Oh, I See... (Iraqi Downing of US Copter)

[Regnad Kcin]

In Monday, November 3rd's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55016-2003Nov2.html), Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen report on the reaction to the weekend missle attack of a US Army helicopter, which killed 16 and injured 20.

Telling, I think, was this passage, appearing in the 17th paragraph: The White House issued a statement, in the name of a spokesman, invoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and pledging that the United States "will prevail in this critical front in the war on terror, because the stakes are too high to do anything less."Is the White House intentionally trading on the emotions of 9/11, or do they sincerely believe (certainly a possibility) that everything stems from that event?

[wollery]

Of course everything stems from 9/11.....
Dubya would never have been able to justify attacking Iraq if that hadn't happened! :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by wollery
Of course everything stems from 9/11.....
Dubya would never have been able to justify attacking Iraq if that hadn't happened! :rolleyes:

Yeah,...can you imagine!? There'd have been a huge hue and cry if he'd only bombed Afghan terror bases without a 9/11 or other major terror event to justify it!!

As it is, the lefties predicted millions of dead Afghan civilians just before the invasion. That nimrod Chomski being chief among them.

-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
The White House issued a statement, in the name of a spokesman, invoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and pledging that the United States "will prevail in this critical front in the war on terror, because the stakes are too high to do anything less."

The only thing in quotes is "will prevail in this critical front in the war on terror, because the stakes are too high to do anything less."

[specious_reasons]

Resorting to histrionics because your position on the war in Iraq is so flimsy? I'm hardly convinced.

Originally posted by rikzilla


Yeah,...can you imagine!? There'd have been a huge hue and cry if he'd only bombed Afghan terror bases without a 9/11 or other major terror event to justify it!!

As it is, the lefties predicted millions of dead Afghan civilians just before the invasion. That nimrod Chomski being chief among them.

-z

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Yeah,...can you imagine!? There'd have been a huge hue and cry if he'd only bombed Afghan terror bases without a 9/11 or other major terror event to justify it!!

As it is, the lefties predicted millions of dead Afghan civilians just before the invasion. That nimrod Chomski being chief among them.

-z
Chomsky accurately pointed out that the total ban on traffic into Afghanistan during the winter months cut of all access of food aid for millions of people who were dependent on it for survival. He also said that this risked killing millions if the war became protracted and that there was little reaction in the US to this news :

"I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York Times. According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine."

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by bangdazap

Chomsky accurately pointed out that the total ban on traffic into Afghanistan during the winter months cut of all access of food aid for millions of people who were dependent on it for survival. He also said that this risked killing millions if the war became protracted and that there was little reaction in the US to this news :

"I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York Times. According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine."

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

The fact remains that he clearly inferred that the coming US invasion of Afghanistan would result in literally millions of dead civilians due to starvation....and that this would be the fault of warmongering America.

"the (American) demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people."

It didn't happen, did it? Now, the point I was trying to make is that had it not been for the extreme nature of 9/11 the US would have stopped short of invasion mainly because of the kind of pressure applied by the left via the NYT and Mr. Chomsky.

In the end Chomsky and NYT were proved conclusively WRONG on this issue. Just as wrong as GWB was about the WMD issue.

No one side has a lock on the truth. It always comes out in the end. ...and no, Afghanistan and Iraq never could have been done in the absence of the 9/11 event.

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The fact remains that he clearly inferred that the coming US invasion of Afghanistan would result in literally millions of dead civilians due to starvation....and that this would be the fault of warmongering America.


His statement was qualfied. Your unethical mis-summarization wasn't.

Chomsky is nuts, yes, but you still cheated when you created that false slogan to ridicule.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wollery
Of course everything stems from 9/11.....
Dubya would never have been able to justify attacking Iraq if that hadn't happened! :rolleyes:

FDR would never have been able to justify attacking Japan if Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, either, but that hardly means he was a warmonger. For that matter, if a homocidal manic hadn't ran to me waving a big sword, I wouldn't have had any justification for shooting him.

