Noam Chomsky is just plain wrong.

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Noam Chomsky is just plain wrong.

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 <Moved from General

 <Moved from General Conversation to Irrationalities>

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:He is an atheist

Quote:
He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives.

We love you too, raghat.

I wouldn't give him much credit for that though, because of however effective he may be at 'sticking it' to people he usually destroys his credibility in the process except with his closest supporters -by acting like best friends towards the totalitarian scum of the earth. People like Osama, for example.

Btw...

Chomsky wrote:
I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can't have any guilt for it.

Someone care to tell me what, exactly, "never happened"?

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

chomsky wrote:
[...]In societies that profess some respect for law[...]

Ok big guy, bit of a rhetorical question here... when has the US ever gave a fuck about international laws or rat fucks like yourself who start sniveling any time the US acts in a decisive manner on... any damn issue whatsoever? You're one of us (in the lightest sense of word possible) so your opinion means a couple ounces more than some of the hippies wringing their fists over this and that in Europe these days. But don't think by tackling controversial shit like AQ and Osama and taking an unpopular position on it is going to keep you in the headlines for much longer.

It's going to be fun watching you growing senile and mentally incompetent, unable to wipe your own ass and whatnot. Unless you try cut off life support early. Hey, you might even convince a crowd or two that someone else did it... like your friends in the CIA, for example. So there's at least some chance for martyrdom, if in to that sort of thing...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I've sometimes

 

wondered if Chomsky was just deliberately opposing the West and in particular the U.S. in order to have a unique platform to elevate his status. Guys like Chomsky and John Pilger seem unified in their insistence that the West is the cause of all evil and that the rest, including muslims and a range of other total nutbags were created by the West or are only reacting to evils of the West.

Both Pilger and Chomsky to my mind, seem steeped in the spirit of the noble savage or at the very least they embrace what they see as the superior mysticism of the East. They can only criticise their own culture, the culture that empowers them to criticise - the culture that would be pleased to see them dead in the bottom of a trench they are apologists for. This article makes Chomsky sound like Bernard Watt - both were blind to the perfidies of islam and the vacuity of its wellspring.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 So what is the evidence,

 So what is the evidence, that Osama bin Laden was seriously involved in 9/11 attack? Actually, there are rumors that his family was friends with the Bush family because of oil, and that he fought Soviets and was sponsored by Americans. 

 

"there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."
G. W. Bush, refusing to give evidence 

 

Don't get me wrong, Muslims are brainwashed Koran-heads with Old testament manners and wives dressed like Batman. I hope all local women will have the sense to run away from them. I just don't know how a group of horse-riding goat herders from Afghanistan can turn into an invisible and omnipresent threat, capable among other things, a highly coordinated action that resulted in the 9/11 attack which succeeded against all odds. That's like recruiting Christian astronomers and evolutionary biologists.
I don't know who picked the fanatical goat herders, made pilots out of them and then removed all competent U. S. personnel out of their way. And then bumped a drone into Pentagon, so no serious damage to military command was done. 

One thing I know, it doesn't give a damn sense to promote the cause of Islam, but it seems a very convenient way to provoke U. S. into invading the areas of richest oil (and opium) deposits. Muslims don't want their countries invaded, they want to silently infiltrate Europe, build mosques and keep women in burkas without much legal and media fuss, until it's too late.

But what we see in reality is more like provoking the Muslims into doing something stupid and then stomping on them with far superior force, taking over the land and drilling the oil out of it.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How anyone could make an

How anyone could make an argument for Bin Ladin is absurd.

We can be capable of understanding the psychology behind why humans do things(anything), but that does not equate to it being justified.

Now while I disagree with SOME of what the critics of the Middle East Islam do, and that being extremely paranoid about all Muslims is absurd, I am not with the left in any sense that we should have any sympathy for the likes of Bin Ladin.

His own sons said "You shot him when he was unarmed". I doubt they would have if when they entered the room he was face down on the floor with his hands on his head. Considering that he has proven himself extremely dangerous, the Seals were right in not taking chances.

NOT to mention he had no sympathy for the unarmed people he murdered on the planes and in the towers.

I am a critic of the right only in the Constitutional sense in that lumping anyone into an "in group" "out group" situation as a problem solving solution out of fear, does damage long term, not just to one label, but the freedom we should all want, and our image long term as a nation that is supposed to be inclusive.

On the other hand, I am not with the left when it comes to political correctness. Like suggesting the FLA preacher got people killed. No, he was merely a dick. The Muslims who murdered charity workers in response to his Koran burning, were the criminals. Having your sky daddy picked on is not a crime.

If we are going to rightfully go after religion, it cannot be label based, nor can it be politically correct. It has to be an over all tactic of having the human empathy for people to be free to make any claim they want, while at the same time being unafraid to challenge these claims.

Using violence to silence critics wont work. Political correctness does not work. Demanding taboos wont work.

But anyone giving one lick of empathy to Bin Ladin has got their head up their ass.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

wondered if Chomsky was just deliberately opposing the West and in particular the U.S. in order to have a unique platform to elevate his status. Guys like Chomsky and John Pilger seem unified in their insistence that the West is the cause of all evil and that the rest, including muslims and a range of other total nutbags were created by the West or are only reacting to evils of the West.

Both Pilger and Chomsky to my mind, seem steeped in the spirit of the noble savage or at the very least they embrace what they see as the superior mysticism of the East. They can only criticise their own culture, the culture that empowers them to criticise - the culture that would be pleased to see them dead in the bottom of a trench they are apologists for. This article makes Chomsky sound like Bernard Watt - both were blind to the perfidies of islam and the vacuity of its wellspring.

Not too familiar with John Pilger, but I have had very similiar thoughts about Chomsky.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Folks, I am an

ragdish wrote:

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Does he mention islamic culture (fundamentalism) in defense, or just the fact that he doesn't mention it is a defense?

ragdish wrote:
 Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis. 
 

By objective standards Osama bin Laden was not worse than any medieval ruler or warlord. Terrible, yes, but there are countries full of potential bin Ladens. Shooting one won't solve anything, though it might be maybe necessary. But that is no cause for american nation-wide rejoicing. It only sends the message to the world, "we barbarians like you beduins, we just got bigger guns, copters and pwn teh money".

They should wait with celebrations until millenium development goals will be met, which could be long ago, if political, economic, military and financial leaders would think of anything else than their exclusive good by keeping "developing" nations undeveloped. 

If you must hate something, hate poverty, economic injustice, commercialism, illiteracy, nationalism, violence, and resulting extremism using organized religion to make it all look virtuous.
Guilt or lack of thereof should be demonstrated in the court, even that comedy with Saddam Hussein was better than just shooting and dumping the guy. 

If anything can get to your reason, realize, that injustice is the main cause of terrorism. Give the people all that declaration of basic human rights says, and if they still keep terrorizing, THEN shoot them as you damn please. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: By objective

Luminon wrote:

 

By objective standards Osama bin Laden was not worse than any medieval ruler or warlord. Terrible, yes, but there are countries full of potential bin Ladens. Shooting one won't solve anything, though it might be maybe necessary. But that is no cause for american nation-wide rejoicing. It only sends the message to the world, "we barbarians like you beduins, we just got bigger guns, copters and pwn teh money".

 

So we should have left him to his own devices? This man was the figurehead of an "organization" of hate who wanted to take credit for killing innocent people wether he did it or not. IMO if someone didn't do the deed but wants to claim credit then let them reap the reward they would deserve, in his case death, even though he had a 10 year vacation from it.

