Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Noam Chomsky: International Terror Most-Wanted List

By Noam Chomsky, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 26, 2008.


If Washington turned its definition of terror on the U.S., America could rise to the top of its own most-wanted list.
chomsky

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Noam Chomsky

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One of Noam Chomsky's latest books -- a conversation with David Barsamian -- is entitled What We Say Goes. It catches a powerful theme of Chomsky's: that we have long been living on a one-way planet and that the language we regularly wield to describe the realities of our world is tailored to Washington's interests.

Juan Cole, at his Informed Comment website, had a good example of the strangeness of this targeted language recently. When Serbs stormed the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, he offered the following comment (with so many years of the term "Islamofascism" in mind): "...given that the Serbs are Eastern Orthodox Christians, will the Republican Party and Fox Cable News now start fulminating against 'Christofascism?'"

Of course, the minute you try to turn the Washington norm (in word or act) around, as Chomsky did in a piece entitled What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?, you've already entered the theater of the absurd. "Terror" is a particularly good example of this. "Terror" is something that, by (recent) definition, is committed by free-floating groups or movements against innocent civilians and is utterly reprehensible (unless the group turns out to be the CIA running car bombs into Baghdad or car and camel bombs into Afghanistan, in which case it's not a topic that's either much discussed, or condemned in our world). On the other hand, that weapon of terror, air power, which is at the heart of the American way of war, simply doesn't qualify under the category of "terror" at all -- no matter how terrifying it may be to innocent civilians who find themselves underneath the missiles and bombs.

It's with this in mind that Chomsky turns to terror of every kind in the Middle East in the context of the car bombing of a major figure in Lebanon's Hizbollah movement. By the way, The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a new collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, has just been published and is highly recommended. Introduction by TomDispatch editor, Tom Engelhardt.

The Most Wanted List

International Terrorism

By Noam Chomsky

On February 13, Imad Moughniyeh, a senior commander of Hizbollah, was assassinated in Damascus. "The world is a better place without this man in it," State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said: "one way or the other he was brought to justice." Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell added that Moughniyeh has been "responsible for more deaths of Americans and Israelis than any other terrorist with the exception of Osama bin Laden."

Joy was unconstrained in Israel too, as "one of the U.S. and Israel's most wanted men" was brought to justice, the London Financial Times reported. Under the heading, "A militant wanted the world over," an accompanying story reported that he was "superseded on the most-wanted list by Osama bin Laden" after 9/11 and so ranked only second among "the most wanted militants in the world."

The terminology is accurate enough, according to the rules of Anglo-American discourse, which defines "the world" as the political class in Washington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters). It is common, for example, to read that "the world" fully supported George Bush when he ordered the bombing of Afghanistan. That may be true of "the world," but hardly of the world, as revealed in an international Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support was slight. In Latin America, which has some experience with U.S. behavior, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama, and that support was conditional upon the culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the FBI reported), and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures, rejected out of hand by "the world."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: u.s. hypocrisy, international terrorism, terror, airstrike

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Why do they hate us?"
Posted by: Crazy H on Feb 26, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's my all-time favorite Bush quote - soon after 9/11, he asked "Why do they hate us?" in a well-covered speech.

Is he really that ignorant, or is he just toeing the line? Someone in his position should at least understand why we are so reviled, even if he believes we've got a god-given right to smite evil-doers.

I at least understand why the ditto-heads would ask such a question: they've been protected from the harsh realities of the world. They're bubbled up in their little fantasy kingdom - far from the death and destruction propagated in their name. Fed single-sided propaganda, they never bother to get another opinion, surely not an opinion of anyone outside their little bubble.

They're always so surprised when somebody bursts that bubble. To hear them talk, the world was created, all shiny new & innocent on September 10th, 2001. Then the evil-doers attacked us the very next day without any provocation whatsoever.

