Obama is ‘dedicated to increasing terrorism’
Yeah, I’ll probably be accused of being a far-right racist extremist for running that quote in the headline, but it actually comes from well-known Tea Party activist, Noam Chomsky who said the other day, that Obama is the source of all of the terrorism in the world reports the far right extremists at Raw Story;
“The Obama administration is dedicated to increasing terrorism,” he went on. “In fact, it’s doing it all over the world. Obama, first of all, is running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history. The drone assassination campaigns, which are just part of it… All of these operations, they are terror operations.”
Chomsky continued: “People have a reaction, they don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ And they become what we call terrorists. This is completely understood from the highest level, that as you carry out these operations you’re generating terrorism.”
“Sometimes it’s almost surreal,” he lamented, recalling the congressional testimony of a man from Yemen who claimed a single drone strike turned his whole village against the U.S. — something the extremist Muslims in his region had failed to do.
“People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them, that’s not a surprise,” Chomsky added. “Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to acts of terror.” He went on to say the Obama administration risked a nuclear war to kill al-Qaeda financier Osama bin Laden by sending special forces troops into a sovereign nation.
Of course, I disagree with Chomsky. What’s terrorizing the world is extremist Islam. What Chomsky wants to do is let them run rampant and kill as many of us as they can. Chomsky is a communist and is merely subscribing to the same plan that the Soviets used when they incited jihadists in the Middle East during the 70s and eighties and equipped them with guns and training in the first place to disrupt the republics.
Oh, by the way, in case you missed it, Bill Ayers admitted the other day that Obama should stand trial for war crimes. From CBS News;
In an interview with RealClearPolitics, Ayers said that Mr. Obama’s use of drones “absolutely” amounts to terrorist activity.
While Ayers said Mr. Obama should “absolutely” be tried for war crimes, he also said no president in his lifetime has been guilt-free.
“Every president in this century should be put on trial,” Ayers said. “Every one of them goes into office — an office dripping with blood — and then adds to it. And, yes, I think that these are war crimes. I think that they’re acts of terror.”
But, I guess Obama won’t be droning either of these morons anytime soon.
Category: Terror War
Chomsky’s got a point, though: we’re sending robot assassins all over the damn place based on very thin evidence. We’re not actually fighting radical Islam, we’re playing Whack-a-Mole with high explosives.
And there is no end in sight. Therefore, we have to accept that our betters need to monitor our all of communications into perpetuity, and trust that our betters won’t use the NSA for domestic political warfare in the same way they use the IRS.
I would not piss on Noam Chomsky’s ass if it were literally on fire. Doing that would be an insult to urine.
Screw that anti-American jackass.
Hah, based on the title, I though perhaps obamao made another gaffe in his Berlin speech; the dude doesn’t do well when his teleprompter isn’t working (or reflecting) well…
Chomsky is an irrelevant turd whose been floating face down for so long most people thought he was dead and once again proving why most thought he was dead he focuses on something of importance and uses his massive intellect to arrive at exactly the wrong conclusion. And Ayers who was Obama’s friend and now he’s not? Nothing new there either as he’s always been a turncoat hypocritical piece of sh1t….
Two 4ssholes with two 4sshole opinions….the drone program is worthy of a national discussion, but we won’t be having an honest, open discussion because of the hyperbole involved. Instead we will be worried about whether or not the first lady looks better with bangs than without….
I guess you could argue with some success that these two 4ssholes are representative of the intellectual capacity of many of our citizens….f#cking idiots…
As for Noam Chomsky, he’s a pimple on a boil’s ass…
Bill Ayers calling someone out for “terrorist activities”? You could cut the irony with a knife.
@1–yeah, he might have a point besides the one on his head, but how he gets from there to his conclusions is what defies logic and explanation.
As for Bill Ayers, too bad he wasn’t one of those weathermennuts who got blown to bits by their own bomb in that apertment in New York City back in ’70.
Amen to that, CH, it’s a pity that Ayers didn’t end up being a “Wile E. Coyote Bomber”!!
I kinda doubt Ayers will be “droned” myself, considering it was probably his family that paid for the halfrican’s college “education”.
I just don’t know what to say… Two formerly radical old farts from the 1970s running their mouths again? They must want attention awfully badly.
It’s no surprise to me that Ayers turns against Bodaprez. None at all. There is likewise no surprise that Chomsky, who doesn’t ‘get’ the 2nd amendment and describes business power as totalitarian, thinks Bodaprez is a terrorist.
Oh, well, change is in the air and will be for another 30 months.
How bad is it that your ghost writer turns against you (waited until after re was re-elected though, didn’t he)?
Can’t discount the conclusion entirely, but agree with those who question the manner of getting there. The simple fact is that in each of the conflicts, we are supplying arms to the folks most closely associated with terrorists. Makes no sense at all, but it happens anyway.
Right premise wrong specifics. The Obama Brotherhood most certainly is encouraging Islamic terror by directly funding it and in other ways. It’s intentional too.
Jonn should challenge Chomsky to a debate. He’d probably accept, say what you will about his politics, but he’s not shy about debating in public.
BTW-I once heard Chomsky’s technique described this way: “it’s as if he walks along a white sandy beach picking up black pebbles. He then goes back to a classroom and shows those pebbles to his students as proof the beach is black”.
It’s not that what Chomsky says is totally wrong (he might be, but at least some of what he says is true), it’s that he doesn’t tell the whole truth, or is at least very selective in what “truth” he tells.