If groups like this only stem from "us keeping them underdeveloped" then perhaps they should work on this. Their own greed and totalitarian governments keep them in such an easily controlled environment. The people rise and rebel and then install the same type of greedy dictator they just disposed of. Their problems are their own and they allow other countries to manipulate them, it is by no means our fault. The law of the jungle applies to today and not one of us is over there "holding them down". Rather than try to improve their country they seek to strike at and destroy ours while maintaining a grip of ignorance in their own. It only makes sense to bring yourself up to someone's level and if you still desire it THEN strike at them.

We can't give them "human rights" they choose their own.

 I fail to rationalize with my common sense how killing him was not a good thing to celebrate. I could rationalize it if I wanted to get into mushy ass philosophy but that's not realistic.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So we should

robj101 wrote:

So we should have left him to his own devices? This man was the figurehead of an "organization" of hate who wanted to take credit for killing innocent people wether he did it or not. IMO if someone didn't do the deed but wants to claim credit then let them reap the reward they would deserve, in his case death, even though he had a 10 year vacation from it. 
...
 I fail to rationalize with my common sense how killing him was not a good thing to celebrate. I could rationalize it if I wanted to get into mushy ass philosophy but that's not realistic.

The only correct course of action here could have been a prevention. Prevention in our deeply flawed world means a radical change of global policy, which experts were talking about since the end of WW2. Politicians didn't do it, so now we have our results. Whatever we do under such circumstances will be wrong, or certainly no reason to rejoice. Do you rejoice when you put to death a rabid dog, which you had set free by yourself? Nope, it's a lousy job that needs to be done. 

When you think of Osama, remember who helped him to gain the influence, who supported him against Soviets. 

robj101 wrote:
 If groups like this only stem from "us keeping them underdeveloped" then perhaps they should work on this. Their own greed and totalitarian governments keep them in such an easily controlled environment. The people rise and rebel and then install the same type of greedy dictator they just disposed of.
I hope that people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and so on will not invite another dictator to sit over them another 20 or 30 years, neither they exchange all their natural resources for glass beads and mirrors from western corporations. Last time I heard, they were even willing to care less about Islam, for the sake of democracy. Internet access might be the tool that makes the difference. This is not something that previous generations had.

robj101 wrote:
 Their problems are their own and they allow other countries to manipulate them, it is by no means our fault. The law of the jungle applies to today and not one of us is over there "holding them down". Rather than try to improve their country they seek to strike at and destroy ours while maintaining a grip of ignorance in their own. It only makes sense to bring yourself up to someone's level and if you still desire it THEN strike at them.
It is our fault that the law of the jungle applies today. Law of the jungle belongs to the jungle and it is our job to keep it there. 
Yes, we hold many countries undeveloped. Just by letting them trade internationally their resources with our money. This system is basically a huge Ponzi scheme and I would even go as far as calling it economical  warfare. I am also inspired by this article by former Canadian minister of defense. Military war is restricted on large scale, but nobody yet restricted the economic war. We have our luxuries, but they can't afford them. The truth is, that neither can we. In reality that is a global theft and waste of resources. 

This all is not so different from school shootings so popular in U.S. Some people are bullied for so long, that they lose their mind. They either commit suicide, or in more... assertive cultures they get a gun and take down some of the bastards plus a row or two of bystanders. Then they're portrayed in media derogatorily, but who will arrest the bullies? Who will accuse those, who knew, saw and did nothing? Who will really change the society to prevent such events next time, other than metal detectors at schools or airports?

robj101 wrote:
 We can't give them "human rights" they choose their own.
They don't. As long as they're born human, they have needs summed up in the universal declaration of basic human rights. These rights are impossible to lie down, even voluntarily. One of them is the right for education. Education broadens the worldview. Someone with narrow worldview can not be seriously negotiated with, can not be considered conscious enough to refuse the basic human rights, if such a thing would be possible. 

 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:robj101

Luminon wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So we should have left him to his own devices? This man was the figurehead of an "organization" of hate who wanted to take credit for killing innocent people wether he did it or not. IMO if someone didn't do the deed but wants to claim credit then let them reap the reward they would deserve, in his case death, even though he had a 10 year vacation from it. 
...
 I fail to rationalize with my common sense how killing him was not a good thing to celebrate. I could rationalize it if I wanted to get into mushy ass philosophy but that's not realistic.

The only correct course of action here could have been a prevention. Prevention in our deeply flawed world means a radical change of global policy, which experts were talking about since the end of WW2. Politicians didn't do it, so now we have our results. Whatever we do under such circumstances will be wrong, or certainly no reason to rejoice. Do you rejoice when you put to death a rabid dog, which you had set free by yourself? Nope, it's a lousy job that needs to be done. 

When you think of Osama, remember who helped him to gain the influence, who supported him against Soviets. 

robj101 wrote:
 If groups like this only stem from "us keeping them underdeveloped" then perhaps they should work on this. Their own greed and totalitarian governments keep them in such an easily controlled environment. The people rise and rebel and then install the same type of greedy dictator they just disposed of.
I hope that people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and so on will not invite another dictator to sit over them another 20 or 30 years, neither they exchange all their natural resources for glass beads and mirrors from western corporations. Last time I heard, they were even willing to care less about Islam, for the sake of democracy. Internet access might be the tool that makes the difference. This is not something that previous generations had.

robj101 wrote:
 Their problems are their own and they allow other countries to manipulate them, it is by no means our fault. The law of the jungle applies to today and not one of us is over there "holding them down". Rather than try to improve their country they seek to strike at and destroy ours while maintaining a grip of ignorance in their own. It only makes sense to bring yourself up to someone's level and if you still desire it THEN strike at them.
It is our fault that the law of the jungle applies today. Law of the jungle belongs to the jungle and it is our job to keep it there. 
Yes, we hold many countries undeveloped. Just by letting them trade internationally their resources with our money. This system is basically a huge Ponzi scheme and I would even go as far as calling it economical  warfare. I am also inspired by this article by former Canadian minister of defense. Military war is restricted on large scale, but nobody yet restricted the economic war. We have our luxuries, but they can't afford them. The truth is, that neither can we. In reality that is a global theft and waste of resources. 

This all is not so different from school shootings so popular in U.S. Some people are bullied for so long, that they lose their mind. They either commit suicide, or in more... assertive cultures they get a gun and take down some of the bastards plus a row or two of bystanders. Then they're portrayed in media derogatorily, but who will arrest the bullies? Who will accuse those, who knew, saw and did nothing? Who will really change the society to prevent such events next time, other than metal detectors at schools or airports?

robj101 wrote:
 We can't give them "human rights" they choose their own.
They don't. As long as they're born human, they have needs summed up in the universal declaration of basic human rights. These rights are impossible to lie down, even voluntarily. One of them is the right for education. Education broadens the worldview. Someone with narrow worldview can not be seriously negotiated with, can not be considered conscious enough to refuse the basic human rights, if such a thing would be possible. 

 

 

 

So what exactly do you suggest that is realistic? We all know what the problems are and we may vary on points but what is the solution? My personal opinion is that we just stay the fux out of their business period unless they bring it to us but this wont happen, we need their resources. If you asked the american people as a whole if they wouldn't mind paying 20$ a gallon for gas and suffering the huge increase in the cost of any product that has to be shipped (from Tomatoes to fruit of the loom underwear) because of said gas hike they will tell you to die in a fire.

We want those resources. Sad but true, correcting the "problem" in a pacifist manner would put this country at 3rd world status so fast.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So what

robj101 wrote:

So what exactly do you suggest that is realistic? We all know what the problems are and we may vary on points but what is the solution? My personal opinion is that we just stay the fux out of their business period unless they bring it to us but this wont happen, we need their resources. If you asked the american people as a whole if they wouldn't mind paying 20$ a gallon for gas and suffering the huge increase in the cost of any product that has to be shipped (from Tomatoes to fruit of the loom underwear) because of said gas hike they will tell you to die in a fire.

We want those resources. Sad but true, correcting the "problem" in a pacifist manner would put this country at 3rd world status so fast.

