This is a war, and Noam Chomsky is a traitor

My reaction to Gnome Chomsky's reaction to Osama bin Laden's death is that gnome means a very small or ugly person.

'In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan,.....' (Guernica)

And how much do you think the FBI will know now? Once the materials retrieved from Osama's Pakistan safe-house have been analyzed, it is entirely feasible that the 9/11 jihad attack will be laid bare in all its gory detail.

Gnome Chomsky is a clown!

"In societies that profess some respect for law..."

Maybe Noam should investigate the realities of Islamic law...

Even if it was indisputably an assassination (look up the etymology of that word BTW) and "Wanted: Dead or Alive" had morphed into "Wanted: Dead or Deader" so what?? BFD!!!!!
Get a life Noam.

God Bless our Navy Seals.

My only complaint is that that A-hole had too good of a death and didn't suffer.

Hello Robert and re Noam Chomsky as a traitor. I roger that all the way. Leftists and "liberals" are biting the hand that feeds them, that is the West, which gives them the liberty to air their views and push their agendas. Ancient Greece was, and the West is, rather unique in the history (misery) of mankind. But it is fragile and their hammer blows are starting to crack it. This excerpt from a poem by Houseman gets to the bone of why they are the way they are and do what they do. "I, alone and afraid, in a world I never made."
What are the stakes here and what is going on? See the back cover, the top bar, and the circles of values and the virtuous. Hey, I see your name there.
http://imageshack.us/f/30/backcover11.jpg/

Noam Chomsky is one of the most philosophically and morally bankrupt "intellectuals" I've ever come across.

He clearly can't see the role that intent plays in these situations. The modern moral equater never does. They just assume that both sides are guilty, bad as each other etc etc. This thinking springs from a self-loathing, ignorant attitude whereby reasoning is rendered useless and neutured by politically correct sentiments.

And to think that this maniac has been poisoning the minds of many young people he lectures. No wonder so many Westerners hate themselves. I don't, even knowing the West's history, warts and all. In fact, it makes me proud. Chomsky is a coward, lost in his world of cultural relativism as he has been for the past 40 years. He will never find a way out of the darkness. If he does, he will need a very big torch and lots of courage.

Noam Chomsky can not even spell right. Not that I would not make any mistakes, but as a professional writer, Noam Chomsky should do a better job.
He wrote "Nuremberg" but it is "Nürnberg" or at least "Nuernberg"!
Noam Chomsky managed to make 2 errors on 1 word and that is just the tip of the iceberg, the rest he spelled correctly, but the content is as false as it could be.

Example:

he compared Bin Laden with Bush, but I thought Bin Laden was not a Leader, he was just one of a few of the hijackers of Islam, right? Why than compare him with Bush?

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s

I really wish this triggers an Alien vs Predator civil war within the Left - after all, most mainstream Leftists would love to bask in the glory of their president being the one to claim credit for the killing of Osama, and probably wouldn't take kindly to someone on their side condemning his act as worse than the 9/11 attacks.

Also, I wonder how Comrade Noam defines 'uncontroversially'? The condemnation of Bush on the grounds he generally lists is something only Leftists do!!! While a big chunk of the Right does disagree w/ the former president on a number of things, starting a war against Iraq, pushing the Bush doctrine, waging war for oil et al ain't amongst them. But Comrade Noam probably thinks that the 9/11 attacks were controversial i.e. only dastardly Right Wingers and Obama supporters support it, and everyone else opposes it.

I just wish there was a way of sending him to Pakistan and leaving him there in that Abbottabad compound, so that he can meet like minded people there!

What Chomsky says would be valid if the Seals had carried out their operation against a legally appointed leader in a civilized country.

But we are dealing with barbarians; deceitful and morally bankrupt savages. Under these circumstances the action was justified.

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law.

