Noam Chomsky, Hero or Zero?

[moustache]

lets see, why dont they have a right to attack us, well...

Al-qaeda bombed the U.S embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was destroyed in cruise missile strikes launched by the United States, with the stated justification that there was evidence the factory had been used to manufacture chemical weapons for al-Qaeda.

that was the united states justification for attacking sudan.

now, Chomsky says that sudan has a right to attack the U.S for attacking them...

What is sudans Justification? They would have no justification. The U.S was eliminating a source of terrorism (thus making the attack justifiable).

[fedfem]

Quote by: moustache lets see, why dont they have a right to attack us, well... Al-qaeda bombed the U.S embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was destroyed in cruise missile strikes launched by the United States, with the stated justification that there was evidence the factory had been used to manufacture chemical weapons for al-Qaeda. that was the united states justification for attacking sudan. now, Chomsky says that sudan has a right to attack the U.S for attacking them... What is sudans Justification? They would have no justification. The U.S was eliminating a source of terrorism (thus making the attack justifiable).

Well it was never proven that there were chemical weapons being manufactured. Also, if Chomsky said Sudan had a right...what does that have to do with anything since Sudan did not attack us?

There are army bases here in the US that are the source of bio/chem weapons being used in other countries as well as this one--how should we handle that?

To be clear, the US is not officially causing it but those with access to these elements have access. How does another country deal with it?

[ericsp23]

If you want to hold the position that Sudan did not have the right to retaliate against the US, then you would also have to hold the position that the US did not have the right to attack Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

[moustache]

Quote by: fedfem Well it was never proven that there were chemical weapons being manufactured.

This may be the case, but given the information which I had, That is how I made my statement.

Quote by: fedfem Also, if Chomsky said Sudan had a right...what does that have to do with anything since Sudan did not attack us?

It shows what kind of a person he is.

Quote by: fedfem There are army bases here in the US that are the source of bio/chem weapons being used in other countries as well as this one--how should we handle that?

I trust our country with these weapons, I do not however trust Al-Qaeda.

Quote by: fedfem To be clear, the US is not officially causing it but those with access to these elements have access. How does another country deal with it?

Im afraid I dont completely unerstand your question.

[PatrickHenry]

Even handedness and logical rule of law are not conservative characteristics, IMO. They will never concede this point. In the prevailing conservative ideology, the US, by definition always must do what is best. There is no legitimate criticism of US actions, unless they are taken by "liberal" administrations(irony). In that case it may be a Wag the Dog scenario... or not depending on whose ox is gored.

[moustache]

Quote by: ericsp23 If you want to hold the position that Sudan did not have the right to retaliate against the US, then you would also have to hold the position that the US did not have the right to attack Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

Actually, I look at the situation like this...

On Sudan:
The U.S was justified for Attacking Sudan.
If Sudan had retaliated, they would not be justified in their actions.

On Afghanistan:
Afghanistan was not justified in attacking the U.S.
The U.S. was justified in attacking Afghanistan.

It is really that simple.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache but I do not agree with him.

Again, you keep saying things without responding at all to the facts, as though no one else were in the discussion. If you don't want to respond to the refutations offered, then why are you here? To preach or to discuss?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache Actually, I look at the situation like this... On Sudan: The U.S was justified for Attacking Sudan. If Sudan had retaliated, they would not be justified in their actions. On Afghanistan: Afghanistan was not justified in attacking the U.S. The U.S. was justified in attacking Afghanistan. It is really that simple.

Again, your support of criminal behavior is noted.

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo Again, you keep saying things without responding at all to the facts, as though no one else were in the discussion. If you don't want to respond to the refutations offered, then why are you here? To preach or to discuss?

I responded to the facts

Quote by: Gorgo Again, your support of criminal behavior is noted.

I do not see this as criminal behavior

[Gorgo]

Quote by: ericsp23 If you want to hold the position that Sudan did not have the right to retaliate against the US, then you would also have to hold the position that the US did not have the right to attack Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.

If you want to hold the position that the rule of law is important, and that any country who wishes to live in peace ought to set a good example, then you will realize the criminal nature of the United States government.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache I do not see this as criminal behavior

You mean you do not care if it is criminal behavior.

[moustache]

no, I mean just what I said, I do not think Americas actions are criminal behavior.

[ericsp23]

Please explain how our bombing of a pharmaceutical building in Sudan was justified. I am not aware of any evidence to supports the Clinton administration's claim that the building was being used to develop chemical weapons.

[moustache]

Do you have any evidence that the clinton administration's claim was wrong?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache Do you have any evidence that the clinton administration's claim was wrong?

Why would anyone bother to tell you? You don't read anything that anyone else writes or posts or you would respond to it.

[moustache]

Thats funny Gorgo, Im responding to your post as we speak, hey, it even looks like I have been responding to posts all along. Fancy that.

[ericsp23]

Plenty

The El-Shifa plant was never clandestine. It was opened in June 1997 with much fanfare. Over the years it was visited by heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, by international guests including the president of the Republic of Niger, the World Health Organization's director for the Mediterranean Region, the British and German ambassadors to Khartoum, students of pharmacology, including Sudanese school children, and pharmacists from Switzerland, Britain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Would all these people have visited a chemical weapons facility? The authors also comment upon the soil sample that the CIA claims they found in the vicinity of the plant (although no one is allowed to see it) that allegedly contains Empta, which is usually seen wherever nerve gas is being made. However, Empta is also found when pesticides decompose. Further, the authors cite investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as saying that Empta is highly reactive. If it were in the ground it would immediately begin to react with other chemicals before breaking down. Hersh also is cited as saying that several chemical weapons experts agreed that the CIA’s soil sample, if not carefully preserved and quickly tested, could easily result in misidentification of the key ingredient. The experts say that Empta is chemically similar to several commercially available pesticides and herbicides, including the commercially available weed-killer called Round-Up. Weeds could certainly have been growing around this facility in the Sudan.

http://www.media-criticism.com/Clinton_Sudan_1999.html

But now, a year later, there is not a shred of evidence suggesting that the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan produced nerve gas. After months of waiting, with little fanfare the US government indirectly vindicated Salah Idris, the owner of the factory, and the Republic of the Sudan. While the government didn't admit its guilt or confess its blunder, last May 4 it did remove the freeze it had placed on Idris's assets. (Had the United States not done so, it would have been forced to reply to the factory owner's lawsuits to lift the freeze.)

http://www.doublestandards.org/sudan.html

Idris's victory came after a sustained legal effort to clear his name. Among other things, he commissioned independent investigations by Washington lawyers, a major Washington detective agency, and the chemistry department of Boston University to examine the allegations against him. All concluded that the allegations were baseless.

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/o...udan-admit.htm

[moustache]

In the hot spring of 1998, the CIA sent a local asset over to the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The man took a soil sample just outside the facility. At the safe house, his CIA handlers tested it for EMPTA, a precursor chemical only used for the deadly nerve gas VX. EMPTA has no commercial, innocent uses. The sample tested positive. It was not tested again, but four other lines of evidence connected the plant to al-Qaeda/Iraqi joint nerve gas production: 1) Jane's Intelligence Review had recently published minutes of an October 1996 meeting of Sudanese officials that referred to Osama bin Laden agreeing to finance a chemical weapons factory just outside Khartoum; 2) the al-Shifa plant manager, according to then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen, had recently "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program" there; 3) the plant's registered owner, Salah Idiris, was later found to have a close relationship with Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, bin Laden's main fund-raiser/financier; and 4) the plant had recently been paid $199,000 by Saddam, ostensibly as part of the UN's infamous "Oil-for-Food" program. But oddly, there was no record of any "medicine" being delivered to Iraq in the eight months from the inking of the contract and the destruction of the plant by the United States. There was just the money from Saddam, and the nerve gas.

http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm

there are facts for my side of the argument too, no?

[ericsp23]

I actually preemptively refuted your Empta claim in my post above.

The authors also comment upon the soil sample that the CIA claims they found in the vicinity of the plant (although no one is allowed to see it) that allegedly contains Empta, which is usually seen wherever nerve gas is being made. However, Empta is also found when pesticides decompose. ... The experts say that Empta is chemically similar to several commercially available pesticides and herbicides, including the commercially available weed-killer called Round-Up.

So should we bomb everyone who uses Round Up on their yard in case they may be making chemical weaponst?

The rest of what you posted is merely circumstantial evidence and in no way directly connects that particular building to chemical weapons production. I also have to assume that the US government can in no way prove those claims given that they unfroze Idiris' assets without a court fight (again refer to my post above).

[fedfem]

Quote by: moustache In the hot spring of 1998, the CIA sent a local asset over to the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The man took a soil sample just outside the facility. At the safe house, his CIA handlers tested it for EMPTA, a precursor chemical only used for the deadly nerve gas VX. EMPTA has no commercial, innocent uses. The sample tested positive. It was not tested again, but four other lines of evidence connected the plant to al-Qaeda/Iraqi joint nerve gas production: 1) Jane's Intelligence Review had recently published minutes of an October 1996 meeting of Sudanese officials that referred to Osama bin Laden agreeing to finance a chemical weapons factory just outside Khartoum; 2) the al-Shifa plant manager, according to then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen, had recently "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program" there; 3) the plant's registered owner, Salah Idiris, was later found to have a close relationship with Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz, bin Laden's main fund-raiser/financier; and 4) the plant had recently been paid $199,000 by Saddam, ostensibly as part of the UN's infamous "Oil-for-Food" program. But oddly, there was no record of any "medicine" being delivered to Iraq in the eight months from the inking of the contract and the destruction of the plant by the United States. There was just the money from Saddam, and the nerve gas. http://cshink.com/saddam_the_atm.htm there are facts for my side of the argument too, no?

first of all, your link is not working and secondly what is cshink.com?

Thirdly, those of us who are not Clinton apologists or Bush apologists and have no ridiculous party loyalties look at FACTS not excuses or circumstantial crapola.