People need their resources. Let them have their resources, save military expenses and everyone will be happy. Except the weapon traders, but screw them. Anyway, if you're so satisfied with your situation, look at your national debt. It's about 7 times greater per capita than mine. I doubt anyone is ever going to pay it and it grows 4 billions every day. Face it, the land of freedom is bankrupt. Lay down weapons, repent and hope for humanitary help from United Nations Sticking out tongue

I don't know what is realistic, but I know what is necessary. Get the Federal reserve out of private hands to public administrators. Forbid financial speculation, start with debt-free money. It's really useless and out of hand, 95% money out there are used for speculation only. Shut down stock markets. Estabilish a resource-based economy. Estabilish a worldwide growing and industral usage of the hemp plant, which will considerably boost many ecologic statistics, save resources and provide many high-quality products.
Slow down economy gradually, both supply and demand. People will lose jobs, employ them in production of ecologic technologies and localized small production, to decrease the need for imported goods. Keep the Internet free and spread it to every corner of the world. 
The most important aspect of that is to estabilish a new culture, based on educating people how to spend their free time and analysis of their personalities, to find their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The goal is to get a low-cost, low-maintenance, low-personnel and low-waste economy, which will allow most of people to receive education not for a job, but for their particular interests and plans of life accomplishment. A human creativity and potential liberated in this way will by far surpass anything that consumer society could ever achieve. 

These changes will necessarily open new diplomatic solutions, never thought of before, even with fundamentalistic states. In this way, the ban of war will come sooner than we think. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
From what I can gather, Noam

From what I can gather, Noam is saying the US is just as bad and hence didn't have the right to carry out the operation. That just doesn't make a lot of sense, considering regardless of what caused Bin Laden's rampage, he still had to be taken out. 

 

While it's important to evaluate US foreign policy,  it's not a free ride for the people upset about said policy.

 

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

 

I hate when people speak for atheists. Atheism doesn`t stand against anything.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

wondered if Chomsky was just deliberately opposing the West and in particular the U.S. in order to have a unique platform to elevate his status.

 

Not quite, and there isn't anything unique about fistwringing the west or USA these days. Back in 1960s, maybe. Before then and it'll most likely get you shot by some rednecks or in jail (by House Unamerican Activities or McCarthy.) Not today. Plenty of other ways to get publicity amongst the radical left, and Noam has found his 'winning' streak in challenging sentiments and actions popular with 'patriots' and maybe much of the right-center.

 

You keep on calling me Kapkao. It's Singh muthafucka!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm perfectly happy

 

Kapkao wrote:

Noam has found his 'winning' streak in challenging sentiments and actions popular with 'patriots' and maybe much of the right-center.

 

for it to be put this way but I tend to think it goes further with him. Chomsky stands against more than right-centre and right leaning nationalists. He's a libertarian socialist, a being of which I cannot properly conceive, and his anti-authoritarianism pretty much undermines the entire construct of a governed nation state, as well as rejecting most economic systems I can think of.

I guess his background makes him long to be an unchattled  citizen of the Earth, stateless, raceless, with complete freedom, living in a golden liberal haze. This does sound nice but expecting a modern nation that must be run as a profit taking business to achieve this is too much, in my opinion.

In any case, I think he ignores far worse wrongs in order to drive a stake into U.S. domestic and foreign policies while offering no sensible alternatives aside from a retreat to pre-war isolation and a system of kibbutzim in place of the consumer economy. Maybe he'll be proved right by climate change on the latter but not for his political reasons.

I don't tend to agree with his position on the media - that you have no censorship of any extreme position or you're akin to Stalin. To me there's obvious middle ground tho' others may differ.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:robj101

Luminon wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So what exactly do you suggest that is realistic? We all know what the problems are and we may vary on points but what is the solution? My personal opinion is that we just stay the fux out of their business period unless they bring it to us but this wont happen, we need their resources. If you asked the american people as a whole if they wouldn't mind paying 20$ a gallon for gas and suffering the huge increase in the cost of any product that has to be shipped (from Tomatoes to fruit of the loom underwear) because of said gas hike they will tell you to die in a fire.

We want those resources. Sad but true, correcting the "problem" in a pacifist manner would put this country at 3rd world status so fast.

People need their resources. Let them have their resources, save military expenses and everyone will be happy. Except the weapon traders, but screw them. Anyway, if you're so satisfied with your situation, look at your national debt. It's about 7 times greater per capita than mine. I doubt anyone is ever going to pay it and it grows 4 billions every day. Face it, the land of freedom is bankrupt. Lay down weapons, repent and hope for humanitary help from United Nations Sticking out tongue

I don't know what is realistic, but I know what is necessary. Get the Federal reserve out of private hands to public administrators. Forbid financial speculation, start with debt-free money. It's really useless and out of hand, 95% money out there are used for speculation only. Shut down stock markets. Estabilish a resource-based economy. Estabilish a worldwide growing and industral usage of the hemp plant, which will considerably boost many ecologic statistics, save resources and provide many high-quality products.
Slow down economy gradually, both supply and demand. People will lose jobs, employ them in production of ecologic technologies and localized small production, to decrease the need for imported goods. Keep the Internet free and spread it to every corner of the world. 
The most important aspect of that is to estabilish a new culture, based on educating people how to spend their free time and analysis of their personalities, to find their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The goal is to get a low-cost, low-maintenance, low-personnel and low-waste economy, which will allow most of people to receive education not for a job, but for their particular interests and plans of life accomplishment. A human creativity and potential liberated in this way will by far surpass anything that consumer society could ever achieve. 

These changes will necessarily open new diplomatic solutions, never thought of before, even with fundamentalistic states. In this way, the ban of war will come sooner than we think. 

 

No one said anything about "being happy about it". I would like to wish all the bad politicians away but again it's not reality, let alone what you suggest. I would like to stop borrowing money from china to pay other countries off for dibs on oil and the right to keep and pay for more military bases around the world. blah blah I could go on all day. Nothing will change untill the people get pist enough. But we do such a good job sheepifying them and as long as they are happy in their little detached box it's all bahh bahhh bahh.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:From

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

From what I can gather, Noam is saying the US is just as bad and hence didn't have the right to carry out the operation. That just doesn't make a lot of sense, considering regardless of what caused Bin Laden's rampage, he still had to be taken out. 

 

While it's important to evaluate US foreign policy,  it's not a free ride for the people upset about said policy.

 

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

 

I hate when people speak for atheists. Atheism doesn`t stand against anything.

 

 

I think a valid point was that there was little or no opposition. Why not bring the bastard back alive?  Why DNA instead of a finger or a head? ALIVE: One for information and two for a trial.  Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body. There also extreme conspiracy groups like Zeitgeist which would claim that Osama was really an American cooperative and Al Queda a name made up by the CIA meaning simply a database of suspected terrorists. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Kapkao wrote:

Noam has found his 'winning' streak in challenging sentiments and actions popular with 'patriots' and maybe much of the right-center.

 

for it to be put this way but I tend to think it goes further with him. Chomsky stands against more than right-centre and right leaning nationalists. He's a libertarian socialist, a being of which I cannot properly conceive, and his anti-authoritarianism pretty much undermines the entire construct of a governed nation state, as well as rejecting most economic systems I can think of.

I guess his background makes him long to be an unchattled  citizen of the Earth, stateless, raceless, with complete freedom, living in a golden liberal haze. This does sound nice but expecting a modern nation that must be run as a profit taking business to achieve this is too much, in my opinion.

In any case, I think he ignores far worse wrongs in order to drive a stake into U.S. domestic and foreign policies while offering no sensible alternatives aside from a retreat to pre-war isolation and a system of kibbutzim in place of the consumer economy. Maybe he'll be proved right by climate change on the latter but not for his political reasons.

