Quite a good article on the lynching of Osama bin Laden

[Peter Brooks]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_ladens_death_20110502/

[Lance]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Yes, a good article. If the Americans knew where OBL was located they
should simply have asked pakistan to arrest him and have him
extradidted to stand trial. I don't think that would be easy to do,
but the problems would have been those of the Arab and Muslim world
rather than of American violence and failure to abide by the rule of
law.

Lance

[Dave Smith]

Post by Lance

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Yes, a good article. If the Americans knew where OBL was located they
should simply have asked pakistan to arrest him and have him
extradidted to stand trial. I don't think that would be easy to do,
but the problems would have been those of the Arab and Muslim world
rather than of American violence and failure to abide by the rule of
law.
Lance

I don't suppose the Americans trusted the Pakistan government, and
perhaps the Pakistan government would prefer not to be seen to be too
involved in the incident. It's difficult to imagine that bin Laden
might have been tried and found not guilty, and his capture, trial and
execution would have provided even more publicity for his cause.

Will the killing of bin Laden make it easier for the Americans and
their allies to withdraw from Afghanistan ?

Dave Smith

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Lance

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Yes, a good article. If the Americans knew where OBL was located they
should simply have asked pakistan to arrest him and have him
extradidted to stand trial. I don't think that would be easy to do,
but the problems would have been those of the Arab and Muslim world
rather than of American violence and failure to abide by the rule of
law.
Lance

I don't suppose the Americans trusted the Pakistan government,  and
perhaps the Pakistan government would prefer not to be seen to be too
involved in the incident.  It's difficult to imagine that bin Laden
might have been tried and found not guilty, and his capture, trial and
execution would have provided  even more publicity for his cause.

I'm not sure that it would. The reaction to this event is interesting
in its intensity. Clearly he was turned into a one-dimensional hate
figure (reminiscent of Orwell's 'one minute hate') quite effectively
in the US - the reaction has been Orwellian in a Pablovian tone.

Will the killing of bin Laden make it easier for the Americans and
their allies to withdraw from Afghanistan ?

There seems a considerable body of conspiracy theory abroad already
that that's the whole reason behind this move. Some think that he's
been dead for years and this event (timed for the Easter/May bank
holidays) was specifically intended as a fig leaf to cover the retreat
in defeat.

One reason stated by The Shrub (and probably the Phony Poodle) for
invading Afghanistan was to attack their old colleague, so it'd make
sense as an attempt to keep some sort of narrative consistency.

It's unlikely, though, that a deception of that magnitude could be
carried out effectively - though their photoshopping of a live
photograph of Mr bin Laden with a picture of him dead (discovered by
the Telegraph) certainly showed that 'intelligent' is, as usual, not
the first word that comes to mind in describing the US military
decisions, and 'foresight' seldom the second. So it's not
inconceivable that they might have been foolish enough to try - time
will tell.

I've not been able to see why they couldn't simply pack up shop over a
weekend and bugger off. Everybody's known that they've lost the war
for several years and there's never been any credibility to their
claim to have any concern for the civilian population of Afghanistan
beyond that required for political comfort, so why should they worry,
having killed so many innocent people, about causing more innocent
deaths?

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Lance
Yes, a good article. If the Americans knew where OBL was located they
should simply have asked pakistan to arrest him and have him
extradidted to stand trial. I don't think that would be easy to do,
but the problems would have been those of the Arab and Muslim world
rather than of American violence and failure to abide by the rule of
law.

What problem would Arabs have had with a request made of Pakistan?

How is this not a lynching?

Antiwar Hall
<https://www.dialup4less.com/~aloe/peace>

[Jim Hawkins]

Post by Peter Brooks
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_ladens_death_20110502/

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-

"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.
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.
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.”
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"

Jim Hawkins

[Lance]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of  Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-
"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.
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.
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.�
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"
Jim Hawkins

Wow. I agree with everything that Chomsky says on the matter!

Lance

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Lance

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of  Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-
"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.
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.
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.�
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"
Jim Hawkins

Wow. I agree with everything that Chomsky says on the matter!

I usually find it difficult to disagree with him.. certainly in this
case.

[Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta]

On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:39:26 +0100, "Jim Hawkins"

Post by Jim Hawkins

Post by Peter Brooks
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_ladens_death_20110502/

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-

It's not hard to find with a Google search, Jim. That is
http://google.com. :) The question is whether it is worth the trouble.
Personally, I have never been impressed with Chomsky, and this article
does nothing to change my opinion.

Post by Jim Hawkins
"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.
It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination,

Well, duh! Since Day 1, the official government position has been to
seek the death or capture of bin Laden. No one pretended that capture
was necessarily preferable. There are pros and cons in both
directions. The rules of the battlefield do not always tally with the
requirements of a peacetime justice system.

Post by Jim Hawkins
multiply violating elementary norms of international law.

International law is largely a joke. Without a world government, there
is no question of enforcement. The powerful exploit the weak. So
whatever international issue arises here is purely between the USA and
Pakistan, and I don't hear Pakistan complaining.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.

Again, the rules of war are not the same as the rules of peace. Surely
Chomsky understands that. So why does he speak such nonsense? Could it
be that he is peeved that he did not get the opportunity to use the
backdrop of a bin Laden trial for years of anarchistic propaganda.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.”

2002? Someone please wake up Rip Van Chomsky. It is 2011 now... and,
yes, in 2011 no one except a few die-hard conspiracy theorists are
questioning bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. And there is
no telling how many lives will be spared with the help of information
retrieved from bin Laden's compound. But, yes, Noam, in 2011,
politicians still lie. At least you got that right.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.

Even if bin Laden was just taking responsibility for something that he
thought to be creditable, it would not be the first time someone had
been handed a death sentence for a false confession. And even if bin
Laden was not involved with 9/11 - something I consider doubtful - is
there not a long list of murderous activities committed by al-Qaeda?
Would Chomsky excuse bin Laden for all of those crimes as well?

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.

With such severe tunnel vision, Chomsky is a political horse that will
never need blinkers.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.”
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.

One would expect a professor of linguistics to have a little greater
precision in his use of words, but with Chomsky his politics takes
precedence over common sense and objectivity. I truly doubt that
"dump" is a reasonable synonym for "bury". As I read it, the ceremony
took an hour to complete. Dumping could have been done in a matter of
seconds. They could have just tossed the corpse out of the helicopter.
Did bin Laden concern himself with the manner of burial for the
Muslims killed in the Twin Towers, not to speak of the "infidels"?

As to a comparison of the operation to take out bin Laden with Iraqi
commandos landing in Bush's compound to assassinate him, there are so
many things wrong with that analogy that it is pointless to begin
listing them. But, yes, the reaction of the American people to such an
event would be one of outrage. But was the reaction to bin Laden's
death in the Arab world or the Muslim world consistently negative?
Absolutely not. Yes, there was some anger; but it would be
hypocritical to the point of ridiculous to pretend that the anger
amounted to universal outrage. My guess is that more Muslims felt
relief rather than anger at bin Laden's death.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.

Whatever may be Bush's faults, Chomsky ruins his argument by starting
his run-on sentence with the word "uncontroversially" and then
repeating that word shortly thereafter in the same sentence. Does
Chomsky think that the number of times he says that something is
uncontroversial will somehow make it so?

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.

Oh, yes, Rip Van Chomsky, in 2011 politicians are still hypocrites.
And, yes, in 2011, the victors still write the history books. They
also tend to control the legal system. So it becomes rather hard to
label them criminals (at least in a legalistic sense). Even when a
President was likely to go to prison, his successor has been even more
likely to grant a pardon. Surely, Chomsky understands well the
politics of "You scratch my back, I scratch your back." It also
applies no less in the world of publications than in the world of
politics. And Chomsky is neck-deep in the quicksands of both worlds.

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.”

