Noam Chomsky's Reaction to Bin Laden’s Death

fife

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/


Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
May 6, 2011



We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

By Noam Chomsky

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.


We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Copyright 2011 Noam Chomsky

I wonder why he used GWB instead of Obama who is the guy who approved the raid? but i agree with everything else.

Byrnzie

wolfamongwolves wrote:

'...Gartenstein-Ross thinks bin Laden “had a strategy that we never bothered to understand, and thus that we never bothered to defend against.” His goal was not some fantasy about establishing a worldwide caliphate or imposing “Sharia law” on Greenwich Village; having seen the Soviet Union decline in large part by bankrupting itself in an arms race with the U.S., with a huge assist from the Mujahadeen fighting them in Afghanistan, his objective was to wage economic war against the United States by drawing it into a similar conflict.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Gartenstein-Ross noted that “the Soviet Union didn’t just withdraw from Afghanistan in ignominious defeat, but the Soviet empire itself collapsed soon thereafter, in late 1991.
Thus, bin Laden thought that he hadn’t just bested one of the world’s superpowers on the battlefield, but had actually played an important role in its demise. It is indisputable that the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did not directly collapse the Soviet Union; the most persuasive connection that can be drawn between that war and the Soviet empire’s dissolution is through the costs imposed by the conflict.”

“The campaign [against the Soviets] taught bin Laden a lot,” wrote Klein, "For one thing, superpowers fall because their economies crumble, not because they’re beaten on the battlefield. For another, superpowers are so allergic to losing that they'll bankrupt themselves trying to conquer a mass of rocks and sand. This was bin Laden’s plan for the United States, too...



...Since its founding, al Qaeda has had two big, fat targets aside from the United States: the Saudi and Egyptian governments. Ten years after 9/11, the regime of Hosni Mubarak is gone, and last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli officials were “urging Washington to make it clear that the U.S. would intervene in Saudi Arabia should the survival of that government be threatened.” It would be a mistake to link the so-called “Arab Spring” directly to the decline of American influence in the Middle East, but it would be equally shortsighted to dismiss it as a contributing factor.

Perhaps this argument gives bin Laden too much credit. But terrorism is ultimately a tactic used by marginal extremist groups against far more powerful enemies. Bin Laden couldn’t have known that we’d invade Iraq, but the idea that the United States under George W. Bush would react to acts of terror with acts of war against at least Afghanistan was not terribly difficult to predict. And the ruinous results of that reaction are apparent. We’re still around, and it’s likely that we have now killed or captured every single human being who was operationally involved in the attacks of 9/11, so perhaps it was a draw. But a superpower spending trillions to fight with a handful of terrorists to a draw may have been the best outcome for which bin Laden realistically could have hoped...'

Very interesting stuff.

Thanks for posting this.

Byrnzie

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

You should have asked them when intelligence became 'un-American?'

Idris

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

and what was your reply to that?

polaris_x

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

it's the same reason why you can't criticize the US without getting the typical defensive backlash ... it ultimately is what allows the country to spend millions of dollars on paramilitary groups like blackwater to do the nasty bits ...

DeLukin

Yawn.

cincybearcat

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

Yep, one side calls the other "Un-American" while the other side calls the other "Unitelligent...sheep...you name it"

And the world keeps on spinning and spinning. But Bin Laden is dead and I believe that is a good thing and I thank the Military personnel that got it done and everyone involved, including BO who gave the orders to go.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

satansbed wrote:

i like Chomsky, he has a very egalitarian view of international relations

I don't think Chomsky is under any illusion that International relations function on any sort of egalitarian basis.

What he does draw attention to is the total lack of any moral equivalence when it comes to the actions of our governments abroad, and the statements from our compliant, one-eyed media.

yeah true but i would argue that morals are a myth in the first place especially with regards to international relations, thats at least my contention for now

but again, he is a great and important writer to read

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

Yep, one side calls the other "Un-American" while the other side calls the other "Unitelligent...sheep...you name it"

And the world keeps on spinning and spinning. But Bin Laden is dead and I believe that is a good thing and I thank the Military personnel that got it done and everyone involved, including BO who gave the orders to go.

The term 'Un-American' is itself unintelligent. It's a word used by morons incapable of critical thinking.


As for carrying out an extra-judicial assassination against an unarmed man, how is that a good thing? Will you think it's a good thing if someone takes it upon themselves to assasinate George W. Bush, or Obama, for the countless crimes they've committed?

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

yeah true but i would argue that morals are a myth in the first place especially with regards to international relations, thats at least my contention for now

You believe morals are a myth?


