Yay! So now when are we going to take out Noam Chomsky?

[Taverner]

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."

That means he wants to kill our Presidents! Our very FREEDOMS are at stake here!

That means we need a drone attack on his home. And if a few other homes get blowed up with it, freedom isn't free, bub!

Eagles up!

[MineralMan]

1. Ridiculous. There is a difference, you know,

between making political statements and fomenting terrorism. It's a very important difference.

Noam Chomsky is in no danger whatsoever. And I believe you know that. Discussion of serious issues should include some sense of reality, it seems to me.

[Taverner]

5. But 9/11!! 9/11!! You've got a pre 9/11 mindset!

He's a danger because he threatened EVERY LIVING PRESIDENT!

You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?

What are you some kind of pinko terrasymp?

[MineralMan]

11. Reductio ad absurdum.

That trick never works, truly.

[Agony]

8. Who decides where the line is drawn? You? What is ridiculous?

There is a huge universe between political statements and fomenting terrorism. Which was the point I believe. The point that went whooooshing over your head.

Due process.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I decide what I think is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what line you're talking about, but I draw my own lines about the ridiculousness of posts.

[JDPriestly]

29. What does "fomenting terrorism" mean?

Is there a law against "fomenting terrorism"? What if you foment terrorism without intending to do so?

How can you prove someone is "fomenting terrorism"?

We know that terrorism exists, but when we say someone "fomented terrorism," do we mean that they expressed thoughts that caused someone else to commit terrorism? Do we mean that they actually participated in a conspiracy to commit terrorism?

What did this man do that violated a law, and what law did he violate?

And if he did violate a law, why didn't we go in and get him and put him on trial for violating that law?

[MineralMan]

33. Foment is a pretty common verb.

It means to incite or encourage some action, in this case acts of terror. Thanks for asking.

[JDPriestly]

35. Awfully easy to accuse someone of fomenting violence.

There was a case in Minnesota in which some people burned a cross in front of someone's house. In a decision written by Scalia, the Supreme Court said it was free speech.

If burning a cross in front of someone's house is free speech, what isn't free speech?

And if this man was organizing terrorist acts, where is the evidence? It should be there, and they should be able to provide proof or his guilt to the public at the very least.

[frazzled]

2. When he runs an Al Qaeda group and advocates/plans attacks on US citizens

Which would be never.

Also, we would easily be able to arrest him (unlike in Yemen, where tribal regions make it impossible). He lives in a very nice house in a tony suburb of Boston.

[MineralMan]

4. Further, I think he'd love having a nice long time in court to

make his positions clear. He's never run from opportunities to wax eloquent, certainly.

[Taverner]

6. You have heard of this invention, it's called the helicopter

Right?

[BeHereNow]

10. Hey, over here- I've got a bridge to sell you too!

My jaw is on the floor because of the complete
ignorance about what our military is capable of.

Given the numerous naive comments like yours on this
board about our military, I've got to find more bridges to sell!
BHN

[teddy51]

3. Don't know about you, but I don't like where we are headed with targeted

killings. Seems like the Government can justify any killing they deem necessary, and suddenly we are no longer a Nation of Laws.

[Taverner]

7. My point exactly nt

[MNBrewer]

12. Someone on another thread actually said, in defense of the killing

"We kill enemies of the state."

Encouraging thought, huh?

[treestar]

13. We can't recognize any difference between that and

actually planning terrorist attacks against people?

Our law would be awfully rigid and its application would become near to impossible. And create many absurd results.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

19. 1. Why is it anyone's fault DU links are in blue?

Why are you criticizing anyone for backing up their assertions with some link?

No, I would not defend Obama for "taking out" Chomsky. Not on his current record, anyway.

[YellowCosmicSun]

14. This is why nobody takes you guys seriously.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Melinda]

21. "you guys", eh? You've racked up a nice post count in the last 3 weeks.

Thanks for the heads up.

[YellowCosmicSun]

22. This isn't the only board on the Internet. This kind of thing goes on everywhere.

Thanks for letting me know whose side you are on.

[Melinda]

23. "You're either with us, or against us." Gotcha.

Sooooo transparent.

:eyes:

[YellowCosmicSun]

24. I'm with the Democratic Party. Are you? Sooooo simple.

[Melinda]

27. Simple statement for simple minds.

You know, those who accept at face value and never, EVER question authority.

But since you asked, I am a registered democrat who is disillusioned with President Obama. I am a humanist, a liberal progressive who loves her country but questions everything political. I detest the corruption in politics. I detest the "it's not okay if you do it, but okay when we do."

Corporations have taken over both parties.... money buys influence which in turn implements laws designed to promote the monied classes, ie; see the Wall St protests.

What Bush did when he appointed himself sole arbiter/executioner was extra-constitutional then, and it is not less extra-constitutional now when Obama does it.


BTW, congrats on those post counts... you keep racking em up with one sentence posts... you've been taught well.

Life calls; enjoy your stay.

[YellowCosmicSun]

28. I guess it gets complicated if you can't just say "Yes". Then you have to begin equivocating...

Nobody cares about post counts. Be serious.

[kenny blankenship]

17. Will killing Noam Chomsky help Obama distract people from the economy long enough to get reelected?

I doubt it would help his reelection bid at all. So effective is the censorship of US media, that very few people even know who Noam Chomsky is. Teh Chomsky is safe from Predators and pretenders.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

20. The democrats are not liberals..they have never liked Chomsky.

[geek tragedy]

25. So, you think Chomsky=al awlaki

Does that mean you think Chomsky is a terrorist or that al-wacky was a harmless dissident?

[whatchamacallit]

26. It obviously doesn't matter what we think

only what the unitary executive thinks. Now anything is possible.

[geek tragedy]

30. Al Awlaki was a terrorist actively trying to kill Americans.

Obama did the right thing by killing the filthy, traitorous terrorist.

[whatchamacallit]

32. And we are Americans, not trying, but actively killing

anyone we want.

[pintobean]

31. You've struck out

and refuse to leave the batters box. Little league can be so amusing sometimes.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. He'll be targeted when the power structure

feel threatened enough by his beliefs. Or when his beliefs begin gaining some traction with a majority of the people. Until then he's in the "first they ignore you" stage.

[MrSlayer]

36. This is dumb.

Noam Chomsky has not declared himself an enemy of the U.S. nor has he organized, participated in or persuaded anyone to attack and kill the citizens of the country. Your ludicrous jump from killing a avowed terrorist to killing a patriotic dissenter is beyond stupid. Get a grip.