Again we see evidence of Chomsky's self-absorbed tunnel vision and a
lack of respect for the rules of his own profession, linguistics. The
name of the military operation was "Geronimo". That does not mean that
the American soldiers who participated viewed bin Laden as the
equivalent of Geronimo. Codenames for military operations often seek
to inspire those who participate. Similar is the case with names given
to warplanes. And, just out of curiosity, what is the distinction that
Chomsky would make between "weapons" and "murder weapons"? As far as I
can tell, he is just using sentimental language to prejudice an
undiscerning audience. And by what logic does Chomsky equate
"Geronimo" (the name of a warrior chief) to "Jew" and "Gypsy" (the
names of ethnic groups)?

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

Yes, two things I have thought about after considering this article by
Chomsky in light of the obvious and elementary facts are (1) the
sanity of Chomsky and (2) the purpose of Chomsky in writing such
pseudohumanistic tripe.

[Lance]

On May 11, 12:02 pm, Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:39:26 +0100, "Jim Hawkins"

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of  Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-

It's not hard to find with a Google search, Jim. That ishttp://google.com. :) The question is whether it is worth the trouble.
Personally, I have never been impressed with Chomsky, and this article
does nothing to change my opinion.

"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.
It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination,

Well, duh! Since Day 1, the official government position has been to
seek the death or capture of bin Laden. No one pretended that capture
was necessarily preferable. There are pros and cons in both
directions. The rules of the battlefield do not always tally with the
requirements of a peacetime justice system.

America is at war with OBL? Is his group a country or just a band of
thugs? When was this war declared by congress?

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

multiply violating elementary norms of international law.

International law is largely a joke. Without a world government, there
is no question of enforcement. The powerful exploit the weak. So
whatever international issue arises here is purely between the USA and
Pakistan, and I don't hear Pakistan complaining.

Oh dear. The analogy would be a a bully justifying beating a small kid
on the grounds that the small kid is too frightened to complain.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Again, the rules of war are not the same as the rules of peace. Surely
Chomsky understands that. So why does he speak such nonsense? Could it
be that he is peeved that he did not get the opportunity to use the
backdrop of a bin Laden trial for years of anarchistic propaganda.

Oh bull. Even the Israeli's tried to bring back Nazi's to stand trial.
It is a basic of any civilized country that those accused of crime be
tried, and if convicted a possible might be execution. To allow the US
army the be the judge and executioner is really no different from the
sort of thuggery practiced by Hitler.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”

2002? Someone please wake up Rip Van Chomsky. It is 2011 now... and,
yes, in 2011 no one except a few die-hard conspiracy theorists are
questioning bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. And there is
no telling how many lives will be spared with the help of information
retrieved from bin Laden's compound. But, yes, Noam, in 2011,
politicians still lie. At least you got that right.

Yes Nazi' types always say their evil is justified by lives saved.
Torture and murder and the tainting of an entire society are seen as
small costs to pay.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Even if bin Laden was just taking responsibility for something that he
thought to be creditable, it would not be the first time someone had
been handed a death sentence for a false confession. And even if bin
Laden was not involved with 9/11 - something I consider doubtful - is
there not a long list of murderous activities committed by al-Qaeda?
Would Chomsky excuse bin Laden for all of those crimes as well?

So it is OK to kill someone on the basis of false confession?
Goodness!

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

With such severe tunnel vision, Chomsky is a political horse that will
never need blinkers.

And with every insult you reveal yourself. Perhaps you need a mirror?

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”
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.

One would expect a professor of linguistics to have a little greater
precision in his use of words, but with Chomsky his politics takes
precedence over common sense and objectivity. I truly doubt that
"dump" is a reasonable synonym for "bury". As I read it, the ceremony
took an hour to complete. Dumping could have been done in a matter of
seconds. They could have just tossed the corpse out of the helicopter.
Did bin Laden concern himself with the manner of burial for the
Muslims killed in the Twin Towers, not to speak of the "infidels"?
As to a comparison of the operation to take out bin Laden with Iraqi
commandos landing in Bush's compound to assassinate him, there are so
many things wrong with that analogy that it is pointless to begin
listing them.

I think it it is entirely accurate. Do list your objections.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
But, yes, the reaction of the American people to such an
event would be one of outrage. But was the reaction to bin Laden's
death in the Arab world or the Muslim world consistently negative?