Wake up, sleepy little ditto-heads. Wake up or die in your sleep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Why do they hate us?" Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: "Why do they hate us?" Posted by: Cybershaman
» "American Entitlement" Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Why does ANYONE listen to Chomsky anymore?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 26, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially on this topic. After all.. he is the guy who said it wouldn't even matter if 9-11 or the Kennedy assasination were done by our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: quotes Posted by: sanddollar
» What I am saying is... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: What I am saying is... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What I am saying is... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: What I am saying is... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What I am saying is... Posted by: bornxeyed
» Since none of us ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» And it's interesting ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» And that's why Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: And that's why Posted by: Joshua Holland
» it does matter, Mr. Holland Posted by: realtruther
» RE: it does matter, Mr. Holland Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: it does matter, Mr. Holland Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: it does matter, Mr. Holland Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Also Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Also Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Also Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "corruption is why we WIN!" Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
» He's being Socratic Posted by: fanny666
» RE: He's being Socratic Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: He's being Socratic Posted by: fanny666
» RE: He's being Socratic Posted by: bornxeyed
» Fell of their own accord Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Fell of their own accord Posted by: bifheart
» RE: Fell of their own accord Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Fell of their own accord Posted by: bifheart
» "disinformation team" Posted by: fanny666
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Please link to long articles Posted by: AlterNet Community Moderator
» RE: Please link to long articles Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Please let us link to long URLs Posted by: AlterNet Community Moderator
» a government of criminals Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Bush and Cheney Are Criminals
Posted by: left_libertarian on Feb 26, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should thanks their lucky stars that the Democratic Party hasn't the backbone to impeach and send them to prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush and Cheney Are Criminals Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Bush and Cheney Are Criminals Posted by: left_libertarian
5
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 26, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chomsky is one of the few willing to discuss US-Israeli atrocities without mincing words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 5 - Adbusters.org Posted by: mcstewey
State Sanctioned or Not, Murder is Still Murder
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 26, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If murder is state-sanctioned, as in the case of a country like the USA or Israel, or not sanctioned, as in the case of a terrorist group, it is still murder, isn't it? This is the problem with the so-called "war on terror." Everywhere you look, enormous hypocrisy and double-standards are keenly evident. So, although I don't approve of violent by "terrorists," I don't approve of killing by states either. Bottom line, the USA's legitimacy and authority in dealing with "the war on terror," amounts to a lot of bunk and is not legitimate. Because the USA does not practice what is preaches, she cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Custer Was a Terrorist Posted by: mcartri
» RE: Custer Was a Terrorist Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Custer Was a Terrorist Posted by: yellow
Israel-US versus the World
Posted by: thelostsailor on Feb 26, 2008 4:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been WW III for a long time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will the zionist criminals exist in a few years time?
Posted by: fonn on Feb 26, 2008 8:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe there is such a thing as natural justice. If you do bad things sooner or later bad things will happen to you. Look what happened to the criminal Reagan: his brain got screwed up with Alzeimers (how do you spell this horrible disease?); Ariel Sharon still living like a vegetable in a coma; Bill Clinton put to shame by Monica Lewsenski's B.J.s, looking now like an old shit with heart problems; Tony Blair, a christian fanatic, driven out of office and reviled whereever he goes; likewise most of Bush's hoodlums, one even humiliated at the World Bank over a favour he granted his girl friend; Bush and Cheney rendered powerless, frightened of being assasinated. The list goes on. And the day is soon coming when all the zionist criminals occupying Palestine now will be rounded up and thrown into the Mediteranean sea or worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well put Mr. Itchyyet Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Well put Mr. Itchyyet Posted by: Cybershaman
» All just wishful thinking on your part. Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
Understanding Power ?
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Feb 27, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is absolutely no doubt that Chomsky has a dedicated following from that section of the population fortunate enough to be university educated. Chomsky is adept at harnessing student radicalism, and does a good job of deflecting that radicalism from actually challenging the elites that run the show in the USA.

Chomsky clearly dismisses the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King and the blatantly outrageous false flag operation of 9/11 with a casual shrug of the shoulders.

Comments like "well it doesn't matter who killed Kennedy", and on 9/11 he actually said, "it doesn't matter who did it" and "who cares... it doesn't have any significance".

