Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

Expand Messages
  • crux31504@mypacks.net
    I m not a Bush hater or politcal supporter, but I think that it was appropriate to select Bush instead of Obama because race could not be used to distract us
    Message 1 of 48 , May 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      I'm not a Bush hater or politcal supporter, but I think that it was appropriate to select Bush instead of Obama because race could not be used to distract us from whatever point Chomsky was trying to make.  In all honesty however, Bin Laden was on a world wide wanted list.  To my knowledge, Bush is on no such list.  Assasinating Bush on US soil serves no constructive purpose.

       

      BTW.  I respect Chomsky's contribution to liguistics, but sociopolitically, I understand that he's been a bit of a loon for years.

       

      Anita

       

       


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrea Webb
      Sent: May 10, 2011 2:41 PM
      To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

       

      I understand that Bush may be part of the discussion but Chomsky uses Bush to kill off in his supposition, why not Obama, who ordered the kill?
       
      Everyone wants to be a Bush hater but no one will mention Obama. 
       
      Don't worry.  I can deduce the meaning of your statement as well as the push on Chomsky's part to further a liberal agenda, while keeping Obama out of the discussion completely.

      --- On Tue, 5/10/11, folushology@... <folushology@...> wrote:

      From: folushology@... <folushology@...>
      Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction
      To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 2:26 PM

       
      @Andrea, There is no way you talk about September 11 and Osama Bin Laden without mentioning George W. Bush. The three are synonymous. I hope you can deduce the meaning of my statement above.
      Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

      From: Andrea Webb <andreawebb1977@...>
      Sender: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
      To: <americancomm@yahoogroups.com>
      ReplyTo: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

       
      For the record, I didn't say that there wasn't any ground for discussion on Chomsky's comment, however, at first glance I think many would agree that while we can discuss and debate the communication nuances, we can also agree that the comment is political in nature.  Obviously people feel passionately about the issue as some members have asked to be removed. 
       
      I think we need to be very careful in how we approach issues of communication so that our intellectual discussions do not become a political forum.  Issues that are very much political, like the Tea Party movement, Libyan unrest, and the death of Bin Laden can be discussed, but maybe they would be much better served discussion on a current events or events in world history groupserve, instead of one of communication.  Maybe it would be more fitting on this groupserve to discuss Osama and his messages on video tape.  What kind of communication style did he have?  Why did he tape himself and then watch himself? 
       
      The points you raised about governments versus other non-governmental entities is a good one, and I think it applies in this case.  I think in many ways it was the point I was trying to make about his 'comparison' (comparing a legitimate man in an office of power to a terrorist).  Obviously there are other avenues of discussion that can be had, but Chomsky's choice to choose Bush in his comparison instead of Obama, who has Bin Laden's blood shed on his hands, leads many to believe that this is much more of a political statement than any other.
       
       

      --- On Tue, 5/10/11, Chad Emery <cemery65@...> wrote:

      From: Chad Emery <cemery65@...>
      Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction
      To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 1:55 PM

       
      Very well-stated, Brett. I am grateful for your contribution, which has brought to light aspects of Chomsky's statement that I had not yet considered.

      2011/5/10 Brett Lunceford <brettlunceford@...>
       
      For all of the squawking about this being an academic forum and that the link to Chomsky’s article should not have been posted, the responses have been decidedly un-academic.    
       
      First, I am saddened to see that those professing a love of the First Amendment seem to understand it so little. Any First Amendment scholar will tell you that its purpose is not to protect speech that everyone agrees with. Rather, it is there to protect dissent. Consider the statement attributed to Voltaire: I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The First Amendment does more than protect speech and the press. There is also that little thing about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances (along with religion and assembly). From the very beginning, there was the assumption that government would not always be the benevolent entity that the “America: Love it or leave it” crowd seems to believe in. Not everyone will think that what the government is doing is right. Should we extend such logic to groups such as the Tea Party, who obviously does not think that the government is on the right track? Should they be invited to leave the country if they don’t like it?
       