I don't tend to agree with his position on the media - that you have no censorship of any extreme position or you're akin to Stalin. To me there's obvious middle ground tho' others may differ.  

 

I think he just wants to be different. I like some of what he has to say but some is not most.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: No one said

robj101 wrote:

No one said anything about "being happy about it". I would like to wish all the bad politicians away but again it's not reality, let alone what you suggest. I would like to stop borrowing money from china to pay other countries off for dibs on oil and the right to keep and pay for more military bases around the world. blah blah I could go on all day. Nothing will change untill the people get pist enough. But we do such a good job sheepifying them and as long as they are happy in their little detached box it's all bahh bahhh bahh.

Honestly, America once first in innovations, will be this time probably the last to see the reality. I mean reality, not market forces nor ideologies. Once they were on the top, nobody wants step down. Still, this is a wonderful year, so many "powerful men"  out of their chairs or dead, a dictator here, a 30-years president there... So far so good. Hopefully more and more states will decrease trading with dollar. Actually, the very threat of U.S. becoming a 3rd world country might piss off people enough to start protesting.

I provide information on alternatives. People will be bolder and more specific in their protests, when they will know what is the problem and what is the alternative. I also subscribe whatever citizen initiatives against the corrupt government come in my way. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:From

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

From what I can gather, Noam is saying the US is just as bad and hence didn't have the right to carry out the operation. That just doesn't make a lot of sense, considering regardless of what caused Bin Laden's rampage, he still had to be taken out. 

 

While it's important to evaluate US foreign policy,  it's not a free ride for the people upset about said policy.

 

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

 

I hate when people speak for atheists. Atheism doesn`t stand against anything.

 

 

I am not for the Abraham "eye for an eye" bullshit, Islam/Hebrew and Christian traditions love that motif. While the world doesn't need more religious tribalism, to say Bin Laden didn't deserve it, or we are lowering ourselves to his standard, is outright bullshit.

I completely agree with this post. My question would be to the objectors, "If someone hit you in the face, wouldn't it be natural to hit back?"

I have no sympathy for Bin Laden. The people on the planes and in the buildings were unarmed. And growing up in a pluralistic society, his victims would have defended the rights of Muslim Americans. All that monster did was murder people. Any Muslim seeing him as a hero cares  nothing about the west and how inclusive and welcoming it can be. We have much more compassion for differences in the west than the east does. If the east wants our "respect", then they need to rid themselves of their blasphemy laws and protect dissent and pluralism.

I have only one thing to say to "don't pick on me" and "obey me or else".  FUCK YOU!(meaning anyone with that attitude)

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think a

TGBaker wrote:
I think a valid point was that there was little or no opposition. Why not bring the bastard back alive?  Why DNA instead of a finger or a head?

ALIVE: One for information and two for a trial.  Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body. There also extreme conspiracy groups like Zeitgeist which would claim that Osama was really an American cooperative and Al Queda a name made up by the CIA meaning simply a database of suspected terrorists. 

What's so great about bringing him back alive again? Information and trial? Obama already came this close to sending his public image and re-election chances into the shitter (with regards to locations targeted by AQ) by pretending to close down Gitmo, and sending several AQ bigwigs to NYC, then later dropping that plan as well. Why fuck this up, from his POV?

And if it were someone else; why do I want OBL to get a trial? What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact? What point would there be in giving 'due process' to such as him?

Quote:
Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body.

I think it would be a little late for that, whether it comes from the barrel of a soldier's gun or from a guilty verdict. Kinda hard to find an unbiased jury in America, at that.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker wrote:I

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I think a valid point was that there was little or no opposition. Why not bring the bastard back alive?  Why DNA instead of a finger or a head?

ALIVE: One for information and two for a trial.  Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body. There also extreme conspiracy groups like Zeitgeist which would claim that Osama was really an American cooperative and Al Queda a name made up by the CIA meaning simply a database of suspected terrorists. 

What's so great about bringing him back alive again? Information and trial? Obama already came this close to sending his public image and re-election chances into the shitter (with regards to locations targeted by AQ) by pretending to close down Gitmo, and sending several AQ bigwigs to NYC, then later dropping that plan as well. Why fuck this up, from his POV?

And if it were someone else; why do I want OBL to get a trial? What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact? What point would there be in giving 'due process' to such as him?

Quote:
Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body.

I think it would be a little late for that, whether it comes from the barrel of a soldier's gun or from a guilty verdict. Kinda hard to find an unbiased jury in America, at that.

Whatz so great about a live body? To torture for better intelligence.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Kapkao

TGBaker wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I think a valid point was that there was little or no opposition. Why not bring the bastard back alive?  Why DNA instead of a finger or a head?

ALIVE: One for information and two for a trial.  Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body. There also extreme conspiracy groups like Zeitgeist which would claim that Osama was really an American cooperative and Al Queda a name made up by the CIA meaning simply a database of suspected terrorists. 

What's so great about bringing him back alive again? Information and trial? Obama already came this close to sending his public image and re-election chances into the shitter (with regards to locations targeted by AQ) by pretending to close down Gitmo, and sending several AQ bigwigs to NYC, then later dropping that plan as well. Why fuck this up, from his POV?

And if it were someone else; why do I want OBL to get a trial? What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact? What point would there be in giving 'due process' to such as him?

Quote:
Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body.

I think it would be a little late for that, whether it comes from the barrel of a soldier's gun or from a guilty verdict. Kinda hard to find an unbiased jury in America, at that.

Whatz so great about a live body? To torture for better intelligence.

I'll ask again...

Quote:
What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact?

Another words, he can't give up much. My money's on him being AQ's PR for quite a while; nothing more.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I think a valid point was that there was little or no opposition. Why not bring the bastard back alive?  Why DNA instead of a finger or a head?

ALIVE: One for information and two for a trial.  Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body. There also extreme conspiracy groups like Zeitgeist which would claim that Osama was really an American cooperative and Al Queda a name made up by the CIA meaning simply a database of suspected terrorists. 

What's so great about bringing him back alive again? Information and trial? Obama already came this close to sending his public image and re-election chances into the shitter (with regards to locations targeted by AQ) by pretending to close down Gitmo, and sending several AQ bigwigs to NYC, then later dropping that plan as well. Why fuck this up, from his POV?

And if it were someone else; why do I want OBL to get a trial? What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact? What point would there be in giving 'due process' to such as him?

Quote:
Three to circumvent accusations that the killing was made up for political reasons since there was no body.

I think it would be a little late for that, whether it comes from the barrel of a soldier's gun or from a guilty verdict. Kinda hard to find an unbiased jury in America, at that.

Whatz so great about a live body? To torture for better intelligence.

I'll ask again...

Quote:
What possible useful info could we get out of him after hiding in a hole in the ground for entire seasons with limited human contact?

Another words, he can't give up much. My money's on him being AQ's PR for quite a while; nothing more.

OK you caught me. Just for the plain torture. The info is an excuse. But mostly I am playing devil's advocate. I just don't believe in killing unless its necessary. If it was that's fine but was it?

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:From

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

From what I can gather, Noam is saying the US is just as bad and hence didn't have the right to carry out the operation. That just doesn't make a lot of sense, considering regardless of what caused Bin Laden's rampage, he still had to be taken out. 

 

While it's important to evaluate US foreign policy,  it's not a free ride for the people upset about said policy.

 

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

 

I hate when people speak for atheists. Atheism doesn`t stand against anything.

 

 

 

Ahem!. The last I heard, atheism stood against theism. Hence the word "a-theism". And in Bin Laden's case, atheism certainly is a stand against the worse form of theism ie. religious fundamentalism. And BTW people speak for atheists all the time. I suggest you read Hitchens or Dawkins. If you hate it, then are you a theist?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:OK you caught

TGBaker wrote:
OK you caught me. Just for the plain torture. The info is an excuse. But mostly I am playing devil's advocate. I just don't believe in killing unless its necessary. If it was that's fine but was it?