Errr, Noam, dear fellow, do stop dabbling in things you are not qualified to to pontificate on, there's a good chap. Being a linquistics expert (whose theories have been discredited already) does not make you an expert in international law. International Law does not forbid the killing of active enemy combatants in a time of war, so unless Bin Laden negotiated a surrender he was not protected by the law, international or otherwise.

The Jihadis could give two sh*ts. They think Chomsky is a laughable baffoon and would slit his infidel throat in a heartbeat to suggest all have the right to due process.

The penalty for treason is death. Unfortunately, his Freedom of Speech trumps that.
We're still FREE in the good old USA ! ! !
Now if he DOES anything treasonous, that's a different story. He'd better watch out about giving aid and comfort to the Enemy.

Gwen Paltrow,

They would kill Chomsky because he is Jewish, without regard for his pro-Muslim advocacy.

About the name "Guernica" ;
The name of the magazine “Guernica, politics and art" indicates the trend and the spirit that has, on the left, false and propagandistic.

Guernica, as many know, is the name of a village in northern Spain that was bombed on April 26, 1937 by German and italian planes during the Spanish Civil War.

Picasso, a communist living in Paris, painted a famous painting with that name.

There were killed between 3000 and 4000 people, it was market day and there were people from other villages. That was the first bombing of a population in the Spanish Civil War. Picasso painted this picture to order to express the horror of war. Very nice, but all lies.

The reality:

The most serious investigations contradict the Marxist propaganda and set the death toll at 126.

The attack lasted several hours and consisted of several attacks of short duration. That made that from the first attack there were not more people in the streets.

The targets were bridges and communication routes. There was a fire, which spread and the firemans where sent by the Basque authorities several hours after the beggining of fire, which allowed to destroy under the most of the town, as they already had done on other occasions, as in Eibar or Irun, facilitated appear as victims.

It was not the first bombing of a city in the War of Spain,the marxist republicans had already bombarded Zaragoza, Oviedo, Cordoba and others.

Picasso's painting was not painted by the bombing, was painted before and just adapted it by changing some figures. At first it was a painting in honor of bullfighting.

The name of the magazine “Guernica, politics and art", indicates the trend and the spirit that has, on the left, false and propagandistic.

I disagree on an important detail with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller on this treatment of Chomsky

But in saying so I want to make it clear that Robert has done a service in exposing this Chomsky guy, who poses as some kind of socialist. I dispute that characterisation most strongly.

Chomsky as is quite evident from his positions is a supporter of Fascism, the Fascism of Sharia, as are all of the present day “Left”

And there are important points made above, especially the way that Chomsky substitutes Bush for Obama, always providing a cover for Obama, because of course Obama and Chomsky are very close politically.

That is where the disintegration of America is taking place and where the all-out attack on the First Amendment takes place also

I wrote:

The “Left” a la Chomsky is quite mad. But note that I used parenthesis as indeed the “Left” as is Chomsky has nothing to do with traditional socialism, of the Marx, Lenin, Trotsky type.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have to keep that in mind, if they are able politically speaking to keep that in mind. (see Jihadwatch for lead article)

Chomsky is equating here Bin Laden with George Bush, and is equating the Government and Intelligence Service of Pakistan which gave safe houses to Bin Laden, and to many other terrorist Fascists who are waging war against India, with America

The man has lost his marbles and note that this “Left” is on the same wavelength as Archbishop Ramsey

It reminds me of Allen on Talk Radio Europe calling America “Fascist”

Geller and Spencer must get it on board that this Chomsky represents something else. He is a Fascist, a Nazi, in that he is lined up with Nazis.

These two should really know and should understand this.

Everything that they write directs us correctly to the root of the problem as being that Islam is a fascist ideology as well as being a religion. That is the crux of the matter.

http://4international.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/the-good-name-of-revolutionary-socialism-has-to-be-defended-against-this-fascist-supporting-chomsky/

Slightly OT

Pakistan's main intelligence agency chief (ISI), Shuji Ahmad Pasha, traveled to Washington yesterday to meet his counterpart, Leon Panetta.