The liberal "criticism" of US policy here seems to be the equivalent of claiming that I WOULD be the agressor in such a situation, since I always wanted to shoot the guy anyway (says who?), and used the attack with a big sword "merely as an excuse to justify my agressive actions".

Go figure.

Speaking of Chomsky, by ther way, I've checked a backlog of his "predictions" of what will "surely happen" when the US (or other nations) do this or that. From the 1970s (when he started making his predictions) to today, he has been almost 100% wrong.

His reputation as a political "expert" seems to be based on the same sort of blind faith that Sylvia Browne's believers have: his few correct guesses are given as "proof" of his amazing intellectual insight and understanding what's "really" going on, while his numerous misses are explained away or forgotten.

Chomsky is an example of what Parkinson, of "Parkinson's Law" fame, called "the man who is always wrong". The US government could save itself a lot of time and money by simply asking Chomsky what he thinks should be done, listen to his brilliant, amazing analysis, and then go and do the exact opposite.

Naturally, this would only work as long as Chomsky himself doesn't realize he's opinion is being solicited just to be manipulated by cynical politicos for their own purpose. but given his past history, THAT will take a while.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


FDR would never have been able to justify attacking Japan if Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, either, but that hardly means he was a warmonger. For that matter, if a homocidal manic hadn't ran to me waving a big sword, I wouldn't have had any justification for shooting him.
Can you spot the difference between Pearl Harbor/attacking Japan and 9/11/attack Iraq? Take your time.

The liberal "criticism" of US policy here seems to be the equivalent of claiming that I WOULD be the agressor in such a situation, since I always wanted to shoot the guy anyway (says who?), and used the attack with a big sword "merely as an excuse to justify my agressive actions".
You'll have to clarify this. I suspect it's either a Skeptic Crap Analogy^TM or incoherent ranting. Feel free to correct me.


Speaking of Chomsky, by ther way, I've checked a backlog of his "predictions" of what will "surely happen" when the US (or other nations) do this or that. From the 1970s (when he started making his predictions) to today, he has been almost 100% wrong.

His reputation as a political "expert" seems to be based on the same sort of blind faith that Sylvia Browne's believers have: his few correct guesses are given as "proof" of his amazing intellectual insight and understanding what's "really" going on, while his numerous misses are explained away or forgotten.

Chomsky is an example of what Parkinson, of "Parkinson's Law" fame, called "the man who is always wrong". The US government could save itself a lot of time and money by simply asking Chomsky what he thinks should be done, listen to his brilliant, amazing analysis, and then go and do the exact opposite.

Naturally, this would only work as long as Chomsky himself doesn't realize he's opinion is being solicited just to be manipulated by cynical politicos for their own purpose. but given his past history, THAT will take a while.
Chomsky is a politcal commentator when he isn't being a linguist. You are the one who says he makes 'predictions'. This is incredibly disingenuous of you. He no more makes predictions than the general who says "I think our next war will be with Russia" makes predictions.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Skeptic

FDR would never have been able to justify attacking Japan if Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, either, but that hardly means he was a warmonger. For that matter, if a homocidal manic hadn't ran to me waving a big sword, I wouldn't have had any justification for shooting him.

The liberal "criticism" of US policy here seems to be the equivalent of claiming that I WOULD be the agressor in such a situation, since I always wanted to shoot the guy anyway (says who?), and used the attack with a big sword "merely as an excuse to justify my agressive actions".

Go figure.

Actually, I think a more accurate description would be that some guy attacked you with a big sword, so you went after him. you couldn't find him, so you then went after that other guy down the street who has been p*ssing you off lately. You then try to justify the attack on the guy down the street because he might have a bunch of swords and might give them to people like that guy who attacked you with a sword... hey, remember that attack? LETS GET THAT GUY DOWN THE STREET!!!!!

[Skeptic]

His statement was qualfied. Your unethical mis-summarization wasn't.

