It’s Time to Dump Chomsky into the Wastebasket of History

Captain Fantastic · May 15, 2011

Don said:
Chomsky feels that the justification of WWII is questionable (that the US didn't have a right to wage wars on Japan and Germany). 'nuff said about Chomsky.

To my understanding, Chomsky feels that US involvement was justified but that they should have tried diplomacy earlier. What he has been consistent with is his adamant opposition to the use of nuclear bombs, calling the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "among the most unspeakable crimes in history."

I actually agree with him on the latter point - the complete disregard for civilian life (and years of altered genetic health) was unconscionable. And the development and use of nuclear ordinance was history-altering in the worst way.

Don · May 16, 2011

Captain Fantastic said:
To my understanding, Chomsky feels that US involvement was justified but that they should have tried diplomacy earlier.

He has recanted that statement since, saying that the Nazi "threat" was overblown and diplomacy would have worked (just like how Hitler kept those treaties, right Noam?)

He's also been against the Korean War, saying that we had no right to interfere and that a united Korea under the North would be a good thing.

Malibook · May 16, 2011

NC is painful to listen to and his message gets lost in the delivery.
I don't even care if his views are more relevant than fuji's. :faint:

mrmike · May 16, 2011

From Wikipedia, on the Munich Treaty:

Though the British and French were pleased, as were the Nazi military and German diplomatic leadership, Hitler was furious. He felt as though he had been forced into acting like a bourgeois politician by his diplomats and generals. He exclaimed furiously soon after the meeting with Chamberlain: "Gentlemen, this has been my first international conference and I can assure you that it will be my last". Hitler now regarded Chamberlain with utter contempt. A British diplomat in Berlin was informed by reliable sources that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as "an impertinent busybody who spoke the ridiculous jargon of an outmoded democracy. The umbrella, which to the ordinary German was the symbol of peace, was in Hitler's view only a subject of derision". Also, Hitler had been heard saying: "If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers". In one of his public speeches after Munich, Hitler declared: "Thank God we have no umbrella politicians in this country".

rld · May 17, 2011

wigglee said:
Once again, you attack the man and not his message. If the evidence is so solid regarding osama's guilt pertaining to 9/11, then why did they execute him first instead of trying him with that evidence? That is how justice works, even if the cops are sure you are guilty. Wild west hearsay justice does not help bring us to a more civilized world order.

Because we are at war with AQ not policing them. AQ are our military opponent, not a grow op in Markham.

oldjones · May 17, 2011

rld said:
Because we are at war with AQ not policing them. AQ are our military opponent, not a grow op in Markham.

Ignoring the time, effort and expense that has been spent 'proving' they are not our "military opponent" in any way we have used the term before. Funny that those arguments to justify not extending the laws of war to AQ all depend on their 'criminality'. And aren't we the ones claiming to deal justly with criminals? Unlike those AQ killers.

Which apparently licenses assasination as a legitimate military act. What progress! No more local-dupes required to do the killing, the pretext the CIA was forced into when they assasinated President Allende to bring freedom to the Chileans.

When d'ya s'pose we'll see the SEAL team's Quaddaffi death fotos? Tonight's news? Or are thousands of Libyan dead not worth the same effort as thousands of WTC dead?

There's no cooking without blackening pots and kettles both, but let's not boast about how dirty we are.

Cobster · May 17, 2011

blackrock13 said:
That point has been raised and discussed by many people, on TERB, in the media, and by the the government. If you still don't get by now, perhaps you never will.

I'm curious, explain to everyone here about "getting it".

I didn't give a shit when I found out they killed him, in fact, I thought "great".
But I do like to hear other points of views and reasonings.

rld · May 17, 2011

oldjones said:
Ignoring the time, effort and expense that has been spent 'proving' they are not our "military opponent" in any way we have used the term before. Funny that those arguments to justify not extending the laws of war to AQ all depend on their 'criminality'. And aren't we the ones claiming to deal justly with criminals? Unlike those AQ killers.

Which apparently licenses assasination as a legitimate military act. What progress! No more local-dupes required to do the killing, the pretext the CIA was forced into when they assasinated President Allende to bring freedom to the Chileans.

When d'ya s'pose we'll see the SEAL team's Quaddaffi death fotos? Tonight's news? Or are thousands of Libyan dead not worth the same effort as thousands of WTC dead?

There's no cooking without blackening pots and kettles both, but let's not boast about how dirty we are.

Actually in this context OBL was a simple target in a legitmate war.

The war in A-stan is a clearly recognized international armed conflict. You won't find a serious legal scholar who disagrees.

AQ militias have been participating in the field against NATO and US troops in A-stan and OBL was their commander in chief. There is a war in A-stan that is not particularly different than many other wars we have been involved in the last couple of centuries.

There are other times and places where there acts are not in the context of an international armed conflict and those situations have to be dealt with differently.