So, no real reason, just a (potentially emotionally-motivated) philosophical response. Shame we couldn't get Bobspence to respond to this thread. He doesn't put up much of a fight, but after an intellectual heavyweight like Bob makes his sentiments known and less-than-substantial arguments against DP and the like, one gets a potentially unwavering notion that logic/rationality is strictly on the side of the executioner, rather than the one which has been condemned to be executed -whether the executioner uses a guillotine, axe, cold needle in the arm, or a gun.

(note: I don't mean to derail the thread on the subject of DP, it's just that I couldn't find a word or phrase that better describes OBL's ultimate fate better)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Noam Chomsky is not just plain wrong.

Excuse me, but I don't share your view.
We know what religion Osama was, but this doesn't justifies the actions. From what I know, Osama acted from what was happening to him and his people. I am not in anyway saying he was a good fellow, in any way, but America invaded his country (illegally) and his concern was also that they took his oil.
I absolutely sustain that, as have been said, "a civilization (bold word) of goat-herders" could attack the other nations (and the WTC) as have been seen, because the relationships between Osama's people and other countries is decidedly more complex than one of a 'shephards' could have. They had weapons, military 'contracts', money going in and out. And that's what I'm talking about in BOTH countries, Osama's 'state' AND America (this does not exclude other countries). It's not a new thing today that wars move money, and this moved billions.
Those damned planes killed thousand people in 2001? So? America caused a hundred times that deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and surroundings, and millions of refugees.
So what I'm saying is calling Osama a 'terrorist' is nonsense, is deceiving, and from my point of view, I don't know who is more terrorist: Osama, or a country that for a drop of oil has invaded everything? (which is America, btw)

I understand these 'accusations' may seems gratuitous, I've not brought links to documents, this is simply what I, in my limited time, understood.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Ahem!. The

ragdish wrote:

Ahem!. The last I heard, atheism stood against theism. Hence the word "a-theism". And in Bin Laden's case, atheism certainly is a stand against the worse form of theism ie. religious fundamentalism. And BTW people speak for atheists all the time. I suggest you read Hitchens or Dawkins. If you hate it, then are you a theist?

"Disbelief in god" or whatever the fuck terms RRSers like myself use to describe their lack of belief in a deity... doesn't really give a shit about theism or what other people preach or think.

This is why we use words "secularism" and "antitheism"... because 'atheist' or 'atheism' by itself still leaves room for a lot of baggage.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
OK you caught me. Just for the plain torture. The info is an excuse. But mostly I am playing devil's advocate. I just don't believe in killing unless its necessary. If it was that's fine but was it?

So, no real reason, just a (potentially emotionally-motivated) philosophical response. Shame we couldn't get Bobspence to respond to this thread. He doesn't put up much of a fight, but after an intellectual heavyweight like Bob makes his sentiments known and less-than-substantial arguments against DP and the like, one gets a potentially unwavering notion that logic/rationality is strictly on the side of the executioner, rather than the one which has been condemned to be executed -whether the executioner uses a guillotine, axe, cold needle in the arm, or a gun.

(note: I don't mean to derail the thread on the subject of DP, it's just that I couldn't find a word or phrase that better describes OBL's ultimate fate better)

But proper and judicial response in some minds would entail a properly slow method of execution for 3 thousand + lives.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:  BTW people

ragdish wrote:

  BTW people speak for atheists all the time. I suggest you read Hitchens or Dawkins.

 

I've read Dawkins and he doesn't speak for me. I've only read a little Hitchens and he most certiantly doesn't speak for me.

 

ragdish wrote:

If you hate it, then are you a theist?

 

No, because I don't believe in a god.

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:ragdish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ragdish wrote:

  BTW people speak for atheists all the time. I suggest you read Hitchens or Dawkins.

 

I've read Dawkins and he doesn't speak for me. I've only read a little Hitchens and he most certiantly doesn't speak for me.

 

ragdish wrote:

If you hate it, then are you a theist?

 

No, because I don't believe in a god.

 

If you don't mind me asking Captain. What would you have against Hitchens or Dawkins ? While Hitchens doesn't "speak" for me, he is one of my favorites. Where are you in disagreement ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Excuse me, but I

luca wrote:
Excuse me, but I don't share your view. We know what religion Osama was, but this doesn't justifies the actions. From what I know, Osama acted from what was happening to him and his people. I am not in anyway saying he was a good fellow, in any way, but America invaded his country (illegally) and his concern was also that they took his oil. I absolutely sustain that, as have been said, "a civilization (bold word) of goat-herders" could attack the other nations (and the WTC) as have been seen, because the relationships between Osama's people and other countries is decidedly more complex than one of a 'shephards' could have. They had weapons, military 'contracts', money going in and out. And that's what I'm talking about in BOTH countries, Osama's 'state' AND America (this does not exclude other countries). It's not a new thing today that wars move money, and this moved billions. Those damned planes killed thousand people in 2001? So? America caused a hundred times that deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and surroundings, and millions of refugees. So what I'm saying is calling Osama a 'terrorist' is nonsense, is deceiving, and from my point of view, I don't know who is more terrorist: Osama, or a country that for a drop of oil has invaded everything? (which is America, btw) I understand these 'accusations' may seems gratuitous, I've not brought links to documents, this is simply what I, in my limited time, understood.

I think you are missing the point. No one is questioning the misdeeds of the US. Similarly when Russia helped liberate Europe during WW2, no one ignores the crimes committed by Stalin. Was it therefore wrong of Russia to help end the tyranny of a genocidal maniac? Was D-Day wrong because of Britain and America's imperialist past? Would you argue that the world should have done nothing and allowed the Nazi ideology to flourish because the Allies all committed crimes against Germany following WW1? Bin Laden adopted a totalitarian religious ideology and he is indeed in the same camp as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. He had to be stopped. His death is indeed a victory for atheism everywhere even if his assassination was committed by a nation with a tainted history.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:But proper and

TGBaker wrote:
But proper and judicial response in some minds would entail a properly slow method of execution for 3 thousand + lives.

How do you determine proper in this instance? OBL wasn't an American Citizen, and he wasn't on American soil when he died. We should have sent him to the Hague? Fuck that.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Bullshit

Granted, I think Chomsky is a genius on every level and I'll defend him to my grave, and I didn't read the whole story. I've said this elsewhere, but bin Laden was nothing more than a wildly influential pawn in a much bigger problem of religion, economics, politics, cultural diversity, and communication in which the USA is far, far, far from innocent. We have too many people shouting "greatest country on earth" and far too few people recognizing that our extremely questionably successful way of life need not be militarily enforced onto every peoples on the planet. We're arrogant in this country and we need to get a fucking clue.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
But proper and judicial response in some minds would entail a properly slow method of execution for 3 thousand + lives.

How do you determine proper in this instance? OBL wasn't an American Citizen, and he wasn't on American soil when he died. We should have sent him to the Hague? Fuck that.

