General Discussion

Generic Other

(29,082 posts)

194. Our enemy did not recognize any rules of war or fight for any state

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 01:06 PM

Jun 2013

but we must. Because we can be seen as criminals for having crossed the line. We made our arguments. Our pre-emptive strike policy that flew in the face of our entire legal system.

We did not declare war. We never do. We authorize military action. That sounds illegal to me. Weasel words. Criminality oozes from our actions. The Constitution is thwarted by clever phrasing. Yet, we do not consider ourselves vigilantes or criminals in this matter. How are we any different than George Zimmerman chasing down and shooting anyone who looks suspicious and calling it standing your ground?

I am not sure what the heck we are doing in the Middle East, but I am not changing the meanings of words to accommodate whatever it is we are doing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

228 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Chomsky: Obama Is �Dedicated To Increasing Terrorism� [View all] Purveyor Jun 2013 OP

and chomsky once again proves why he's irrelevant dlwickham Jun 2013 #1

Chomsky is very important ....to himself...and that's about it. jessie04 Jun 2013 #3

Exactly titanicdave Jun 2013 #31

When you have a body of work as posthumous as Chomsky's sally5050 Jun 2013 #101

+1000 LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #118

+1001 Enthusiast Jun 2013 #143

"Proves why Chomsky is irrelevant" was, until recently, the mantra of rightwingers like Limbaugh. MiddleFingerMom Jun 2013 #151

And does anyone else remember who accused presidential critics QC Jun 2013 #159

They're not rightwingers. They're just vehemently opposed to ANY criticism of "our side'... MiddleFingerMom Jun 2013 #160

I agree with you that ideology is not the main driver QC Jun 2013 #161

I don't know if DU as a website has moved sharply to the right, I think it's a small and... MiddleFingerMom Jun 2013 #163

note that the attack is on Chomsky not on his argument Rise Rebel Resist Jun 2013 #206

his theory is damn silly dlwickham Jun 2013 #214

not a believer in blow back then? Rise Rebel Resist Jun 2013 #220

No, but Chomsky isn't talking about blowback. ucrdem Jun 2013 #224

not a beliver in half-assed conspiracy theories dlwickham Jun 2013 #225

Cant handle the truth? Civilization2 Jun 2013 #42

how is Obama "dedicated" to making more terrorists dlwickham Jun 2013 #49

He supports the NSA "industry" and they have a vested interest (their jobs) in terrorism. xtraxritical Jun 2013 #53

so national security is now an "industry" dlwickham Jun 2013 #56

Well, duh... truebluegreen Jun 2013 #72

Uh, yes, an incredibly huge one at that. RedCappedBandit Jun 2013 #84

Of course it's an industry. sibelian Jun 2013 #130

This is perfectly clear to many of us.....nt Enthusiast Jun 2013 #144

umm yeah.... where you been? Marrah_G Jun 2013 #215

Simple math LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #58

You are mixing up concepts. For instance actions (and your interpretation thereof) & motive stevenleser Jun 2013 #70

What's in Obama's head is irrelevant cpwm17 Jun 2013 #96

No, it's not. Chomsky's entire article is about imputing motive. And even if for a moment I stevenleser Jun 2013 #109

"Chomsky's entire article" lolz,. there is no article, this post links to a video interview. Civilization2 Jun 2013 #141

I said nothing about "motive" LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #111

Well, you defended an article that imputes motive. Are you now saying you disagree with that? stevenleser Jun 2013 #112

No, I am pointing out that there was no mention of "motive" LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #117

Chomsky's title and entire article imputes motive to Obama. Again do you disagree with Chomsky stevenleser Jun 2013 #119

Once again... LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #123

Do you understand what the title of Chomsky's article is? It says Obama is dedicated to... stevenleser Jun 2013 #124

I'll refer you back to my first post LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #125

let's try this dlwickham Jun 2013 #87

For every terrorist that Obama kills with drones TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #104

How about this variation: HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #132

how about dlwickham Jun 2013 #153

Those damned "terrorists." Why won't they fight by OUR rules? Pesky HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #154

Drones murdering folks tends to create enemies from the surviving family and friends. Civilization2 Jun 2013 #140

Care to elaborate on why Chomsky may be wrong? Maedhros Jun 2013 #44

See my #70 above for just one example. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #91

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #98

if he was irrelevant, you wouldn't bother to discount this. Chomsky's source are all mainstream... yurbud Jun 2013 #131

I agree, wholeheartedly. Enthusiast Jun 2013 #145

Well said, All of America's terror activity kills random unlucky victims as well as intended targets Civilization2 Jun 2013 #146

the "signature strike" ones stretched the definition of "suspected" to breaking yurbud Jun 2013 #170

