would counter your ludicrous assertions, but I can assure you there was no 'distress'. Posters who have to resort to projecting emotion onto others don't really have a case though, do they?

I did see some of what he's posted since I ignored him, when someone else quoted him continuing to cast aspersions at me. Was that because he really didn't realise I'd put him on ignore, or because he lacks any common decency?

I'll give you a shot: repost some of his 'very easy questions'. I'll take a stab at answering any that aren't false dichotomies or strawmen etc. I'll lay even money it will end up with you being ignored too, but you get to count that as 'pwnage' I guess.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm not sure where CSI comes into anything, unless you see DNA evidence as only existing in fictional tv programs. I'm fairly sure they use it in real life to prove identity as well.

I was talking about this assumption that police work would have gotten OBL would work outside of CSI (this also shows in juries) IIRC and that DNA can be acquired instantaneously from a crime scene whereas it would take months in a real lab.

 

[Toontown]

Well I'm loathe to take him off ignore just to garner the evidence that would counter your ludicrous assertions, but I can assure you there was no 'distress'. Posters who have to resort to projecting emotion onto others don't really have a case though, do they?

I observed that you threw a hissy fit, preached a sermon, and then put Virus on ignore. That doesn't require a "case". It's just a description of your recorded (pubic) actions.

I did see some of what he's posted since I ignored him, when someone else quoted him continuing to cast aspersions at me. Was that because he really didn't realise I'd put him on ignore, or because he lacks any common decency?

Gee, I dunno. My guess is he lacks the common decency to let you get away with lying about who brutally murdered all those Iraqi civilians (insurgents, jihadists, terrorists) and who stole all that oil (Saddam, the illegitimate seizer of oil).

Why don't you take him off ignore and ask him?

I'll give you a shot: repost some of his 'very easy questions'. I'll take a stab at answering any that aren't false dichotomies or strawmen etc. I'll lay even money it will end up with you being ignored too, but you get to count that as 'pwnage' I guess.

Do all your thought processes take such circuitous routes to their erroneous conclusions?

Tell you what. I'll give you an even better shot. Take Virus off ignore. Then you won't need me to laboriously re-post his questions for you.

But we both know you're only going to avoid the questions, don't we. That's why you put Virus on ignore. That's why you're now stalling and trying to enlist me as your humble unpaid secretary.

 

[bikerdruid]

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

please, fill us in......
tell us about chomsky's lies.
it should be easy for you to list many of them.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I observed that you threw a hissy fit, preached a sermon, and then put Virus on ignore. That doesn't require a "case". It's just a description of your recorded (pubic) actions.

I admit I put Virus on ignore, but congratulations on your 'observation' skills on that point: I did indeed say so and you did indeed observe it. But here you are again ascribing your emotive terms to me. I don't recall 'a hissy fit', nor can I be sure what you think you observed, but so far you and Virus are definitely getting worked up about it all. As for the sermon, well, I don't recall what I may have said that you've interepreted that way - there was certainly no religious content, so the term you choose is wilfully and maliciously misleading. I may have touched on morals and ethics - do you have a substantive response to whatever it was I said, on those terms, or do you just have name-calling?

Gee, I dunno. My guess is he lacks the common decency to let you get away with lying about who brutally murdered all those Iraqi civilians (insurgents, jihadists, terrorists) and who stole all that oil (Saddam, the illegitimate seizer of oil).

Show where I did that. That ought to be common practise round here, but I can see how you might forget in the heat of the moment. I'm certain you're conflating my posts with those of others who aren't blowing up balloons that say 'I heart executions', if not with the figments of your imagination that you use as 'demons of the left'.

Why don't you take him off ignore and ask him?

Because I've already experienced him and made the considered decision to put, and leave, him on ignore. The odds of my doing the same to you are rising.

Do all your thought processes take such circuitous routes to their erroneous conclusions?

Remind me, what are you not addressing here?

Tell you what. I'll give you an even better shot. Take Virus off ignore. Then you won't need me to laboriously re-post his questions for you.

See above. Just asking the questions would have been less laborious than the froth you're actually posting.

But we both know you're only going to avoid the questions, don't we. That's why you put Virus on ignore. That's why you're now stalling and trying to enlist me as your humble unpaid secretary.

I am leaving Virus on ignore. For the moment, I'm not ignoring you. If there are questions you want me to answer, ask them. What you think 'we both know' is wrong, but to even have seriously typed that you must find it difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy. Ask the questions - or is it you that's stalling?

 

[egslim]

It is NOT "unconstitutional" to kill an enemy who has declared war and then made good on the declaration.

Fortunately Obama is a lot smarter than you are.

Evidence suggests bin Laden was unarmed, did not go for a weapon, and was in a house surrounded by SEALs. So effectively he was already captured. Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law.

Which is most likely why Obama has kept details of bin Laden's death deliberately vague. Doing so makes it impossible to answer the question of legality with certainty.

You can bet that if bin Laden had held a weapon, officials would have shouted from the rooftops how the SEALs tried to take him alive, but 'unfortunately' had to kill him in self-defense.

 

[stokes234]

I was talking about this assumption that police work would have gotten OBL would work outside of CSI (this also shows in juries) IIRC and that DNA can be acquired instantaneously from a crime scene whereas it would take months in a real lab.

...police work? Who suggested involving the police in anything? I was suggesting that forcing him to surrender wasn't a "moonbat" position if he didn't pose an immediate threat, wasn't trying to escape etc.

