Noam Chomsky on the attacks

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:

Flippant. Interesting. So is how pedantic you are. Perhaps you are a bit dense too for missing the sarcasm. You though, have no right to attack anyone for their views, while maintaining you are allowed yours. You prioritise your concerns how you will, as will I.

Of COURSE you were being sarcastic, but the comment was still inexcusable. I may be dense at times, but not then.

And I would like to remind everyone of exactly what was said:

"Tell me Bubba, how killing these Americans is an act of war? Were these workers, fireman, policemen, children, bystanders fighting in some war the rest of the world doesn't know about?

"Act of War....For fucks sake."

Obviously, your second comment was sarcastic, but can you imagine how infuriating the comment is?

Within those three terrible sentences you not only question that the terrorist attacks constituted an act of war, but you questioned it absoultely. You made it clear that you thought that the terrorist attacks could not POSSIBLY be an act of war.

I'm appalled that I have to give this history lesson, but I will:

On December 7th, 1941, Japanese planes deliberately engaged in an unprovoked attack, bombing the American naval base in Pearl Harbor. That was UNQUESTIONABLY an act of war.

(And if you want to question Pearl Harbor as an act of war, then you honestly have no grip on anything resembling reality.)

So, Pearl Harbor was an act of war, and the question now is, does anything so differentiate the WTC attack as to disqualify it as also an act of war?

Well, let's look at the differences:

* At Pearl Harbor, the enemy focused on military targets. At WTC, the focus was a civlian target. In most circles that makes WTC worse.

* At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese only attacked the territory of Hawaii; it would not become a state until 1959. At WTC, the attack was focused on an actual U.S. state, one of the original thirteen states -- and it focused on our largest and one of our oldest cities. That certainly doesn't make WTC any more pleasant.

* At Pearl Harbor, just over 2,300 men were killed. At WTC, the estimates hang around 4,700 -- and that number could rise. For most people, more casualties makes an attack worse.

* And Pearl Harbor, the attackers used their own planes and wore military uniforms. At WTC, the terrorists dressed like normal people and hi-jacked our planes. For me personally, I couldn't care less about what they looked like or what they flew; the RESULTS matter.

There appears to be no substantial difference between the attack in 1941 and the attack Tuesday. Pearl Harbor was an act of war. So too the terrorist attacks in New York and D.C.

At very least, there is a genuine case to be made that Tuesday's attack COULD BE an act of war, so I don't appreciate you dismissing the possibility so casually.

And, put simply, I will not apologize for being so pedantic and so single-minded when it is so PERFECTLY CLEAR that these terrorists started a war with my United States. And I will continue to debate others' views and defend mine when there is such a clear and important difference between them.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[Achtung Bubba]

You're right, brettig, it doesn't seem that Christ ever out-right condoned war.

But this is what he did say about related subjects:

While war (a political action) was never addressed, the government itself was. If I remember correctly, the only real consideration for the government was "rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar", and one could take that to mean that one is allowed (and possibly compelled) to defend your nation at the command of the ruling body.

While Christ wasn't a military leader, he did use military imagery. His was not always a rule of tenderness and gentleness:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. -- Matthew 10:34

And, finally, concerning the events surrounding His arrest, did command his followers to buy a sword if they didn't have one (in the verse I mentioned earlier). And, also important, he told Peter to put away his sword NOT because the sword or its use were inherently evil, but because it would have gotten in the way of fulfilling His Father's Will.

And I do recognize the magnitude of Christ winning through surrendering. But, in the first case, He was adamant in many ways: He did not yield to sin's temptation and thus spoil God's plan. And He did not answer His interrogators' questions directly, in an act that seems quite defiant.

Honestly, though, Christ's sacrifice has inspired many to do the same: that martyrdom has no doubt caused a great number of conversions, but it has not often won a political or military victory. The only two examples of peaceful resistance where Martin Luther King and Gandhi. And in both cases, the protestors were dealing with a government that WAS flawed but was also inherently conscientious.

You peacably demonstrate against a legitimate evil and (at least here on Earth), you will be decimated, as were the college kids at Tienemen Square.

So, in this case, war may be an evil, but it's certainly justified and certainly necessary. And I hope and pray that, as we continue to seek justice and a lasting peace rather than mere vengence, the Lord will bless our efforts. I pray that He will confound our enemies and guide our missles -- and I do so with a clear conscience.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[The Wanderer]

wow, I really am stunned that someone could diminish terrorists acts against unarmed civilians in such a way, I guess because they were not soldiers it is excusable, so from now on, if you kill civilians it's not an act of war, and thus tolerated in the eyes of some

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Or if you don't wear a uniform -- I GUESS.

 

[Sledgehammer]

If killing unarmed people means war, and the answer to these killings is another killings, then we'll see more unarmed people dead in the near future. I wouldn't like that, so I don't want the USA to continue this "war".