Hope he got his butt kicked for all the lies over the years.

And while I'm here: @ gunfire

Out of ignorance, you wrote: 'And the right is as pure as the driven snow?'

The 'right' is not hand-in-hand with a bunch of 7th Century savages whose mandated aim, as per the Qur'an, is to subjugate the world and destroy all our hard-won freedoms.

Clown!

The idea that we assassinated Laden is correct.
We carried out a death sentence on a murderer.
What we did possibly violates Catholic Church teachings, But not definitely violates Catholic Church teachings.
If we were to jail Bin Laden, could we protect all the people who would be charged with the task of keeping him locked up? The question is can we lock up all of these murderers? We have a moral right to stop them. Can we incarcerate them all.? That is a question the Catholic Church should answer or the Church officials should "SHUT UP". I bring up the Catholic Church because as Robert Spencer knows....The Church is the Authority on earth whether recognized or not. There is almost no way we can lock up all the Muslims who seek to destroy Free Society.
I believe we have the moral obligation to try. Just maybe we should have captured Bin Laden. May God rest his soul and have mercy on mine. I can't help but feel better he's dead, and that scares the hell out of me. Noam Chomsky's remarks are noises coming from hell. Don't listen to Idiots

Chompsky is just an attention whore...

I put him on ignore.

Chomsky, there would be considerably less "international law" if America didn't finance the UN. Yes, we profess "some" respect for law, but a LOT more for JUSTICE. Look up the letter of mohammadan law; it says ALL that happens is the will of allah. There are a lot of mobs now, enraging allah because they do not accept the will of allah and submit to him. NO, Barack Hussein Obama did NOT order the death of bin laden. He said he would sleep on it. 16 hours later, on the golf course, he was informed that the operation was underway. He was not able to STOP the operation. His chain of command was FRACTURED, by American patriots. So, when it turned out well, except for alienating mohammadans, he took credit for it.

Chumpsky has always had symptoms of self guilt...There is nothing new about that...His take on The death of Binnie is another expression of it...There may have then some advantages in taking him alive, but that had a lot of built in problems...He probably had a lot of beans to spill, that could be embarrassing to some people...He's probably spilling them to Davy Jones, right now...

Chomsky is easy to refute. But he's laughing all the way to the bank.

People like Chomsky suffer from a condition known as Chronic Attention Seeking Disorder.

People suffering from this disorder show signs of a displeasing anger when their ramblings no longer evoke shock. The anger sometimes manifests itself into episodes of child like tantrums. The tantrums are triggered when the people around the sufferer refuse to listen to anymore attention seeking BS.

I happen to be an expert on this type of behavior. My wife has been suffering with it for years.

Who and how many people agree with Noam Chomsky's general attitude? I suppose many among the Muslims and Political-Correct people. So how to refute them factually and logically? If only to reaffirm we are on the right side?

I don't know, but it seems to me that Chomsky and his sympathizers do compare the actions of Democratic Western governments, which they slander so shockingly viciously, with some utopia that never existed. Or perhaps with some countries who for some time now did not have big threats and big dilemma's to handle, and who are not powerful, so not to be held responsible for the power they have. Like Finland, or Switzerland, Luxemburg or Nauru.

But when in history did any actual government, in the same powerful situation as the American government behave better than the American governments since 1776? Or at least since 1945? I think no government ever! It is important to see where we fallible humans come from. And where our tendency is going.

Perhaps Chomsky's blind spot is that he compares the American government, with it's great power, thus great responsibility, with some sort of non-existing Angel-like responsible people, in long-sustainable high power.

But he should compare them with all other really existing humans and governments in 5000 years of history. History certainly started much more simple-minded and bloody, without much conscientious legal-lawful behavior. And mankind and governments stayed this way for very long, arguablyy until the 18th century, when gradually mankind and governments started to improve, with the Enlightenment and American and French revolutions.