Gee so some dictatorial countries didn't object to the use of
assassination. Perhaps they think it will make it much easier to
assassinate their opponents in the future.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Absolutely not. Yes, there was some anger; but it would be
hypocritical to the point of ridiculous to pretend that the anger
amounted to universal outrage. My guess is that more Muslims felt
relief rather than anger at bin Laden's death.

Well you might feel relief if your troublesome relative died, but
would that make it ok to murder him?

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Whatever may be Bush's faults, Chomsky ruins his argument by starting
his run-on sentence with the word "uncontroversially" and then
repeating that word shortly thereafter in the same sentence. Does
Chomsky think that the number of times he says that something is
uncontroversial will somehow make it so?

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.

Oh, yes, Rip Van Chomsky, in 2011 politicians are still hypocrites.
And, yes, in 2011, the victors still write the history books. They
also tend to control the legal system. So it becomes rather hard to
label them criminals (at least in a legalistic sense). Even when a
President was likely to go to prison, his successor has been even more
likely to grant a pardon. Surely, Chomsky understands well the
politics of "You scratch my back, I scratch your back." It also
applies no less in the world of publications than in the world of
politics. And Chomsky is neck-deep in the quicksands of both worlds.

Again it is characteristic of evil men to justify their actions by
saying that others also commit evil deeds.

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”

Again we see evidence of Chomsky's self-absorbed tunnel vision and a
lack of respect for the rules of his own profession, linguistics. The
name of the military operation was "Geronimo". That does not mean that
the American soldiers who participated viewed bin Laden as the
equivalent of Geronimo. Codenames for military operations often seek
to inspire those who participate. Similar is the case with names given
to warplanes. And, just out of curiosity, what is the distinction that
Chomsky would make between "weapons" and "murder weapons"? As far as I
can tell, he is just using sentimental language to prejudice an
undiscerning audience. And by what logic does Chomsky equate
"Geronimo" (the name of a warrior chief) to "Jew" and "Gypsy" (the
names of ethnic groups)?

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

Yes, two things I have thought about after considering this article by
Chomsky in light of the obvious and elementary facts are (1) the
sanity of Chomsky and (2) the purpose of Chomsky in writing such
pseudohumanistic tripe.

And your commentary is also very revealing about the sort of person
you are.

Lance

[Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta]

Post by Lance
On May 11, 12:02 pm, Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:39:26 +0100, "Jim Hawkins"

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_speaks_on_osama_bin_...

Unfortunately I've lost the URL, but fortunately copied the text of  Noam
Chomsky's take on the subject :-

It's not hard to find with a Google search, Jim. That ishttp://google.com. :) The question is whether it is worth the trouble.
Personally, I have never been impressed with Chomsky, and this article
does nothing to change my opinion.

"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.
It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination,

Well, duh! Since Day 1, the official government position has been to
seek the death or capture of bin Laden. No one pretended that capture
was necessarily preferable. There are pros and cons in both
directions. The rules of the battlefield do not always tally with the
requirements of a peacetime justice system.

America is at war with OBL? Is his group a country or just a band of
thugs? When was this war declared by congress?

Whether we use the word "war" or "counterterrorism", one is still
guided by the rules of the battlefield while dealing with enemy
combatants. Al-Qaeda carried out terrorist actions against American
civilian targets. Yes, the USA is an international bully; but it still
has a natural right to defend itself against such attacks. From time
immemorial, that right has been called "self-defense", and that right
tolerates the killing of enemy combatants, including military
preventive measures. If we want to put an end to bullying - if we want
to exclude the right of the USA Government to take global measures
(right or wrong) for the protection of USA citizens - then the only
practiacl approach is the formation of a world government with a world
militia.

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

multiply violating elementary norms of international law.

International law is largely a joke. Without a world government, there
is no question of enforcement. The powerful exploit the weak. So
whatever international issue arises here is purely between the USA and
Pakistan, and I don't hear Pakistan complaining.

Oh dear. The analogy would be a a bully justifying beating a small kid
on the grounds that the small kid is too frightened to complain.