Lol, and here we go again. Btw, are there any Progressive authors of his stature that are still okay sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #195

Chomsky considered bin Laden's killing to be a "political assassination" and declared Obama geek tragedy Jun 2013 #2

it was a political assassination Enrique Jun 2013 #9

How is killing a terrorist a "political assassination?" geek tragedy Jun 2013 #10

because the Pakistanis see it different Enrique Jun 2013 #13

By that reasoning, Chapo Guzman will be a political prisoner if they catch him nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #14

The Pakistanis saw it as a violation of their sovereignty that we went in without karynnj Jun 2013 #35

that's true as well Enrique Jun 2013 #60

It was discussed many many times when there were hearings on Pakistan karynnj Jun 2013 #106

Because Bin Laden was captured first, Maedhros Jun 2013 #45

How does that make it "political?' nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #46

The response I get most often Maedhros Jun 2013 #52

SEALs aren't law enforcement officers. They're killers, not arresters. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #57

Beg to differ on whether his capture could have accomplished anything truebluegreen Jun 2013 #75

his death accomplished plenty. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #80

Sure, OK. truebluegreen Jun 2013 #88

In theory, sure. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #90

Um, since the "reality" didn't come to pass, truebluegreen Jun 2013 #94

If you know Truthers, nothing's going to shut them up. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #95

I don't think you have a lot of faith is our justice system. truebluegreen Jun 2013 #99

If the guy had been sitting on a sidewalk in Vienna, sure grab him geek tragedy Jun 2013 #100

But not the women? so it was possible... truebluegreen Jun 2013 #103

Actually one woman was killed. zappaman Jun 2013 #108

But not all of them. nt truebluegreen Jun 2013 #129

Criminals can't be assassinated? sibelian Jun 2013 #121

how is it a 'political assassination?' nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #122

How is it not? sibelian Jun 2013 #128

Bin laden was a criminal leader, not a political one. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #137

When you have a criminal you send the cops Generic Other Jun 2013 #164

So, shooting down Yamamoto was a war crime and an assassination? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #165

Wouldn't that be combat? Generic Other Jun 2013 #181

We are in armed conflict with AQ. The only reason there was no formal declaration geek tragedy Jun 2013 #187

That's what makes me think bin Laden was a criminal Generic Other Jun 2013 #188

War is not confined to state actors. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #189

I take my definitions from the Geneva Convention Generic Other Jun 2013 #190

You misstate what the Geneva Conventions hold. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #191

Our enemy did not recognize any rules of war or fight for any state Generic Other Jun 2013 #194

The law governing armed conflict does not confer advantages geek tragedy Jun 2013 #198

We shot a lot of little kids to get to bin Laden Generic Other Jun 2013 #199

To get to bin Laden specifically, no we didn't. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #200

OMG your definition of no innocent and mine differ rather dramatically Generic Other Jun 2013 #208

The specific operation to kill bin laden didn't involve killing all of those innocent children nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #211

But killing 4700 Pakistanis is just as problematic to explain Generic Other Jun 2013 #212

Have you got anything to support your rant? xtraxritical Jun 2013 #55

Yes, Noam Chomsky's words (which you will flip-flop from calling a 'rant' geek tragedy Jun 2013 #73

The Tea Party loves his statement. And look at the Recs. DevonRex Jun 2013 #105

Well someone has to keep the MIC busy dipsydoodle Jun 2013 #4

As Marc McGowan put it Catherina Jun 2013 #5

This quote is just a simple truth: Demit Jun 2013 #6

Lack of empathy does not permit one to step in someone else's shoes. kentuck Jun 2013 #12

explain the Saudis funding terrorist activities. Are we terrorizing them? KittyWampus Jun 2013 #16

Explain the United States funding the IRA. sibelian Jun 2013 #21

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how that applies to the quote. Demit Jun 2013 #30

It's a racket. They do it for the exact same reasons we do it. reusrename Jun 2013 #83

that's my take too. KittyWampus Jun 2013 #89

IOW, war is war. I don'T think the Germans enjoyed getting bombed from my dad's Amonester Jun 2013 #182

Yeah, but don't expect the MSM to mention it usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #7

"subservient to corporate and state power" Generic Other Jun 2013 #8

We do not need the professional "press" to interpret the news for iemitsu Jun 2013 #158

Imagine believing that a communications major and being an ex-homecoming queen Generic Other Jun 2013 #162

Those who read and interpret the news for us definately don't seem to have iemitsu Jun 2013 #184