------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen

 

[Angela Harlem]

Thankyou for the history lesson. You did reresh my mind with many facts about Pearl Harbor.

I will say I am sorry for making you so angry/upset whatever it was you felt. The comment wasn't so casually dismissed as you stated. That is merely your interpretation.

The difference to me between an act of war and a terrorist attack are simply, one is a group of fundamentalists and one is one nation fighting another. As in your example of Pearl Harbor. Of course there are many similarities between WTC and Pearl Harbor. There are also many differences. One being what I just said about terrorist groups and countries.

We could discuss semantics all night (or day in your case) about the meaning of the phrase. Either way, we agree on the facts. It is an act that is quite possibly going to instigate a war. And the loss of so many lives is a huge tragedy. Someone once said one person dying is a tragedy, but 1000 dying is a statistic. I see this as 4000+ individual tragedies. Understand the world is as shocked and horrified as you, the difference is we are not fellow Americans. Just fellow human beings.

------------------
"Don't act so humble - You're not that great"

 

[frogbat]

if any1 believes any1 else has expressed any support or tolerance for this crime or (act of war if u wish) that has been comitted then i am afraid you are mistaken. Feeding words into others' mouths is not the way to go about it either.

 

[Angela Harlem]

How the hell did you construe that I think its ok what happened wanderer?

Jesus Christ, I take it back, its a fucking act of war then. happy? Does it change a thing? No. Too many people died, but we will all argue over what some stupid phrase means. Its just a fucking opinion. No 'name' to me will make it any better.

Call it what ever the hell you all want. I cannot believe this.

 

[GibsonExplorer]

The American people lives in ignorance of what our foreign policy has done to the world. I see so many people scoff at Noam Chomsky's polecimism and dismisses the US's transgressions against other nations in the world as untrue. Are we so proud that we can't even see Tuesday's event coming? There are many declassified documents all over that at least can provide some understanding as to why the US fell victim to such an atrocity. We are an educated people. The next generation depends on us to teach them what lessons we have learned in our generation. Let not our ignorance be the source of future strife that will befall our children, and let not our anger be the reason that there will not be a next generation.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Sledgehammer: I don't think we can avoid more civilian deaths. They will either occur as the inadvertant effects of our efforts to eradicate terrorism, or they will occur as the intentional effects of very evil terrorists.

At very least, if we move to eradicate the enemy, the inadvertant deaths will mean something -- they will be the terrible but necessary cost of eliminating terrorism.

If we DO NOT move, we condemn more American lives to die at the hands of terrorists and to live under the threat of another attack.

(And I don't believe Tuesday was an isolated event, the one and only incident.)

So, it's really our choice: keep the civilian losses to a minimum and add to them the value of finishing off the forces who did this. Or watch as more Americans die in vain, and as the terrorist attacks worsen.


Angela:

I for one DO NOT believe you condone the attacks, but I also don't think ours is a debate of mere semantics. Calling the attack an "act of war" is important, because it more directly leads to the U.S. Congress invoking Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; it allows Congress to officially declare war, something that hasn't happened since World War II, I believe.

If and when war is declared, the U.S. Armed Forces, intelligence agencies, and industrial base can unlieash the full force of the U.S. military machine.

In this case, the words mean a LOT.

So, you may need to reconsider whether terrorists can instigate a war. I'd remind you that were quite close to tracing this attack to the the leader who organized it AND the countries that harbored the terrorist organization.

And not declaring war after this begs the questions: How many attacks must we endure -- five, twenty, a hundred? And how many bodies must we bury before we agree to declare war: a hundred thousand? Several million?

Just something to think about.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Gibson, we should also not allow our past transgressions and mistakes cloud our judgment or turn our resolve:

No sins of our past justify this attack, and we WILL use deadly force to rid this planet of the sources of this evil.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[frogbat]

initially read that wrong, anyway.. go get'em bubbs.. don't let any1 using reason stop ya..

btw.. how deep to the source of the problem are u gonna go to eradicate this evil?

[This message has been edited by frogbat (edited 09-14-2001).]

 

[Sledgehammer]

I

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

How many attacks must we endure -- five, twenty, a hundred? And how many bodies must we bury before we agree to declare war: a hundred thousand? Several million?

Just something to think about.

And how many US attacks must the rest of the world endure, five, twenty, a hundred? How many bodies must Vietnam, Lebanus, Yugoslavia, Sudan and Iraq bury before we agree to STOP declaring wars like that? A hundred thousand? Several million?
We can't go on this way.

Just another thing to think about.




------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Well, frogbat, I suspect the U.S. will go so far as to make nations scared of harboring terrorists of any kind -- though what that would entail, I haven't the foggiest.

