Noam Chomsky's Reaction to Bin Laden’s Death

Jason P

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 ...

To tell his side? I believe he has told his side in his recordings. Do you think he had some new mind-blowing theories?

Wiki has a good summary of his side of the story (although with all Wiki links, it isn't gospel).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

And before all this "US foreign policy" nonsense, how come people in Central and South America, not to mention countries like Vietnam, are not launching holy wars against the U.S.?

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

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?

to an american they probably are, i believe what is politicaly expedient for a leader is moral, and that leaders need to have a different moral code to normal human beings

ajedigecko

i believe 10 years is enough time to disclose information....he decided incorrectly.

FiveB247x

Well it's mostly the difference between theory and practice. We can all hope and expect for high ideals and action, but in reality, it's impractical. Reminds me of the story of the scorpion and the frog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it stung, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and the scorpion stings the frog during the crossing, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. The fable is used to illustrate the position that the behavior of some creatures is irrepressible, no matter how they are treated and no matter what the consequences.

Byrnzie wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

I think in recent publishing, he's gone over the top and lost site.

In what respect has he gone over the top and lost sight?

Care to elaborate?

Abe Froman

MrAbraham 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.

and what was your reply to that?

He and his buddies were done with me after that. Didn't wanna listen to anything else I was gonna say.

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

to an american they probably are, i believe what is politicaly expedient for a leader is moral, and that leaders need to have a different moral code to normal human beings

I believe most of these 'leaders' have no moral code, or imagination, or empathy. This is why I regard most politicians as human scum.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

satansbed wrote:

to an american they probably are, i believe what is politicaly expedient for a leader is moral, and that leaders need to have a different moral code to normal human beings

I believe most of these 'leaders' have no moral code, or imagination, or empathy. This is why I regard most politicians as human scum.

but they do, there moral code is the preservation of the state, and if it isn't the state won't last long

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

but they do, there moral code is the preservation of the state, and if it isn't the state won't last long

Maybe. Stalin was the same. The state came before everything, which was why he had no problem deliberately starving 7 million people to death between 1932-1933, not to mention all the other hundreds of thousands who perished under his leadership during WWII and in the gulags. And before you say that his leadership saved Russia during WWII, it didn't. Russia was saved when he handed over control of the war to his generals.


So, fuck these politicians. The world would be a better place without them.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

satansbed wrote:

but they do, there moral code is the preservation of the state, and if it isn't the state won't last long

Maybe. Stalin was the same. The state came before everything, which was why he had no problem deliberately starving 7 million people to death between 1932-1933, not to mention all the other hundreds of thousands who perished under his leadership during WWII and in the gulags. And before you say that his leadership saved Russia during WWII, it didn't. Russia was saved when he handed over control of the war to his generals.


So, fuck these politicians. The world would be a better place without them.

well i never said i was a supporter of stalin

"a leader should be good where possible, but also evil when neccessary"

Machiavelli

if there were no politicians we would still be in the jungle, man is a political animal whether you like it or not, Aristotle has some good writings on this

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

satansbed wrote:

but they do, there moral code is the preservation of the state, and if it isn't the state won't last long

Maybe. Stalin was the same. The state came before everything, which was why he had no problem deliberately starving 7 million people to death between 1932-1933, not to mention all the other hundreds of thousands who perished under his leadership during WWII and in the gulags. And before you say that his leadership saved Russia during WWII, it didn't. Russia was saved when he handed over control of the war to his generals.


So, fuck these politicians. The world would be a better place without them.

well i never said i was a supporter of stalin

"a leader should be good where possible, but also evil when neccessary"

Machiavelli

if there were no politicians we would still be in the jungle, man is a political animal whether you like it or not, Aristotle has some good writings on this

O.k, maybe I got carried away. I know there are some good politicians in this world. I recently watched the Oliver Stone documentary 'South of the Border' and a lot of those South American politicians seemed like decent people...I.e, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay e.t.c. These people were politicians, but with human faces.

So maybe there is hope afterall.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, maybe I got carried away. I know there are some good politicians in this world. I recently watched the Oliver Stone documentary 'South of the Border' and a lot of those South American politicians seemed like decent people...I.e, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay e.t.c. These people were politicians, but with human faces.

So maybe there is hope afterall.

yeah, i am probably coming at this from a different angle to you anyway, im doing politics in college and ive an exam in international relations tommorow so here are some of my notes from it on realism, which is the theory that i find best explains international relations.

Realism conceptualises states as rational and egoist, and as driven by power and the distribution of material resources, and is built on the concept that states struggle for power and inherently threaten one another (Morgenthau). The core beliefs of realism are that:

States, and especially great powers, are the principal actors in world politics
States compete for power
State behaviour is influenced by the external environment


i see state behaviour as being influenced by the “balance of power”. In other words, states are concerned with their power relative to other states. The justification for this belief of states as power seeking is based (for classical realists) upon a similar conception of human nature.

The observable features of the world order upon which realists derive the realist theory from include the observations that throughout history states have been threatening each other and that in many regards the history of the world is a history of war and conflict. In addition, the fact that states have a solution to problems within the state in the form of the monopoly of force, this means that states have the capacity to threaten one another.