And it would be logical if this trend were to continue in the 21st century. And it is only logical that mankind and governments are not perfect yet, still have a lot to improve, but still are already much better than past governments were.

When asked to provide real existing, really possible better governments, roughly in the same powerful circumstances of the US government, Chomsky will fail. Every possible better competitor to the US government will be shown to be less conscientious, humane, considering all the circumstances, no other possible government, that is in power for any length of time, will be shown to be able to behave better.

Certainly not any Islamic government.

In a world where the West has become feeble through the intellectual consideration of an obligation to pay respect to others even in the face of attrocities, it is cowardly men like Chomsky, feeling safe, to cower behind and support, Militant supremacist Muslims who take life on the basis of personal beliefs. Does he not forget the killings of innocent Christians ... and is George Bush personally responsible for this? It is the indoctinated beliefs and practices of this religion at the 'grass roots level' that lead to the violation of innocent lives. Does he not acknowledge this? He of course evades the reality of this,according it the dignity of an intellectual exercise in which its evil foundation is conveniently concealed and shifting focus to the behaviour of Nazis, inferring some similarity.

And does he consider the al Quaeda a responsible organization with which one can make above board arrangements and deals? Look at their proven, documented track record. He is inferring some element of responsibility and integrity in an organization desighed ultimately to kill those who not bow to some dire entity which is nothing more than an extension of their own lives.

His comments and resolve do not reflect those of a man of integrity,sincerity wisdom and insight. Were his conditions regarding the intervention and capture of OBL met,he would simply not have been caught -hehas proven to be instrumental in attrocities against humanity outside of his major terrort involvment on US soil, in any case. His actions have been instrumental at least indirectly, to the ruination of thousands of lives.... the fact that he was unarmed at the time, showing fear and confusion is of no consequence....Why did the personal courier and OBL's son open fire at the sight of the US forces...why were there guns in the home....

In view of past experiences, and documented evidence in which terrorist blow themselves up when pursued, it is only rational and reasonable for the US to take this very real possibility into account when confronting this man....are wereally obligated to pay this man any respect under international law?

Wouldn't it be interesting if Chomsky came to JW and responded to the comments here?

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic."

Ho hum....more smoke and mirrors from the Looney Left. In his diatribe, Gnome Chompsky neglected to acknowledge that George W. Bush was a legally chosen political leader of a nation with clearly established political/geographical boundaries. Osama bin Laden enjoyed no such status.

Osama bin Laden was, at best, a sociopath and a criminal (as islam is prone to producing in great numbers). Even his own kin couldn't tolerate him and turned him out into the cold. He was an outlaw in every sense of the word. One of the responses above (by Phil) says we have a moral right to stop people like OBL. I will take in a step further and say that not only do we have a moral right to do so, but we have a moral obligation to do so! We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to our descendents. Civilized society has no obligation to allow the mad dogs in our midst to hold us hostage to the fevered impulses of their insane brains.

According to Gnome Chompsky's logic, Atticus Finch should not have been permitted to shoot the rabid dog that was menacing his children, his neighbors and his community in the novel "To Kill A Mockingbird" and should have been branded a criminal and a murderer for doing so. According to Gnome Chompsky's ethics, the rabid dog was no different/worse than all the other dogs in town. What's more, the rabid dog's life is equal in value to the lives of all the humans and their chattel!

Someone needs to explain to Gnome Chompsky and his ilk that while it IS a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is NOT a sin to kill rabid animals! Sadly, there are people on this earth who simply need killing. As is the case with rabies once it has reached the central nervous system, their brains are simply too badly broken for us to fix and their continued existence threatens us all. Within the scope of our current medical/scientific capabilities, the animal must be killed and the body sufficiently destroyed in order to prevent the threat from spreading.

Regardless of what people might think of Bush's policies, there is no legitimate comparison between Osama bin Laden and George Bush or the leader of any other nation.