Well there knives and pliers. Hot irons. A manual  from the inquisition.  One blow torch. He was not on American soil but Americans were on that soil. Of course I do not feel this way but many do. I ultimately apart from pure discussion have no problem with the quick use of bullets with confirmation that it was done all kidding aside. But there are those who wanted a different type of justice and to view the evil in chains etc. There are really those who doubt that he was killed and that it is simply a conspiracy of the American government for political purposes.  In a sense public trial  ( and at one time execution) brought public closure. The movement to trial obviously was an improvement over hangings and firing squads in which the event became more of a festival or circus.  There seems to be a primitive area in us that needs the face to face. .. to look into the eyes of the perpetrator and see his reactions as prosecution and sentencing is done.  I worked in the court houses for 20 years as a probation officer then an investigastor of child abuse and molestation.  I have seen victims enraged fro not being informed about the hearing date and missing the conviction. Given the amount of victims there was a lot of family members about the USA. It is hard to say what meets justice for them.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Granted, I

smartypants wrote:

Granted, I think Chomsky is a genius on every level and I'll defend him to my grave, and I didn't read the whole story. I've said this elsewhere, but bin Laden was nothing more than a wildly influential pawn in a much bigger problem of religion, economics, politics, cultural diversity, and communication in which the USA is far, far, far from innocent. We have too many people shouting "greatest country on earth" and far too few people recognizing that our extremely questionably successful way of life need not be militarily enforced onto every peoples on the planet. We're arrogant in this country and we need to get a fucking clue.

Chomsky has braved persecution in the past for intellectual integrity. His studies of IQ lead to false accusations of bigotry and racism in a politically correct environment which were unfounded and untrue.   I certainly can not argue against the rest of what you say. The US is often expansionist if not close to Imperial in its self interest.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Here's

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

Dude. Dude. DUDE. Firstly, Chomsky is raising an actually valid point. The assassination of bin Laden quite probably violated international law since the Americans, essentially, invaded Pakistan, and the evidence is suggesting that most of his supporters were unarmed. And bin Laden didn't mastermind 9/11, he funded it. Big difference. Chomsky is no 9/11 truther, nor is he a holocaust denier (good job on taking his words out of context, kapkao). I mean, I support the assassination of such an awful person who has been instrumental in so much violence, but we have to seriously look at ourselves because, in essence, it was the murder of an old man on kidney dialysis treatment.

 

But look at the bolded text. Fucking look at it. Osama bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism? Well, sort of, he did believe in a god, but he himself isn't belief in a god...but I'll give you that. He symbolized everything atheism is against? Well, sort of. He did believe in a god, but he seems to be more of a symbol for terrorism. But the rest? How the fuck is this a victory for atheism? Atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods. That's it. How does atheism stand against ruthlessness, genocide, or totalitarianism? Was Stalin suddenly not an atheist? Look, I don't want to be an asshole, but fuck, dude. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. THAT IS IT. It doesn't "stand for" anything at all, and it doesn't "stand against" anything except belief in any god or gods. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but you are being part of the problem here. When religious folks say atheism is just as much a religion as christianity/islam/etc, we can say "no" all we want, it just takes one or two messageboard posts like that that makes atheism out to be more than it really is to prove them right. Because, sadly, to many of us atheism IS becoming a religion.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Granted, I

smartypants wrote:

Granted, I think Chomsky is a genius on every level and I'll defend him to my grave, and I didn't read the whole story. I've said this elsewhere, but bin Laden was nothing more than a wildly influential pawn in a much bigger problem of religion, economics, politics, cultural diversity, and communication in which the USA is far, far, far from innocent. We have too many people shouting "greatest country on earth" and far too few people recognizing that our extremely questionably successful way of life need not be militarily enforced onto every peoples on the planet. We're arrogant in this country and we need to get a fucking clue.

Don't look at me. I'd give my right arm if I thought it would force the US to give up the title of "World's biggest babysitter". I can think of quite a few other rightwingers who aren't all that fond of it themselves. But I also know it isn't going away anytime soon with defense contractors in bed with congress and the presidency as much as they are. Not too many easy ways to stop them, either. War isn't just a diplomatic status, it's an enterprise with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

On the other hand Mr. Snarky, what exactly do you mean when you say "we"?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well there

TGBaker wrote:
Well there knives and pliers. Hot irons. A manual  from the inquisition.  One blow torch. He was not on American soil but Americans were on that soil. Of course I do not feel this way but many do. I ultimately apart from pure discussion have no problem with the quick use of bullets with confirmation that it was done all kidding aside. But there are those who wanted a different type of justice and to view the evil in chains etc.

Get this. Most of the people in AQ virtually eat pain for breakfast. I mean waterboarding for three times as long as any top notch CIA operative.

Quote:
There are really those who doubt that he was killed and that it is simply a conspiracy of the American government for political purposes.

Yeah, the Zeitgeist crowd. They make up 3/4s of my friends list on FB. The only real conspiracy -as far as their concerned- is that I basically wear a different face when I'm around them. I keep my real politics a secret from them.

 

Quote:
There seems to be a primitive area in us that needs the face to face. .. to look into the eyes of the perpetrator and see his reactions as prosecution and sentencing is done.

Most cons that I've learned about and watched don't even react. A few are soft and will break up after the verdict's read. Some will point their finger like a gun at a witness and then pretend to fire in retribution, earning them a guilty verdict. Some (apparently) get an erection when details of the crime are described to the jury. I don't know if Bundy got a woody but in the course of acting as his own attorney, he would have crime scenes and evidence described in excruciating detail so he could relish his prior acts. This didn't help his defense much, but cons aren't well renowned for their capacity of enlightened self-preservation.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:TGBaker

Kapkao wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Well there knives and pliers. Hot irons. A manual  from the inquisition.  One blow torch. He was not on American soil but Americans were on that soil. Of course I do not feel this way but many do. I ultimately apart from pure discussion have no problem with the quick use of bullets with confirmation that it was done all kidding aside. But there are those who wanted a different type of justice and to view the evil in chains etc.

Get this. Most of the people in AQ virtually eat pain for breakfast. I mean waterboarding for three times as long as any top notch CIA operative.

Quote:
There are really those who doubt that he was killed and that it is simply a conspiracy of the American government for political purposes.

Yeah, the Zeitgeist crowd. They make up 3/4s of my friends list on FB. The only real conspiracy -as far as their concerned- is that I basically wear a different face when I'm around them. I keep my real politics a secret from them.

 

Quote:
There seems to be a primitive area in us that needs the face to face. .. to look into the eyes of the perpetrator and see his reactions as prosecution and sentencing is done.

Most cons that I've learned about and watched don't even react. A few are soft and will break up after the verdict's read. Some will point their finger like a gun at a witness and then pretend to fire in retribution, earning them a guilty verdict. Some (apparently) get an erection when details of the crime are described to the jury. I don't know if Bundy got a woody but in the course of acting as his own attorney, he would have crime scenes and evidence described in excruciating detail so he could relish his prior acts. This didn't help his defense much, but cons aren't well renowned for their capacity of enlightened self-preservation.

The world is a complicated maze of unwarranted beliefs and opinions. I hear ya about the criminal mind. When i was a probation officer I carried a gun and arrested no telling how many people.  Most simply would go oh man or smile turn around and assume a position for me to cuff them.  Given the over population of cases in superior court of Fulton Co,. Atlanta the D.A.'s office did not handle the revocation hearings. SO we got to do our own prosecutions from about 1987 to 1992. Very little response from the defendent. Most of the emotion came from the defense attorney.  Such a game. We replaced the old trial by combat using swords and what have with an adversarial  process. But it is still not justice. It is a trial by combat as to who can argue the best not really the facts. A prosecutor will make a case if he has one on an innocent person and plea bargain away a heinous case if the evidence is hard to come by rather than apply the hours of research needed.   The system has sacrificed justice for due process.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
pinker

Quote:
...Bin Laden adopted a totalitarian religious ideology and he is indeed in the same camp as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. He had to be stopped. His death is indeed a victory for atheism everywhere even if his assassination was committed by a nation with a tainted history.

