Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[Richard Ryan]

Chomsky is, like Nader, a giant figure in the American progressive
movement who has managed to systematically self-destruct in the
twilight of his career.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Richard Ryan
New York and the World
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thanks to all who saw VTM's new production!
"Brilliant!";"Superb!" - NYTheatre-wire.com
www.kingstheplay.com