It was an assassination, but the question is whether it was preventable. Reports have had it that it was an original intent assassination rather than a capture, and if true that's hard to justify. Bin Laden would have yielded a cornucopia of intel, alive, bin Laden would have been humiliated, and our justice system would have been affirmed.

But the Islamic world would have been afire, with murder, mayhem, and mass hostage-taking as collateral. And the Obama/Holder policy of trying terrorists in civilian courts would have been shown to be the malignant absurdity it is. So it seems the decision to kill rather than capture, if true (and it's hard to know what's true about this episode, thanks to our inept White House) reflects a pragmatic and even cynical unwillingness to confront the reality of Islamic sentiment. That's nothing to be celebrated.

It was an assassination, but the question is whether it was necessary. Reports have had it that it was an original intent assassination rather than a capture, and if true that's hard to justify. Bin Laden alive would have yielded a cornucopia of intel, and would have been humiliated, while our justice system would have been affirmed.

But the Islamic world would have been afire, with murder, mayhem, and mass hostage-taking as collateral. And the Obama/Holder policy of trying terrorists in civilian courts would have been shown to be the malignant absurdity it is. So it seems the decision to kill rather than capture, if true (and it's hard to know what's true about this episode, thanks to our inept White House) reflects a pragmatic and even cynical unwillingness to confront the reality of Islamic sentiment. That's nothing to be celebrated.

An entire uncritical generation of conspiracy theorists and moral relativists grew up unchallenged during the Bush administration, prompted by the psuedo-intellectualized tirades of individuals such as Chomsky. Apparently if one's academic credentials are sufficiently impressive, one's foreign policy views - regardless of how inane and insular - are taken as the gold standard of political opinion. As a self-professed anarchic-socialist, Chomsky's pitiful views on combating Islamic violence are natural extensions of his general inability to recognize the need for expedient resolution in war. It is always funny to see people refer to "international law", as if there is a solid, binding document sitting in some posh city in Europe - as if the U.S. must subordinate itself to the nebulous auspices of an international "consensus", and not for example, it's own constitution. Chomsky is ignorant of the law, of foreign policy, and readily lacking in the field of moral judgment. Stick to linguistics you twit.

It is events like the assassination of Osama bin Laden that show the moral bankruptcy of liberalism. The rantings of Noam Chomsky come as little surprise. One only need to read his books (and I unfortunately have read many of them) to know that he will always come down on the side of America's enemies. The man hates this country and it is sad that such a figure is able to hold a teaching position at such a prestigious educational institution (of course, the postmodernists and cultural Marxists have a firm grip on America's colleges and universities).

What is more troubling is the anguish that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and other ranking Anglican bishops have been demonstrating over the killing of bin Laden. These same bishops have had nothing of consequence to say about the aggressive Islamization of Britain (in fact, they have enabled it), nor the widespread violence against Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

To Aardvark

Yes 100% spot on ....if we stray from this prime point even for a moment...all will have been in vain. We keep according these people some ill concocted respect...and assume their actions reflect reason and standards of behaviour, but they don't.

Noam "Chew on it" Chomsky for President in 2012. He couldn't be any worse than Barack "I really don't want to kill a soul-mate" Obama, who also hates this country but is less adept at twisting facts and words around to fit his unicorn vision of the world. Chomsky is precisely the kind of "intellectual" who made Hitler's rise possible decades before the latter was even pedaling a bicycle on the front during WWI. It's leader-hungry intellectuals like Chomsky who pave the way to totalitarianism and concentration camps, and the first to become its mouthpieces when they do arrive. What we lack are intellectuals who can clean their clocks and show the world what the Chomskys really are.

"It was the planned assassination of a man who murdered three thousand Americans. George W. Bush ordering military operations in response to that murder is a moral equivalence that only a traitor would make."