If you like. But that does not change the flaw in Chomsky's argument.
That does not change the fact that international law is a toothless
creature. And that does not change the fact that internationalism -
including institutions like the United Nations and the UN peacekeeping
forces - does not and cannot prevent war or even the type of bullying
that you decry (echoing the nonsense written by Chomsky).

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Again, the rules of war are not the same as the rules of peace. Surely
Chomsky understands that. So why does he speak such nonsense? Could it
be that he is peeved that he did not get the opportunity to use the
backdrop of a bin Laden trial for years of anarchistic propaganda.

Oh bull. Even the Israeli's tried to bring back Nazi's to stand trial.
It is a basic of any civilized country that those accused of crime be
tried, and if convicted a possible might be execution. To allow the US
army the be the judge and executioner is really no different from the
sort of thuggery practiced by Hitler.

Lance, if you think that Israel capturing Adolf Eichmann and bringing
him back to Israel for trial had anything to do with "civilized"
conduct, you are grievously mistaken. Have you not heard about the
Israeli hit teams? Are you not aware of the times Israel has had to
shrug off the irritation of other countries for their hit teams' use
of false passports as cover for their operations?

So why was Eichmann brought to Israel for trial? It was only because
the Nazi Holocaust is trumpeted as the justification for a Jewish
State. It is the foundational propaganda that every Israeli (and
ultimately the whole world) absorbs to rationalize the inevitable
social injustices inherent in any religious State. So the Israeli
Government felt that the propaganda of a trial would serve the purpose
of reminding Israelis and the world of why the Jewish State exists.

As for the fate of Eichmann, it was a foregone conclusion. By and
large, Israeli civil law does not countenance the death penalty.
Still, they put this man in a specially built bullet-proof glass cage
while on trial and eventually hanged him - the only person to be
executed as the consequence of a civil trial since the formation of
the Jewish State more than 60 years ago. (In 1948, a military
tribunal, operating under the authority of a provisional government,
did sentence a soldier, Meir Tobianski, to death for treason and
carried out the verdict with a firing squad. One year later, Tobianski
was exonerated. More on that subject below.)

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”

2002? Someone please wake up Rip Van Chomsky. It is 2011 now... and,
yes, in 2011 no one except a few die-hard conspiracy theorists are
questioning bin Laden's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. And there is
no telling how many lives will be spared with the help of information
retrieved from bin Laden's compound. But, yes, Noam, in 2011,
politicians still lie. At least you got that right.

Yes Nazi' types always say their evil is justified by lives saved.
Torture and murder and the tainting of an entire society are seen as
small costs to pay.

I am not sure whom Lance considers to be "Nazi types". And I don't
know why Lance seems to be excusing the murders carried out by
terrorists or raising an implied question about the ethics of torture.
My point was only that Chomsky's ridiculous argument harks back to the
year 2002 and dismisses the intervening nine years until 2011 with a
mere "Nothing serious has been provided since" (see just below).

Lance may make fun of my remark about lives being saved, but history
bears out the maxim: "Forewarned is forearmed." Perhaps Lance only
sheds tears when al-Qaeda leaders are killed by Navy SEALs but not
when innocent women and children are killed by al-Qaeda suicide
squads.

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Even if bin Laden was just taking responsibility for something that he
thought to be creditable, it would not be the first time someone had
been handed a death sentence for a false confession. And even if bin
Laden was not involved with 9/11 - something I consider doubtful - is
there not a long list of murderous activities committed by al-Qaeda?
Would Chomsky excuse bin Laden for all of those crimes as well?

So it is OK to kill someone on the basis of false confession?
Goodness!

Under civil rules, no it is not. But under battlefield rules, such
things and even worse happen. Everyone later expresses regret but
quickly moves on. In the case of Meir Tobianski that I mentioned
above, Tobianski was publicly exonerated by Prime Minister David Ben
Gurion. But Isser Be'eri, the Director of the Israeli Military
Intelligence Directorate who railroaded Tobianski's trial and
execution, nevertheless received an immediate presidential pardon by
President Chaim Weizmann. (Though tried and convicted of manslaughter,
Be'eri served only a token one day in prison.)