I was not missing the point, I was not saying that bad guys can't stop other bad guys because of hypocrisy. Justice is justice no matter what.
Instead what I pointed out is: Osama bin Laden has been called Evil, with capital e, the Evil that scourges our civilization, the antithesis to Good. Well this is a marketing operation, Bush was a used cars vendor trying to sell war, and he obviously succeeded. Point two, you can't ignore that a "nation with a tainted history" is implicated in this matter, because his dishonesty is a suspect trace, we're not in an abstract nutshell where everything is indipendent, and I have the right to doubt (that's why I'm atheist).
So this brings us to the illicit traffic of weapons and drugs that with the America invasion has flourished, and to the fact that America didn't want to stop the war, a war that had not a right to be.
Probably what America succeeded to accomplish too was a war that couldn't be stopped, but what I will always object is that Osama, or who for him, was a human, ok? You can speak with him, you can make compromises, instead of killing him and half a million of his people.
What I am trying to understand is if effectively Osama acted as a pawn, as have been said, and so he wouldn't have done what he have done if America didn't poke him, or not.
And I can say that in my country the majority of people would have appreciated a process instead of a random killing spree.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:ragdish

BenfromCanada wrote:

ragdish wrote:

Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.

 

Dude. Dude. DUDE. Firstly, Chomsky is raising an actually valid point. The assassination of bin Laden quite probably violated international law since the Americans, essentially, invaded Pakistan, and the evidence is suggesting that most of his supporters were unarmed. And bin Laden didn't mastermind 9/11, he funded it. Big difference. Chomsky is no 9/11 truther, nor is he a holocaust denier (good job on taking his words out of context, kapkao). I mean, I support the assassination of such an awful person who has been instrumental in so much violence, but we have to seriously look at ourselves because, in essence, it was the murder of an old man on kidney dialysis treatment.

 

But look at the bolded text. Fucking look at it. Osama bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism? Well, sort of, he did believe in a god, but he himself isn't belief in a god...but I'll give you that. He symbolized everything atheism is against? Well, sort of. He did believe in a god, but he seems to be more of a symbol for terrorism. But the rest? How the fuck is this a victory for atheism? Atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods. That's it. How does atheism stand against ruthlessness, genocide, or totalitarianism? Was Stalin suddenly not an atheist? Look, I don't want to be an asshole, but fuck, dude. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. THAT IS IT. It doesn't "stand for" anything at all, and it doesn't "stand against" anything except belief in any god or gods. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but you are being part of the problem here. When religious folks say atheism is just as much a religion as christianity/islam/etc, we can say "no" all we want, it just takes one or two messageboard posts like that that makes atheism out to be more than it really is to prove them right. Because, sadly, to many of us atheism IS becoming a religion.

Dude, if you truly fucking scrutinzed my bolded text, I was making a statement about totalitarian Islam to which Bin Laden was a symbol of. If my text implied he was a belief (which was not my intent), then Bin Ladenism indeed is a theistic ideology with roots in Wahhabism or any other totalitarian variant of Islam. I am sure that over 99% of atheists are against this ideology. And ipso facto, atheism does indeed take a stand against totalitarian theologies.

In regards to violating international law and invading a country such as Pakistan which seems to have zero means of ridding itself of such nutjobs, I wholeheartedly support. Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction and was responsible for the Mumbai attacks resulting in the deaths of many who had nothing to do with 911, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Arab-Israeli conflict. That attack occurred when both nations seemed to want to arrive at some solution to Kashmir and yet Pakistani terrorists felt compelled to take out scores of Hindus, Muslims and Jews in India. And it is only a matter of time before Islamists in Pakistan get a hold of a dirty bomb and unleash a first strike against a neigbhor like India. So dude, don't preach to me about international law here. Either Pakistan knowingly harbored Bin Laden or it has an extremely incompetent intelligence service. If that's the case, then I say invade the nation if it will bring some modicum of safety to the rest of the world.

Lastly, I've heard the "Stalin was an atheist" argument time and time again. What people fail to realize is that he did adopt an extremist version Marxist-Leninist ideology that was indeed a political relgion often sprinkled with supernatural overtones. Stalin and his cronies rejected genetics and relativity. In my books, the totalitarian society of Stalin was very much akin to Islamism and against rational atheism of Spinoza, Hawking, Einstein, Dawkins, etc... He was an atheist but certainly not a rational one who accepted science and reason. It is those atheists I speak of when I say "anti-thesis". Perhaps hereafter I should qualify my statement. Stalin's ideology was the antithesis of a rational, scientific, liberal, atheist, democratic society wherein extremist religion of any stripe (even political religions) do not become the dominant power. Now if this latter statement of qualified atheism puts it into the religion bucket, then I guess I have indeed found religion, DUDE!!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If these terrorists really

If these terrorists really cared about their own people they would be toppling their own corrupt governments and installing their own ...  Oh wait they already do and put in their own corrupt folks, it's a cycle of corruption and islam feeds it like a beloved pet.

I watched an episode of the twilight zone based on this the other day, creepy huh.

Blaming the US for "holding them down" is saying that paying them off for oil is so bad when their leaders do not share the wealth with the people and it is somehow OUR fault. If it was not the US buying off their leaders for oil it would be another country .. another country like China /cough.

I used to think it was us holding them down (mid-eastern countries) but after more careful examination of what is really happening we are simply abusing what they have and this is what they apparently WANT.

If they want a better country they will have to fix it and islam says NO imo.

I was thinking along the same lines about Mexico earlier, there are millions of illegal Mexican immigrants here ..why are they here? There are enough of them to fix their own country but it's so much easier to just roll across the border. Very strange to me when they do this then talk about the "pride" they have in Mexico and it's (their) culture.

Bit off topic but only a bit.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Quote:...Bin

luca wrote:
Quote:
...Bin Laden adopted a totalitarian religious ideology and he is indeed in the same camp as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. He had to be stopped. His death is indeed a victory for atheism everywhere even if his assassination was committed by a nation with a tainted history.
I was not missing the point, I was not saying that bad guys can't stop other bad guys because of hypocrisy. Justice is justice no matter what. Instead what I pointed out is: Osama bin Laden has been called Evil, with capital e, the Evil that scourges our civilization, the antithesis to Good. Well this is a marketing operation, Bush was a used cars vendor trying to sell war, and he obviously succeeded. Point two, you can't ignore that a "nation with a tainted history" is implicated in this matter, because his dishonesty is a suspect trace, we're not in an abstract nutshell where everything is indipendent, and I have the right to doubt (that's why I'm atheist). So this brings us to the illicit traffic of weapons and drugs that with the America invasion has flourished, and to the fact that America didn't want to stop the war, a war that had not a right to be. Probably what America succeeded to accomplish too was a war that couldn't be stopped, but what I will always object is that Osama, or who for him, was a human, ok? You can speak with him, you can make compromises, instead of killing him and half a million of his people. What I am trying to understand is if effectively Osama acted as a pawn, as have been said, and so he wouldn't have done what he have done if America didn't poke him, or not. And I can say that in my country the majority of people would have appreciated a process instead of a random killing spree.

Do you honestly think you can make compromises with someone like Bin Laden? Really?? The Taliban publicly flogged and even beheaded women who did not adequately cover up. They imprisoned those who laugh, dance or listen to music. In Sudan the Janjaweed militia backed by the Islamist Sudanese government carry out ethnic cleansing in the name of Islam. And I can go on ad nauseum with several other examples. The point is that Bin Laden was cut from the same cloth.

There was a time when I felt some measure of sympathy for the arab world and of muslims in general. And I had an intense anti-American streak in me. All that changed in my first year of med school in Canada. I encountered for the first time an Islamic fundamentalist. He told me that I was a blaspheming atheist who came from a family of idol worshipping hindus. He desperately wanted me to convert to Islam and with a smile on his face explained why I should be killed for my unbelief. He felt that I deserved the same fate as Salman Rushdie. This asshole was born and raised in Ontario, Canada and from a Pakistani household. This individual was not an arab who suffered at the hands of American or Israeli imperialism. In fact, he had nothing to do with American invasions, the trafficking of weapons, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.. He was simply a very devout muslim who enjoyed all the comforts of living in a secular democratic society. My views changed after meeting him and I thought why on earth do folks on the liberal left have any sympathy for these scumbags? In fact it is the leftists with their pathetic cultural relativism who permit these jackasses to preach their garbage in schools in the name of multiculturalism. Bin Laden was of the same cultural milieu as this creep who somehow got accepted into medical school. You cannot reason, compromise or cut deals with these people. What they want is for you and I to convert to their twisted ideology and become one of them.

