Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

You do realize that the PLO and Hezbollah started those conflicts?
When I want to engage in broad argument about the Israeli/Arab conflict and who caused what, I will post in the appropriate thread.
 
When I want to engage in broad argument about the Israeli/Arab conflict and who caused what, I will post in the appropriate thread.

You don't need a thread and a broad argument. All you have to do is say yes or no.
 
Why do you love Hezbollah so much Gazpacho?

You're either with us or against us let me remind you!
 
The invasions were in response to activities of the PLO and Hezbollah.

Much lie Ted Bundy's arrest was "in response to his activties" in certain sosority houses. "Activities" here means "terrorist attacks, bombing, and killing of Israelies that went on for deacedes", due to their ideology of wanting to destroy Israel.

To say, like Chomsky, that Hizbullah has bona fide need for weapons to "deter" Israel, is like saying rapists have a bona fide need for handguns to "deter" would-be victims from using their mace canisters.

Chomsky is a moral idiot.
 
Why do you love Hezbollah so much Gazpacho?

You're either with us or against us let me remind you!

To be "disinterested" between Hizbullah and Israel is like being "disinterested" between a rapist and their victim. It isn't a matter of two sides who are on equal moral grounds: rather, one side wants to survive, the other to genocide the first side because Allah told them so.

So while in some cases there is a middle ground, here, there isn't: just like being "disinterested" in the first case is in effect supporting rape, being "disinterested" in the second case is in effect supporting terrorism.

Same goes with the "war is terrorism" idea. This is just a rehash of the pacifist view that all war is evil -- that there is no difference between wars of self-defense and freedom and wars of agression and annihilation. This is de facto support of the terrorists, much like in the past it was de facto support of the fascists, as Orwell correctly noted in the 1930s.
 
Interesting Skeptic, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter and receive, on a regular basis, more reasons why my alleged views are akin to supporting rape and why my moral compass is so hopelessly skewed it just spins round and round everytime I'm confronted with a moral dillema.
 
"If you don't want scary answers, perhaps you shouldn't be asking scary questions".

Perhaps you'll get less flack if you didn't support the likes of Chomsky. Or feel that it is just too judgmental to think Hizbullah is evil.
 
Ok! Ya I guess I totally deserve it then. Do I deserve to have my words turned to strawmen and my rather limited contributions here misconstrued?
 
To be "disinterested" between Hizbullah and Israel is like being "disinterested" between a rapist and their victim. It isn't a matter of two sides who are on equal moral grounds: rather, one side wants to survive, the other to genocide the first side because Allah told them so.

So while in some cases there is a middle ground, here, there isn't: just like being "disinterested" in the first case is in effect supporting rape, being "disinterested" in the second case is in effect supporting terrorism.

Same goes with the "war is terrorism" idea. This is just a rehash of the pacifist view that all war is evil -- that there is no difference between wars of self-defense and freedom and wars of agression and annihilation. This is de facto support of the terrorists, much like in the past it was de facto support of the fascists, as Orwell correctly noted in the 1930s.

Where do you get this junk?
 
Well, apart from those of Americans and/or Jews and/or non-communist cambodians or anybody else he dislikes, in which case it is "resistance to imperialism" or something.

Beat me to it.

Anyone who acts as an apoligist for the Khmer Rouge needs to be discounted as credible.
 

Back
Top Bottom