They read headlines Generic Other Jun 2013 #192

Professional pot-stirrers, paid well to cycle us back to the bottom iemitsu Jun 2013 #203

They read headlines. They don't connect what they know Generic Other Jun 2013 #213

Most of what I do is unpaid for. iemitsu Jun 2013 #222

I think there are two types of TV heads we could see Generic Other Jun 2013 #223

Most don't even know what to listen for. iemitsu Jun 2013 #227

�'Sometimes it�s almost surreal,' he lamented . . . � ucrdem Jun 2013 #11

I love Chomsky...but Obama is dedicated to Obama. And he is doing what he thinks America wants. McCamy Taylor Jun 2013 #15

I read this as giving haters permission to hate and feel righteous about it. ucrdem Jun 2013 #18

I think Chomsky thinks being shamed from the left will have more effect on a Democrat than it would McCamy Taylor Jun 2013 #23

Chomksy is a racist? Why not just come out and say it? Comrade Grumpy Jun 2013 #29

You're delicately avoiding "a certain r-word"... sibelian Jun 2013 #136

Actually, Carter was the first to approve funding the mujahadim karynnj Jun 2013 #39

Great article TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #17

Where would the MIC be without enemies? BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER xtraxritical Jun 2013 #62

I think undergroundpanther Jun 2013 #19

He forgot Obama is a poopyhead and the floor stomping, gottah have that too uponit7771 Jun 2013 #20

Well observed. sibelian Jun 2013 #22

K&R It would be nice to watch the video, but GRITtv wants to sell it's viewers too many times. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #24

Du rec. Nt xchrom Jun 2013 #25

Divide and conquer alert. I think that this thread is a bit misleading. McCamy Taylor Jun 2013 #26

Thank you for mentioning it. ucrdem Jun 2013 #27

Chomsky: Obama Is �Dedicated To Increasing Terrorism� cpwm17 Jun 2013 #28

+100 LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #51

My god iandhr Jun 2013 #32

Dedicated to increasing terrorism? What an ass dbackjon Jun 2013 #33

Here is the link to the GritTV Interview sally5050 Jun 2013 #34

Thanks for the link...K&R! KoKo Jun 2013 #36

Here's a youtube that has 4 of the 20 minutes Catherina Jun 2013 #50

An endless war on TERROR! needs a steady stream of terrorists. Gotta float that budget! $$$ Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #37

It's too cynical for some. sibelian Jun 2013 #38

There are three things which could help them accept it and work toward its end... Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #59

Thank you! Enthusiast Jun 2013 #147

K&R burnodo Jun 2013 #40

Chomsky needs to stop forgetting to take his medication. Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #41

. ucrdem Jun 2013 #43

I'm guessing Professor MIT didn't like what Barack said in Berlin today: ucrdem Jun 2013 #47

No he didn't. And neither do the people whose human rights the US violates everyday Catherina Jun 2013 #64

Fuck Chomsky. Zoeisright Jun 2013 #48

Yes because 1000 terrorists are better than 100 LiberalLovinLug Jun 2013 #69

auto-plonk bobduca Jun 2013 #219

k&r Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #54

In a free country, you don't have to agree with everything Chomsky says closeupready Jun 2013 #61

I don't know how you could be plainer. DeSwiss Jun 2013 #63

+1 n/t Catherina Jun 2013 #65

this.... mike_c Jun 2013 #74

The quote from James Madison REALLY needs to be posted truebluegreen Jun 2013 #78

They kicked me out. DeSwiss Jun 2013 #81

Yeah, me too. truebluegreen Jun 2013 #86

Automated Message: You have been blocked from a group OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #152

.... DeSwiss Jun 2013 #169

Great post! nt Enthusiast Jun 2013 #148

... Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #179

Obviously, we need to hear much more detail from ALL of the people, ordinary people, in these patrice Jun 2013 #66

Chomsky speaks truth. morningfog Jun 2013 #67

Dear Dr. Chomsky, is the killing okay as long as it is freelance? & Where are the weapons from??? nt patrice Jun 2013 #68

Maybe Mr. Putin can tell us where the ASSAULT WEAPOONS are from, or NOT from, as the case may be.nt patrice Jun 2013 #77

kick burnodo Jun 2013 #71

People, we MUST get over thinking every word out of the mouth of someone we like is 100% patrice Jun 2013 #76

.... DeSwiss Jun 2013 #79

that goes for you too.. and your Cha Jun 2013 #134

true, but less applicable to Chomsky than many others Enrique Jun 2013 #85

what you describe sounds like those people that support Obama burnodo Jun 2013 #127