Chomsky runs away from 9/11 as do many of his kowtowing acolytes as that would actually entail challenging the elites who run America, as opposed to the yes-men and front-men who make up the government. It's so easy to point the finger of blame at the government... in reality it doesn't involve a lot of radicalism, merely psuedo-radicalism. A psuedo-radicalism that is designed to deflect opposition from opposing the real enemy, the power of the elites behind the career-minded individuals of government, Republican or Democrat.

Chomsky once described the task of the media as "to select the facts, or to invent them, in such a way as to render conclusions not too transparently absurd - at least for properly disciplined minds".

He practices what he accuses.

The biggest attack on the American people ( their civil and human rights) in the short history of the USA was orchestrated by those who engineered and carried out 9/11... and it wasn't a spoiled member of the bin Laden family sitting in a cave with a remote-control in his hand.

And where is Chomsky, allegedly the USA's foremost intellectual, amidst all this?

He's mumbling incoherently that "it doesn't matter".

Aye, right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Understanding Power ? Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: Understanding Power ? Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: Mis-Understanding Chomsky? Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Mis-Understanding Chomsky? Posted by: BrianOfNairobi
» RE: Mis-Understanding Chomsky? Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Mis-Understanding Chomsky? Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Mis-Understanding Chomsky? Posted by: dmaciewski
» great post, Brian! Posted by: realtruther
Insanity
Posted by: FSadley on Feb 27, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a good bumper sticker the other day "Eye for an eye makes everybody blind". This is a very simple way of saying the killing is insane, there is no rationale. But it will never stop, because we are all blind already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» eye for an eye Posted by: davidg
Mutually agreed 'military support for Civil Authorities'
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Feb 27, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
.
Naked Truth: Civil Rights & CNN coverage of "F.B.I. biometric database - 'Server in the Sky'"

===
Canada & U.S. sign military cooperation agreement to permit 'mutual benevolent invasion' during declared emergencies

Do you get the Colorado Springs Gazette? Didn’t think so, but it was the only way you would have found out about ...
the Civil Assistance Plan, “allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation… during floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack.
...
Says Air Force General Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command & Northern Command based at Peterson Air Force Base, in a February 15th NORTHCOM release, “This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities.”...
===

The LAST TIME the Canadian military allowed the US military on Canadian soil... was for militarized 'civil protection' at last summer's Montebello SPP Summit.

During the *same* event where unidentified, but admittedly 'police' representatives were captured on film trying to incite an excuse to call Peaceful anti-WTO/Free Trade activists
... just before they gassed us, anyway.



~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Feb 27, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the vicious circle of hatred engendered by murders by insurgent groups with their bombs and states with their air power, less 'collateral' damage would be done if governments would make a distinction between national and international terrorism. The former is insurgency against perceived injustice from government or occupier of a country, and the latter is organised against international targets.

ETA, IRA, Chechen rebels, Hamas etc. belong to the former category; Al Qaeda etc. and government 'terror'(whether Iranian or American for example) fall in the latter category.
This distinction would end the present terrorist list which obliges other governments to side with governments which are facing local insurgent problems, not international terrorism, and which are probably indulging in terrorist-like repression and murders.

This is important because local insurgencies need to be treated case by case. All result from some genuine grievances which need addressing - even though that may not automatically lead to reconciliation. In such cases, instead of blind support for the government concerned, there would be openings for other governments to mediate - as the US did to good effect over the IRA.

Such distinction would leave international 'terrorism' by groups such as Al Qaeda and by governments in repsonse as a separate problem to be addressed internationally. Which means the so-called 'internationl community' considering why such violent groups get recruits and support - exactly what is it that 'that makes them hate us so'.

