Chomsky- The US is a Terrorist State - Page 11

VTA · 08-09-07, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I don't believe he is. Chomsky says he is quoting "it" now, not him. "it" is the NSC report. he has talked and written about it (not him) elsewhere. Eisenhower asked for it, and the NSC gave it to him. in a 2004 interview, Chomsky said:

Chomsky clear states in this interview, which is the topic of discussion, that in addressing his Chiefs of Staff, Eisenhower said this. You're either arguing semantics, or simply trying to avoid the real question I had initially asked; How does Chomsky know what Ike said.

Whatever he says elsewhere is meaningless. Unless of course he's using wordplay to gain association with the fact that an American President found it better to foment hatred amongst those in the middle east for our interests. I didn't even question at first the vailidity of it, but where did he get it from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

you're mischaracterizing the nature of the situation when you say the west and Israel have tried to work more towards concessions, and to be on the defensive. if you were honest, you'd say everyone is not respecting the Conventions and is targeting civilians as accepted tactics.

No, I'm not. The nature of the situation is characterized as an action/reaction set of circumstances, where, as I've clearly stated above, both sides are complicent, yet both are not held to equal account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

now these are truly non sequiturs. yes there are always reasons why. and those reasons why in those cases are completely different and completely irrelevant to what we're talking about here. why did Hitler do what he did? because he was an evil nutty bastard. in this case, doing things "your way," is screwing someone else. hence they hate us for it. that was the conclusion of the NSC (in 1958) and that's what Chomsky is trying to tell us, to look at what has happened as a result of not paying any attention to it. "the myriad struggles of man" is an unenlightening generalization and an attempt to divert attention from the conclusions of thorough examination of this specific situation.

Apparently your wrong in your assesment of what Chomsky has said. He never said it was ignored or the result of not paying attention, as you put it; he claims it's been actual strategy, based on a President's policy.

Enlightenment is paying full attention to the hardcore facts history has afforded us, through individual instances and collective movements. Hitler would not have characterized himself as a madman, I'm sure. If paying out millions to a region that's sitting atop valuable resources is 'screwing them', I'd think you should rethink fair and not fair. Or get a better understand of the nature of the men involved in according such conditions upon their own people.

Iriemon · 08-09-07, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

No in this case proper terminology means that words mean things.

No a word can mean many different things. Semantics.

DivineComedy · 08-09-07, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

The fact of wearing uniforms or not is a distinction without a difference except for semantics and to serve political arguments.

By drawing an arbitrary distinction between wearing uniforms or not, you excuse the actions of a government in order while condemning the same acts of a resistance.

If uniforms or government actions insulate the actors, then calling Hussein or Kaddifi or the Govt of Iran "terrorists" is inappropriate. Yet people do all the time.

When a government commits or supports an act of terror, and the foreign and or domestic people disagree with it, the people know what government to overthrow. When civilian disguised people commit acts of terrorism, I know only to have YOU bent over by remote control for a cold hard robot probe to search YOUR anus or vagina for a salami bomb.

If you don’t see the distinction between government terrorism and civilian terrorism, you deserve to be probed repeatedly ensuring you never approach civilization after having been out of sight.

It is clear, to be safe, you should be in an internment camp.

Saddam Hussein’s uniform and government actions in support of civilian disguised Hamas like terrorism did not insulate him, but we all know “liberal” Hypocrites that were against regime change in Iraq.

That is one of my all time favorites, especially considering what terrorist government harbored him for the rest of his life.

If the Congress authorized the President to nuke Mecca in response to an “Islamic” terrorist bombing, it would be wrong for us to impeach the president before we impeached and removed the Congress.

If we were like the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, It would be our duty to kill Muslims:

“The ruling to kill the Muslims and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every American who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the people from being searched, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Christendom, defeated and unable to threaten any American. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty G-d, "and fight the Moslems all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in G-d."
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

Are you Sorry, that the US is NOT a Terrorist State?

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-09-07, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

I think this is a good thing to do. Sometimes after an attack they have people here in TV to interview and the TV people say they are experts, but often they are more experts in the culture and the language of a region, not so much in politics or counter-terrorism.

Here's a good site with a crash course on the terminology:

http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/cwtut...pter01_02.html

Iriemon · 08-09-07, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

No in this case proper terminology means that words mean things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Potatoe Patatoe.

Exactly.

Though I normally try not to be a spelling nazi, in this case I have to point out that it is "potato" Mr. Quayle. : )

EAGLE1 · 08-09-07, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

They did create, however, if we are to use the term terrorism to define everything that creates terror as terrorism then the word loses all meaning and ceases to be a useful descripive term; furthermore the Whermact did what they did in order to maintain their control over the occupied nations through fear and intimidation.

control over the occupied nations through fear and intimidation

Hmmm wonder what another word for that is?

Indeed youre right though in that terrorism can be used widely, however to stop it losing all meaning all you need to do is differentiuate between those actions intended to destroy etc etc and those intended to terrorise.

Lastly, even if you only called such things 'war crimes' youd still be talking about terrorism as this word lies within the definition of war crimes.

Volker · 08-09-07, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Here's a good site with a crash course on the terminology:

http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/cwtut...pter01_02.html

Yes, this is a good site, I like this "freedom fighters" vs. "terrorists" part.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-09-07, 01:09 PM

Here's a good site that deals a little with typology which can get pretty confusing, IE you have the loan nuts, the terrorists for profit, the religious terrorists, the opportunist terrorists (not mentioned here but they're the ones who adopt any ideology that will gain them followers to a cause not necessarily related to the ideology they adopt):

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...ost/sld001.htm

Iriemon · 08-09-07, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

When a government commits or supports an act of terror, and the foreign and or domestic people disagree with it, the people know what government to overthrow. When civilian disguised people commit acts of terrorism, I know only to have YOU bent over by remote control for a cold hard robot probe to search YOUR anus or vagina for a salami bomb.

If you don’t see the distinction between government terrorism and civilian terrorism, you deserve to be probed repeatedly ensuring you never approach civilization after having been out of sight.

It is clear, to be safe, you should be in an internment camp.

Saddam Hussein’s uniform and government actions in support of civilian disguised Hamas like terrorism did not insulate him, but we all know “liberal” Hypocrites that were against regime change in Iraq.

That is one of my all time favorites, especially considering what terrorist government harbored him for the rest of his life.

If the Congress authorized the President to nuke Mecca in response to an “Islamic” terrorist bombing, it would be wrong for us to impeach the president before we impeached and removed the Congress.

If we were like the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, It would be our duty to kill Muslims:

“The ruling to kill the Muslims and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every American who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the people from being searched, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Christendom, defeated and unable to threaten any American. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty G-d, "and fight the Moslems all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in G-d."
One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

Are you Sorry, that the US is NOT a Terrorist State?

Typically obnoxious and rambling blather from you, DivineComedy. But if your point is that governments or uniform soldiers cannot be terrorists, you are addressing it to the wrong person. TOT is taking that position, not me.

DivineComedy · 08-09-07, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Typically obnoxious and rambling blather from you, DivineComedy. But if your point is that governments or uniform soldiers cannot be terrorists, you are addressing it to the wrong person. TOT is taking that position, not me.

Typical retarded response by you, Iriemon. Semantics…