Obunga: Palestine must be based on 67 borders........

Who are the global terrorists

Noam Chomsky

Washington waged its "war on terrorism" by creating an international terror network of unprecedented scale, and employing it worldwide, with lethal and long-lasting effects. In Central America, terror guided and supported by the US reached its most extreme levels in countries where the state security forces themselves were the immediate agents of international terrorism.

Quote:
My IQ is higher than you can count.

"Chomsky's lie about how the US defines terrorism" is not an valid definition of terrorism.

Oralboy.

Quote:

Well, in 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned the United States for international terrorism -- "unlawful use of force" -- in its war against Nicaragua. Again I am going to keep to the guidelines, bend over backwards, and allow this to be interpreted just as international terrorism, not the war crime of aggression.

Aside from the fact that Chomsky is almost certainly lying, what he describes is an attempt to assassinate someone.

Assassination is quite a bit different from terrorism.

georgebob said,

'However, if that appeases your guilt and shame after the lasting effects of the mischief your country has done in the past 100 years in pursuit of empire to create precisely the problems you were citing in the Middle East for which you were so hypocritically chastizing the United States, then I am pleased for you ... contemptous, but pleased.'

It's not easy coming to terms with your colonial past. We've had the Bloody Sunday inquiry in which British paratroopers were found to have gunned down unarmed Nationalist protesters. David Cameron probably didn't expect one of his first acts as prime minister to apologise about our colonial past. You seem to think reconciliation, and coming to terms with the wrongs your country did is hypocrisy.

The only reason you are going on about this, is because Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians is indefensible, so you change the subject. America will not be the most powerful country on Earth for much longer, and you too will have to come to terms with your own country's shameful past. At the moment you seem to be quite proud of what you did to your own indiginous population, shifting all the blame onto others. If anyone is deserving of contempt it is you. Anyway if you're so concerned with hypocrisy you may find the following to be of interest.

Oralloy has resorted to pathetic name calling, because the facts do not support his argument.

It's interesting that he insists on calling his opponants anti-semitic, but has no problem with John Vorster.

If I remember correctly John Vorster came away with the technology to build a nuclear device.

It just shows Israel doesn't have a problem with a genuine nazi.

As the Paletinians are a semitic people, the most virulent anti-semitism has been shown by Oralloy with the all Palestinians are evil rubbish.

Oralloy is the one adopting the language of Nazi Germany to slander an entire people.

Israel has been described as the most racist country on Earth.

Oralloy wrote:

"Chomsky's lie about how the US defines terrorism" is not an valid definition of terrorism.

In the 1980's the US tried to come up with a definition of terrorism but US government lawyers told them that none would work because the US had engaged in all those terrorist activities.

One has to note that YOUR whining and crying hardly constitutes facts. It's really odd that a guy with a "high" IQ wouldn't know that.

Oralloy wrote:

Aside from the fact that Chomsky is almost certainly lying, what he describes is an attempt to assassinate someone.

Assassination is quite a bit different from terrorism.

How does a guy with a "high" IQ, a guy who deals in facts, miss the fact that Chomsky quoted Bob Woodward.

No, these US assassinations are terrorism, pure and simple.

And speaking of Chomsky and terrorism, Chomsky was pretty upset over his buddy Osama being killed.

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. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] 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.

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.

The brutal occupation of the Palestinian people is only allowed because of American military might and aid.

The fact that I'm a lot smarter than you seems to be a sore point I see.

Oralloy wrote:

And speaking of Chomsky and terrorism, Chomsky was pretty upset over his buddy Osama being killed.

The "high" IQ guy thought that he'd throw out this "fact", because, well, he's just so big on the facts.

OBL . . . was a good friend and ally of the US government.

In fact there is strong evidence suggesting that he remained an ally right up to 9-11.

In fact there is evidence that even after 9-11 US forces prevented him from being taken.

Here's an excerpt from Professor Chomsky's article and a link. Go there and read the whole thing

tell us how you came up with the "fact", quoted at the beginning of this post.

You know what oral''', this would be your Islamic counterpart.

Blinkered, fanatical and thick as a brick, just like you.

The remarks I directed at you were instead a mild reaction to the rather remarkable hypocrisy you have demonstrated here. The mess we have inherited in the Islamic world is clearly tracable to unresolved historical developments among the people themselves and equally to the colonial abuses of the British, French and Russians who, together and with the Dutch in Indonesia, misruled nearly all of the Muslims in the worls as recently as sixty years ago. The particularly perverse issues we face in the former British protectorate of Palestine are almost exclusively the result of British greed, duplicity and irresponsibility in Palestine, as well as the horrors perpetrated on European Jews by their Nazi oppressors and the surly behavior of Eurpeans from Normandy to the Vistula who didn't wasnt their "displaced persons" back after the ravages of the war. I am amazed at the willingness of Europeans to simply forget their horrible past in precisely this matter and believe they are suddenly absolved of all responsibility for it , and miraculously transformed into the supreme moral judges of the world.

You exhibit that contemptable trait to a very high degree.

The U.S. ended the war with an industrial production roughly tripled, owning half the world's wealth, the only major country that was untouched by war. Everyone else was seriously harmed or devastated. This was paradise, so where would you have gone? Well, very few [Jews] came here, and I think it's not because they didn't want to. Two forces kept them out. One is the United States didn't want them, and the American Jewish community didn't want them.

So there were immigration proposals, legislation in the late 1940s, but the only part of the Jewish community that lobbied for them were the anti-Zionist groups, the American Council for Judaism. The general community didn't want them.

AMY GOODMAN: Because?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, several reasons. For one thing, anti-Semitism was not -- you know, it wasn't like Germany, but it wasn't a joke, either. I mean, anti-Semitism was a serious phenomenon. I can remember very well from childhood when my father got old enough to and finally got enough money to buy a second-hand car in the late 1930s. If we would drive up to the nearby mountains for a weekend, he would have to check for motels to see if they said "restricted," because "restricted" meant "no Jews." I happened to live in a neighborhood of Philadelphia which was, to a large extent, German and Irish American, very anti-Semitic, quite pro-Nazi, in fact, up until Pearl Harbor. And there were kids and boys on the streets, you know, you run into what you can expect. Never talked to my parents about it. They never knew. In fact, my brother and I, until about the day of their death, never told them. It wasn't -- like your life wasn't in danger; it's not like urban society today. But it wasn't a lot of fun. The particular paths you would take, you might get beaten up, this sort of a thing. It was right below the surface. For a lot of the American Jewish community it was true.

Even when I got to Harvard, which was around 1950, the anti-Semitism was so thick you could practically cut it with a knife. Harvard was sort of distinguished, quiet, people don't make anti-Semitic remarks in your face, but there's no Jewish -- virtually no Jewish faculty, tiny smattering. There were sort of -- it was kind of clubbish atmosphere; Jews just weren't in it. There probably were not many Jewish students. Actually, one of the reasons that M.I.T. became a great university is that lots of very distinguished scientists who couldn't get jobs at Harvard came over here to the engineering school down the street, which didn't have the class attitudes, and so on. People like Norbert Wiener, for example, and quite a few others came to the engineering school down the street because Harvard wouldn't accept them.

So the point is there was a general -- there was an undertone of anti-Semitism, which was -- and bringing over these very skeletons from over there, just wasn't appealing. The other factor was there was a lot of pressure to compel them to go to what was then Palestine, later Israel. Turns out the -- we sort of half-knew this, being inside the Zionist youth movement, but nothing like what has since come out in the archival record. The Zionist movement in the Yishuv, the Jewish community, essentially took over the camps and ran them and controlled the food and resources and others. It wanted -- there was a fixed -- an official policy of getting able-bodied people, men and women, I think it was ages 17 to 35, and getting them sent off to Palestine, essentially to be cannon fodder. The others -- the children, the older people -- they didn't care much about. But they really did make efforts not to have them sent to Britain or France, to the limited extent that they would accept them. They preferred for them to be a kind of psychological weapon against the British, in favor of immigration to Palestine, which was the only place that really might welcome them, was trying in every way to get them to come. The first study of this just came out a couple of years ago in Hebrew. A friend of mine, Yosef Grodzinsky -- actually an English version of it has just appeared, and Common Courage Press is publishing it. I don't know what the English title is [ed. In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists at the End of World War II], the Hebrew title [ed. Chomer Enoshi Tov] translates as "Good Human Material," meaning the good human material we want to get over to Palestine. And, you know, if there had been an objective investigation, which there wasn't, I think it's hard to believe that that would have been the first choice of many people, probably most people coming out of the concentration camps, if they had had other choices, but they didn't.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041126.htm

Actually what it was, was "support for freedom fighters".

If you want one example of hard proof of the CIA's involvement in this, and their approach to it, dig up `The Sabotage Manual', that they were circulating throughout Nicaragua, a comic-book type of a paper, with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society to a halt, how you can gum up typewriters, what you can pour in a gas tank to burn up engines, what you can stuff in a sewage to stop up the sewage so it won't work, things you can do to make a society simply cease to function.

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html