Knowing your enemy is the beginning of political wisdom, admitting your own faults and modifying your behaviour is the follow up. That is very difficult for governments and indeed for peoples. The grave injustices of our global world inevitably produce enemies. We need urgently to recognise them and address them, as well as taking carefully focussed action to protect ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terror is -----
Posted by: symcokid on Feb 27, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only what tactics and demeaning things other countries have to say about or to this US via actions such as the World Trade Center. There was no reason for it, simply out of the clear blue sky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terror is ----- Posted by: 2dogarage
tit for tat
Posted by: solrev on Feb 27, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know you rational people do not like us dual nature magical mystics, but from where we stand the listing of event after event does not teach one much unless you are trying to take a side and create an event of your own. All that you read in this article seems irrational to you but to us it is not only rational it has always been here. In the beginning when God first made the presence of I am known to humankind. The numbers who received this revelation were few. God permitted these people to follow the “law of retaliation”. The “law of retaliation” simply had survival value. Does not your theory of evolution teach you, that mutations that have survival value will be naturally selected in an ecosystem? You may have preferred that God just wave a magic wand, but the laws of the creation also apply. Jews and Muslims believe that the “law of retaliation” is an appropriate response, unfortunately lost in the space-time continuum is the knowledge of who threw the first stone. Why would God trap us in this deadly game of tit for tat, knowing how well our human nature would be at playing the game? God did not do that; God gave humankind an escape clause. When God walked on the planet as a man called Jesus, he mandated that we were to cease following the “law of retaliation”. At a key moment in the space-time continuum our human nature got the best of us. After 9-11, we did not follow the law of retaliation and kill those who killed us and we did not follow the mandate; we let some born again Christian pagan invade Iraq. We should have followed the mandate. Obviously from the list in the article that is not the first time we joined in the game of tit for tat. I wonder when the next key moment will come and will we just pass it by again? If you read this and all you hear is that I am just blaming some abstract human nature, that is unfortunate, because the laws of the creation still apply. It is our human nature that allows us to dwell in the creation by the sweat of our brow. It is our image nature that will tell us where to go. The moral of the story is this who is the best predictor of the future. We, who are on a magical mystery tour or you, who are only surrounded by irrationality, make a prediction. Terror is in the eyes of the beholder. Welcome to the revolution of 2012.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tit for tat Posted by: Cybershaman
» First of all your premise of a god... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: tit for tat Posted by: jaynna
My vote...
Posted by: Mystery Solver on Feb 27, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chomsky for president!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My vote... Posted by: 2dogarage
project for a new american century
Posted by: srob on Feb 27, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one party + two names= fascism

go back to sleep america, its to late to do anything. while you listen to the pundits yammer on, the plan has already been implemented. the corporations are running the show. americans are more worried about the three "G's" (guns,god and gays) than they are about the constitution. go back to sleep and when you wake up, go shopping at walmart

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I'd like to save the world"
Posted by: willymack on Feb 27, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But I don't know what to do, so I'll leave it up to you". Good song by Ten Years After. We've come to a sorry pass in this country during my lifetime. I've got a feeling that NOBODY here will do what's necessary to set things straight until after we've fallen and some other nation assumes world "leadership" If we're smart the second time around, we'll just let that other nation take the lumps, and do what's best for OUR people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chomsky on "Why is Iraq Missing from the 2008 Presidential Race?
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 27, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chomsky's analysis needs to be extended
Posted by: daw13 on Feb 27, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to include some discussion concerning the feasibility (not the ethics) of U.S. policy makers' determination to create a Clash of Civilizations, their goal being to dominate nations not to spread peace and accord. This goal tends to be acceptable to U.S. citizens so long as they believe that their leaders can reasonably hope to achieve it.

Chomsky, and his colleagues -- Howard Zinn, Historians Against the War, the Z crowd -- rarely focus on this issue. Mentioning that the world now hates us is not the same as explaining in detail why this should concern us so long as the US possesses most of the world's weapons of mass destruction. The inference to be drawn is that if our leaders persist and we the people do nothing to stop them, they will indeed prevail. But this assumption, actually a highly debatable hypothesis, is never tested. The fact that Bushco exploits US vulnerability to justify creating a police state does not mean that the US is not indeed quite vulnerable.