You want to play a word game and try to rile people up by using the term assassination. But the fact is AQ's troops are operating in the field against NATO troops in A-stan. That is not terrorism. That is war.

The unfortunate use of the term "War on Terror" by various US adminstrations may cloud the issue for some, but make no mistake the war in A-stan is a good old fashioned war.

The comparison to Allende and Chile is completely unrelated. You might as well claim OBL was Mother Thereas while you were at it.

Captain Fantastic · May 17, 2011

rld said:
Actually in this context OBL was a simple target in a legitmate war.

The war in A-stan is a clearly recognized international armed conflict. You won't find a serious legal scholar who disagrees.

AQ militias have been participating in the field against NATO and US troops in A-stan and OBL was their commander in chief. There is a war in A-stan that is not particularly different than many other wars we have been involved in the last couple of centuries.

There are other times and places where there acts are not in the context of an international armed conflict and those situations have to be dealt with differently.

You want to play a word game and try to rile people up by using the term assassination. But the fact is AQ's troops are operating in the field against NATO troops in A-stan. That is not terrorism. That is war.

The unfortunate use of the term "War on Terror" by various US adminstrations may cloud the issue for some, but make no mistake the war in A-stan is a good old fashioned war.

The comparison to Allende and Chile is completely unrelated. You might as well claim OBL was Mother Thereas while you were at it.

Ok then, does that mean that Omar Khadr is a (child) prisoner of war and not some sort of in-between enemy combatant-criminal?

rld · May 17, 2011

Captain Fantastic said:
Ok then, does that mean that Omar Khadr is a (child) prisoner of war and not some sort of in-between enemy combatant-criminal?

That is a whole different subject, which has been discussed to death around here.

But let me simply say this. Just because one takes up arms during an IAC does not automatically entitle one to POW status if captured in a war. Only members of the armed forces of belligerents and other lawful combatants are entitled to prisoner of war status. There is significant debate about the status that should be accorded to Khadr.

oldjones · May 18, 2011

rld said:
Actually in this context OBL was a simple target in a legitmate war.

The war in A-stan is a clearly recognized international armed conflict. You won't find a serious legal scholar who disagrees.

AQ militias have been participating in the field against NATO and US troops in A-stan and OBL was their commander in chief. There is a war in A-stan that is not particularly different than many other wars we have been involved in the last couple of centuries.

There are other times and places where there acts are not in the context of an international armed conflict and those situations have to be dealt with differently.

You want to play a word game and try to rile people up by using the term assassination. But the fact is AQ's troops are operating in the field against NATO troops in A-stan. That is not terrorism. That is war.

The unfortunate use of the term "War on Terror" by various US adminstrations may cloud the issue for some, but make no mistake the war in A-stan is a good old fashioned war.

The comparison to Allende and Chile is completely unrelated. You might as well claim OBL was Mother Thereas while you were at it.

Uh-huh. So if OBL had hidden out in a cabin in Temagami and SEALs killed him there without notice, all would be fine with you? All well and good to say war has no laws or rules, but that is what makes outlaws, and we on our side pretend we fight to uphold just laws. Perhaps you could post info to support your claim that OBL commanded troops in the field: pictiures of uniforms, badges or rank, tables of command and such. The US government has gone to considerable trouble to prove none of the above exist, thus excluding AQ fighters from being considered 'troops'.

But if they're mere criminals, lawful governments use lawful police action to apprehend them.

blackrock13 · May 18, 2011

oldjones said:
Uh-huh. So if OBL had hidden out in a cabin in Temagami and SEALs killed him there without notice, all would be fine with you? All well and good to say war has no laws or rules, but that is what makes outlaws, and we on our side pretend we fight to uphold just laws. Perhaps you could post info to support your claim that OBL commanded troops in the field: pictiures of uniforms, badges or rank, tables of command and such. The US government has gone to considerable trouble to prove none of the above exist, thus excluding AQ fighters from being considered 'troops'.

But if they're mere criminals, lawful governments use lawful police action to apprehend them.

OJ, now you know his fighters had no uniforms or obvious badges. There was definitely a command structure, but not ranks as such. The US was perhaps 50% sure it was OBL there, by a process akin to assemblage which any good, archeologist, medical examiner, or police officer uses every day. It was as much a case of what wasn't there as was, that made it clear something was a miss or didn't belong. Ya, it was a guess, but a good guess and they weren't wrong.

As for your invasion of Tamagami scenario, it wouldn't happen the same way because the Canadian government is a little bit less corrupt than the P'stan government and is held in a better light by the government. If such an operation brought down the likes of OBL, then great, go for it. We'd have one less festering boil on the face of the earth. All these hypothetic scenario that some on this BBare famous for are just that. Some are just hilarious

rld · May 18, 2011

oldjones said:
Uh-huh. So if OBL had hidden out in a cabin in Temagami and SEALs killed him there without notice, all would be fine with you? All well and good to say war has no laws or rules, but that is what makes outlaws, and we on our side pretend we fight to uphold just laws. Perhaps you could post info to support your claim that OBL commanded troops in the field: pictiures of uniforms, badges or rank, tables of command and such. The US government has gone to considerable trouble to prove none of the above exist, thus excluding AQ fighters from being considered 'troops'.

