Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Chomsky, that was the guy who said that he was not really interested in knowing who carried out 9/11.

Reason: he knows or strongly suspects who did it and does not want that to become public knowledge. For ethnic reasons.

Chomsky knows an innocent man was killed, regardless whether it was OBL or much more likely a fellow called Akbar Khan.

"Noam Chomsky - No Evidence al-Qaeda Did 9/11"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjVBvh4-tHA
 
Why do some people think that war consists of capturing as many of the enemy as possible and shipping them off to the Hague?

Douglass Murray vs Moonbats:

 
One minute video of Chomsky responding to Hitch's article. You will be underwhelmed. If you want to look into this tragic mess of pedantic gobbledeygook all of the supporting documents are in the comments. Let's just be clear, this is what Chomsky wrote on 9 12 2011This is literally how it starts, the first sentence.
The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind
Click to expand...
That is how he chose to open his first article after 9/11. His pedantic and depressingly boring arguments with Hitchens aside, really what kind of schmuck opens their first article after 9/11 with that?
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
http://www.innercitypress.com/imfsri1chomsky072309.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- During the UN's July 23 debate on Responsibility to Protect, Inner City Press asked Noam Chomsky if he thought the concept of R to P applied to or had been implemented in Sri Lanka this year. No, Chomsky said, calling what happened an "atrocity."

He said the Western powers just didn't have enough interest, although something "could have been done." He analogized it to Rwanda, both the genocide in 1994 and the lead-up, including with "structural adjustment," in the 1970s. Video here, from 22:35.
Click to expand...

Interesting..I wonder just what Chomsky thinks "could have been done".

Write a sternly worded letter perhaps.

Given his current cynicism over NATO's involvement in Libya, he couldn't have meant military intervention as that would have been taking sides in a civil war.

As a good leftist, the only thing he could have meant was issuing a call for citizens of the western world to willfully go to Sri Lanka and take up arms against the Sinhalese oppressors.
 
Virus said:
Why do some people think that war consists of capturing as many of the enemy as possible and shipping them off to the Hague?

Douglass Murray vs Moonbats:

Click to expand...

That was hilarious.

8:45 that woman complained that they should have given the body back to the bin Laden family, and that his burial disturbed her, then Douglas basically called her on being a petty fool then she said that "We're not better than them then!" To which he almost turns inside out with frustration and says... "It's worse than moral relativism, it's an inversion of morality"

Perhaps I shall read his book on neoconservatism, Hitchens seemed to like it.
 
Joey McGee said:
What's a joke is your arguments against these modern politicians and lawyers. Care to add any insight as to the problems with this class of society? This is how it is done and it will remain how it is done for a long time. Whether or not you approve of the decisions made, the process is still the best possible process. Law is formed around objective harm and the findings of modern science. If you want to make the laws you have to fight for it, the people who you don't like won long ago, so you make stuff up about them like oil conspiracies and laugh about how stupid and pointless it all is. Some coping mechanism for being caught out of the herd..


Yeah I'm not going to research Greek mythology to try and figure out what you are saying...
Click to expand...

a truly laughable response.
politicians and lawyers are the moral voice of the planet??.....too funny for words, really.
and your inability to understand a simple allusion is very telling.
the idea that war will end after all the 'bad guys' are dead is ridiculous.
it kinda reminds me of the saying from the 60's, "fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
 
bikerdruid said:
a truly laughable response.
politicians and lawyers are the moral voice of the planet??.....too funny for words, really.
and your inability to understand a simple allusion is very telling.
the idea that war will end after all the 'bad guys' are dead is ridiculous.
it kinda reminds me of the saying from the 60's, "fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, we have the excellent historical examples of Germany, Italy, and Japan, all clearly supporting the idea that fighting for peace really does work, if you do it forcefully enough.
 
Skeptic said:
...which, among other things, denies the holocaust, claims the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are accurate history, and blamed the recent financial crisis on the "Jewish financial system".

Yet bikerdruid believes their numbers, go figure.
Click to expand...
try this research report from the institute for counter terrorism.
it indicates that a little more than half of gazan casualties were combatants.
that leave room for hundreds of innocent deaths.
http://www.ict.org.il/ResearchPublications/CastLeadCasualties/tabid/325/Default.aspx
 
bikerdruid said:
a truly laughable response.
politicians and lawyers are the moral voice of the planet??.....too funny for words, really.
Click to expand...
Is that what I said? Absolutely not. You invent your own caricature of things to laugh at, a sign of your serious desperation. "Moral voice of the planet" What kind of incoherent phrase is this? You completely missed the point, lawyers and lawmakers are the people that do the work, we have built a framework around rational debate. I understand, you do not like this process, it has resulted in your arch enemies ruling the planet.
and your inability to understand a simple allusion is very telling
Click to expand...
Ok Mr. English literature snob.
the idea that war will end after all the 'bad guys' are dead is ridiculous.
it kinda reminds me of the saying from the 60's, "fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Click to expand...
Oh really because I thought WW2 ended when we killed everyone and Germany and Japan are our friends now. Sure, attack the generalization, how very brave of you.

What is your plan for world peace BD? Letting nature take it's course so we all go extinct? Please enlighten me.
 
I guess that's why you like Islamic fundamentalists so much, they hate humanity as well.
 
The way you keep defending them.

It's true that when Iran gets the atomic bomb, we will be one step closer to extinction, so I guess in a sick way it makes sense that you'd be on their side.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
Interesting..I wonder just what Chomsky thinks "could have been done".

Write a sternly worded letter perhaps.

Given his current cynicism over NATO's involvement in Libya, he couldn't have meant military intervention as that would have been taking sides in a civil war.

As a good leftist, the only thing he could have meant was issuing a call for citizens of the western world to willfully go to Sri Lanka and take up arms against the Sinhalese oppressors.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, this was in response to the comment that Chomsky said nothing about Sri Lanka, part of the whole cliched (and largely false) trope that 'lefties only get mad at Israel cause they're all anti-semitic'. He called it an 'atrocity'.

Secondly, I think the Chomps is right to be skeptical about the motivations for Western 'humanitarian' interventions. I'm not saying that I don't think that some people in The West are motivated by genuinely humanitarian considerations, but there are many other factors at play. The value in Chomsky's line of criticism of the West is to remind us that live here that in many ways our states are not exempt from the realities of power politics and class interest.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Well first of all, this was in response to the comment that Chomsky said nothing about Sri Lanka, part of the whole cliched (and largely false) trope that 'lefties only get mad at Israel cause they're all anti-semitic'. He called it an 'atrocity'.

Secondly, I think the Chomps is right to be skeptical about the motivations for Western 'humanitarian' interventions. I'm not saying that I don't think that some people in The West are motivated by genuinely humanitarian considerations, but there are many other factors at play. The value in Chomsky's line of criticism of the West is to remind us that live here that in many ways our states are not exempt from the realities of power politics and class interest.
Click to expand...

Chomsky said "something could have been done" WRT Sri lanka, I'm just curious as to what he had in mind. Maybe he was thinking along the lines of sending a fleet of ships to relocate Tamils ( to the USA, of course ) who wished to flee.or...maybe it was just an opportunistic soundbite.

I agree, the left isn't anti-Israel because they're ant-Semitic. They're anti-Israel because they're anti imperial/colonial, which is why I'm curious as to what Chomsky had in mind when he suggested that 'something" could have been done.

I suppose the odd reminder of something that's patently obvious couldn't hurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom