OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[Bakustra]

That is what imperialism is: the US can do whatever it wants, and nobody can do anything back without falling somewhere below bacteria. This is not to say that killing George W. Bush would be right or desirable, but rather to point out the discrepancy. Now, bin Laden and Bush are not exact equals, but analogies need not be perfect.

No, that is what power is. Imperialism is about control.

Imperialism is not a motivator, but rather a mindset that leaves you incapable of recognizing why this might be offensive.

Political, economic or social control constitute a "minset"?

Power and control are intertwined. An empire has power to exert control, and the imperial mindset is that this is considered right and good- that the exertion of power is moral when used for an empire, but against it is immoral, even given similar situations. Not to mention that people are referred to as "imperialists" because of opinions they hold, but that will bring the prescriptivists down, I am sure.

Again, the point is that the imperial mindset allows you to ignore the grotesque aspects of "honoring" our victims by naming our instruments of war after them. It is exactly like if an alt-hist Nazi Germany named fighting vehicles after Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or other partisans in honor of their bravery- there is something implicitly disturbing about honoring the victims of monstrous crimes you committed by naming weapons of war after them.

Why is it disturbing? How is this imperialistic?

Let's use analogies again. Imagine if a serial killer kept trophies taken from the bodies of people that fought back. This would be grotesque, would it not? He killed them, so his honoring of their struggle is a bit false. The US encroached upon and killed the Apache, Comanche, and other groups honored, putting them into camps.

The imperialism comes in because Americans ignore this, and ignore the greater aspect beyond "the Apache were known as fearsome warriors" in naming, and have the ability to ignore it.

Before you get chuffed, surely your thorough education on Native Americans has made it known to you that in the years after the Mescalero surrendered, they were starved on reservations, and so were many other Native American groups?

I didn't know that case, but I did know we broke every agreement and managed to screw over/massacre alot of natives. Wounded Knee is a more famous example.

Or perhaps you might note that Hitler himself drew upon the US "Indian Wars" as inspiration?

Reading the quote, it appears he was refering to his eventually plan for colonization of Eastern Europe where German settlers would become farmers and fight it out with the savage Slavic hordes. I should note the US extermination was a failure (there are still indians) and it took over 400 years. Hitler, not being an idiot, drew more inspiration from the more recent and effective Armenian Genocide.

But I guess if Hitler was interested in something that automatically makes it worse... somehow.

You realize that Hawkwings declared that the two were not comparable at all and I pointed out that there were direct and indirect links as a response. Had you not chopped my post up, that might have been easier to see.

On a similar note, that's not really equivalent because the US did not perform horrific actions against the CSA on the same scale, nor did they directly interfere with Kamehameha I's reign similarly.

So the fact that we name things after our enemies is not relevent... to the fact we name things after our enemies?

Before you get chuffed, surely your thorough education on Native Americans has made it known to you that in the years after the Mescalero surrendered, they were starved on reservations, and so were many other Native American groups?

The point is that the treatments were not identical. The US did not starve Robert E. Lee or Albert Sidney Johnston in camps, nor did they seek to exterminate CSA leaders, nor is King Kamehameha I an enemy of the US except in the stupidest of senses.

[Lonestar]

Bakustra,

In your opinion, what was the purpose of the US in naming major combatants after CSA Leadership and Kamehameha(and while he wasn't a enemy of the US per se, he is an icon for Native Hawaiian resistence to the US). Let's go ahead and mention Simon Bolivar as well. Is it because of their martial valor? If it's okay to name one weapons system because of martial valor of the nameshake, why isn't it okay for other weapon systems? Is it simply a matter of scale to you?

[Samuel]

Samuel, you are misreading what the third sentence is saying, thus rendering this entire attempt to declare Noam Chomsky (and Michael Moore) dishonest quite, quite ironic. A hint: the critical word is "reacting".

I'm not declaring Michael Moore dishonest. He is a propogandist, but unlike Chomsky he keeps blatant lies to a minimum. He is also less stupid. The only reasonable statement Chomsky makes is we do things to other people we don't want to be done to us. Can you find someone who doesn't agree with this?

You are right, I misread that. Apparently he is making the shocking proposition that we do things to other people we don't want them to do to us.

So basically Americans don't like suffering, but like our enemies to suffer... which is noteworthy because... really, I'm not seeing it.

Care to respond to the other points?

An empire has power to exert control, and the imperial mindset is that this is considered right and good- that the exertion of power is moral when used for an empire, but against it is immoral, even given similar situations.

No, an empire is a multinational country. As for the imperial mindset you are describing hypocricy in the international arena- the idea that it is okay that we use force, but not when our enemies do.

This is somehow completely different from nationalism in ways I am sure you will explain.

Imagine if a serial killer kept trophies taken from the bodies of people that fought back. This would be grotesque, would it not? He killed them, so his honoring of their struggle is a bit false. The US encroached upon and killed the Apache, Comanche, and other groups honored, putting them into camps.

How is taking body parts similar to reusing names?

The imperialism comes in because Americans ignore this, and ignore the greater aspect beyond "the Apache were known as fearsome warriors" in naming, and have the ability to ignore it.

Imperialism- when military planners give names associated with fearsome warriors. I'm sure that was definately the origional meaning of the word.

The point is that the treatments were not identical. The US did not starve Robert E. Lee or Albert Sidney Johnston in camps, nor did they seek to exterminate CSA leaders, nor is King Kamehameha I an enemy of the US except in the stupidest of senses.

We had Shenandoah Valley Campaign, where we burnt farms providing the Confederacy with food to starve the South. We had the pow camps were the conditions were horrific. We had the dirty wars in the border areas where we did murder political leadership.

[Thanas]

Really now? Your evidence, please.

The article posted? The only legitimate point is the US has also sponsered terrorism in the past and present... and that is it. Just take a look.

I just love your arrogance. Yessir, let us read one article, be sanctimonious about it and then call one of the most important scholars alive "a lesser version of Michael Moore."

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.

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

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.

The first two quotes are so blatantly misleading they bear no relation to reality.

How so? Are you denying that muslims were going "that is not the correct muslim way to treat a body"? What are your claims that there was enough resistance to make a capture absolutely impossible?

You already conceded your misreading of the third quote.

[Hawkwings]

How so? Are you denying that muslims were going "that is not the correct muslim way to treat a body"? What are your claims that there was enough resistance to make a capture absolutely impossible?

I'll take this. First off, yes it is a fact that there are Muslims who complained about the way Bin Laden's body was treated. However, respect for Muslim burial traditions (body must be buried within 24 hours) meant that it was not possible to find a suitable country for burial. IIRC, we asked Saudi Arabia if they wanted the body and they said no. We sure aren't going to bury him in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere near there, for the very real danger of creating a shrine that future terrorists will draw inspiration from. So somebody made the decision to favor American safety over appeasing the entire muslim world which is impossible anyways. Oh no, a country looking out for its own interests first, how imperialistic.

Capture is never "absolutely impossible". It just has varying degrees of risk and difficulty. Consider the exercise of restraining Bin Laden and carrying him back to the chopper. You want him conscious or knocked out for this? Remember, Pakistani security forces are likely on their way! If you knock him out, what dosage do you use? Remember, he has kidney problems! How many dead SEALS is an alive Bin Laden worth? Zero? One? 10? 78 and a dog?

And if Noam Chomsky wrote something stupid, it's OK to not call him out on it because he is "one of the most important scholars alive"?

[Thanas]

I'll take this. First off, yes it is a fact that there are Muslims who complained about the way Bin Laden's body was treated.

So Choamsky was correct.

However, respect for Muslim burial traditions (body must be buried within 24 hours) meant that it was not possible to find a suitable country for burial. IIRC, we asked Saudi Arabia if they wanted the body and they said no. We sure aren't going to bury him in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere near there, for the very real danger of creating a shrine that future terrorists will draw inspiration from. So somebody made the decision to favor American safety over appeasing the entire muslim world which is impossible anyways.

Which invalidates his point how?

Capture is never "absolutely impossible". It just has varying degrees of risk and difficulty. Consider the exercise of restraining Bin Laden and carrying him back to the chopper. You want him conscious or knocked out for this? Remember, Pakistani security forces are likely on their way! If you knock him out, what dosage do you use? Remember, he has kidney problems! How many dead SEALS is an alive Bin Laden worth? Zero? One? 10? 78 and a dog?

Again, how does that invalidate his argument?

[PeZook]

Why do people harp on about drugging bin laden, anyway? What, are handcuffs/anklecuffs some exotic and lost technology the US no longer has access to?

[Thanas]

Apparently they are, together with flashbangs or the stun grenades forces like GSG9 uses....

[Hawkwings]

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

Yes he has the facts correct, people are complaining about this. He's even correct in that it's predictable. What he fails to do is address why this is worse than what would have happened with the alternative options. Which were, um... stick his head on a pike on the White House lawn? Hoist up his body at Ground Zero? As he is obviously so in tune with what the Muslim world wants, perhaps he should offer a better solution for us to take in the future, rather than just bitching about it? Of course the Muslim world is going to be angry and skeptical about what the US does. It's kind of an inherent part of the game now. Yes, choosing a lesser evil is still choosing an evil, but who is honestly going to bitch about choosing the lesser evil?

Which invalidates his point how?

...appeasing the entire muslim world which is impossible anyways.

Are you going to fault the US because someone disapproved of our actions? Why, that means everything that the US has ever done is wrong!

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.

Unfounded assumptions. Using 80 commandos means it's OK if one or two of them gets killed unnecessarily, right?

Anyways, the drugging is not the point. The point is that it's hard to capture someone who is armed, protected, and doesn't want to be captured. Judging by the fact that there were people left alive in the compound (mostly women and children zip-tied together) we know that the SEALS were discriminating targets. Everyone they killed they did for a reason, the most likely reason being that they were going to fight back. I'm not going to fault the judgement of the SEAL that first saw Bin Laden, made a split second threat/no threat decision, and shot him (if that's indeed how the situation went).

[Thanas]

Yes he has the facts correct, people are complaining about this. He's even correct in that it's predictable. What he fails to do is address why this is worse than what would have happened with the alternative options. Which were, um... stick his head on a pike on the White House lawn? Hoist up his body at Ground Zero? As he is obviously so in tune with what the Muslim world wants, perhaps he should offer a better solution for us to take in the future, rather than just bitching about it? Of course the Muslim world is going to be angry and skeptical about what the US does. It's kind of an inherent part of the game now. Yes, choosing a lesser evil is still choosing an evil, but who is honestly going to bitch about choosing the lesser evil?

Bury him on US military ground? It is not as if the US has no bases available (Diego Garcia for one would easily be in reach by the military aircraft) etc. That said, I still do not see how your criticism invalidates the point he is making.

Are you going to fault the US because someone disapproved of our actions? Why, that means everything that the US has ever done is wrong!

Pretty much a strawman here. His argument is not that the USA can do only wrong, his argument is that the entire operation is symbolic of the Imperial mindset and why the USA is failing to get other people to like it.

Anyways, the drugging is not the point. The point is that it's hard to capture someone who is armed, protected, and doesn't want to be captured.

All information that has recently come out points to him being unarmed. As for protection, what protection?

I'm not going to fault the judgement of the SEAL that first saw Bin Laden, made a split second threat/no threat decision, and shot him (if that's indeed how the situation went).

The point is that the current situation does not allow you enough proof to label Chomsky's version as inaccurate precisely because the military has not released the videos of the mission nor will it provide details like an accurate retelling of what went down. You are essentially assuming facts not in evidence here.

[Dark Hellion]

Bury him on US military ground? It is not as if the US has no bases available (Diego Garcia for one would easily be in reach by the military aircraft) etc. That said, I still do not see how your criticism invalidates the point he is making.

The suggestion of burying him on U.S. ground is, well, so incomprehensible as an actual solution I don't actually know were to begin rebutting it. Are you going to provide a logic behind why this would actually appease Muslims in any way?

On a more general question, it seems that many people who were happy that Bin Laden was killed are now upset that he was killed via assassination. What would people of this camp propose as the proper handling of this situation, in practical terms?

[Thanas]

The suggestion of burying him on U.S. ground is, well, so incomprehensible as an actual solution I don't actually know were to begin rebutting it. Are you going to provide a logic behind why this would actually appease Muslims in any way?

Had you paid any attention, the most protest has come due to burying him at sea as that apparently was not acceptable. Had they buried him in the ground, that would not have raised objections (in fact, several clerics posted in this very thread said so).

[Dark Hellion]

On U.S. military ground though? I think the distinction is probably very important given that many groups have a literally suicidal hatred of the U.S.

Additionally, IIRC burial at sea was supposedly acceptable (I think it was stated as such earlier in this thread). Was that a mistake (honest question, I do not know Islamic custom very well) or is this an issue of sectarianism, where different groups have different interpretations about what is acceptable or not?

I would contend that no matter how it was conducted there would be no appeasing everyone with the burial and that what was done really did go above and beyond what is usually done with enemies as hated as Bin Laden. There was great care to honor his religion in disposing of the body (Imams to wash it, burial within 24 hours, etc.) when he could have just as easily been used for ghoulish display or cremated and scattered to the winds.

[Hawkwings]

Bury him on US military ground? It is not as if the US has no bases available (Diego Garcia for one would easily be in reach by the military aircraft) etc. That said, I still do not see how your criticism invalidates the point he is making.

Oh, so that every serviceman there has a chance to piss on his grave? So that the Muslim world can get even more upset that we are dishonoring him by putting him in infidel dirt? So that more people back home will get the chance to say "Why are giving that durn terr-rist a military funeral on AMURRICAN SOIL?" I fail to see how this is a better option at all. I have no doubt that an equal number of clerics (at least) would have found cause to complain about these actions. And why is their version of Islam correct anyways? If it's such an outrage, shouldn't every Islamic cleric everywhere be raising voice in protest?

And again, Chomsky is not giving sage advice here, he is bitching.

Anyways, as apparently I don't understand the point he is making with the following quote, would you care to explain it?

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

Pretty much a strawman here. His argument is not that the USA can do only wrong, his argument is that the entire operation is symbolic of the Imperial mindset and why the USA is failing to get other people to like it.

Just because a nation is bigger and has more resources doesn't make its actions imperialistic. If the entire argument comes down to "Big meanie is doing something I don't like and I can't do anything about it!" then it can be safely ignored. And really, how do you think we're going to get people who hate America (apparently all of Pakistan and the rest of the world too) to like our actions? Why should this even be a consideration?

All information that has recently come out points to him being unarmed. As for protection, what protection?

Oh I dunno, the people with guns in the compound? And unarmed does not mean not dangerous. Who the hell actually sleeps with a gun? "Reaching for a weapon" is still "unarmed".

The point is that the current situation does not allow you enough proof to label Chomsky's version as inaccurate precisely because the military has not released the videos of the mission nor will it provide details like an accurate retelling of what went down. You are essentially assuming facts not in evidence here.

His version makes a hell of a lot more assumptions than mine does, assumptions that don't fit with known combat situations.

Edit: typos.

[Thanas]

On U.S. military ground though? I think the distinction is probably very important given that many groups have a literally suicidal hatred of the U.S.

Additionally, IIRC burial at sea was supposedly acceptable (I think it was stated as such earlier in this thread). Was that a mistake (honest question, I do not know Islamic custom very well) or is this an issue of sectarianism, where different groups have different interpretations about what is acceptable or not?

The only ones who claimed that were the USA. Nearly all muslim scholars cited in this thread were against it and saying the USA was wrong in assuming that.

Oh, so that every serviceman there has a chance to piss on his grave? So that the Muslim world can get even more upset that we are dishonoring him by putting him in infidel dirt?

Infidel dirt? Your ignorance of Muslim burial laws is showing.

If it's such an outrage, shouldn't every Islamic cleric everywhere be raising voice in protest?

The ones cited in this thread are not enough? Besides, the muslims currently have better things to worry, like freeing themselves from their (american-backed) dictators. And pray tell, what cleric has come out in support of this?

And again, Chomsky is not giving sage advice here, he is bitching.

I am curious. What would be the sage advice for an action like that?

Anyways, as apparently I don't understand the point he is making with the following quote, would you care to explain it?

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

I think it sad that I, as a foreigner, have apparently better reading comprehension than you do. He is saying that the way the USA acted is causing outrage due to the treatment of the body and then trying to pass it off as acceptable to the islamic world. He is also saying that a court should have handled this, but for some reasons (intellectual dishonesty) people like you decide to ignore that point entirely.

Just because a nation is bigger and has more resources doesn't make its actions imperialistic. If the entire argument comes down to "Big meanie is doing something I don't like and I can't do anything about it!" then it can be safely ignored.

You do know that that is the very textbook definition of how an imperialist power behaves, right?

And really, how do you think we're going to get people who hate America (apparently all of Pakistan and the rest of the world too) to like our actions? Why should this even be a consideration?

Are you that bad at understanding the simple logic that is behind "if I like somebody, I am not going to blow his brains out"? Really now?

Oh I dunno, the people with guns in the compound?

How many were there left?

And unarmed does not mean not dangerous. Who the hell actually sleeps with a gun? "Reaching for a weapon" is still "unarmed".

Yeah....except that version is not supported by anything.

His version makes a hell of a lot more assumptions than mine does, assumptions that don't fit with known combat situations.

A) Kindly point out the assumptions
B) Kindly provide your credentials as the expert on what goes on in combat situations
C) Kindly explain how this was a "standard" combat situation.

[Hawkwings]

Infidel dirt? Your ignorance of Muslim burial laws is showing.

Do you honestly believe that they would not have found offense to burying Bin Laden on American soil? Perhaps they would have said "Oh, there were dogs on that base, dogs are filthy!" or something like "The US is insulting Islam by burying him in a Christian area!" or perhaps I will quote one of these burial guidelines of which I am so ignorant.

It is not permissible to bury a dead body in a usurped place nor in a place which is dedicated for purposes other than burial (e.g. in a Masjid).

It is not permitted to bury a Muslim in the graveyard of the non-Muslims, nor to bury a non-Muslim in the graveyard of the Muslims.

If it is feared that an enemy may dig up the grave and exhume the dead body and amputate its ears or nose or other limbs, it should be lowered into sea, if possible, as stated in the foregoing rule.

Source: http://www.seaservices.com/Muslim.htm

So we can't bury him on a military base, even if it has a graveyard because there would be non-Muslims buried there. And if we do find a Muslim graveyard somewhere close, I give it a maximum of six months before it either turns into a terrorist shrine or is dug up and vandalized by interested parties.

Anyways do you honestly believe that the outrage from the American public would be worth the appeasement of Muslim clerics that have a bone to pick with the US? Oh sure, it's easy for them to say these things now, but I guarantee you that if we had done exactly as they wanted, they would still find things to complain about.

The ones cited in this thread are not enough? Besides, the muslims currently have better things to worry, like freeing themselves from their (american-backed) dictators. And pray tell, what cleric has come out in support of this?