Back in the Bush era, Rumsfeld said this is EXACTLY what he was going to do: yurbud Jun 2013 #82

This pretty much should settle the argument. Enthusiast Jun 2013 #149

Yup. Right wing hack. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #92

It seems to me that many liberals here endorse U.S. foreign policy AZ Progressive Jun 2013 #93

Well that's just silly LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #97

Oh, so he was the Manchurian Candidate all along, eh? Born in Kenya, too? DevonRex Jun 2013 #102

So anyone who criticizes Obama is a right winger? yurbud Jun 2013 #166

Talk to me when people here aren't saying Obama might have had Hastings MURDERED. DevonRex Jun 2013 #167

See post #82 for "dedicated to increasing terrorism," and for that matter, our ongoing support yurbud Jun 2013 #171

Hahaha! Well bless your little heart. DevonRex Jun 2013 #180

if Chomsky were a true progressive, he would not criticize Democrats markiv Jun 2013 #107

Just like Obama was the only thing standing between the banks and the people w pitchforks Catherina Jun 2013 #115

If Obama were a true progressive, he would never have permitted the drones programme. sibelian Jun 2013 #133

It's not an "Obama" thing; it's a "policy" thing Scootaloo Jun 2013 #110

^This^ you don't get within a thousand miles of the Oval Office-- eridani Jun 2013 #139

I usually like reading Chomsky's works.. duuser5822 Jun 2013 #113

Noam is getting senile. Whisp Jun 2013 #114

He's right Amaya Jun 2013 #116

Chomsky Pointing out - Violence Begets Violence .. always sally5050 Jun 2013 #120

This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Jun 2013 #126

Then, propose a solution that can actually work, Norm. Or STFU. nt bluestate10 Jun 2013 #135

Chomsky has written extensively on solutions that would actually work in the real world: cpwm17 Jun 2013 #218

I'd argue he's not dedicated to increasing terrorism. JoeyT Jun 2013 #138

I used to love Chomsky but now I hate him. n/t leeroysphitz Jun 2013 #142

I find that claim, noxious. cali Jun 2013 #150

I agree that is repugnant. Maybe the word 'unintentionally' would work. Rex Jun 2013 #157

Since Chomsky is a linguistics professor at MIT, it's hard to suggest he didn't know and didn't mean stevenleser Jun 2013 #168

I am sure he meant every word of it, that still doesn't change the fact Rex Jun 2013 #172

I agree 100% that was my point. It's a crazy thing to say. stevenleser Jun 2013 #173

Obama Is Increasing Terrorism cpwm17 Jun 2013 #174

LOL. Neither Chomsky nor anyone who defends this should be taken seriously. stevenleser Jun 2013 #175

Your lack of concern for US human rights abuses is noted cpwm17 Jun 2013 #176

LMAO!!! And you add a straw man on top of it!!!! stevenleser Jun 2013 #178

So Chomsky is literally saying that Obama wants more terror attacks? Arkana Jun 2013 #155

Just like Bush's policies, Obama's policies are also creating more terrorists Marrah_G Jun 2013 #217

Except that's not what Chomsky said. Arkana Jun 2013 #228

Ummm..........what? Rex Jun 2013 #156

I agree Obama's policies are causing more terrorism, not reducing it. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #177

Unfortunately there's no evidence that this is true. nt ucrdem Jun 2013 #186

unfortunately there is a shitload of evidence. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #193

Evidence of what? ucrdem Jun 2013 #196

you said there is no evidence that Obama's polices are increasing threat of terrorism. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #197

None of the 3 articles you posted support that claim with anything close to quantifiable evidence. ucrdem Jun 2013 #201

It's easy to dismiss evidence even when presented with it if your mind is already made up. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #202

Major Mike's "evidence" points to fear and dislike of drones but not to terrorist recruitment. ucrdem Jun 2013 #204

I think we are using different definitions of the word "evidence". limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #207

Those are fine points, thank you. Here's what I would add: ucrdem Jun 2013 #209

Chomsky wants to mislead us so he can transfer Bush's crimes to the black guy. limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #221

I think Chomsky is right LostOne4Ever Jun 2013 #183

I'm afraid he's very wrong. He offers no evidence that Obama is "dedicated to increasing terror" ucrdem Jun 2013 #185

Duh. Terra <-> Surveillance <-> $$$$$$$$$$$ jsr Jun 2013 #205

Chomsky is a visionary figure in computational linguistics Recursion Jun 2013 #210

This thread alone has added a half dozen to my ignore list! Marrah_G Jun 2013 #216

Can't have growth in anti-terror and surveillence industries... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #226