Chomsky: "if Iraqi commandos landed at .. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body"

[L. Coyote]

We might also ask ourselves what war crimes have been committed by whom, crimes that will have real consequences when justice is restored in the world.

================
Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
May 6, 2011 - http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

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.

By Noam Chomsky

chomsky300.jpgIt’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” 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, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.

[jefferson_dem]

1. Haha...

You got to love old Professor Chomsky. Never ceases to entertain us with his pithy polemics...

[tekisui]

4. I do love Chomsky. He is right and consistent.

[jefferson_dem]

7. I don't always agree but respect the man's intellect and consistency.

n/t

[Arctic Dave]

2. I would like to really speak my mind on this angle but it would be removed.

I had a post a while back about apprehending war criminals (bush) and some people here are truly bush apologist when it came to this.

[Webster Green]

8. Indeed.

Mine would be removed and I would likely receive visitors.

[Keith Bee]

18. HA!

:rofl:

[Vicar In A Tutu]

3. Regardless of the rest, bin Laden had pleaded guilty numerous times.

Only sentencing was required.

[smiley]

60. do you have a link for this?

I would like to know when he plead guilty in a court of law.

[Dr Fate]

77. Not in a court of law, but he bragged about it on camera.

But yeah, I guess we could always say that Obama faked Bin Laden's guilt "just like he faked his birth certificate" or whatever. There is always room for doubt these days, I guess.

[glowing]

5. I know it sounds bad, but I think I could support the Iraqi's coming into

the US and rounding up all the Bush Co criminals.. wish we'd do it on our own... But seeing how we are "looking forward", I'd support their actions in regards to Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.

[meow mix]

6. What if Black Manta sent O.G.R.E Agents to kill Aquaman!!!

illegal!!!! war crimez!!!11

[Shiver]

24. ..

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

9. I be wondering how the Secret Service had allowed it to happen.

[bluestateguy]

10. bin Laden had 10 years to peacefully turn himself in

and none of this would have been necessary.

[Mz Pip]

11. Oh good grief

Might as well include Congress in that action since they went along with it. :eyes:

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. I like this:

>>>>>There’s more to say about Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.>>>>>


And this:

>>>>>>Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.>>>>



And, of course, this:
>>>>Copyright 2011 Noam Chomsky>>>>>

[OHdem10]

13. Chomsky is right a lot of the time, but not on this.

Do not believe for one second that if the Iraqis( way
back) had conceived of this, and had the means they
would have done it.

We are in a different world, and fighting to win in
terrorism can mean any means necessary. Ten Years of
doing the conventional was not netting too much.

I would imagine if you are anti-war, nothing is going
to please or satisfy.

I wonder how Chomsky would have us handle this.
Continue the long hard slog. Just pulling out and
permitting our troops come home with no sense of victory
is not an option.

Many of us believe it was a mistake to have gone to
war in Iraq but we were there when Democrats came to
power. Even in Iraq, we could not put our tails between
our legs and go home. There are more responsibilities
than just being anti-war so we leave.

I hate war as much as anyone, but our Country must
be defended. Just doing what the Terrorists Demand
will only increase their demands. They are not exactly
rational people. Those who say we have brought some
of this on ourselves may be absolutely correct. However
once they(Terrorists) have organized just like any movement they
must keep developing issues to keep themselves
relevant. The bottom line is We have to win.

In order to win, we have to change odds. Take out
the Head of the Snake in such a way that other
would be leaders might rethink their position.

Chomsky has a right to his opinion but to a Liberal
like me, on this one, he is operating in an ideal
world--not the world we are facing.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azathoth]

14. You're not gonna be able to argue with someone who believes Osama was only a "suspect"

and that assigning him the codename 'Geronimo' for the purposes of a SpecOps raid is conclusive evidence of "profound" imperialism.

His hypothetical also rests on a classic Chomskian moral equivalence: that Iraqi commandos would have the same justification for taking out Dubya that Navy SEALS had for taking out Osama. In other words, the Iraq war was both morally and legally equivalent to 9/11.

[OHdem10]

19. Code name was Jackpot.

Gernomimo was the mission.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. Chomsky's critical analysis is uncomfortable

but necessary. This issue is anything but black and white.

[tekisui]

16. We are establishing and expanding precedents that need to be

carefully and critically assessed. What we are doing now will go a a long way in determining what we, and importantly, others do in the name of security.

[Stuckinthebush]

20. Agreed

It is uncomfortable asking the hard questions that go against our national feelings of relief. But, as you point out, these question must be asked and critically examined. Even here on DU where we often see an open, critical discussion on various issues, any discussion of the negative implications of the decision to kill Osama in this particular manner are greeted with derision and hostility. I'm sure to see a post soon that says, "Chomsky is an idiot!"

[L. Coyote]

31. What we are doing now will ALWAYS go a a long way in determining what others will do to us.

An old enemy of the imperialists once said, "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

[Beacool]

17. I don't think that it is a valid analogy.

Osama didn't only attack Westerners, thousands of Muslims also died due to Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was not Salvador Allende, he was a terrorist who took the lives of thousands of people throughout the world and almost took mine too on 9/11. I couldn't care less what happened to him and his sorry carcass. I care even less whether it was Bush or Obama who gave the orders to take him out.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

21. When did OBL become a head of state?

Oh right, never.

[GoCubsGo]

53. Excellent point.

Kinda throws a damper on Chomsky's arguement, doesn't it? I like Chomsky, and I frequently agree with him, but not here.

[shimmergal]

22. You know, our whole apparatus of trials

etc. is just one method of conflict resolution. Anybody who thinks it's a foolproof way to attain either justice or truth hasn't paid much attention to the whole capital punishment debate (to take just one example). Even Chomsky is showing a bit of ethnocentrism here.

There are other methods, including the tribal model. Bin Ladin and Al Queda operated pretty much from that model, so perhaps it's appropriate that he was brought down by a raid that echos it. (Although actually it doesn't, because Obama chose a tactic designed to minimize the harm to innocent bystanders, which is definitely not Al Queada's mode of operation.)

[KittyWampus]

27. What a thoughtful and interesting post. I am actually going to think further on this.

Thanks for posting.

[msanthrope]

29. What an excellent and thoughtful post....

Die by what you lived by....

[Azathoth]

32. That's a very clever rebuttal

Personally, I don't entirely agree with it, but I would *love* to watch Chomsky trip all over himself in a debate trying to respond to it.

[L. Coyote]

33. A trial would have been held if there had been evidence to convict, no doubt even if

in abstensia. However, no such trial took place.

I don't know of a warrant for an arrest issued. Anyone?

[quaker bill]

23. The true parallel question to ask

is how the Iraqi's would have felt about doing this. How would we feel if another country did this to us, probably not happy. I just don't think we were all that concerned about Al Queda's feelings. If we were so concerned, passing on the invasion of Afghanistan would probably been the more important choice. We decided a long time ago to go there and kill alot of people. In that context, why do we leave OBL off the list? It would seem he should have been at the top of the list once you have decided to go there, not an afterthought.

[treestar]

25. Bush was POTUS

Not a terrorist leader. I don't agree with much that he did, but I'm not of the tinfoil left. He was not leader of a group which had the purpose of planning and executing terrorist attacks on innocent people because they lived in a certain country. Though he exploited 911 to cause unnecessary wars, the US was the victim in 911.

Had they managed to assassinate him in the course of terrorist attacks, I wouldn't have cheered for it.

[Arctic Dave]

28. Wow. Your post is profoundly ignorant.

bush was instramental in killing far more people then OBL. Just because bush has paid people to think up ways of doing it doesn't mean he is any better then OBL. After all, it was bush's idea to go to war and signed off on it.

[ProSense]

30. "bush was instramental in killing far more people then OBL."

Absolute nonsense!

The "Bush is worse than bin Laden" argument is ridiculous. If that's the case, might as well consider Nixon worse than bin Laden for Cambodia.

Bush committed a war crime by launching the Iraq war based on a lie. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when he went in, but they found their way there. Bush triggered the violence, but tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths can be attributed to terrorists. Bush gets blamed for launching the war and the resulting instability and violence. Most civilian deaths were not at the result of actions by the American military.

Al Qaeda is responsible for the death of a lot of people, including Muslims, around the world since its founding more than 22 years ago.

Bush was President for eight years. He should be held accountable for his crimes, but he is no longer a threat to anyone.


Osama bin Laden was the active head of the world's deadliest terrorist organization. His actions were crimes against humanity.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

43. "You lack of reasoning..."

"You lack of" comprehension suggests that you shouldn't be trying to insult others.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sad sally]

63. The most elite military operatives had the world's deadliest terrorist

active head standing in front of them - unarmed - yet the decisionj was made to execute him on the spot instead of trying to learn anything about this most extreme despot. No explantion needed, right? Nothing to learn here...

[treestar]

37. Going to war is one thing

One doesn't have to agree with it. I'm not profoundly ignorant, just not willing to go along with your conflating Presidents going to war with terrorist leaders planning bombings on civilians.

this country did back Bush on his wars, too. While no one sane would back bin Laden's actions.

[Arctic Dave]

41. Many people did in fact NOT back bush war crimes.

As for OBL, if he was the only one then Obama should have no problem at all signing the order for immediate and complete withdrawel today.

As for killing civilians, do really think we had that many "glitches" happen.