      Second, no one seems to actually want to take on Chomsky’s arguments here. We do believe in things like due process and the judicial system. We believe in ideals like “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, confession does not always equal guilt. Let me note that I am not saying that Bin Laden was not guilty, but rather that this is not for me to decide, but the courts. Unless, of course, I do not believe in the judicial system, in which case, I suppose I should have to leave the country. But instead of actually addressing and refuting Chomsky’s arguments, people have resorted to misrepresenting his arguments (nowhere does he say that he loves Bin Laden, for example), either/or fallacies, or simply calling it treason. Last I checked, making a case that something America did was wrong is not treason, although it is quite convenient to label it as such.  
       
      Finally, no one has responded to the one thing Professor Lamba pulled out of the article: “We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.” From a communication perspective, we have much to note here. We could begin simply by considering the notion of news framing. Chomsky provides an alternate way to frame the operation – as an assassination. He does so by claiming that the operation violated international law. No one has stated, for example, that there are provisions in international law that warrant such force. Rather, it seems that respondents have simply dismissed Chomsky as a “traitor.” There are other issues that we could discuss, even from this forum, such as what constitutes supporting the enemy in a time of war; the nature of war against a non-governmental entity; the rhetorical construction of the war on terrorism; or the near impossibility of hearing dissenting voices in a media landscape of conglomerates (see McChesney, for example). After all, in Republic.com, Cass Sunstein notes that the ability to filter out viewpoints different from our own will diminish the potential for serious deliberation and thus democratic practice itself. So whether we agree with the viewpoint, the best thing that academics can do is to rationally engage it rather than to simply dismiss it.
       
      Brett

      On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Andrea Webb <andreawebb1977@...> wrote:
       
      This information shouldn't be posted on an intellectual forum such as this one.  If you agree with him, great, but why post on this forum that is supposed to be focused on Communication.  We discuss the process, the art, and the nuances.  This is not a political forum.
       
      That being said, this failed comparison by Chomsky is ridiculous to suppose in the first place. 
       
      Bin Laden was never the leader of the free world, a United States president, or a person in a legitimate office of power.  He is a dangerous radical made legitimate only by other dangerous radicals. 
       
      Bush was the president of the United States, and a leader of the free world.  While many will criticize everything he did in his presidency, he did see the country through 9/11.  How short are our memories that we can be so callous in regard to what happened here?  9/11 was a scary day with all planes grounded.  Not to mention the fear of planes hitting/attacking not only the WTC, but the Pentagon and possibly the White House. 
       
      If you hate Bush, fine, but surely you don't hate the institutions we have built in America that symbolize our freedoms, like the White House, Pentagon, WTC, etc. 
       
      If you love Bin Laden that much, then you can't fault Bush saying he was responsible for 9/11.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either you hate Bin Laden and feel he is responsible for 9/11 or you hate Bush and feel he is responsible.  It's like believing in Heaven but not Hell.  If one exists, the opposite must as well. 
       
      For Chomsky, if he feels such a deep devotion to Bin Laden and the destruction of American institutions, then I invite him to leave our country.  It is a tragedy that in America we provide a veil of protection for people under the first amendment, so that they can say crap like this and denouce that provided protection. 
       
      Maybe Chomsky can get a job in Pakistan teaching sand combing. 


    • Shirvani, Sheida
      Jon I would like to thank you for your analysis of the piece that Chomsky wrote. This is really good piece and good explanation of Chomsky’s thought. I
      Message 48 of 48 , May 13, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        Jon

         

        I would like to thank you for your analysis of the piece that Chomsky wrote.  This is really good piece and good explanation of Chomsky’s thought.  I agree with many of the points analysis you made.  I am sure if we read the lines carefully we learn one or two points from both of contents.  Thank you!

         

        Happy Friday!

         

        --Sheida

         

        From: americancomm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:americancomm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Ru
        Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:34 PM
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

         

         

        Chomsky is not in love with Obama either.  He directly calls him a liar.  Here's my quick critique of his article . . .

         

        Paragraph 1 opens by stating his primary claim - The operation was illegal; it violated "elementary norms" of international law.  His reasoning is that there was no attempt to apprehend a suspect, it was an illegal assassination mission.  Since there was minimal resistance, if bringing a suspect to trial had been the goal then it could have been achieved.  Bin Laden is defined as a "suspect" because no evidence has been presented. To demonstrate this lack of evidence he cites FBI head Mueller and then Bush's dismissal of the Taliban's 4/02 request for evidence and explains that the confession was not evidence but a boast. Obama is labelled a liar for saying there is evidence.

