Welcome to Tactical Gamer

View RSS Feed

E-Male

Assassinations and Empire

Rate this Entry
Noam Chomsky on Osama bin Laden’s death:

"There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”"

Submit "Assassinations and Empire" to Digg Submit "Assassinations and Empire" to del.icio.us Submit "Assassinations and Empire" to StumbleUpon Submit "Assassinations and Empire" to Google

Updated 05-07-2011 at 06:21 PM by E-Male

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. Skud's Avatar
    Sigh, another conspiracy theory.

    I like how terribly out of context half of this is.

    Al Queda's leader was not a "suspect."
    Even if he was apprehended, if given a military tribunal (He would not have been given a "fair trial"), he would have had death by lethal injection or firing squad.

    This all comes from Noam Chomsky. Need I say more?
  2. E-Male's Avatar
    You appear to have either not read the article or overlooked Chomsky's main point -- evidence.

    I am not arguing conspiracy, or even agreeing with Chomsky, just noting an interesting point that he makes, the state (US) has not provided and proof of involvement that would stand as evidence -- just unverified claims.

    Need I say more?
  3. Skud's Avatar
    We knew he was guilty from the start...

    Later in 2004 he full out admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

    Admission of guilt is not enough evidence for you?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082700687.html
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...age041029.html
    http://classic-web.archive.org/web/2...ow/1550477.cms

    "I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers [...] I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers [...] with the raids [5 minute audiotape broadcast May 23, 2006]"
  4. E-Male's Avatar
    Hmm, the same news sources that justified the invasion of Iraq on the basis of assumed weapons of mass destruction?
  5. MacLeod's Avatar
    I do not endorse illegal activities but I prefer to take a malleable approach to viewing the situation. Until someone can find proof that the world is a better place with Osama bin Laden alive then I will not feel sad about saving the lives that he could have taken were he given the time.
  6. Skud's Avatar
    1 out of 6+ billion people, and we're arguing the death of the most wanted terrorist in history?

    Really?

    We, even the military, thought there were weapons of mass destruction. The evidence was shaky, and we didn't find "WMD's" but we did find evidence of nerve gas use and production. That alone is enough. How is nerve gas not a WMD? Just ask the Kurds...
  7. E-Male's Avatar
    Slim justification for waste of lives and cash, there Skud.
  8. Skud's Avatar
    Say someone had purchased or used the nerve agents in various major cities around the world..

    Is it different then?

    Saddam had developed and used nerve agents on enemies and innocents. What if he became a broker? What if he launched his own attacks with them?

    Do we need a specific bodycount for nerve gas to be a "WMD"? I'll throw this out there - I think any massive amount of lives lost is enough justification. "Mass destruction" is not based on x amount of bodies, it's based on it's potential to kill. To that effect, I would say that the men responsible for 9/11, especially Bin Laden, used "WMDs" on us. 3000 dead is a massive amount. He used airplanes to kill a massive amount of civilians.

    You may feel different because you live in another country, which is completely irresponsible. If it had happened in Canada, I would feel the same I do now.
  9. E-Male's Avatar
    Skud, you appear to be arguing that the invasion of Iraq was justified because of 9/11 -- these are unrelated -- there is very little evidence to connect OBL to Saddam, and more to the point Saddam to 9/11. That is the nerve gas Fox news sells.
  10. Skud's Avatar
    No, I'm just making a comparison. Both are capable, and have in the past, used WMDs.

    Are you denying that Saddam used Nerve Gas against the Kurds, killing thousands?

    You are correct, we don't have much evidence of a relationship between OBL and SH, or SH and 9/11. But both have, and would have continued to if allowed, use WMDs, develop them, broker them, etc.

    I could care less if SH had nothing to do with 9/11. It is a War on Terror. Saddam used terror to enforce his regime. He killed thousands upon thousands. He would imprison and torture all those who stood against him. He was no different from OBL. The only thing that separated them is that SH was a non-militant. SH was strictly political. SH also surrendered fully.

    OBL was a mass murderer. OBL coordinated attack after attack over the years, including 9/11. OBL was using religion to train people to kill innocents. OBL and Al Queda was using religion to train young men and women to strap bombs to their chests to kill crowds of people. Innocent people.