[treestar]

54. The vast majority supported Afghanistan, at least back in 2001

I remember reading it was something like 80%. And the vast majority don't accept on the face of it that Bush is guilty of "war crimes." The idea of equating him with bin Laden is only going to find acceptance in a small minority.

Even as anti-Bush as I am, I can see there are people much worse than even he and Cheney. For instance, OBL.

[Arctic Dave]

55. The OP is about Iraq. Nice bait and switch.

As for me, bush is the same as OBL no matter what him or his cadre of snapperheads say on the Sunday shows.

[chrisa]

73. Your post complaining about profound ignorance was profoundly ignorant.

It's also incredibly childish.

Bin Laden was a monster, and the fact that you think a US President was worse than a Mujahadeen leader immediately makes me not take your post seriously.

[L. Coyote]

34. Bush WAS leader of a group which had the purpose of planning and executing terrorist attacks ...

Bush WAS leader of a group which had the purpose of planning and executing terrorist attacks on innocent people because they lived in a certain country. Actually, two countries! IF terrorism is in the eyes of the persons terrorized (a viewpoint that conflicts with the imperialist rational for assaulting opposing political forces defined a priori as "the" terrorists).

[treestar]

38. Come on

Then we are all terrorists, as the majority of the country supported Bush in his wars.

It doesn't help discussing something to create an equivalency people don't agree with and then attribute to them the worst motives of each.

[L. Coyote]

58. So, being elected an official somewhere is a free pass on killing?

How many millions are dead, displaced, terrorized by Bush's needless wars.

[robcon]

26. Chomsky: always certain, never correct.

His moral equivalences are ridiculous.

[ProSense]

35. Just posted this in another thread

Chomsky's logic is interesting.

The Nazi trials would be more comparable to Bush, not bin Laden, who was still the head of an active terrorist organization.

Still, this reminds me of John Yoo's argument that Osama should have been taken alive. Forget for a second that outcome was completely unrealistic.

Yoo likely would have used the opportunity of bin Laden's capture to criticize Obama for not torturing bin Laden.

Can you imagine the arguments to free bin Laden because Bush hasn't been held accountable?

Actually, it would have a different spin: If bin Laden deserves to be tried, then so does Bush.

From the OP "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..."

Not only is that complete nonsense, but would Chomsky have seen the assassination of Bush as justifiable? He's asking the question.

[Azathoth]

36. Chomsky just wants to accuse Bush of being worse than bin Laden

He's not justifying the assassination of Dubya, he just wants to once again accuse his country of being more evil than anything else on the planet. When space aliens attack and enslave humanity, he'll be writing columns claiming the USA has committed even worse crimes because we had slavery 200 years before. It's the routine, defend-anyone-who-attacks-your-country sophistry of the extreme Left, reinforced with the obligatorily twisted and deeply offensive moral equivalencies.

[Darrell Davis]

40. we are the enemy

Everything the United States says it stands for- justice, equality, law and freedom- they commit murder to accomplish "over there." What's wrong with this picture? We need to seriously organize pressure on congress to pull this government out of the oppressive entity it has become in the name of oil. No doubt many will say congress is the problem. No YOU are the problem if you think you can't make change.

[geek tragedy]

42. Trutherism and equating a head of state with a paramilitary murderer.

Well done, sir, well done. One step removed from The Donald.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. More claptrap & backseat driving from the PL. Personally, I don't give a shit

what Chomsky thinks, and neither do the thousands who gathered in front of the WH, in Times Sq., and college campuses all across the country. But keep trying. :rofl:

I think it's taken the Obama presidency to show me just how silly & naive the PL can be. I can't tell you how many newsletters and organizations I've unsubscribed from since this president took office. I'm embarrassed I ever encouraged or supported them.

[Vattel]

45. I'm not a big fan of Chomsky's.

He speculates way too much, and he always puts American foreign policy in the worst light possible. I would never equate Bush and OBL, but they both were willing to kill large numbers of innocent people for the sake of pursuing their foreign policy objectives. Bush is more of a militarstic fool than a malicious psychopath, but the innocent people who have died because of Bush's poor judgment are just as dead as the ones who died from OBL's heartless fanaticism.

[Mimosa]

81. Vattel, that's an apt analysis.

I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I tend to not support any wars. The cycle of organised violence for profits has to stop.

[Arctic Dave]

47. I didn't realize how quickly Chomsky would get thrown under the bus.

Make DUer's a litlle uncomfortable and they go running.

No wonder Dems get their asses handed to them in the elections, the don't even defend one of the most progressive voices of our time.

[killbotfactory]

48. And OBL wasn't even read his miranda rights!

If you wage a terrorist war against a nation-state and are put in a situation where you are face-to-face with their military squad you either surrender or get shot. That's how war works.

[JoePhilly]

49. Bill Clinton tried to kill OBL with crusie missles back in the 90s.

What does Noam have to say about that?