         

        That's a summary of the opening.  To fully evaluate the claim I'd need to learn more about international law, but his points about respect for law and fair trials do resonate with me personally.  Aren't fugitives usually extradited and tried when found?  A pro-assassination case would presumably need to argue for suspension of international law in this particular situation.  Moreover, if Chomsky's claim about lack of evidence were false a trial would show this.

         

        The second point starts in paragraph 3, it is Chomsky's critique of U.S. media coverage of the event.  Americans are very informed about government anger toward Pakistan for presumably harboring bin Laden but not very informed about Pakistani anger at a U.S. invasion or how sea-burial increases anti-Americanism among Muslims. 

         

        To properly evaluate this claim I'd need to do a content analysis of U.S. media coverage.  As an average citizen who is not a news junkie I suspect Chomsky may be right; U.S. news tends to cover U.S. perspectives not world perspectives.  However, I'm also pretty sure he did not do a content analysis either, so this is an opinion point that IMO is much different from claim #1, where there are clearly established international laws and precedents to measure facts against. 

         

        Paragraph 4 is where he gets aggressive with his rhetoric.  He makes an analogical move where Bush replaces bin Laden, Iraqi commandos replace Navy Seals, and the Bush compound replaces Pakistan.  All analogies are weak arguments because everything is like everything else in some respect; the reader's task is to evaluate just how alike they are.  Chomsky knows this and moves forward by attacking Bush.  In his view Bush is not comparable, instead he is a more justified target because, unlike bin Laden, there is incontrovertible evidence that Bush did command war crimes.  Chomsky brings out the big guns by quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal and asking us to agree that the devastating consequences of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are directly attributable to Bush's criminal decisions.

         

        Again, to properly evaluate the Bush is a war criminal argument I would need to know more about law, but the rhetorical result is clear - Chomsky bolsters an incendiary analogy with an argument that is verifiable by measuring facts against laws.  Counter-arguers would need to make a case about why laws would need to be suspended in this particular case, not just disagree with an analogy.  To my limited knowledge most war laws are about fighting countries, not terrorist movements, so there would first need to be judgments about which laws apply and which do not.  

        The final two paragraphs are ancillary.  #5 charges U.S. hypocrisy by equating imprisoning a terrorist with harboring him and comparing that choice with Bush's doctrine that societies harboring terrorists are equally culpable.  #6 describes the U.S. imperialist ideology that prevents Americans from seeing that "Operation Geronimo" is a title that casts bin Laden as courageous and the U.S. as a "genocidal invader."  He closes with an invitation to think.

         

        So anyway, in my reading, Chomsky is not a loon.  He is an activist with a perspective on current events and he is comfortable using aggressive rhetoric to advance his agenda.  IMO Chomsky is also not anti-American; he argues for basic American values like truth, justice, and the rule of law.  His problem is with specific leaders, policies, and actions, not the Constitution.  Is his rhetoric effective?  I don't know, probably not.  Political rhetors are often "preaching to the choir."  Chances are that audiences who already agree with him are strengthened in their convictions a bit, people who disagree are so angered that they refuse to read past the headline, and the vast majority are too busy watching American Idol to know that the 8th most cited scholar of all time has expressed an opinion about bin Laden's death.

         

        Happy Thursday!

        Jon

         


        From: "crux31504@..." <crux31504@...>
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com; americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 2:52:45 PM
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

         

        I'm a big fan of the use of narratives.  I think that Chomsky manipulated elements of the narrative to build his case.  In particular, I find it interesting how he cast Bush as unsympathetic victim and, at least, martyred bin Lauden.  In spite of the fact that Obama ordered the kill, Chomsky could not substitute Obama for Bush.  Obama does not fit as a character in the narrative he constructed, he is not an appropriate counterbalance to bin Lauden.  You may say that Obama has the blood of civilians on his hands due to the wars, but the argument can be made too easily that he was simply continuing Bush administration policies and practices.  Besides, it's easier to be a Bush hater than an Obama hater.  Racism charges tend to muddy the water--the essence of the narrative is lost due to red herrings.  If in fact, Chomsky wanted to lend credibility to the way he casts bin Lauden in his narrative, the villian cannot be someone that many consider to be sympathetic to Muslims.