And you're absolutely right, sledgehammer, we should leave the friendly nations of Iraq, the Sudan, and Lebannon alone; we should let them slaughter their own people, conquer their neighbors, and terrorize the rest of the world.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[zoomerang II]

Bubba, what I meant by blind vengeance was that I hope the US seeks (and deserves) internatational justice, however through an appropriate response, rather than willy nilly nuking or missiling whatever "rouge state" it doesn't like at the time.

Lets be honest, we really need to capture one man - Bin Lid (as i now call him) and his supporters. Take him out of action and a number of issues are potentially resolved.
Bin Lid's supporters are all over the globe though, most western cities would have a couple in them (as the arrests in Germany attest), so America needs to be very careful about her actions. That doesn't mean the 58th regiment or battalian or whatever storms Hamburg. Afghanistan harbours bin lid. Pakistan harbours afghanistan. Pakistan has the bomb. Where is the line to be drawn?

Also, if it is a war against all who support their cause or harbor these people, should we ask ourselves what happened to the war on all the right wing neofascists - those that supported Timothy McVeigh? Is the terrorism any different - was it a war then? No, yet justice was dealt out on the terrorist then, and was accepted by the wider community as an appropriate response.

Fortunately your president seems to be on the right track in this respect at the moment, he is doing quite well at the moment walking the tight line between a valid American/international response and demand for action at home.

Having said all that, sometimes i think maybe it is time the afghanistani people were liberated from their oppressors. Imagine the rest of the world ganging up and getting rid of the Taliban - the worlds biggest supplier of heroin, biggest harbourer of terrorists, must fundamentalist islamic state - resulting in no tolerance for other religions, appalling treatement of women and its citizens suffer a government induced famine. I don't know. Many issues, many heated arguments. I think its time for this little black duck to "leave it behind".

 

[Achtung Bubba]

No, we capture bin Laden, and a dozen others will take his place -- because the system that put bin Laden there still exists to replace him.

No, we take out every terrorist we know of. We assassinate the ones that require a "finesse" job and carpet bomb the staging areas and training camps.

And we take out the support systems of the terrorists -- not the militiamen who had nothing to do with McVeigh than vocal support (if that) and not the Arabs who danced as our buildings collapsed. No, we take out the countries that harbor and finance these terrorists: we replace the government and/or level their factories, govenment buildings, bridges, and airposrts.

Bush called the attack an act of war and his Administration is warning both our troops and our country to prepare for a long campaign. He's not treading some imaginary fine line between making war and playing nice.

I believe we are on our way to declaring a full-scale war.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[80sU2isBest]

Achtung, you are EXACTLY right. To get rid of Bin Laden alone is foolhardy. All his subordinates and terrorists group aligned or not aligned with him must be decimated.

 

[zoomerang II]

I hope the CIA know where they are:

The CIA has failed to infiltrate Osama bin Laden's terrorist network because its agents are not prepared to spend long periods without sex or go into any area where they might get diarrhoea, according to a former intelligence officer.

In an article in the Atlantic Monthly, Reuel Marc Gerecht said he doubted bin Laden or his men would be "losing much sleep around the campfire" over the CIA's efforts to target them.

The agency had spent tens of millions of dollars on operations against bin Laden's al Qaeda network, he said. But claims by CIA director George Tenet that the agency was "picking it apart limb by limb" were a myth. The CIA's counter-terrorism division was more interested in empire building than collecting intelligence on the ground.

Mr Gerecht quoted one senior CIA officer as saying it "probably doesn't have a single truly qualified, Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist".

Nor was there any officer prepared to "spend years of his life with shit food and no women in the (Afghan) mountains ... Most case officers live in the suburbs of Virginia."

He said: "Unless one of bin Laden's foot soldiers walks through the door of a US consulate or embassy, the odds that a CIA counter-terrorist officer will ever see one are extremely poor."

The first inklings have emerged in the United States of recriminations against intelligence and security services for allowing the world's worst terrorist attack to take place.

"Anyone who says this is not an intelligence failure is blowing smoke," said Lieutenant-General William Odom, a former head of America's National Security Agency and of US Army intelligence.

French media have reported that French intelligence officers in Paris told the FBI that an Arab the Americans arrested in Boston a month ago had an extensive terrorist record, had been taking flying lessons, and was linked to bin Laden.

The French authorities were said to have been surprised the US did not apparently step up security in response
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/09/15/FFXHHUKMLRC.html

[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 09-14-2001).]

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Yes, the French are always very helpful and sympathetic to the US in moments like these.
I saw an essay by Ben Stein which mentioned that after the bombing in New York most of the French tourists he saw in Manhattan seemed downright gleefull.

MP

 

[bullet the blue sky]

I have a brilliant idea!!