Realism leads to generalisation about state behaviour, which include the ideas that states will not follow through on promises unless at the time of implementation, they desire to do so (due the egoist and rationalist nature of states and the lack of coercive force in an anarchic international system). In addition, realists believe that conventional “morality” is irrelevant for states. A realist point of view about the nature of the balance of power indicates that because of the shifts in power of states, a war that can be won now, may not be able to be won later and thus incentivises prompt action relating to war based on capabilities.

but i do see that There are a number of problems with a realist approach under a number of different areas. For example, the justification for “power-seeking” states as based on human nature can be challenged by the competing idealist views of human nature. The focus on states as international actors may be a limitation of the theory also, particularly in modern times where the influence of companies, or terrorist organisations, for example, cannot be ignored.

Digital Twilight

Nothing to add except good luck on your exam :thumbup:

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

The observable features of the world order upon which realists derive the realist theory from include the observations that throughout history states have been threatening each other and that in many regards the history of the world is a history of war and conflict. In addition, the fact that states have a solution to problems within the state in the form of the monopoly of force, this means that states have the capacity to threaten one another.

I don't believe conflict is the norm. I think it's the exception. Though of course if you live in America then this may seem unrealistic considering that the U.S has been waging wars of aggression for almost the whole of the last 50 years.
Though someone living in Sweden, or Brazil would probably have a different perspective.
Also, a state is organized and controlled by individuals - by people.
And it's not wars that advance human progress, but ideas.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

satansbed wrote:

The observable features of the world order upon which realists derive the realist theory from include the observations that throughout history states have been threatening each other and that in many regards the history of the world is a history of war and conflict. In addition, the fact that states have a solution to problems within the state in the form of the monopoly of force, this means that states have the capacity to threaten one another.

I don't believe conflict is the norm. I think it's the exception. Though of course if you live in America then this may seem unrealistic considering that the U.S has been waging wars of aggression for almost the whole of the last 50 years.
Though someone living in Sweden, or Brazil would probably have a different perspective.
Also, a state is organized and controlled by individuals - by people.
And it's not wars that advance human progress, but ideas.

i don't live in america, i live in ireland,

im not sure, its difficult to think of any state that wasn't formed out of conflict, and again this theory isn't perfect but i do think it important in explaining states behavior especially in the past

Eliot Rosewater

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

But wouldn't OBL being caught, tried, and acquitted mean justice was served?

I'm not saying he's innocent but Chomsky says the only evidence we had on him was his "confession" anyway.

I'm not crazy about conspiracy theories, but I know from the 200+ year history of the United States that there is at the very least, reasonable doubt that they have been honest about the 9/11 attacks.

So, a court would be a great place to present evidence etc. And if OBL is found not guilty then so be it, life goes on. Justice would have been served. Or if he were found guilty then justice would have also been served.

I don't think it is ever right to kill another human. So I obviously don't agree with killing unarmed old men, no matter what the crime is they are suspected of committing.

Byrnzie

How come the U.S. never joined England in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland? Because many Americans sympathized with the IRA.

Is it terrorism that's so bad, or who's doing it?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

didn't saddam have a trial? Bin Laden could have turned himself in at any time and gotten a trial

I don't think there would be rioting in the streets, I do however think that the bus carrying him out of the court would not last long...definitely would have been some street justice handed out...and I think those people would have been brought to trial eventually too...
I

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

didn't saddam have a trial? Bin Laden could have turned himself in at any time and gotten a trial

I don't think there would be rioting in the streets, I do however think that the bus carrying him out of the court would not last long...definitely would have been some street justice handed out...and I think those people would have been brought to trial eventually too...
I

saddam would not have faced trial if we had not gotten him out of that spider hole and turned him over to the shi'ites. saddam would not have been executed had we not flat out lied that he possessed WMDS.

and no, bin laden would never have turned himself in. if we had caugh him, tried him, and he was acquitted, imagine the number of people outside the white house celebrating his death, imagine that number, as an angry mob. violence would definitely ensue in that situation.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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 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.

didn't saddam have a trial? Bin Laden could have turned himself in at any time and gotten a trial

I don't think there would be rioting in the streets, I do however think that the bus carrying him out of the court would not last long...definitely would have been some street justice handed out...and I think those people would have been brought to trial eventually too...
I

saddam would not have faced trial if we had not gotten him out of that spider hole and turned him over to the shi'ites. saddam would not have been executed had we not flat out lied that he possessed WMDS.

and no, bin laden would never have turned himself in. if we had caugh him, tried him, and he was acquitted, imagine the number of people outside the white house celebrating his death, imagine that number, as an angry mob. violence would definitely ensue in that situation.

I realize that bin Laden never WOULD have turned himself in...but if he was to have done so he would have been given a trial not shot in the street... Executed none the less though I would imagine...I do think that a confession would have been enough in this case, as well as the other bombings he took responsibility for all the way back to the boat in Yemen(I could be mistaken but I think that is where it was)
and lastly, you cannot have it both ways...either Saddam went on trial or he didn't...i don't believe he was executed for the false assertion that Iraq possessed WMDs.

Byrnzie

mikepegg44 wrote:

either Saddam went on trial or he didn't...i don't believe he was executed for the false assertion that Iraq possessed WMDs.

He was executed for the crimes he committed with U.S & British financial and political support.