    OBL and SH were practically the same. The threat posed by them, and the body counts. Both got the same end result.

    I don't watch Fox News.
    I'm an American, being told that I'm a sheep by a Canadian. Just because you don't particularly approve of our actions does not necessarily mean our motivations were not just. If you had family or friends who were affected by SH or OBL, maybe you would have a bit of a broader view of the world. Over 3000 children were left with 1 or less parent after 9/11. Over 4000 men and women gave their lives to stop the blood in Iraq. Voluntarily.

    So go on ahead and accuse Americans of not knowing what's best. Go on ahead and say that what the military was tasked to do was unjust. But do not accuse MY COUNTRY of lying, deceit, and purposefully neglecting facts. Because the glaring fact is this: People like OBL and SH were evil. Genuine evil. No bible definition. No debate. They murdered people whole-sale. They were directly responsible for terrorist attacks or massacres. They hurt our country and many others. More importantly, the world was not a safe place with them in it. It's not "safe" yet, but it's better than doing nothing simply because I'm not affected. Because I was affected. I'm surprised you were not.
  11. SharinganTH1422's Avatar
    You mean the Kurds that SH killed during the Iran-Iraq War when...the USA was on Iraq's side for their own self interest. And that's the key, everyone is just looking out for their own self-interest, whether it's money, security or revenge, there are no good guys and bad guys, just people killing each other for their own reasons. Like bin Laden attacking the West to get revenge for their constant support of Israel's hostile policy, then the West tearing apart Afghanistan looking for this man and putting a bullet in him to get their own revenge.

    *shrug*

    I don't much care any more, it's not like I can change anything.
  12. E-Male's Avatar
    I love the Republican spin game on this whole affair (unpacked nicely by JS):

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...xrs=share_copy
  13. Delta*RandyShugart*'s Avatar
    So those against the killing of Bin Laden don't mind the fact that he was behind the Second Attack on the World Trade Center and he authorized videos of beheading's, brutal treatment against women and his ideas that Israel and Western Countries should be blown off the face of the earth?
  14. Skud's Avatar
    Canadians must think they're different from Americans.
  15. E-Male's Avatar
    Never said I was against killing Bin Laden. Read with more care.
  16. E-Male's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Skud
    So go on ahead and accuse Americans of not knowing what's best. Go on ahead and say that what the military was tasked to do was unjust. But do not accuse MY COUNTRY of lying, deceit, and purposefully neglecting facts. Because the glaring fact is this: People like OBL and SH were evil. Genuine evil. No bible definition. No debate. They murdered people whole-sale. They were directly responsible for terrorist attacks or massacres. They hurt our country and many others. More importantly, the world was not a safe place with them in it. It's not "safe" yet, but it's better than doing nothing simply because I'm not affected. Because I was affected. I'm surprised you were not.
    I doubt that any country knows what is best.

    There is plenty of well made arguments that make a convincing case that the American invasion of Iraq was both unlawful and an inefficient waste of resources and lives.

    Every country is guilty of "lying, deceit, and purposefully neglecting facts" including Canada, and certainly including the USA. This is simply beyond argument.

    I never said I or Canada was not affected -- please do not put words n my mouth.

    There are dozens and dozens of countries led by butchers, mass murders, and such.

    Which one do you propose that the USA attack next.

    Such is the logic of your foreign policy as argued above?

    Your argument appears to be a simple reiteration of the general neoconservative line of thinking and the official state narrative.

  17. Skud's Avatar
    I'm a neoconservative because I'm proud to be an American?

    OK.
  18. SharinganTH1422's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Skud
    I'm a neoconservative because I'm proud to be an American?
    Roflcakes.

    You are actually reading sentences as opposed to single words, right?

    And good job on ignoring the rest of e-male's post so you could take one word out of context.

    PS Please note that I'm not supporting either of your views
  19. E-Male's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Skud
    I'm a neoconservative because I'm proud to be an American?

    OK.
    That is not what I said.

    Americans have a right to be proud of their country. That is not the issue. Being a proud American does not make one a neoconservative. That was not my claim.

    I suggested that your argument, your justification for America's foreign policy, appears to closely follow the line of thinking within neoconservative thought.
  20. Skud's Avatar
    Blanket Statements: A book by Dr. Strangelove.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Back to top