Given our human nature, true altruistic commitment to in-group members only; predatory attitudes toward out-groupers -- thus we negotiate when we must not because we feel driven to do so, appealing to people solely on ethical grounds seems somewhat irrational in the present context. In fact, it may actually enhance the interests of those Chomsky so eloquently opposes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still here I see
Posted by: ArtemInox on Feb 27, 2008 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least have a good grin while you waste your time reading pointless articles

addictedtoaggravation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WITHOUT VOICES, HUMANITY CANNOT ADVANCE
Posted by: freedomschild on Feb 28, 2008 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Noam Chomsky is turning on a light, where Inter- national chieftains know full well the outcome of their choices -- might we not learn something here? Something that we would most definitely prefer not be exposed in any light; but TRUTH will out...and how these people sleep,rise and appear in keeping to the Ideals they claim, knowing their actions have resulted in such egregious, immoral and violent actions, to the young and old alike, is well beyond me and with help, it shall remain so.
Never forget the debit and credit columns, the Book of Life and Death; and remember in a time will come a reckoning, a balancing of the books, so to speak. Each of us must look into our own minds and hearts; and, sadly, we cannot find deliverance from the weight of these commissions and omissions by pointing to our leaders. After all, it is we who put them there. Directly or indirectly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most of the lightwieghts that oppose Chomsky do so from the far right. They are pathetic and hateful
Posted by: yellow on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of you have the cognitive abilities of a flea and are ignorant bigots besides. Very few of you crackers have ever seen the inside of a university let alone have the scientific training to make educated judgements about the cause of the WTC collapse. Most structural engineers see the NIST and 9/11 Commission Reports' scientific explainations for the WTC collapse as plausible. Most conspiracy theories are a bigotted smokescreen to scapegoat those the "Truthers" hate for the crime of 9/11.

Now with regard to GAZA and Israel. Many of you claim that Hamas was elected. True, but they were elected to a majority of the Palestine Legislative Council. Mahmood Abbas, of Fatah, is still the president of the PA. Hamas illegally siezed control of Gaza in June 2007. They exceeded, even violated their mandate as legislators and should be suppressed. They have harmed the Palestinian People. They have caused the current war. Fatah wants them suppressed because the only have support in Gaza and not the West Bank where Fatah reigns supreme. After thirty years of Israeli refusal to recognize the PLO, Israel negotiated with them. Now they are being asked to recognize Hamas. The goal posts are unfairly being moved again. Israel should only deal with Fatah. Hamas are murderous renegades for whom elections are obviously only a tactic. They don't understand or believe in Democracy. Soon the talks will restart. Hopefully Hamas will be vanquished.

Many of the posters here are virulently anti-semitic. They have openly advocated the destruction of Israel and all Jews. They have blamed Jews for all the ills in the world. Many evidently belong to white supremacist organizations and repeat their standard lines. Some just adopt mainstream anti-semitism and promote it. Most of the posters as was shown in the above debate use childish logic and indeed have little more than a child's ability to use logic. The claim that mainstream accounts try to promote the implausible explaination that mere boxcutters took down the twin towers is used by such childish "truthers" who want to twist the non-conspiracy mongering mode of reasoning on the issue. Such people clearly are motivated by hate and ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "explaination" and " bigotted"? Posted by: realtruther
America finished? Or America Reborn?
Posted by: FletcherChristian on Mar 2, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should Bush, Cheney and their enablers not be charged for these Crimes??

We waste time and resources to go after baseball players who take steriods. Whom have they killed? Whose Rights have they contravened? Whose Treasure have they dissipated? Which friends have they illegally enriched at the expense of the Public Purse and the lives of young Americans while their privileged offspring get a Free Pass?

Americans are faced with a choice; you are at that divergence in the Road of History, the choice of which fork ,will determine the fall of the United States Empire, or its Rebirth as a new and just and benevolent Society.

The fisrt step in this journey of a thousand miles begins with the Criminal Prosecution of George W. Bush and Co. Each and every one of them. Or else, America would lose the remaining vestige of any Moral Authority and become irrelevant in the World.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: America finished? Or America Reborn? Posted by: left_libertarian
Chomsky forgot...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Mar 2, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Shrub, his supporters and enablers (Democraps) are amongst the biggest terrorist