"Clay Smith" <Clay201NOS
...@softhome.net> wrote in message
...
> > On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloody
...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it
> >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The
> >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up
> >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter,
> >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half
> >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism
> >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
> >The 1985 CIA
> >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American
> >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives.
> >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some
> >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the
> >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a
> >"cleric they did not like."
> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA
> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if
> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or
> more specifically, American troops)?.
Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that
Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different
than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic?
There is a difference.
> Suppose the FBI identified a
> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a
> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a
> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in
> a car outside of the church?
If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could
> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be
> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright.
> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to
> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of
> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe
> it would be okay in Mexico?
France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
> of
> >course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent
> >people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into
> >majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls,
> >not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the
> >war.
> I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had
> been published), but I think there's another very logical
> interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're
> ignoring.
> He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is
> causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If
> people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be
> against the war.
The question is; Is his argument valid?
Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
"I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's
happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever,
what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs
implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several
million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually
with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three
or four million people."
Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in
the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country.
> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it
> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that
> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the
Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest
percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