I like how you assume that all Muslims are living under oppressive US-sponsored dictatorships. Anyways, link. And quotes:

Khalid Latif, chaplain at New York University and director of its Islamic Center, said Islamic law is "flexible" in how it handles burial, especially in this case. The question would be not "how to bury a body, but how Osama bin Laden's body would be buried."

He said the government's approach was reasonable -- letting bin Laden's body, "wash back and forth in the sea."

"If we think about burying him in the ground, there are multiple scenarios," he said. "The problem is people don't want him buried near them or their loved ones. Giving him a place on land would create an opportunity for many individuals to unleash and lash out their rage against him. He made lives terrible for so many of us."

Oh and here's another one.

As one who is devoted to Islam and its ideology, it makes me nauseated and sick that someone would make sure he had a religious rite given to a man like this because he was an evil barbarian who declared war against our nation.

Whoops, guess not all Islamic scholars agree that he should have been treated this way. Shocking.

-----------------------------

I am curious. What would be the sage advice for an action like that?

Oh something like "Instead of dumping him overboard, the US should have done this." Anything at all would be better than nothing.

He is saying that the way the USA acted is causing outrage due to the treatment of the body and then trying to pass it off as acceptable to the Islamic world.

OK, this part first. It is a fact that people are angry at the US because of these actions. Nobody is debating this point. What is his argument? An argument is a "should" statement. Is it "The US should not have taken these actions because they would cause outrage"? If that is indeed his argument, then I have already addressed it.

What he fails to do is address why this is worse than what would have happened with the alternative options. [...] Of course the Muslim world is going to be angry and skeptical about what the US does. It's kind of an inherent part of the game now. Yes, choosing a lesser evil is still choosing an evil, but who is honestly going to bitch about choosing the lesser evil?

He is also saying that a court should have handled this, but for some reasons (intellectual dishonesty) people like you decide to ignore that point entirely.

A court should have handled what? The trial of Bin Laden to determine whether he was guilty of planning 9/11 and earlier attacks? Well first, as pointed out earlier, the ICC has no jurisdiction because it was formed after the events took place. Second, that'd be a pretty short trial wouldn't it? Exhibit A: confession video. Yes, due process of law would have been met if we took him to court, I agree with that. But the point is moot if we can't capture him.

You do know that that is the very textbook definition of how an imperialist power behaves, right?

Then it naturally follows that all international actions of the US are imperialism, because I am sure you can find complaints about all of them by people who were powerless to do anything about it.

Are you that bad at understanding the simple logic that is behind "if I like somebody, I am not going to blow his brains out"? Really now?

They are predisposed to not liking us and changing our actions is not going to change their minds. Or if you mean other major international players, well... which government besides Pakistan has condemned the US for these actions?

How many were there left?

Yeah....except that version is not supported by anything.

A) Kindly point out the assumptions
B) Kindly provide your credentials as the expert on what goes on in combat situations
C) Kindly explain how this was a "standard" combat situation.

Apologies for being underinformed. According to articles which I have just read, like this one, there was practically no armed resistance to the operation. But US officials have stated that he was reaching for a weapon as the SEAL team found him. Obviously this act of reaching for the weapon was enough of a threat that they shot him. Some mission planner must have made the decision that an alive Bin Laden was not worth even one dead SEAL, and thus authorized shooting him under such conditions.

[Broomstick]

Why do people harp on about drugging bin laden, anyway? What, are handcuffs/anklecuffs some exotic and lost technology the US no longer has access to?

Not that I'm any sort of expert on restraining human beings, but even with handcuffs and anklecuffs someone can still struggle, bin Laden was a big guy, and the idea of a big guy flailing around in a helicopter in flight just strikes me as a potential hazard. I'm not saying it's impossible to do something of the sort, but I can't imagine bin Laden meekly sitting there like a sack of dirty laundry just because he's got some cuffs on him. It's going to take more than just wrist and ankle restraints.

Frankly, I don't know how much of an effort was made to capture rather than kill, or how threatening bin Laden actually was at the time (Was he reaching for a weapon? Was he raising his hands to surrender? Supposedly there is video but we're unlikely ever to see it.) For certain, taking him alive is more dangerous that simply shooting him. That doesn't make it morally right - frequently, the moral choice is the more difficult one - but as a practical matter I can see someone deciding to shoot.

[Akhlut]

Why do people harp on about drugging bin laden, anyway? What, are handcuffs/anklecuffs some exotic and lost technology the US no longer has access to?

Someone has to already surrender or have somewhere between 3 and 6+ men restraining a person to cuff them if they REALLY don't want to be captured.

And, of course, this assumes that there aren't other people shooting at the cops at the time.

Apparently they are, together with flashbangs or the stun grenades forces like GSG9 uses....

Flashbangs and stun grenades can ignite flammable materials or cause certain explosives to detonate. Now, if you're raiding the compound of a suspected terrorist leader who leads an organization well known for their usage of explosives, do you chance causing an enormous explosion amidst civilians and your own men?

[Bakustra]

Bakustra,

In your opinion, what was the purpose of the US in naming major combatants after CSA Leadership and Kamehameha(and while he wasn't a enemy of the US per se, he is an icon for Native Hawaiian resistence to the US). Let's go ahead and mention Simon Bolivar as well. Is it because of their martial valor? If it's okay to name one weapons system because of martial valor of the nameshake, why isn't it okay for other weapon systems? Is it simply a matter of scale to you?

Because some of those namesakes were marked for extermination by the US and others were not. The Apache, Comanche, Navajo/Dineh, and other groups were deliberately placed in reservations, often faced starvation in the face of government neglect, and were marked for cultural extermination following a shift in public policy from physical extermination. To contrast, the individuals you mention didn't face all those things, or any of them. In fact, individuals aren't really able to do so. So there's a spit between honoring a people you tried to exterminate and an individual- and there is a great deal of irony in incorporating individuals like Liliuokalani or Geronimo or Red Cloud who fought US encroachment on their homeland as heroes to be honored.

Samuel, you are misreading what the third sentence is saying, thus rendering this entire attempt to declare Noam Chomsky (and Michael Moore) dishonest quite, quite ironic. A hint: the critical word is "reacting".

I'm not declaring Michael Moore dishonest. He is a propogandist, but unlike Chomsky he keeps blatant lies to a minimum. He is also less stupid. The only reasonable statement Chomsky makes is we do things to other people we don't want to be done to us. Can you find someone who doesn't agree with this?

You are right, I misread that. Apparently he is making the shocking proposition that we do things to other people we don't want them to do to us.

So basically Americans don't like suffering, but like our enemies to suffer... which is noteworthy because... really, I'm not seeing it.

Care to respond to the other points?

Not declaring Michael Moore to be dishonest and then saying that he distorts but rarely outright lies seems to be a self-contradictory statement. There is more to dishonesty than lying. But give examples of where Chomsky lied, and explain why linguists respect him so much if he's so stupid. Are linguists just a pack of imbeciles?

The point he's raising is that Americans are beholden to the mindset of empire- we tend to think that we're simply above other people. Our unwillingness to acknowledge the sheer brutality of asserting our right to kill whoever we want while denying the right of anybody else to retaliate against us is something that ought to be confronted again and again. Dismissing it as you do ignores the implications that reach all the way through American military and foreign policy. I can outline one gigantic example.

An empire has power to exert control, and the imperial mindset is that this is considered right and good- that the exertion of power is moral when used for an empire, but against it is immoral, even given similar situations.

No, an empire is a multinational country. As for the imperial mindset you are describing hypocricy in the international arena- the idea that it is okay that we use force, but not when our enemies do.

This is somehow completely different from nationalism in ways I am sure you will explain.

That is not the totality of the definition of empire. Otherwise France and Spain are empires because of the Breton, Euskaran, and other minority nations within them. The imperial mindset is built around the idea of international exertion, which I omitted but should have included. A nationalist country does not have to be concerned with expansion or with exertion of its desires upon its neighbors, only with its own superiority. See, for example, Franco's Spain, obsessed with a "Spanish" identity but not expansionist or especially internationalist.

Imagine if a serial killer kept trophies taken from the bodies of people that fought back. This would be grotesque, would it not? He killed them, so his honoring of their struggle is a bit false. The US encroached upon and killed the Apache, Comanche, and other groups honored, putting them into camps.

How is taking body parts similar to reusing names?

Because they both are part of the oppressed or harmed, and are taken by the oppressor, though names at least can still be kept. It's not a perfect analogy, but that does not make it useless either.

The imperialism comes in because Americans ignore this, and ignore the greater aspect beyond "the Apache were known as fearsome warriors" in naming, and have the ability to ignore it.

Imperialism- when military planners give names associated with fearsome warriors. I'm sure that was definately the origional meaning of the word.

The bolded statements are the critical parts of this sentence, Samuel.

The point is that the treatments were not identical. The US did not starve Robert E. Lee or Albert Sidney Johnston in camps, nor did they seek to exterminate CSA leaders, nor is King Kamehameha I an enemy of the US except in the stupidest of senses.

We had Shenandoah Valley Campaign, where we burnt farms providing the Confederacy with food to starve the South. We had the pow camps were the conditions were horrific. We had the dirty wars in the border areas where we did murder political leadership.

Too bad we weren't talking about the CSA as a whole. Not to mention the difference between a group that can be exterminated, and an individual who can only be killed.

[Samuel]

I just love your arrogance. Yessir, let us read one article, be sanctimonious about it and then call one of the most important scholars alive "a lesser version of Michael Moore."

You thought it was a good article. If this is what is considered good output by Chomsky than it is fair to judge the rest of his work as crap. I like how when people point out its flaws they are "sanctimounious".

What are your claims that there was enough resistance to make a capture absolutely impossible?

Fortunately, that isn't what the quote says.

80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them.

Are linguists just a pack of imbeciles?

I'm not judging his lingustical work.

The point he's raising is that Americans are beholden to the mindset of empire- we tend to think that we're simply above other people.

This is different from other countries how?

That is not the totality of the definition of empire.

Than give the definition. You don't get to make new definitions for commonly used words.

A nationalist country does not have to be concerned with expansion or with exertion of its desires upon its neighbors, only with its own superiority.

In other words the difference between nationalism and imperialism is that nationalists lack power.

Because they both are part of the oppressed or harmed, and are taken by the oppressor, though names at least can still be kept. It's not a perfect analogy, but that does not make it useless either.

Your responce is circular. Reusing names of our enemies is bad because they are the names of our enemies.

The bolded statements are the critical parts of this sentence, Samuel.

Disney Princesses- guess who the second to the left is? But I guess Disney isn't mainstream America.

How about Thanksgiving, a national holiday?

Your complaining the military using militaristic names is associating Indians with a warfare image... despite the fact the majority of associations in the US media are not warfare. People have posted countless examples- have any of them been enough for you.

Too bad we weren't talking about the CSA as a whole. Not to mention the difference between a group that can be exterminated, and an individual who can only be killed.

Except the situations I gave are comparable- if individuals were responsible for unconvential warfare, we killed them or attacked their food supply. We didn't do that to the confederate leaders or, amazingly enough, some of the less hostile indian groups.

[Bakustra]

Samuel, your definition requires that France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Rwanda, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada, and a hell of a lot more countries be considered empires. All hail the Canuck Empire, I guess. I pointed this out in my previous post with France and Spain, but you snipped it out and did not address it at all. Curious, that. So, what definition of empire should be used? We could use the old definition- an empire requires an emperor, but that's not particularly useful. The definition I am using in this context is that empires are, indeed, multinational states which are also expansionist, aggressive, and internationalist in outlook. So go right ahead and try and poke holes into this.

See, when you describe Chomsky as an idiot, you are suggesting, and going beyond such in outright saying, that the totality of his work must not be impressive at all, indeed "crap" as you called it. Chomsky is one of the most respected linguists within the field. The conclusion is either that linguists are universally dumb enough to consider his work impressive, or that his language-related work is impressive and you're just taking something you disagree with and using it to smear the man. You're trying to play it both ways, declaring that it's crap to Thanas and telling me that you never said anything about his linguistics work. You also are being sanctimonious by making such declarations, too.

I like that you reduce paragraphs to sentences, snipping out the majority of what I say and not bothering to respond to the snipped portions. That's pretty much all I can say to half of your post, to be honest. I don't want to repeat myself over and over because you're unwilling to respond to the whole of my paragraphs, and so I will not. Instead, I'll just call you out on it and watch you either ignore it or justify it.

I think you're confusing me with other people. That's all I can say to your penultimate response. I don't see how you can get what you wrote from a response to what I wrote, even when reducing it to a single sentence.

Finally, you decide to throw in a bizarre little passage about how the two situations (naming things for whole groups and naming things for individuals) are comparable because individuals were killed and apparently forcibly starved to death. Then you throw in another, tautological non sequitur about how the US didn't fight the Native Americans that didn't fight. I assume this is some sort of trolling attempt, but frankly it's too strange to provoke anything beyond curiosity.

[Samuel]

Samuel, your definition requires that France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Rwanda, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada, and a hell of a lot more countries be considered empires.

It is not "my" definition. It is the dictionary definition. Your refusal to use words as they are defined is not my problem.

Curious, that.

If they fit the definition of the word, than the word applies. I didn't respond because I believed how definitions worked was obvious. I guess I was wrong. Would you like me to explain how each and every statement you make is wrong.

an empire requires an emperor,

No, it doesn't. The Roman Empire existed during the Republic for example.

The definition I am using in this context is that empires are, indeed, multinational states which are also expansionist, aggressive, and internationalist in outlook. So go right ahead and try and poke holes into this.

Great. You just made the Japanese Empire not count because it was single ethnicity.

How about you just use, expansionist, aggressive and internationalist in outlook for expansionist, aggressive, and internationalist in outlook?

Although the idea that the US is attempting to increase cooperation amoung nations and thus is an empire is amusing to me.

See, when you describe Chomsky as an idiot, you are suggesting, and going beyond such in outright saying, that the totality of his work must not be impressive at all, indeed "crap" as you called it.

I was refering to his political writing... which was clear when I said "I'm not judging his linguistical work".

. You're trying to play it both ways, declaring that it's crap to Thanas and telling me that you never said anything about his linguistics work.

Or option c, I didn't know who Chomsky was and so I didn't know he was a linguist until you mentioned it. But no, lets make completely unwarrented assumptions.

I like that you reduce paragraphs to sentences, snipping out the majority of what I say and not bothering to respond to the snipped portions.

Lets look at your paragraphs then.

See, when you describe Chomsky as an idiot, you are suggesting, and going beyond such in outright saying, that the totality of his work must not be impressive at all, indeed "crap" as you called it. Chomsky is one of the most respected linguists within the field. The conclusion is either that linguists are universally dumb enough to consider his work impressive, or that his language-related work is impressive and you're just taking something you disagree with and using it to smear the man. You're trying to play it both ways, declaring that it's crap to Thanas and telling me that you never said anything about his linguistics work. You also are being sanctimonious by making such declarations, too.

Please tell me how the snipped sentances are unfair to such a paragraph.

I think you're confusing me with other people. That's all I can say to your penultimate response. I don't see how you can get what you wrote from a response to what I wrote, even when reducing it to a single sentence.

The imperialism comes in because Americans ignore this, and ignore the greater aspect beyond "the Apache were known as fearsome warriors" in naming, and have the ability to ignore it.

You are claiming that we ignore the fact that there were non-warfare like aspects to the natives. I gave well known examples of Americans of Americans paying attention to the non-warrior aspects of native American cultures.

Your responce only makes sense if you assume that only the Apache get this treatment.

Then you throw in another, tautological non sequitur about how the US didn't fight the Native Americans that didn't fight. I assume this is some sort of trolling attempt, but frankly it's too strange to provoke anything beyond curiosity.

Okay, since you are too stupid to understand, I will explain.

The president of the confederacy did not have the ability or skill to take a band of soldiers and wage war against the United States. Needless to say he was treated much better than the native leaders who could put up such a resistence.

Native leaders that weren't able to put up resistence were also treated better.

The point you completely and utterly failed to get is that treatment varied in part by how much of a threat said leaders were and how much benefit there was in treating them well.

[Zed]

Samuel, your definition requires that France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Rwanda, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada, and a hell of a lot more countries be considered empires.

It is not "my" definition. It is the dictionary definition. Your refusal to use words as they are defined is not my problem.

Curious, that.

If they fit the definition of the word, than the word applies. I didn't respond because I believed how definitions worked was obvious. I guess I was wrong. Would you like me to explain how each and every statement you make is wrong.

an empire requires an emperor,

No, it doesn't. The Roman Empire existed during the Republic for example.

The definition I am using in this context is that empires are, indeed, multinational states which are also expansionist, aggressive, and internationalist in outlook. So go right ahead and try and poke holes into this.

Great. You just made the Japanese Empire not count because it was single ethnicity.

How about you just use, expansionist, aggressive and internationalist in outlook for expansionist, aggressive, and internationalist in outlook?

Since you seem so glad to use dictionaries when they suit you, but not when they don't, here's the definition of imperialism from The Dictionary of Human Geography: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

[Thanas]

You thought it was a good article. If this is what is considered good output by Chomsky than it is fair to judge the rest of his work as crap. I like how when people point out its flaws they are "sanctimounious".

I think you are a lesser version of Darkstar.

See what I just did?

Yes, I think it was a good article. It gets its point across. Too bad little guys like you love to nitpick it to death rather than deal with the full theory.

Fortunately, that isn't what the quote says.

Semantic whoring? Really? I thought you better than this. Very well. Explain then what the opposition was to make capture impossible.

an empire requires an emperor,

No, it doesn't. The Roman Empire existed during the Republic for example.

....are you that ignorant or do you really mean for that sentence to be taken seriously?

[Bakustra]

Samuel, Samuel, Samuel. If you're going to use a definition, you should provide a sanity check first. If you really want to go ahead with this definition, then I will include references to the mighty Canuck Empire from now on, in the hopes that you will recognize how over-broad that definition is. You yourself abandon it by pretending that the Japanese Empire was single-ethnicity or singly-national. No, it wasn't, and neither is Japan today.

But let's take a look at what you snipped, yes.

So, what definition of empire should be used? We could use the old definition- an empire requires an emperor, but that's not particularly useful.

an empire requires an emperor

This is dishonest in the extreme, since it implies that I said that as a serious, useful definition. I carefully bolded the part that you may have missed if I give you credit you really don't deserve.

You know, when you admit that you didn't know who Chomsky was and yet posted as though you were familiar with him... that's not impressive. It's, frankly, pathetic.

You apparently can't comprehend context, either, seeing as you don't apparently get that I was following up on the idea of there being something grotesque about naming things after your victims with that sentence. I mean, it only directly followed other sentences on that topic! Really, you're not looking good so far.

You also ignore that I was talking about peoples as a whole, not as just "leaders". Unless you think there really were guys named Apache and Comanche in the distant past.