But if they're mere criminals, lawful governments use lawful police action to apprehend them.

It is amazing how people try to suggest that I said things that I didn't.

I did not suggest there are no rules in war. In fact I earlier offered a detailed analysis as to how the Law of War applied to killing OBL. It was completely lawful.

Why did you try to misrepresent what I said?

Are you seriously disputing the fact that OBL is the leader of AQ? If you are I am happy to pull some evidence for you. How about you find one source that says he was not the leader of AQ before I waste my time with that suggestion.

You also misstate the position of the US government on the status of AQ in A-stan. I don't criticize you for this, but you don't seem to have an understanding of the basics of the Law of War and how it has been applied to the conflict in A-stan. The word "troops" is meaningless. They are surely combatants. The debate is whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants.

And if OBL was caught in Canada that way I think we should apologize to the US government for him successfully hiding out here.

WoodPeckr · May 18, 2011

rld said:
The word "troops" is meaningless. They are surely combatants. The debate is whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants.

Dubya and his DICK will answer that question for ya....:eyebrows:

chiller_boy · May 18, 2011

rld said:
It is amazing how people try to suggest that I said things that I didn't.

I did not suggest there are no rules in war. In fact I earlier offered a detailed analysis as to how the Law of War applied to killing OBL. It was completely lawful.

Why did you try to misrepresent what I said?

Are you seriously disputing the fact that OBL is the leader of AQ? If you are I am happy to pull some evidence for you. How about you find one source that says he was not the leader of AQ before I waste my time with that suggestion.

You also misstate the position of the US government on the status of AQ in A-stan. I don't criticize you for this, but you don't seem to have an understanding of the basics of the Law of War and how it has been applied to the conflict in A-stan. The word "troops" is meaningless. They are surely combatants. The debate is whether they are lawful or unlawful combatants.

And if OBL was caught in Canada that way I think we should apologize to the US government for him successfully hidingoiut here.

Incidentally, the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Al queda at the present time. We are assisting a (probably) illegitimate government in putting down an armed insurrection. Sort of the reverse of what we are doing in Libya, although I must admit karzai is not a madman, and the comparison should not be stretched much further than we shouldnt be in either place..

chiller_boy · May 18, 2011

oldjones said:
Uh-huh. So if OBL had hidden out in a cabin in Temagami and SEALs killed him there without notice, all would be fine with you? All well and good to say war has no laws or rules, but that is what makes outlaws, and we on our side pretend we fight to uphold just laws. Perhaps you could post info to support your claim that OBL commanded troops in the field: pictiures of uniforms, badges or rank, tables of command and such. The US government has gone to considerable trouble to prove none of the above exist, thus excluding AQ fighters from being considered 'troops'.

But if they're mere criminals, lawful governments use lawful police action to apprehend them.

Incidentally, on this issue of uniforms - apparently the Americans who were programmimng and running the drones out of various places in the good ole USA were not wearing uniforms. Dont know if they were contractors, civilians or what but the Army apparently issued all sorts of directives to clean this up so we wouldnt be guilty of war crimes under our own rules.

fuji · May 18, 2011

Some people apparently think that once you've labelled an enemy an "unlawful combatant" that it's OK to throw all morality out the window and engage in savagery.

blackrock13 · May 18, 2011

chiller_boy said:
Incidentally, on this issue of uniforms - apparently the Americans who were programmimng and running the drones out of various places in the good ole USA were not wearing uniforms. Dont know if they were contractors, civilians or what but the Army apparently issued all sorts of directives to clean this up so we wouldnt be guilty of war crimes under our own rules.

Are you telling me they can't wear their slippers and PJ's while killing bad guys? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

WoodPeckr · May 18, 2011

fuji said:
Some people apparently think that once you've labelled an enemy an "unlawful combatant" that it's OK to throw all morality out the window and engage in savagery.

That pretty well summed up the SOP of Dubya and his DICK....

Cobster · May 18, 2011

blackrock13 said:
Are you telling me they can`t wear their slippers and PJ`s while killing bad guys? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I`m still waiting for your reply here.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...t-of-History&p=3568624&viewfull=1#post3568624

It’s Time to Dump Chomsky into the Wastebasket of History

...Winning

Active member

New member

Member

New member

CanBarelyRe Member

New member

New member

...Winning

New member

CanBarelyRe Member

Banned

New member

Protuberant Member

New member

New member

Banned

Banned

Protuberant Member

New member