The reason that Chomsky's statement was "qualified" with numerous "could" and "might" weasel-words is the same reason Sylvia Browne's statements are usually "qualified" with such words. It's in order to make the prediction true--and make Chomsky or Browne appear like sages--no matter what happens.

When Sylvia Browne says that your dead grandfather tells you that you MIGHT have cancer and need to have it checked (to use her typical bulls--t medical advice "insights"), then if she is right, she was "amazingly accurate in her prediction". If, however, you have no cancer, then it's a "qualified statement": she only said you MIGHT have cancer, not that you DO.

When Chomsky says that the US invasion MIGHT cause starvation of millions in Afghanistan, then if it happens, he's made an "devastatingly accurate prediction of the horrible effects evil US imperialism" (or whatever). When it doesn't happen, he wasn't WRONG, God forbid: it was just a "qualified statement". He only said it MIGHT happen.

You MUST ignore the weasel-words in Chomsky's political writings, or you find out that virtually ALL of his "predictions" are so qualified as to say nothing at all, but merely that X "might" (or might not) happen if the US does Y, which we already knew. When we ignore the "mights", however, you find out that his "predictions" are virtually 100% wrong--just like Sylvia Browne's.

I, for one, see no difference between Browne's pretentious attempt to make medical diagnoses and be accepted as an "emotional sage" who can read your thoughts using this scummy (and obvious) "fail safe" prediction method, and Chomsky's no-less-pretentious attempt to be seen as a "political sage" who can read G. W. Bush's thoughts using the exact same method.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Thanz

Actually, I think a more accurate description would be that some guy attacked you with a big sword, so you went after him. you couldn't find him, so you then went after that other guy down the street who has been p*ssing you off lately. You then try to justify the attack on the guy down the street because he might have a bunch of swords and might give them to people like that guy who attacked you with a sword... hey, remember that attack? LETS GET THAT GUY DOWN THE STREET!!!!! That's very good! I like that analogy. I think I might have to change my sig...

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The only thing in quotes is "will prevail in this critical front in the war on terror, because the stakes are too high to do anything less." You're quite correct, Luke. Without viewing the White House statement in question, it's not possible to ascertain just how much weight it places on a "Remember the Alamo" angle. Still, the possibility that it's likely there was at least some mention of Sept. 11 is troubling.

In addition, I'm perplexed by the idea of a "front" in the war on terror, the term being one usually used with -- if not only applicable to -- conventional warfare, something that terrorism is certainly not. I fear that the sentiment amongst those in positions of decision making may be along the lines of "we have the biggest, most powerful armed forces in the history of mankind and by golly, we're going to use them" (meaning no disrespect). This, in spite of the common understanding that a hammer, if you will, is not exactly the best instrument with which to filet a fish.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
You're quite correct, Luke. Without viewing the White House statement in question, it's not possible to ascertain just how much weight it places on a "Remember the Alamo" angle. Still, the possibility that it's likely there was at least some mention of Sept. 11 is troubling.

In addition, I'm perplexed by the idea of a "front" in the war on terror, the term being one usually used with -- if not only applicable to -- conventional warfare, something that terrorism is certainly not. I fear that the sentiment amongst those in positions of decision making may be along the lines of "we have the biggest, most powerful armed forces in the history of mankind and by golly, we're going to use them" (meaning no disrespect). This, in spite of the common understanding that a hammer, if you will, is not exactly the best instrument with which to filet a fish.

I don't exactly like the choice of words myself. Attaching the war in Iraq to the war on terror is a tactical mistake, I think. Perhaps the thinking of the Administration is that it is easier to swallow one big lump called "war on terror" instead of two lumps called "war on terror (Afghanistan/Patriot Act/Dept of Homeland Security)" and "protecting the U.S. against a middle east madman we've been allowing to live for too long."

I don't know.

I am inclined to believe that is their thinking because they aren't calling it a "war on terrorism."