Robert: If Osama bin Laden can be said to have murdered three thousand Iraqis because he (supposedly) ordered the 9/11 attacks, then surely Bush can be said to have murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis because he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Chomsky's point is that whereas we do not know whether or not bin Laden personally ordered the 9/11 attacks, we know for certain that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. But even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that bin Laden did indeed mastermind and personally order the 9/11 attacks, you seem to be arguing that the invasion of Iraq was morally justified as a response to the same. I find this quite incredible. Could you please point me to the evidence that shows that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

In other words: if Osama bin Laden is responsible for the atrocities of 9/11, how can the invasion of Iraq be regarded as a morally defensible response to it?

I couldn't resist playing with Bosch's comment :~)

This piece leaves me confused.

Is this actually Chompsky's article, or is it another satire by Roland Shirk? It's all too often that Shirk produces the most outlandish, ridiculous, improbable parody, only to be outdone by the actual party in question.

Typo: "words wars" (!) should read "world wars", of course...

Wasn't it Cicero (106-43 BC) who said: "Silent enim leges inter arma." (Laws are silent in times of war) ... or another way of saying "Law ends where war begins"? ... Old Noam Chomsky is no Cicero.

Noam Chomsky's willingness to hold forth so lop-sidedly on so many issues has always impressed me as being fanatical but he outdoes himself here. His comparison of Bush's excesses, which in my opinion were indeed many and unpardonable, to those of the Nazis and the criminals that attacked this country on 9/11, is so stupidly off-base that I expect to see it echoed in the Middle Eastern media soon.

Mr. Bin Laden declared war on the US. He apparently had the stature for his call to be heeded and the wherewithal to train his army. That he was an extragovernmental actor makes him, like the Guantanamo detainees, a pirate and thereby places him outside the protection of the rules of war. I don't see how Mr. Bin Laden, as a foreign pirate chieftain whose expressed goal was to kill Americans indiscriminately is entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.

Yet I amnot happy with the way things went down in this matter. My complaint is that Mr. Bin Laden should have been brought back alive. The photo-opportunities of the Great Man, shaven and shorn, dressed in a fetching prison orange jump suit, shackled and shambling, his tradmark wistful ascetic pose but this time with big, burly Marines in the background holding each of his arms instead of the AK-47, would have sent a clear message to these other "lions of Islam:" You will be caught. You will be humiliated. And then you will wish you were dead.

I believe that this would give pause to the all-so brittle Mohammedan ego. Perhaps we'll have better luck with Dr. al-Zawahiri.

He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

9/11 was a great achievment. If Islam is above criticsm, and it is, then Osama should be pothumously awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor. Since 9/11 the Moslems have advanced their Cause in a way that would make Mohammed proud.

Now that Osama is daid, he's plowing his way through his well earned pile of 72 peach fuzz virgins. Moslems know this, and it makes them glow with pride, only wishing that someday it will be them in Jannat.

*** 33:21 ***

In societies that profess some respect for law...

America is no longer a nation of laws. That much is apparent. I could give myriad factual examples here, for example the fake passage of Obamacare, but why bother documenting the obvious?

Now that the Consititution is a living document, in other words, now that it's a dead and irrelevant document, we instinctively feel the need for some form of law, and it could be that Sharia will fill that void here. A number of recent Sharia rulings (in Michigan and New Jersey to cite but two examples) raise this hope.

Or specter, if you're an Islamophobe.

Chomsky is as much of a leftist fringe character as one can be. No one takes him seriously except permanent fools and some young people who are foolish now but won't be in ten or twenty years. In a way, I'm glad he's around because he's so loopy he regularly discredits his own causes with the vast amount of folks out there. Reading him is akin to reading The New York Times-----it should only be done for laughs.

@ Damian

You're a clown! You wanna play numbers? OK.

Since the so-called prophet Mohammed founded a military organization called Islam and dressed it up as a religion, Islam has murdered 250 million people in 1,350 years. And continues to do so.(Check out today's news about the Taliban blitz on Kandahar in the last few hours and the murder of 10 Copts in Egypt and their church set on fire by Muslims slavishly following the Qur'an's mandate to fight until 'all religion is for Allah'.)