If America truly wants to get down to the root of the problem, the fact that many many people do not like them (and I'm not talking people who hate them enough to drive planes into buildings and things), why doesn't America bomb and destroy every other country in the world... therefore ridding it of the threat of invasion and foreign terrorist attack!

What is worrying is that there are people who actual believe this might be a good idea.

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by bullet the blue sky:
What is worrying is that there are people who actual believe this might be a good idea.

Where are these people, bullet? I think you are making that up, especially in light of the prayers and pledges of solidarity we have received from abroad.

~U2Alabama

 

[Eleanor Rigby]

Great. Fight fire with fire. That will work.

Oh! And Noam Chomsky is a brilliant thinker, either you agree with him or not, he makes good points and gives reasons to support his ideas. He's written more books than any of us together. He's no idiot. To make that kind of a statement is plain ignorance.

Bubba: I find it insulting as a non-american the way you paint the picture as if an "american" life is more worth than any other. For christ sake, we are all human beings ! An american life is just as worth as one of my own country and one in Afghanistan.

There is a thing called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Check it out. It doesn't have a special chapter on americans.

 

[tincek01]

Just have to say something... I understand the American anger with the terorist attacks on their land. And I also believe, something has to be done. But What ??? Capture or kill Bin Laden ??? Maybe, but is it really him to blame ??? I haven't heard one piece of EVIDENCE, that the attacks were his fault. Doesn't America always say : Innocent util proven Guilty ??? Or is it now the other way around... And if he is really guilty, do we erase all Afganistan, with all the innocent people living in it. That would make us just the same as the terrorists.

Europe is mourning with you !
Tincek

 

[Sledgehammer]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Sledgehammer:

Do you think Afghanistan has a good, legitimate form of governemnt currently?

Of course not! But what do you think the people who live there prefer?

1. A bad, cruel form of goverment and no bombings.

2. No goverment, but bombings in their own place which would easily kill them too. Maybe 'by' mistake.

It has happened before.



------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Sledgehammer:
1. A bad, cruel form of goverment and no bombings.

2. No goverment, but bombings in their own place which would easily kill them too. Maybe 'by' mistake.

You may want to factor in the rest of the world. If you do, you may mean, this, I think:

1. A bad, cruel form of goverment and no bombings -- at least not in their own country. The U.S. and its allies will see many more deaths, particularly when these terrorists move to chemical, biological, and perhaps nuclear weapons.

2. No goverment, but bombings in their own place which would easily kill them too. Maybe 'by' mistake. AND the free world will end up being much safer from these terrorists.

Hmmm, I wonder which we should choose...

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[Sledgehammer]

I agree with tincek and I'd like to add something that Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, said:

"It's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism."

Ending states eh?

------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Oh, yes, Rigby, each human life is sacred, and an American life is no more special than the life of a non-American.

BUT the AMERICAN military has a special committment to AMERICAN lives, that is, it is committed to protect our lives and our freedom, by destorying our enemies.

And if destroying our enemies results in the accidental deaths of innocents in other countries, so be it.

It was this way in World War II, so it is this way now.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[Achtung Bubba]

And, tincek, if you don't believe the US has a ton of evidence against Bin Laden, think again.

Even if he had nothing to do with this attack, he has been indicted for the attacks on U.S. embassies, and he can linked to the frist bombing of the WTC.

He is our enemy; we have enough evidence.

And if defeating him required us to kill innocent lives in Afghanstan, we STILL wouldn't be nearly as evil as these terrorists.

There is a HUGE difference between those who accidentally kill innocents as the unavoidable consequence of war and those WHO AIM FOR CIVILIANS.

And Slegehammer, we ended states before. Or have you not heard what we did with Germany, Japan, and Italy in the 1940's? The governments were replaced; the states that declared war on the rest of the world no longer existed.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain

"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton

 

[tincek01]

Dear Bubba !

As much as I would like to believe you , there was not a SINGLE piece of evidence provided to the public. Everybody ( esp. the media & the government ) is saying that they have PLENTY of evidence and they haven't shown one bit ! Please don't get me wrong, even I think that he is involved in one way or another, but let be reasonable here !
Don't start the World War No.3 , T.

 

[U2Bama]

Sledgehammer:

Do you think Afghanistan has a good, legitimate form of governemnt currently?

Just a few facts:

The penalty for converting from Islam to Hindu, Christianity, B'hai, or any other religion: DEATH.

The penalty for being homosexual: DEATH.

Basic education access for women: DENIED.

Hindus in Afghanistan are required to wear yellow armbands in order to identify them from the rest of the population; this idea apparently came from Hitler's Nazi laws.

Granted, the majority of Afghans probably do not support such rule, but the ruling Taliban has all of the power and most of the weapons. THE TALIBAN SHOUDL BE REMOVED FROM POWER! SAD BUT TRUE!

~U2Alabama