And guess what. Bin laden took pleasure in killing his people. More muslims have died at his hands than non-muslims. He was simply not a person you can reason with. I don't usually condone killing but I'm sorry to say this. Bin Laden had to be killed.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm three quarters

 

 

through Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim and whatever shreds of sympathy I had for this religion (they were few) are dissipating. I agree with Ragdish. There's an instant blame game in Islamic nations that the 'West' or the 'Zionists' are responsible for all ills.

I have close friends who are Coptic Egyptians, Lebanese Christians. My best mate's wife is a Palestinian atheist, a very close friend is an Israeli agnostic, his wife a robust Yemeni atheist of Jewish descent. They make no such accusations, no comparable threats.

It's my contention that Islam is a hate crime and its Western defenders are flat out relativists who do not comprehend the true nature of what they defend.  

This said, in the context of this debate I depend on the UN's Charter of Human Rights for clarity in moral direction, which, if applied consistently, variously condemns the actions of all protagonists - and those who fail to admit their mistakes condemns most of all. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
wtvv6w5lw65

Quote:
Do you honestly think you can make compromises with someone like Bin Laden?

No, but why? Because they've been in war for all their life! You can't change their opinion if they continue to live in their 'hell'. Still you shouldn't assume what a person would do.
I too have talked to someone with this view, and I've discussed on RRS with JeanC. and hungry wolf, so I know what to expect. But people have a brain, no matter what; the problem is perhaps what difficulty you have to go through to gain the trust of the one you want to talk to. This could be next to impossible.
And another point is this: you can't untie a nation from the other people that nation has grown. This means that in the case of Iraq, for example, the nations that this country have relations with are guilty to have created a situation in which there's no way out if not killing each other. Or not?

Quote:
condemns the actions of all protagonists - and those who fail to admit their mistakes condemns most of all.

Indeed.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The US must be imperialistic

The US must be imperialistic because we don't want to suffer paying high gas prices. The Jews and Arabs must fight over limited 'promised' land. The Islamofacists must fight for to take their share of the pie.

Bin Laden's father has 55 kids. He has like 20. So do the math, with people like this, there is going to be intense competition and fighting of all kinds over the planet's limited resources. The rats in cage that kill the most other rats are going to win.

Chomsky is just another moron that ignores the obvious. There is no morally superior rat in all this.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Chomsky is just

EXC wrote:
Chomsky is just another moron that ignores the obvious. There is no morally superior rat in all this.

(Actually, I think that's one of Chomsky's selling points, in which he uses the US as an example.)

Well, if you want to put on the blinders extra thick, you could pretend that Int'l Law and it's lackeys are on the moral high ground. I don't get what's so moral about that, in a system that's plagued with pacifistic dreamers and overpaid lawyers.

 

(I can kinda understand AE's use of it, though.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


funknotik
atheist
funknotik's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2007-12-10
User is offlineOffline
I think one of the points

I think one of the points Chomsky has made in the past is that the US is guilty of major human rights abuses world wide, which if properly summed up could be viewed as "acts of terrorism." Whether by economic sanctions, the contras in Nicaragua, or even the assembly of what later came to be known as the Bin Ladin network. Keep in mind in 1979 President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski authorized the CIA's assembly of the Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan as "the Afghan trap." This resulted in a huge mercenary army comprised of expatriates from Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and several other neighboring countries. So the OG followers of Bin Ladin where not even Afghanis's, keep in mind Binny wasn't even an Afghan himself he was born in Pakistan.  So essentially the US created and assembled these radical islamists in their holly war against the Russians who where at the time the "big communist threat."  As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. So we've come full circle and now the US has killed the idiot they created. Not saying I fully agree with Chomsky but I understand the point he is trying to make. Although I'm glad there is one less extremist fucktard in the world sadly I don't think it will make much of a difference. As far as American expansionist doctrine the US is guilty of extreme war crimes as well so don't put on your good guy badge just yet. Just because we haven't crashed planes into buildings in another country does not mean we haven't done some terrible fucking things.

 

 

"There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related." -William Gibson

 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Dude, if you

ragdish wrote:

Dude, if you truly fucking scrutinzed my bolded text, I was making a statement about totalitarian Islam to which Bin Laden was a symbol of. If my text implied he was a belief (which was not my intent), then Bin Ladenism indeed is a theistic ideology with roots in Wahhabism or any other totalitarian variant of Islam. I am sure that over 99% of atheists are against this ideology. And ipso facto, atheism does indeed take a stand against totalitarian theologies.

You said specifically he's the anti-thesis of ATHEISM. Atheism is the anti-thesis of theism. It has nothing to do with totalitarian anything, in fact, it doesn't even keep one from being religious. Buddhists, Raelians, Scientologists and some sects of Hinduism are able to be atheists. You are simply making atheism your religion, and that is disturbing.

ragdish wrote:
In regards to violating international law and invading a country such as Pakistan which seems to have zero means of ridding itself of such nutjobs, I wholeheartedly support. Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction and was responsible for the Mumbai attacks resulting in the deaths of many who had nothing to do with 911, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Arab-Israeli conflict. That attack occurred when both nations seemed to want to arrive at some solution to Kashmir and yet Pakistani terrorists felt compelled to take out scores of Hindus, Muslims and Jews in India. And it is only a matter of time before Islamists in Pakistan get a hold of a dirty bomb and unleash a first strike against a neigbhor like India. So dude, don't preach to me about international law here. Either Pakistan knowingly harbored Bin Laden or it has an extremely incompetent intelligence service. If that's the case, then I say invade the nation if it will bring some modicum of safety to the rest of the world.
The Pakistani government had nothing to do with the Mumbai attack. Blaming "Pakistan" for that is borderline racist. The entirety of the people aren't responsible for the actions of a few. Now, sure, harbouring bin Laden might warrant an invasion, but it is against international law unless it's approved by the UN, and that's it.


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
la mirada invisible

Quote:
As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. So we've come full circle and now the US has killed the idiot they created. Not saying I fully agree with Chomsky but I understand the point he is trying to make. Although I'm glad there is one less extremist fucktard in the world sadly I don't think it will make much of a difference. As far as American expansionist doctrine the US is guilty of extreme war crimes as well so don't put on your good guy badge just yet. Just because we haven't crashed planes into buildings in another country does not mean we haven't done some terrible fucking things.

There always has been multiple interpretations.
It could be that bin Laden was important, not just some other 'terrorists', because as someone other pointed he survived so many years in war with America & co. So he could be a loss because of his knowledge of how other nations' military works and what affairs they had.
The WTC event was not only a plane crashing into a skyscraper, but a hit to the arrogance, the power and the economy of U.S. and, to some degree, the rest of the world.
I don't ask myself "how could we kill those terrorists", I ask myself "what has caused such a wave of anger, sufficient to cause people to kill themselves just to harm the others?". Religion is not the answer. Even the "peace, bro" buddhists had their kamikaze. Their problem, to my understanding, is that they live in a hell, they are being invaded, being killed, there was millions of people who escaped from Iraq. If middle-east was not invaded, could you tell me that history would have gone this way? Terrorism and all the other things? I don't think so.
And you are right to say we couldn't reason with them. Because there's no reasoning to do. They only want to be left alone. All this mess was unnecessary.