Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[Mark Kohut]

So, we differ. Chomsky, however brilliant, gets facts wrong here. Facts and 
consensus...and makes suppositions that go beyond a moral purity in my 
judgment...you offer nothing but his thoroughness and seeming infallibility 
cause he tries hard to refute my questioning of his stupidity regarding the 
Taliban "request".....his Imperialism without distinctions and his use of that 
concept and its awful past as a way of condemning anyone in power within such an 
Imperial power now.....

Obama pulls back the use of force, American aggression in the Middle East from 
what Bush did. He refuses to 'bring democracy' to those surging middle east 
nations BY FORCE.....he gave new face and some say hope there about the US.     
Mattered, matters. 

He makes little difference? You cannot imagine McCain as President then....

Even wikileaks showed Obama admin said publicly what they were saying privately.

Obama has spoken honestly about when he thought force was necessary. To call him 
a liar over all that you do is to deny that word its meaning. it is
to rest almost nostalgically in the comfortable belief that since our nation has 
lied, all is now a lie.....too easy and wrong....

Granted, I exaggerated for effect but to say Obama tries less to compromise than 
Nixon is not to know the administration's workings\ nor to understand Congress, 
imho......that bi-partisan war in Vietnam was undergirded by a lot of secrets 
and lies---and name me ANOTHER war that wasn't bi-partisan....wars are, that is 
one problem.....trying to end them is part of a solution...

transnational terrorists are not nation-states....even though I, too, have 
trouble with our actions re OBL....




________________________________
From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 9:09:03 PM
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden




>>
>>
Chomsky's gnostic tendencies shine through.  Not so much Bloom's American 
religion variety, but the old fashioned kind.  Chomsky's home is the Heights. 
 He wasn't created by that lesser God who created the lower material world but 
by the greater One who doesn't get his hands dirty with corrupt humanity below.

Chomsky's expertise is in Foreign Policy for Saints.

Of course he may be a very nice man when you met him.

I agree that Chomsky errs in the  direction of an impossible moral purity.  And 
I find Michael Moore's comments on the killing of Bin Laden more palatable, but 
there are fundamental principles of law that we have agreed on as a society and 
one is that you don't shoot an unarmed person when you can easily capture and 
bring him/her to trial. The reason is obvious. The more a society tolerates this 
behavior in those representing legal or military process, the closer you move to 
establishing violence as the fundamental mechanism of social control.  This is 
the norm in Russia, Burma, China, Columbia, Israel as regards the Palestinians, 
and we can see it now graphically  in the greater middle east. We have moved 
much too far in this direction already , and rather than repudiate  or reserve 
extreme measures for people like Bin Laden, they have become the base tactics of 
our military, and the macho field of battle for politicians. Obama is a liar on 
this front in case after case, though the assassination of Bin Laden is the 
least of his offenses. 

The idea that Chomsky is the reverse image of Beck is laughably absurd. His 
views are flawed by his human  limits but they are reasonably comprehensive and 
in accord with a long tradition of ethical democratic criticism.  What saves him 
from  self righteous piety are 2 key strengths of his writing1)he  isn't calling 
for new moral standards but for standards we as a people have used and accepted 
like the Geneva Conventions and the US constitution. . And when we have ignored 
these for the sake of "realism", the real outcome has been bad both militarily 
and in the larger social consequences. 2) his research is thorough , his 
personal command of information impressive, and most of his factual materials 
are from mainstream and accepted sources.

The truth is that we are in the midst of a profound crisis for the US version of 
the democratic experiment and a larger global crisis of the limits of growth, 
combined with the end of cheap energy,degradation of the environment and global 
warming. No collection half measures and no military action abroad will 
meaningfully address this crisis. Obama is truly the very slightly lesser of of 
2 faces of a system run amok  with personal greed at a time of global fever and 
resource wars.. Whether he is elected or not will make no important difference 
and he probably will be elected. The heart of the crisis is that Americans don't 
have the will to insist on political change. We are comfortable and lazy and 
don't really care how many innocent Iraqis or Afghans, Coal Miners, Haitians, 
Gulf residents, etc. die while a powerful elite becomes ever more expert in the 
 control of oil resources, the banking system, and whatever resources they want. 
As long as we are entertained and can drive to work and the grocery store we 
will hold our nose , be "realistic" and  decide who we find the least obnoxious 
among the meaningless choices.  The  powers that control America are not just 
people. People die. Or enterprises with a natural lifespan, but they are 
 undying entities designed for predation and profit . Most corporations give 
money to both parties. A vote for Obama is a vote for this system. 

Things have changed for the worse since the bi-partisan war in Vietnam.. Dick 
Nixon was more willing to compromise with popular sentiment, cutting military 
spending and passing key environmental legislation, than Obama. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110514/d3efcf3e/attachment.html>