Osama bin Laden's murders can be added to the hundreds of millions of murders directly inspired by the militaristic ideology of Islam.

Sovereign states, like the USA initiate military action against other states when there has been an exhaustive attempt to achieve peace by other means. It's a last resort. In Islam, it's a first resort!

You're a clown!

Chumpsky is truly a fake, and dare I say, a complete and utter asshole traitor, left-wing, anti-Zionist disgrace to the American community as well as the Jewish community. He pretends to take the moral high ground, as do many on the left, particularly those America-hating college professors whose student followers are sheep. Anyone who has seen Muslim slaughter, and I was living in NYC when 911 was perpetrated, would be glad that this piece of crap, Osama (not Usama as Obama would want you to think)was killed. I would have been honored to have pulled the trigger.

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But I think it should have ended once Saddam disappeared and Iraqis appeared on the streets, and then the US troops should have simply been recalled. No need to have set up any provisional authority or elections - just let them have had a full scale civil war. This Shia would have had the numbers, while Zarqawi could have joined forces w/ Saddam.

Similarly in Afghanistan, installing Karzai was a mistake. After the fall of Kandahar, the focus of attacks should have shifted to Pakistan, which should have been under the scanner a lot earlier. After all, all major al Qaeda operatives had been captured or killed in Pakistan, and I'm not talking Swat Valley or Waziristan - I'm talking major cities like Karachi, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, et cl.

Of course, all that would have required knowing what we here know about Muslims and Islam. But had that been known, the West wouldn't be facing a major problem w/ Muslims in their countries either.

#"The name of the magazine “Guernica, politics and art", indicates the trend and the spirit that has, on the left, false and propagandistic."

And the right is as pure as the driven snow? Remember Iran-Contra and WMD in Iraq? People in glass houses should not throw stones. That said Chomsky is a waffler.#

Gunfire,

In this case, the name is of the utmost importance. Guernica has gone down in history as the first town bombed in history. Not true, but many people believe it. Stalin used the symbolic value of Guernica, Picasso gained even more fame and money, (one of the richest artists in history, owned several palaces in France, and ... communist, one of the first relativistic in the recent history).

If all that surrounds Guernica is a string of lies very well exploited by the left, write in a journal that is wrapped in such a symbol, is defining and relevant, in my modest opinion. There is not named after one more of the atrocities committed by left or right, carries with it one of the most important symbols of the twentieth century. That was the meaning of my message.

It really is a testament to American tolerance that Chomsky hasn't been imprisoned or executed as a traitor, which he would no doubt have been half a century ago. The fact that he's allowed to say these things shows that America is tolerant of the most hideous of "hate speech", and isn't The Evil Empire he always claims that it is.

As an American, the man has never had a kind word for The United States in his life and has always supported it's enemies. Questioning The Vietnam War is one thing. A lot of patriotic people did that. I don't agree with them totally, but they had the right to their opinion. Making pilgrimages to Hanoi and praising the murderers and torturers of American troops is another. He was also a staunch supporter of Pol Pot in Cambodia and for years attacked any report of The Killing Fields as lies. And when the evidence of the carnage was too overwhelming to deny anymore, instead of accepting responsibility for his mistake, he did what he always does and blamed America for it. Need less to say, he supported Saddam Hussein in both Iraq Wars and openly rooted for our troops to lose in Iraq.

And as a Jew, the man has never had a kind word for Israel in all his life either. Because much like Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappe he's a communist first and a Jew dead last. He's praised and supported every genocidal Jew-hating terrorist group from The PLO, to Hamas, to Fatah, to his friends in Hezbollah. He doesn't care that Israel is a Western Democracy fighting for it's life against people who are barely a step above cannibals. He wants to see Tel Aviv burn, just so he and his leftist friends can get a "victory" over their real enemy: America. If Israel can cast out Ilan Pappe for supporting their enemies I wouldn't be opposed to doing the same thing to Chomsky. If he loves The Wests enemies so much, then he can live with them and find out how tolerant they are of a communist Jew living in their midst.