Let me ask you something: Do you think the life of an American is worth more than a Pakistani, or a Saudi?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

The term 'Un-American' is itself unintelligent. It's a word used by morons incapable of critical thinking.


As for carrying out an extra-judicial assassination against an unarmed man, how is that a good thing? Will you think it's a good thing if someone takes it upon themselves to assasinate George W. Bush, or Obama, for the countless crimes they've committed?

I agree...with your first sentence.

Is it not a war? It's a good thing because he was no man. He was a piece of shit. I would have preferred they were able to apprehend him and bring him to justice in a court, but that would have been very dangerous to a lot of people. So i will lose no sleep over him being shot between the eyes.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

I agree...with your first sentence.

Is it not a war? It's a good thing because he was no man. He was a piece of shit. I would have preferred they were able to apprehend him and bring him to justice in a court, but that would have been very dangerous to a lot of people. So i will lose no sleep over him being shot between the eyes.

O.k.

Black73

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

You are un-American if you're not part of the celebration in D.C, at least that's what CNN is showing the rest of the world. Look, bin Ladin was an extremely evil man, that's "undisputable" as both op-ed writers like to say. But, to celebrate his death like a bunch of rednecks does not speak well for us globally.

cincybearcat

Black73 wrote:

Abe Froman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

chalk this one up under the: "makes too much sense, but not what people want to hear" category ...

+1000

People definitely don't want to hear it. I tried to mention a couple of similar views to people and was told in a very strong tone that I was Un-American.

You are un-American if you're not part of the celebration in D.C, at least that's what CNN is showing the rest of the world. Look, bin Ladin was an extremely evil man, that's "undisputable" as both op-ed writers like to say. But, to celebrate his death like a bunch of rednecks does not speak well for us globally.

I agree 100%.

Boxes&Books

Byrnzie wrote:

Let me ask you something: Do you think the life of an American is worth more than a Pakistani, or a Saudi?

Excellent question.
I just picked up two of Chomsky's books on Amazon. Going to him a try.

thanks for posting the thread

JonnyPistachio

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/


Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
May 6, 2011



We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

By Noam Chomsky

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them.

I know there were initially conflicting reports whether or not he was armed, but I am surprised that there hasnt been more clarification what his 'resistance' was to the SEALS.

I read somewhere that bin laden had firearms in the room and might have been trying to get to them as the SEALS came in. Is there any clarification to his 'resistance'??

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The term 'Un-American' is itself unintelligent. It's a word used by morons incapable of critical thinking.


As for carrying out an extra-judicial assassination against an unarmed man, how is that a good thing? Will you think it's a good thing if someone takes it upon themselves to assasinate George W. Bush, or Obama, for the countless crimes they've committed?

I agree...with your first sentence.

Is it not a war? It's a good thing because he was no man. He was a piece of shit. I would have preferred they were able to apprehend him and bring him to justice in a court, but that would have been very dangerous to a lot of people. So i will lose no sleep over him being shot between the eyes.

Agreed Cincy.. and Byrnzie, I often wonder why Bush is sitting cozy somewhere.

polaris_x

bin laden could have been been sitting naked doing yoga in a field of daisies and he still would have been shot ... similar to saddam - they are never gonna give someone like that the opportunity to tell his side with what he knows ...

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

bin laden could have been been sitting naked doing yoga in a field of daisies and he still would have been shot ... similar to saddam - they are never gonna give someone like that the opportunity to tell his side with what he knows ...

yes, both bin laden and saddam were dead men as soon as we decided we were going after them. there was no way that either of them were going to have any chance to get a fair trial because there were too many possible ways for them to get off due to a technicality. imagine if either were caught, tried, and acquitted. there would be rioting in the streets that make the rodney king verdict look like disneyworld. it is business as usual to not give a pariah a chance to defend themselves or tell their side.

polaris_x

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes, both bin laden and saddam were dead men as soon as we decided we were going after them. there was no way that either of them were going to have any chance to get a fair trial because there were too many possible ways for them to get off due to a technicality. imagine if either were caught, tried, and acquitted. there would be rioting in te streets that make the rodney king verdict look like disneyworld. it is business as usual to not give a pariah a chance to defend themselves or tell their side.

hell no ... there is no way they would have been acquitted ... enough people would have ensured that outcome ... the issue is them be given a forum to talk about classified information ...

no one really wants to know the deals saddam struck with rumsfield back in the day nor how much money was funneled to Bin Laden in the 80's ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

bin laden could have been been sitting naked doing yoga in a field of daisies and he still would have been shot ... similar to saddam - they are never gonna give someone like that the opportunity to tell his side with what he knows ...

Saddam was shot between the eyes????????????