         

        I'm gonna stop here because my perceptions of how others inside and outside of the US view Obama may be overstated.  For all I know, everyone in the world may perceive Obama as American first.

         

        Anita

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Keith Boepple
        Sent: May 12, 2011 10:17 AM
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

         

        Like Fazal states here, this has been an interesting series of comments to watch.  I know most of you on this forum are Academics.  Your comments have been most enlightening. 

         

        I am one of the Practioners.  Discussions such as this one are, in many ways, my bread and butter as I engage people to think deeper into what they think, what they believe, what they do and then help them develop effective skills to communicate that to others (sometimes even to themselves).

         

        I do appreciate Prof. Chomsky's work in linguistics.  He has few, if any, peers in that field.  As for his politics, well, I respectfully disagree with his views.  Then again, I know he speaks to a majority of non-USA citizens.  His words do give insight as to how my country is being perceived around the world.  This helps me to be a more complete communicator because I have others' insights on this topic.  Whether or not I agree with a view, I can still learn from the person stating it. 

         

        I would be interested to know,as others have stated, why Prof. Chomsky went after Bush and not Obama (who ordered the kill), and why he defends bin Laden so much.  I will stop at asking someone to leave the USA because of comments like that.  It is that type of disagreement and discussion that made the USA great at one point.  I believe the USA has lost some of our luster because we are losing our ability to communicate with each other in a clear, understanding, and even loving manner.  Open debate stirs ideas.  Ideas lead to learning.  Learning leads to change. 

         

        As we look at all of the comments on this subject, including Prof. Chomsky's, let us not forget to be analysts of the communication we are seeing.  Let us, the experts and teachers in this wonderful discipline, look for the deeper meanings of that communication and then talk about them without resorting to the snide remarking and name-calling that is so predominant in our world society today (a common, often stated theme for me I know).

         

        I would be interested in hearing if there is any particular theories that apply to this type of discussion and to this one specifically.

         

        Again, thank you to everyone for your comments.  This is exactly the type of place for discussions like this to happen.  It must be.  

         

        Keith Boepple

        Ft. Worth, TX 

        On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Fazal Malik <fmalik@...> wrote:

         

        Dear all,

        This is my first message on the group, though I have been on the forum for some time now.

        Last few days discussion generated by the reference to Prof Chomsky's comments on Bush/ Bin Laden on this group have given me and my students some unique insights into how American academia engage with political communication, rhetoric and propaganda. While many on this forum have shown their displeasure with the finer details of this discussion, we in the Middle East have benefited immensely from it. Currently, we are discussing communication Theories. I could have not asked for the 'Bush/Bin Laden discourse' on this forum at a better than this!

        One point I would like make is that Prof Chomsky's audience is more outside than inside States, and this article although published in the US has been cited/quoted/referred in hundreds of newspapers articles, journals, blogs and forums like this world over. It is worth mentioning here that there are more English speaking people in India, China and Brazil than in the whole of Europe, North America and Australia, and Prof Chomsky is not a stranger to them. For those who suggest people to leave USA for not being 'respectful' to Mr. Bush, and that Prof Chomsky's article should have not been brought to this forum need to understand that there are many more outside the US who are currently engaged with the debate. ACA can not behave like an Ostrich!!!

        Fazal




        On 5/12/11 10:44 AM, "Cathy Mwangi" <cwm.mwangi@...> wrote:


         
         
           

        Exactly what I was thinking Malala.  Thanks for brightening my day, and that of many other members I believe, with such positive perspective.  
        Nice day


        From: John Malala <johnmalala@...>
        To: "americancomm@yahoogroups.com" <americancomm@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wed, May 11, 2011 10:21:23 PM
        Subject: RE: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

          
           

        I agree that Andrea’s comments did not rise to the level of scholarship that characterizes this platform. I was one of the people who disagreed with Chomsky’s comparison but there is a civil and mature way of discussing these issues. This is not a place to be using political talking points or even street language that accuses intellectual rigor of liberal bias. Our discussions must have substance. Indeed I am a proponent of free speech but I believe that in this context we should not deviate from the issue that was in front of us and brandish our nationalism. I believe that prof. Chomsky is wrong in comparing a terrorist organization with the White House but that’s where the discussion should end. It’s unnecessary to get in other details and to bring the fight that characterizes American politics to this platform.