And the excuse from liberal apologists is always "Well I don't agree with his politics but he's brilliant linguist". Except most of his contribution to linguistics were nominal at best and have mostly all been refuted real linguists. The only reason people care about him is that he's kind of The Far Left's Rush Limbaugh: He says what they are all really thinking but are either too polite or too scared to say it.

Why pay any attention to that minor parasite and wanna-be cult leader? What he says is of no concern to anyone.

Headline ...

"There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim" ...

Unarmed VICTIM? ...bin Laden was NOT a victim, but an evil hardened criminal who victimized others. And bin Laden was living in a compound with a wall approximately 20 feet tall topped with a razor-wire fence, and was considered armed and dangerous; so it was completely reasonable to assume that bin Laden was armed.

Noam Chompsky hates America, and he should move to the ME - where he's sure to find happiness and contentment / sarc.

There have been attempts to explain Noam Chomsky, who strikes some thinking people as seriously deranged.

His opinions are as predictable as sunrise, and his virulent hatred of his native country, a country whose freedoms and privileges he never makes the slightest attempt to deny himself, is so unbalanced, that, even if he weren't simply lying to the extent that he has been caught doing, would have to be taken as more of a problem than a position.

I must say, though, that whether respect for the rule of law demands it or not, capturing bin Laden and putting him on trial would have been a far more impressive accomplishment for the United States than killing him was.

I will assume for the moment that it was logistically impossible, until we hear all the facts.

Duh! Exigent conduct in face of harborage in another jurisdiction, by legal authorities who invoke exigent circumstances, is an absolute defense to violation of sovereignty, because the harboring state entity, violates sovereignty by harborage. That is settled international law. But wait...dhimmi doormats defer to sharia as if it is supreme.

Frankly, premature disclosures by US officials have severely compromised a future hair-trigger response in similar counter-terror operations.

Why do US officials insist on putting the country in a defensive position. I read pak forums, and the early shame for certain harborage is now gone, with the US-murdered-bin laden now at the center of the Bin Laden operation. If Stupidity was a DC crime, the entire government apparatus would have to be turned into a prison.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

If it had occurred while Bush was in office, and after hostilities between Iraq and the U.S. had been initiated, we would have been unhappy about it, but it would have been a legitimate act of war (assuming that the commandos bore arms openly, were commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, bore a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, and conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war). From a legal point of view, it would have been comparable to the attempt of the U.S. army detachment under the command of Col. Ulrich Dahlgren to assassinate President Jefferson Davis.

Noam, you sound like one of those ultra Left Wing whackos who blame everything that went wrong since the beginning of time on George Bush. I guess Bush was the one who told Eve to take of the Forbidden Fruit? Come on Noam, give us a break, Your half ass president NObama ordered the ASSASSINATION of the US Constitution and has declared war on the American Citizens!
Your president NObama is far worse than G. Bush by destroying our friendships with Allies and making friends with the scum of the Earth, thinking that by doing so, the scum will not attack the USA. The Satan loving Muslims will attack the USA no matter if the USA invaded the Mideast or not. The Murdering Muslim non religion is out to kill everyone in the world who are not Satan worshiping fools.I bet you even think global warming is a fact also? You are a sad bag of skin and bones and should be ashamed of yourself but that will never happen because you are too brainwashed to know the truth. I guess God is also something that's not in your life. Don't get me started, it's bad enough I went on this tangent. Noam, give up your propaganda reporting and, and...... Use your imagine.
Have a nice day!

Chomsky never ever published a paper in theoretical linguistics (his 'speciality') in a peer-reviewed journal of linguists and got tenure at MIT without any papers; what can we then conclude about his 'expertise' in foreign affairs ? Alan Dershowitz on several occasions made Chomksy out to be the inane clown that he really is...

Clever, Dalaran.Very clever.