Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[Mark Kohut]

Chomsky argues as if HIS language for things is just like his 'discovery' that 
language is inherent in the mind. Once you've named Imperialism, it's always 
there,
even when we pull away (from some countries, from some policies, from a lying 
hidden
country-conquering foreign policy)

His linguistics is being challenged as being far more subtle and nurture-related 
than 

Chomsky's hard Platonism seems to allow. 
 
Chomsky writes:
..."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."
 
 
 
This, to me, is detestable. Grunt workers who had been tracking Bin Laden for 
years KNEW he had done it as soon as it happened. (One young writer I know, had 
requested thru State to interview him in 1997. Disallowed) CHOMSKY thinks that 
the US should have turned over EVIDENCE---what would count as evidence for the 
Taliban? Even IF you think we should never have challenged the Taliban with a 
war, why, how, could we have believed their words? Look what they did, rulingly, 
as policy within their own country? Give them the EVIDENCE we have? when people 
with eyes in both--all--- parties, even Libertarian, thought there was more than 
the usual reasons for distrust, for believing that if (since?) they were 
harboring OBL, he would get that info?  From Orwell, thru Pynchon, thru Buckley, 
Mailer or Vidal, I cannot believe ANY of them would but laugh at Chomsky's 
notion of turning over such evidence? 

(A...and, I will bet you we did show them something....Did the Taliban demand a 
trial at the Hague?---say they would turn him over for THAT?)
 
And, goes his brain-damaged, lingusitics-challenged logic, because we WOULD NOT 
do that, we, the US, had no evidence.????  Think about THAT a moment. 

Let's see: No, you cannot search my home without a warrant, therefore I MUST be 
guilty....

To call Obama a liar for the truths---not for any policies----that ALL know. 
Simply Awful To suggest OBL 'just bragged" about all the evil --that no one 
knows who caused it,--, all Al--Queda's own words and self-praised deeds, to all 
who have given bits of evidence--even thousands of innocents like the part of 
bin Laden's family which knew and disowned him---- in that tangled evil web 
Al--Queda wove.....means Chomsky is BLIND to reality but not his own ideas. 

 
Chomsky is a Beckian, Limbaugh mirror of fantasy world 'crazy' here....I say 
Chomsky is in AGAINST THE DAY, if not in The Recognitions (but we are coming to 
some stuff related, maybe)
 
 
O yes, and Tomahawk is NOT like naming our missiles after our victims, such
as in that stupid Nazis' analogy...Tomahawk was a weapon of those Native 
Americans,
many tribes of which fought bloody wars against each other with...........
 
Noam, learn how logic is a human 'form of life'....and learn how to think like a 
human being............


 


----- Original Message ----
From: Michael F <mff8785 at gmail.com>
To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
Cc: cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu>; Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>; 
"pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 1:55:34 PM
Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

When has International Law been anything other than a type or mode of
imperialism? Man is an imperial beast by nature.  Chomsky needs to
reread the Voegelin/Strauss/Kojeve dialogues.  Chomsky sounds like 20
year old who has arrived at an elite U.S. College after spending his
formidable years in a strict, fundamental ideological household. My
bad, he is at an elite U.S. College and he did spend his younger years
in a strict, fundamental ideological household.

He exhibits no theoretical or practical cognitive faculties. It's all
driven by an assumption that natural man is inherently good, which is
dangerous and naive. It works with ideologically thirsty undergrads,
and that's about it.  How did he ever gain credibility outside of his
trained field of Linguistics?



On Friday, May 13, 2011, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> You obviously either didn't read the blog post I linked to, or chose
> to ignore it.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM, cfabel <cfabel at sfasu.edu> wrote:
>> I don't think, though I haven't looked lately, that "Assassination"  appears in 
>>
>>the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, 
>>international case law or the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
>>
>> C. F. Abel
>> Chair
>> Department of Government
>> Stephen F. Austin State University
>> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
>> (936) 468-3903
>