Lance, you seem determined to ignore the distinction between civil law
and military law, peacetime rules and battlefield rules. Ignoring the
distinction or blurring the distinction may serve the purpose of
anarchistic proapaganda, but it does not overcome objective reality.

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

With such severe tunnel vision, Chomsky is a political horse that will
never need blinkers.

And with every insult you reveal yourself. Perhaps you need a mirror?

I see. So Chomsky can call bush a war criminal, and you can call
Americans bullies, but I cannot say that Chomsky is a political horse
that will never need blinkers? :)

Get real, Lance. Since I first came on this forum, I have endured an
endless stream of insults. Have a look back to my first posting on
2010 December 11. And I am not the only one to be a victim of the
bigotry of this old boys club. How many women could tolerate the abuse
they receive from your gang? So, Lance, when you talk about needing a
mirror, perhaps first you should gaze at your own reflection. Stop
whining just because someone finally stood up to the abuse and dished
some of it back.

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”
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.

One would expect a professor of linguistics to have a little greater
precision in his use of words, but with Chomsky his politics takes
precedence over common sense and objectivity. I truly doubt that
"dump" is a reasonable synonym for "bury". As I read it, the ceremony
took an hour to complete. Dumping could have been done in a matter of
seconds. They could have just tossed the corpse out of the helicopter.
Did bin Laden concern himself with the manner of burial for the
Muslims killed in the Twin Towers, not to speak of the "infidels"?
As to a comparison of the operation to take out bin Laden with Iraqi
commandos landing in Bush's compound to assassinate him, there are so
many things wrong with that analogy that it is pointless to begin
listing them.

I think it it is entirely accurate. Do list your objections.

Well, for one thing, Bush was born in the USA, is an American citizen,
and is hypothetically being attacked on American soil. In contrast,
bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia, was stripped of his nationality by
Saudi Arabia, was awarded nationality by Aghanistan, and was attacked
on Pakistani soil. For another thing, the government of the USA would
be fully aware of Bush's presence (in his official home) in the USA.
In contrast, the Pakistani Government claims to have been unaware of
bin Laden's presence in their country. For another thing, Bush is a
former President of the United States. In contrast, bin Laden has
never held any political office in Pakistan. For another thing, it is
unlikely to the point of absurd that the US Government would
countenance an attack on American soil by Iraqi commandos against any
American citizen, much less a former President. In contrast, the
Pakistani Government has countenanced the attack on Pakistan soil by
Navy SEALs against a non-Paskistani international terrorist. For all
of those reasons - and probably quite a number more - it is simply
bizarre to compare a global Muslim reaction (that indeed has not been
what Chomsky, from his ivory tower, imagines it to be) to a
hypothetical American reaction to an attack on their former President
on American soil. I find it rather surprising that an intelligent man
does not see the problems with Chomsky's analogy, his incorrect facts,
and his almost non-existent logic.

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
But, yes, the reaction of the American people to such an
event would be one of outrage. But was the reaction to bin Laden's
death in the Arab world or the Muslim world consistently negative?

Gee so some dictatorial countries didn't object to the use of
assassination. Perhaps they think it will make it much easier to
assassinate their opponents in the future.

I was not talking about the reaction of countries, much less
"dictatorial countries" (a needless aspersion - another "insult" if
you prefer that term). I was talking about the reaction of people.
Americans are people. Muslims are people. Arabs are people. And the
reaction to the attack on bin Laden has nowhere been consistently
negative - certainly nowhere close to the degree that would be
expected "if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound,
assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic".

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Absolutely not. Yes, there was some anger; but it would be
hypocritical to the point of ridiculous to pretend that the anger
amounted to universal outrage. My guess is that more Muslims felt
relief rather than anger at bin Laden's death.

Well you might feel relief if your troublesome relative died, but
would that make it ok to murder him?

Lance, Chomsky was arguing in terms of reaction, not ethics. I quote:
"We might ask ourselves how we [i.e. Americans] would be reacting if
Iraqi commandos..." I merely analyzed the nonsensical remarks of
Chomsky. Would you now change Chomsky's argument, implicitly admitting
that the argument does not hold water?