         

        I hope we will now go back to normal scholarly/professional discussions.

         

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

        Prof. John N. Malala, Ph.D.

        University of Central Florida

        Orlando, Florida

         

        From: americancomm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:americancomm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of keboepple@...
        Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:33 PM
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

          
         
          
         
        If we who are professionals in teaching about communication cannot discuss issues like this in a civil, respectful manner, then we have no right to tell others they must do so. Others will follow the model we set as communicators, good or bad. This applies to academics and practioners.

        What kind of example have we been setting here?

        Keith Boepple
        Keboep Communications
        Ft. Worth, TX


        From: Cathy Mwangi <cwm.mwangi@...>
        Sent: May 11, 2011 7:58 AM
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

          
         
        Anyone feels that comments such as the ones below are a mark of immaturity?

          
         
        "If you think the US has behaved so badly then why do you live here?  Why do you stay here and prosper under its protections while criticizing how you got that freedom?"
         
         
         
        "Maybe you think it is fine for a country to kill it's own.  If you think it's so great, move to Libya."
         
         
         
        "Funny, you don't talk about the 6 million Jews he exterminated....only how bad the United States is..."
         
         
         
        "I don't agree with you, and I won't apologize for the United States.  We have done the right thing when it's mattered, and if you think so badly of us, then maybe you should take your lack of nationalism elsewhere."
         
          
         


        From: Andrea Webb <andreawebb1977@...>
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 8:32:27 PM
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction

          
         
          
        This comment was purely political.  You can stretch it back to communication because communication is in everything.  "Yes this applies to a communication forum because the comment was spoken."  Your logic is as fallible as Chomsky's.  Chomsky obviously has some kind of affection for Bin Laden otherwise his comment would have definitely been said differently.
          
        I don't practice blind Nationalism, nor is my comment a violent one.  Combing sand is a joke and it is something that kids do at the beach.  I'm sorry if you want to apologize for killing that has happened all over the world.  If you think the US has behaved so badly then why do you live here?  Why do you stay here and prosper under its protections while criticizing how you got that freedom?
          
        I will not apologize for the taking of innocent life by the United States. While it is tragic, yes, to have innocent loss of life, it is also a side-effect of doing business in this world.  Many countries asked us to come in and intervene, much like the unrest in Libya where leaders are turning weapons on their citizens.  So, yes Americans have killed in the past, but are we really apologizing for killing dictators in dangerous regimes?  Maybe you think it is fine for a country to kill it's own.  If you think it's so great, move to Libya.  
          
        Maybe your memory is short, because while you want to discuss Colombia (where more than 10% of its residents live outside of the country since it is so riddled with gangs and drug lords) or Korea where we are allies with the south and protecting them from Kim Jong Il who is seriously crazy, you fail to remember World War I or World War II where it was necessary for many countries to band together to stop Hitler.  Funny, you don't talk about the 6 million Jews he exterminated....only how bad the United States is...  
          
        While many innocent lives may have been lost, we are much better now in our strategies of war.  Bombs can be more precisely dropped so that only those who are dangerous threats or war criminals can be eliminated.  
          
        Killing is not the only way, and it has not been ingrained in us as a form of American rhetoric.  It is simply truth.  There are some people on this earth with whom you cannot negotiate.  Bin Laden hid.  He sent tapes to us.  That's not a form of diplomacy.  There is a line here where we compare real, true political discussion and then radical discussion.  I guess you think we should've just had a sit down with Khadafi and a big cup of Joe and ask him to stop violently shooting his citizens.
          
        I don't agree with you, and I won't apologize for the United States.  We have done the right thing when it's mattered, and if you think so badly of us, then maybe you should take your lack of nationalism elsewhere.
          