I think you seem to have assumed that I meant a DNA test could be performed on site to determine his identity, which is of course ridiculous.

 

[Toontown]

please, fill us in......
tell us about chomsky's lies.
it should be easy for you to list many of them.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

There you go. The top 200 Chomsky lies, with references. Looks like you've got some reading to do.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

...police work? Who suggested involving the police in anything? I was suggesting that forcing him to surrender wasn't a "moonbat" position if he didn't pose an immediate threat, wasn't trying to escape etc.

I think you seem to have assumed that I meant a DNA test could be performed on site to determine his identity, which is of course ridiculous.

Sorry, like Nazi analogies, people who think CSI = real police work is another one of my berserk buttons.

And the problem with taking Bin Laden alive is that they don't know if he's wearing a bomb, and general protocol is to shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the head.

 

[egslim]

And the problem with taking Bin Laden alive is that they don't know if he's wearing a bomb, and general protocol is to shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the head.

Except even suicide bombers generally don't wear bombs late at night, in their own home.

 

[Toontown]

Fortunately Obama is a lot smarter than you are.

The smarter the better. He's the president, you know.

Evidence suggests bin Laden was unarmed, did not go for a weapon, and was in a house surrounded by SEALs. So effectively he was already captured. Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law.

You really expect to sell that noise to me? You might as well be peddling a cart of goat manure.

bin Laden was the leader of an organization that specializes in suicide bombings and booby-trapping themselves, whose members, including the venerable bin Laden, are known to wear bomb vests. bin Laden even published his longings for martyrdom. Those Seals would have looked pretty stupid if they'd gotten themselves and their team blown away by bin Laden because they didn't have the good sense to shoot the crazy bastard on sight, resulting in the total failure of the mission.

The Seals' responsibilities were to the mission, their team, and themselves. Screw the enemy.

Which is most likely why Obama has kept details of bin Laden's death deliberately vague. Doing so makes it impossible to answer the question of legality with certainty.

"the question of legality" exists only in the minds of obsessive finger-pointers. Soldiers are not required to unnecessarily expose themselves to enemy fire, grenades, bombs, booby traps, etc, solely for the purpose of attempting to capture an inherently dangerous enemy.

If bin Laden wanted to surrender, he should have halted and put up his open hands immediately. He should not have retreated into the darkened room containing weapons. Retreat is not surrender. Retreat is a combat tactic.

You can bet that if bin Laden had held a weapon, officials would have shouted from the rooftops how the SEALs tried to take him alive, but 'unfortunately' had to kill him in self-defense.

I very gravely doubt that. If I were the president, I would at least reprimand any official who spouted such dweezleblabber.

If bin Laden had been seen with a weapon in his hand, intelligent officials would have told the truth: that bin Laden was seen to be armed and was shot immediately by a Seal, rather than foolishly risking the mission, his life, and the lives of his team members.

 

[Virus]

Complaining about killing Bin Laden, complaining about the code-word. Might as well just complain about winning World War 2.

 

[bikerdruid]

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

There you go. The top 200 Chomsky lies, with references. Looks like you've got some reading to do.

link doesn't work.
still waiting for your proof that chomsky lies all of the time.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

link doesn't work.
still waiting for your proof that chomsky lies all of the time.

It didn't work for me either. So I googled "200chomskylies.pdf" and clicked the first link that came up. It's the exact same link, but it works off of google but not JREF for some reason.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Except even suicide bombers generally don't wear bombs late at night, in their own home.

hmm...you have an unusual familiarity with the habits of people willing to blow themselves up.

 

[WildCat]

Let's say that one million is about right, for the sake of the argument. Even assuming that many people are right (that Americans are all just stupid, vicious scum who just want to kill people and get oil, which some people seem to believe), it seems obvious that Americans are not getting much value for money. Since the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are probably more than a trillion dollars, that's more than a million dollars per death. There are people in New Jersey who will do a hit for $5,000, and they'll give a quantity discount.

Since Godwin has already been invoked, at least the Nazis switched to Zyklon-B when one bullet per Jew became cost-prohibitive.

Also, where's my damn oil? I'm pretty sure I could have gotten more, cheaper, simply by buying the stuff.

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

The people actually killing all those civilians are doing it on the cheap. Recruit some vulnerable child or teenager, strap a bomb on them and tell them to blow themselves up at the fruit market/religious procession/government building etc etc.

It costs a lot more to target combatants. We could do it cheap if we wanted to kill civilians or didn't care if we did, but we don't. Because we do care and we don't want to kill them.

 

[Toontown]

link doesn't work.
still waiting for your proof that chomsky lies all of the time.

I clicked on the link in the post. It works for me.

Hmm. Maybe Chomsky's followers are jamming the link. They're all crazy, you know.

 

[WildCat]

Evidence suggests bin Laden was unarmed, did not go for a weapon, and was in a house surrounded by SEALs. So effectively he was already captured.

No, he wasn't. An ambush is not a capture. Nor is a hopeless military situation. Unless he was obviously surrendering they very well can kill him on sight.

 

[Pardalis]

I clicked on the link in the post. It works for me.

Hmm. Maybe Chomsky's followers are jamming the link. They're all crazy, you know.

Links works for me too.

I guess Biker Druid's primitive internet connection his his best excuse not to face evidence.