[Enrique]

51. obviously Chomsky was extremely critical of Clinton

especially of the attack on the al Shifa medicine plant in the Sudan.

Where were you in the 1990s, that you suggest Chomsky somehow covered for Bill Clinton?

[JoePhilly]

52. Where did I suggest that Noam "covered" for anyone.

I asked a simple question.

When I go on-line and try to find Noam criticizing Clinton immediately after the cruise missile strike, I don't find anything.

I did find him arguing against those strikes AFTER 9/11. But not before.

And I'll expand this observation. I don't recall many on the left complaining about Clinton's attack back then.

The right wing screamed "No War for Monica" ... but the left didn't get too worked up about it.

[Enrique]

61. you were very clearly saying there was a double standard

Favoring Clinton over Obama. I've heard Chomsky called a lot of things, but this is the first time I've heard anyone call him a PUMA.

Chomsky a PUMA! :crazy:

[Ter]

64. Too bad he wasn't successful

Maybe no 9/11.

[Jefferson23]

50. Law's, very inconvenient. K&R for Chomsky.

Thanks for posting.

[Honeycombe8]

56. Silly analogy. The two scenarios are nothing alike.

First....Bush didn't kill, out of the blue and with no warning, several thousand innocent Iraqi people, by sending in suicide bombers during peacetime. Didn't happen.

Second, Bush was the elected official of a nation. OBL was the head of a terrorist gang, on a "most wanted" fugitives list.

Third, Bush was not the ipso facto leader, in that...it's the country's democratic system that leads the nation. If you kill one leader, there is another that will take his place. It is the SYSTEM and the LAWS that are critical to our country. Not any one man. In that respect, it's different from the mob, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist gang.

Fourth, OBL had plenty of opportunity to turn himself in, just like Dillinge, Bonnie & Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, or any of the other gangster fugitives we've killed.

Stupid comparison. Like saying it would've been okay for Bonnie & Clyde to kill FDR, since they themselves had been killed. Bonnie & Clyde were many things...but they were no FDR. And OBL was no Obama or Bush.

[Phx_Dem]

57. What a fucking lunatic.

[Puglover]

59. While I don't always agree with Chomsky

his writings are always food for thought.

Thanks for posting this! It attracted a lot of fodder for my ignore list. :hi:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. although I am personally relieved that bin laden is gone Chomsky certainly has some food for thought

No one can seriously claim that this operation was not illegal. Of course it was as illegal as one can get on several levels. Even if personally, I'm so relieved that the old bastard who has facilitated so much suffering on the Arab world is now dead that - I'm willing to grant a one-time only exception to the rule of international law. But let's not fool ourselves. The American reaction lead by George W. Bush was far worse. And I fear that the only real lesson the world learns from this experience is that might makes right.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killbotfactory]

65. Was Bush formally accused of a crime? Did he flee instead of face capture?

Did he go into hiding with the help of pro-terror militants while continuing to commit the crimes he's been implicated in?

FFS, chomsky.

[joshcryer]

66. Chomsky jumped the shark a decade ago.

His arguments are philosophical without a greater understanding of the environment with which he is making them. It's archaic talking points meant to keep his family afloat for a generation or two, not anything new or original.

[agentS]

67. Execution was the safest option out of many

Taking him in alive would have put numerous Americans living overseas at risk of being taken hostage to be used as bargaining chips to get OBL out of jail. THAT, rescues, failed rescues, and failed attempts would have cost us more lives than a trial would have been worth.

[Vinca]

70. Chomsky shouldn't toy with us like that.

[marshall]

74. Does he think Osama is a head of state?

Who elected him?

[mkultra]

75. Im not sure i would be to upset if that happened

If I could give Bush to the Iraqi's i probably would.

[Dr Fate]

76. "If commandos had landed a plane in the WTC and assassinated 3000 folks, and dumped the bodies..."

We might also ask ourselves what war crimes have been committed by whom, crimes that will have real consequences when justice is restored in the world.

If commandos had landed a plane in the WTC and assassinated 3000 folks, and dumped the bodies in the rubble, then we might ask ourselves how we would be reacting.

I know- we would kill the guy who did it.

LOL!

Chomsky also seems to be confusing the Bush era "Washington" in order to implicate the current admin. Instead of saying "The Bush admin" he says "Washington." Notice how he wrties- "Washington dismissed..." and "Washington didnt have..." The article almost tries to implicate that Obama is a hypocrite for what Bush (AKA "Washington") did or did not do.

[Green_Lantern]

78. Chomsky proves smart people can be idiots.

He is not pro-peace...just spits on the US.

He'd probably defend Hitler.

[high density]

79. Next terrorist raid, let's send in Noam Chomsky with a gun

He can choose to pull the trigger or get killed himself.

[cliffordu]

80. You had me at dumped his body....