General Discussion

Generic Other

(29,080 posts)

208. OMG your definition of no innocent and mine differ rather dramatically

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 02:19 PM

Jun 2013

I consider innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan to have been killed in order to reach our so-called objective. Or are you saying we killed innocent children in Afghanistan for some other reason. Please explain what that reason could possibly be? And now I read we killed 4700 with drone strikes in Pakistan? That's a lot of deaths in a country we haven't even declared a target of a military action. We killing their civilians. Mostly it seems by accident. We bomb every wedding we see which suggests our intell amounts to "there's a crowd, go shoot at them."

At this point I have no idea what we are doing in the area. Not mending fences. Acting like a nation with laws to guide us? Or criminals? Depends on who you ask in the world.

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