Asian Fever

Bin Laden dead

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Actually, the USA has 11 (currently) reasons that they pretty much do whatever they want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier



A lot of interesting points of view, who says guys only think with their dicks. While Chomsky may subscribe to an ideal world, can it be argued that we are capable of it ? Let's face it, is there anybody on this Board that hasn't broken the rules in one way or another ? International Law, just like a By-Law is only as effective as the individual's willingness to obey it, or the authors ability to enforce it. When Israel went into Argentina after Eichmann, they did exactly what the U.S. did going after bin Laden. Not much was said or done there either. International Law is meant for Tin Pot Dictators, not for the U.S. or China or anybody they choose to support.

As to our laws and enforcement, we get what we allow, what we are willing to tolerate. Do you really think that if the majority of Canadians stood up and said enough is enough we would be subject to the kind of security we go through at the airports, no. The economic pressure of people refusing to fly and put up with that crap would very quickly see a dramatic change on things are being done. I'd say, what it comes down to is where do you as an individual draw the line at government control of your life and what are you willing to do when they step over it ?
 

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
The simplest rebuke to Chomsky is the fact that he constantly critiques democratic nations including, and especially, his own USA where he has all the good fortune of living while allowing non-democratic, i.e., Iran, nations and terrorist organizations, i.e., Hezbollah, where he was feted, to go uncriticized. In times of assymetric warfare, he reserves his critiques for those nations which sometimes do break ìnternational law`but never against the terrorists, i.e., Bin Laden, which they are fighting. Chomsky is an example of the `spoiled child syndrome`and I have no use for his sophisticated but errant critiques.
 

jnewton

Loitering on PERB
Aug 9, 2010
378
0
0
The simplest rebuke to Chomsky is the fact that he constantly critiques democratic nations including, and especially, his own USA where he has all the good fortune of living while allowing non-democratic, i.e., Iran, nations and terrorist organizations, i.e., Hezbollah, where he was feted, to go uncriticized. In times of assymetric warfare, he reserves his critiques for those nations which sometimes do break ìnternational law`but never against the terrorists, i.e., Bin Laden, which they are fighting. Chomsky is an example of the `spoiled child syndrome`and I have no use for his sophisticated but errant critiques.
+1

His critiques (and the critiques of others who, like him, only criticize relatively free democracies and republics) would carry much more weight and credibility if they were also directed at the brutality and disregard for human rights of the terrorists and their supporters.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
THE US constitution is a place to start.]
Excellent idea. So why don't you pack your bags and head on down to the U.S. and get that done right up.
 

blackcad

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2010
267
267
63
Jnewton...politics always gets me going. And despite our disparate views, that was a well thought out and classy response. I do agree that SOME of the airport measures seem to have little redeeming security value. I also agree that some members of the Police force are corrupt and do not deserve the office we entrust in them.....however, we are talking about a very small percentage of the overall Police membership...that somehow got their jobs through nepotism...or loose and inneffective recruiting (but in some other countries this percentage approaches 100 as the entire Police force is corrupt) I have no ill-will toward you and apologize for any negative inferences I may have made. You obviously are a very literal and pensive person.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
5,171
1,183
113
Upstairs
From The Guardian -


US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say.

The deal was struck between Pervez Musharraf and George Bush in 2001 and renewed during the 'transition to democracy' – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected.

The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned.

The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials.

Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.

"There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

The deal puts a new complexion on the political storm triggered by Bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where a team of US navy Seals assaulted his safe house in the early hours of 2 May.

Pakistani officials have insisted they knew nothing of the raid, with military and civilian leaders issuing a strong rebuke to the US. If the US conducts another such assault, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani warned parliament on Monday, "Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force."

Days earlier, Musharraf, now running an opposition party from exile in London, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the raid, terming it a "violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan".

But under the terms of the secret deal, while Pakistanis may not have been informed of the assault, they had agreed to it in principle.
 

jnewton

Loitering on PERB
Aug 9, 2010
378
0
0
blackad, thank you, and I prefer "reflective". :)

Now, can we all go back to looking at the SP ads? :D

I don't know about the rest of you guys but after all of this heavy stuff, I need a distraction. :eyebrows:
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,743
6
0
victoria
The simplest rebuke to Chomsky is the fact that he constantly critiques democratic nations including, and especially, his own USA where he has all the good fortune of living while allowing non-democratic, i.e., Iran, nations and terrorist organizations, i.e., Hezbollah, where he was feted, to go uncriticized. In times of assymetric warfare, he reserves his critiques for those nations which sometimes do break ìnternational law`but never against the terrorists, i.e., Bin Laden, which they are fighting. Chomsky is an example of the `spoiled child syndrome`and I have no use for his sophisticated but errant critiques.
Chomsky believes in the rule of law and in democracy. He correctly points out that Hamas was elected by the people of the West Bank to represent them. The alternative -- unacceptable in his opinion -- is the principle that "might makes right" -- which of course is the principle in use in this part of the world.

Regarding bin Laden, in the original article I linked to, Chomsky suggests that if bin Laden had been captured, there would have been considerable problems with presenting evidence that would have guaranteed a conviction under US law -- and likely the reason this option was not seriously considered.
 

jdtipper

choo chooo
Dec 16, 2009
308
4
0
Shame-ville
Im curious as to why everyone is supporting the murder of an innocent man?

Now im might not be current on the law or anything, but in North America, isnt the old motto "Innocent until proven guilty"?
I never heard any news of a trial being held convicting him of "masterminding the 9/11 events".

So he apparently took credit for it does not automatically make him guilty.
Bob Marley never served time for "shooting the sheriff".

All I know is they show a picture of some East Indian fellow with a beard and call him Osama, but for all 80% of us North Americans, it sure looks alot like Gurginder that works the graveyard shift at Mac's.

Im sure that by murdering Bin Laden, the US has just signed their own death certificate. Without a leader to instruct, now we will see what some of these Extremists are capable of.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,543
308
83
In Lust Mostly
Im curious as to why everyone is supporting the murder of an innocent man?

Now im might not be current on the law or anything, but in North America, isnt the old motto "Innocent until proven guilty"?
I never heard any news of a trial being held convicting him of "masterminding the 9/11 events".

So he apparently took credit for it does not automatically make him guilty.
Bob Marley never served time for "shooting the sheriff".

All I know is they show a picture of some East Indian fellow with a beard and call him Osama, but for all 80% of us North Americans, it sure looks alot like Gurginder that works the graveyard shift at Mac's.

Im sure that by murdering Bin Laden, the US has just signed their own death certificate. Without a leader to instruct, now we will see what some of these Extremists are capable of.
Wow has your location ever nailed it.

Research is your friend.

Bin Laden admitted it in one of his long winded speeches long ago after 9/11.
 

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
After Hamas was elected, Hank, members threw opponents off of four-story rooftops to their deaths and kneecapped young members of Fatah, thereby crippling them, as a reminder of what would happen in the case of opposition. Hamas was "democratically" elected in Gaza. According to you, Chomsky believes in their right to do as they please because they were elected "democratically". This is just another "windbag" principle of Chomsky's who should have remained with his linguistic studies. Again, he is an example (there are many) of the cornfed Marxist political analysts and historians produced in Western cultures. They love theory but rarely deal with actual facts and specific context.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
5,171
1,183
113
Upstairs
All I know is they show a picture of some East Indian fellow with a beard and call him Osama, but for all 80% of us North Americans, it sure looks alot like Gurginder that works the graveyard shift at Mac's.
.
You do know Bin Laden was Arab, not East Indian, right?
 

juniper

New member
Apr 11, 2006
407
2
0
I think it's also of significance that Chomsky is very ambivalent about whether Bin Laden ever involved himself in the planning of 9/11. His inability to deal with reality, Hank (Quinlan), is not unusual for people whose leftist convictions are so crystallized as to avoid reality to the point of absolute self-deception. I would refer you to the 9 May issue of American Thinker entitled "Chomsky's Take on the Assassination of OBL" by Richard Botrick. This article also refers to another, an especially well-written one, entitled "Chomsky's Follies" by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, also 9 May. While I don't think these articles will put a dent in your (far) leftist convictions, Hank, I think other interested Readers may find it of value in terms of the clarification of their own perspectives. Hope this helps!
 

jdtipper

choo chooo
Dec 16, 2009
308
4
0
Shame-ville
Bin Laden admitted it in one of his long winded speeches long ago after 9/11.
I am well aware of his confession..... but he still had not stood in front of any judicial system, and been found guilty.
Either way.....it was cold blooded murder.

Are you trying to say they all look alike?
To many people, yes.
Don't you remember after 9/11.... most all brown skinned people were being profiled as potential terrorists just based on skin color alone.

You do know Bin Laden was Arab, not East Indian, right?
My apologies, I should have said Middle East, not East Indian. My bad, but Gurginder @ Mac's is from E.I. somewhere. Nice fellow, english is coming not too badly.


Sorry, Im getting debaty again.... the US really needs to start being held accountable for their actions.
First a war on terror which led to an invasion of Iraq without permission from the UN, to secretly sneaking into Pakistan and killing an unconvicted man and his staff.

Im sure Allah will have something to say about this
 

jnewton

Loitering on PERB
Aug 9, 2010
378
0
0
Is there a black hole lurking on this thread? It seems like at least a page evaporated.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
I think the mods got busy and removed any quotes of Mr. Banned a Lot's posts.


...............and he had quite the parade in this thread.
 

Karl Blues

New member
Oct 13, 2004
320
3
0
Vancouver
To many people, yes.
Don't you remember after 9/11.... most all brown skinned people were being profiled as potential terrorists just based on skin color alone.



My apologies, I should have said Middle East, not East Indian. My bad, but Gurginder @ Mac's is from E.I. somewhere. Nice fellow, english is coming not too badly.


Sorry, Im getting debaty again.... the US really needs to start being held accountable for their actions.
First a war on terror which led to an invasion of Iraq without permission from the UN, to secretly sneaking into Pakistan and killing an unconvicted man and his staff.

Im sure Allah will have something to say about this
I was asking the question of you not other people. Your comment had very strong racist overtones.
 
Vancouver Escorts