Distorted Morality: America's War on Terror?

America's post-9/11 war on terror is a logical impossibility

The U.S. government has been, and continues to be, a major supporter of state-supported terrorism, favoring retaliatory or preemptive aggression over mediation in the world court, and avoiding accountability by excluding itself from the globally accepted definition of terrorism.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. government is powerfully scrutinized in Distorted Morality, a scathing thesis presented by renowned scholar Noam Chomsky.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13936.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Noam Chomsky and his buddy John Pilger are reknowned for their alternative views on American activities.

Its also a known fact that it help to sell their books

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks for the link. I watched it all. I can agree (with the US's official definition, given at start in more detail, but that basically: "terrorism is violence for political goals.) I can also (as can any one honest) see that the magnitude of US violence, measured by resulting deaths, in effort to achieve political goals, easily exceeds any other organizations efforts. This is so obvious that, I will just mention one old and one new example.
(1) In the after math of the CIA destroying the democratically elected but openly left govern in Chile (on 9/11 also) about 50,000 people were "disappeared" usually by being drugged and dropped into the sea from the US helicopters supplied to the CIA's new regime.
(2) Currently, the death rate of innocents in Iraq is exceeds the more recent 9/11 terror in NYC etc every month and the regime installed to replace Saddam is filled with agents, many wearing police uniforms that are dong much of this killing. (Dumping at least 50 mutilated bodies in the streets every day 800 of these police officers were removed a few weeks ago for being part of this, but the tortured bodies found in the streets has not diminished so they must have been a small minority that fell out of favor politically.)

However, because the actual operative definition of "Terrorist" is "anyone opposing actions desired by the US government" I do not agree that it is a "logical impossibility" for the US to fight a war on terror. Certainly with this operative definition, the US government can help a military dictator, such as General Mussarrif, overthrow the elected government and proclaim him a great democratic ally in the "war on terror." The US, at least GBW, can proclaim anyone he wishes to be an "enemy combatant," throw him or her in jail, even US citizens, for no defined term without recourse to the regular courts etc. As the "operative definition" of terrorist is "opposing US actions," I am probably a terrorist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

their views are more authoratative and valid than than the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head.

 

Spock: Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.

Uncanny parallel.

 

No more Kool-Aid for you.

Off to Betty Ford you go.

 

Careful outlandish - Dont make presumptions

I have read Chomsky and Pilger -

Just tell me one thing please

Explain your meaning by saying "the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head"

Are you one of those people who think the President ordered the destruction of the Twin Towers

Is that your slant???

 

Couldn't you have found a transcript? This guy meanders around so slowly you can see his point coming a mile away. Of course, his whole argument is predicated on a faulty definition of terrorism that would label any military action as terrorism. He said the US had used as a definition for terrorism, "any violent action to achieve political ends". I looked up the US definition of terrorism, here it is:

So there you go. By no means does any action taken by the US government in the war on Islamofascism meet that definition. And Mr Chomsky said he would always use the US government definitions and give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Chomsky is a spin merchant - not worth his weight in horse dung

 

To whom?

 

Sammys Wikipedia strikes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky


Look Sammy - I dont like the man, he is a critic of the west - which might suits your views - but not mine -OK

 

MIT websites:
Biography

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/biography/noambio.html

 

Hmm, so a Linguist who thinks that he is a Political Scientist and Lawyer. Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur? Yes he is a great linguist and has helped the field of psychology, but that means squat in the world of Politics, Law, and War.

 

And your opinion holds more weight because...?

 

I didn't say it did, but certianly it doesn't hold less weight. After all this is just his opinion, nothing more.

 

Oh I apologise. I did not realise you were also the most cited living scholar as he was.

http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ahci/

 

Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur?

Too right we can TW

Sam has an attitude problem which is apparent in her posts - I suppose she supports Chomsky's views to the letter. Thats fine for her and anyone else that wishes to believe his unfounded propogandan shite, that is their choice

 

So, that is linguistics. Last I checked politics was not linguistics and neither was Law, or warfare, or diplomacy...

If he spoke on linguistics I would say his opinion had weight. He's not in this case so in that way he is of no more importance to me than Homer J Simpson

 

You are sooo sarcastic - that is the lowest form of wit, but it suits you well. You are not a very likeable creature.

 

ooh my heart is broken! stewie hates me!! WHAT CAN I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!