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.

Whatever may be Bush's faults, Chomsky ruins his argument by starting
his run-on sentence with the word "uncontroversially" and then
repeating that word shortly thereafter in the same sentence. Does
Chomsky think that the number of times he says that something is
uncontroversial will somehow make it so?

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.

Oh, yes, Rip Van Chomsky, in 2011 politicians are still hypocrites.
And, yes, in 2011, the victors still write the history books. They
also tend to control the legal system. So it becomes rather hard to
label them criminals (at least in a legalistic sense). Even when a
President was likely to go to prison, his successor has been even more
likely to grant a pardon. Surely, Chomsky understands well the
politics of "You scratch my back, I scratch your back." It also
applies no less in the world of publications than in the world of
politics. And Chomsky is neck-deep in the quicksands of both worlds.

Again it is characteristic of evil men to justify their actions by
saying that others also commit evil deeds.

What has this got to do with "evil men justifying their actions? Did I
dispute the hypocrisy of American politicians? Did I claim that they
are good people? I merely took exception to Chomsky's misuse of the
English language and his repeated false claim that his position is
"uncontroversial". I also pointed out that the hypocritical process
whereby politicians prop up other politicians is not unknown in the
world of publications that Chomsky inhabits (and participates in).

Post by Lance

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta

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.”

Again we see evidence of Chomsky's self-absorbed tunnel vision and a
lack of respect for the rules of his own profession, linguistics. The
name of the military operation was "Geronimo". That does not mean that
the American soldiers who participated viewed bin Laden as the
equivalent of Geronimo. Codenames for military operations often seek
to inspire those who participate. Similar is the case with names given
to warplanes. And, just out of curiosity, what is the distinction that
Chomsky would make between "weapons" and "murder weapons"? As far as I
can tell, he is just using sentimental language to prejudice an
undiscerning audience. And by what logic does Chomsky equate
"Geronimo" (the name of a warrior chief) to "Jew" and "Gypsy" (the
names of ethnic groups)?

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

Yes, two things I have thought about after considering this article by
Chomsky in light of the obvious and elementary facts are (1) the
sanity of Chomsky and (2) the purpose of Chomsky in writing such
pseudohumanistic tripe.

And your commentary is also very revealing about the sort of person
you are.

Naturally.

And do you have any comments about my addendum regarding Chomsky's
ridiculous equation of tomahawks with "victims of our crimes"? :)

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Lance
Again it is characteristic of evil men to justify their actions by
saying that others also commit evil deeds.

It used to puzzle me, during the dark days of apartheid, that
defenders of the regime would say 'but Idi Amin is worse', as if that,
somehow justified apartheid atrocities. I couldn't work out how they
could imagine there was any logic or rationality to that as an
argument - I still can't.

I'm not sure if it is a matter of evil or simply a matter of
stupidity. It's generally sensible not to put down to malice those
things that can be explained by stupidity (Hanlon's razor).

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Even if bin Laden was just taking responsibility for something that he
thought to be creditable, it would not be the first time someone had
been handed a death sentence for a false confession.

How often does the conviction of a false confessor leave the real killer free to kill again? How great a threat to public safety does that create?

Peace,
Antiwar Hall
<https://www.dialup4less.com/~aloe/peace>

[Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta]

On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:39:26 +0100, "Jim Hawkins"

Post by Jim Hawkins
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.”

Sorry, I neglected to point out a prime example of Chomsky's use of
emotive language without concern for facts. In the above quotation,
Chomsky gives two cases of "naming our murder weapons after victims of
our crimes" - "Apache" and "Tomahawk". The Apaches are a tribe of
Indians, renowned for their fighting spirit. I don't think that anyone
is demeaned by giving the name Apache to the weapon, but at least
Chomsky's argument may be entertained. But what about "Tomahawk"? The
tomahawk was not a victim of anyone's crimes. Rather, the tomahawk is
itself a weapon, a weapon commonly used by the American Indians. So
one out of the two cases that Chomsky mentions is outright rubbish.
And that is probably as good as it gets with Chomsky - little or no
concern for facts and anyone's guess for relevance.