          


        --- On Tue, 5/10/11, Chad Emery <cemery65@...> wrote:


        From: Chad Emery <cemery65@...>
        Subject: Re: [americancomm] Bush vs. Bin Laden: a reaction
        To: americancomm@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 1:03 PM    This is intellectual information and has everything to do with communication. The US government is a master of communication and can control public opinion easily. Bin Laden was definitely a terrorist and committed horrible crimes, but so did Bush. The "Free World" does not exist. Blind nationalism follows what the US government calls itself, and the "free world" is one of these ridiculous names. If we so clearly remember the events of 9/11, which were tragic, why do we not remember the horrible crimes the US has committed abroad? Columbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea? Americans killed MILLIONS of innocent people, while Bin Laden killed thousands. That being said, no innocent person should be killed. The way to stop killing is not to continue killing. This American rhetoric makes no sense, however, coming back to communication, the US government has convinced the American people that this is the only way.     
        Please do not assume what I do and do not agree with. I do not agree with Bush and I definitely do NOT agree with any of our governmental institutions.  
           

        Chomsky never portrayed himself as having a "deep devotion" to Bin Laden. The failure to analyze his argument is caused by pure emotion. Also, as a closing note, your sand combing statement was very racist and a violent form of communication. As you said, this is an intellectual group, and statements like that one, based on no fact, are not acceptable.  2011/5/10 Andrea Webb <andreawebb1977@... <http://us.mc1202.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andreawebb1977@...> >    


        This information shouldn't be posted on an intellectual forum such as this one.  If you agree with him, great, but why post on this forum that is supposed to be focused on Communication.  We discuss the process, the art, and the nuances.  This is not a political forum.
          
        That being said, this failed comparison by Chomsky is ridiculous to suppose in the first place.  
          
        Bin Laden was never the leader of the free world, a United States president, or a person in a legitimate office of power.  He is a dangerous radical made legitimate only by other dangerous radicals.  
          
        Bush was the president of the United States, and a leader of the free world.  While many will criticize everything he did in his presidency, he did see the country through 9/11.  How short are our memories that we can be so callous in regard to what happened here?  9/11 was a scary day with all planes grounded.  Not to mention the fear of planes hitting/attacking not only the WTC, but the Pentagon and possibly the White House.  
          
        If you hate Bush, fine, but surely you don't hate the institutions we have built in America that symbolize our freedoms, like the White House, Pentagon, WTC, etc.  
          
        If you love Bin Laden that much, then you can't fault Bush saying he was responsible for 9/11.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either you hate Bin Laden and feel he is responsible for 9/11 or you hate Bush and feel he is responsible.  It's like believing in Heaven but not Hell.  If one exists, the opposite must as well.  
          
        For Chomsky, if he feels such a deep devotion to Bin Laden and the destruction of American institutions, then I invite him to leave our country.  It is a tragedy that in America we provide a veil of protection for people under the first amendment, so that they can say crap like this and denouce that provided protection.  
          
        Maybe Chomsky can get a job in Pakistan teaching sand combing.  



        [The entire original message is not included]
         
         
         
         
         
           

            
         

           Reply to sender <mailto:cwm.mwangi@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bamericancomm%5D%20Bush%20vs%2E%20Bin%20Laden%3A%20a%20reaction>  |   Reply to group <mailto:americancomm@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bamericancomm%5D%20Bush%20vs%2E%20Bin%20Laden%3A%20a%20reaction>  |   Reply via web post <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americancomm/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxODBjY204BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjgxMzI2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTEzNzA3OQRtc2dJZAM0ODA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTMwNTE4MjY4Mw--?act=reply&messageNum=4809>  | Start a New Topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americancomm/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYnA1dXJnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjgxMzI2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTEzNzA3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDUxODI2ODM->  
        Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americancomm/message/4756;_ylc=X3oDMTM1YjI0NDBwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjgxMzI2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTEzNzA3OQRtc2dJZAM0ODA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMwNTE4MjY4MwR0cGNJZAM0NzU2>  (43)
         
        Recent Activity:  

        Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americancomm;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMWx1ZmNjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjgxMzI2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTEzNzA3OQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMDUxODI2ODM->  


        MARKETPLACE

         


        Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today! <http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15opc1nr5/M=493064.14543977.14365476.10835568/D=groups/S=1705137079:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1305189884/L=521b0b34-7c63-11e0-88f2-afc93fc6547b/B=3Ol2n2KImhQ-/J=1305182684275501/K=QcAOyA3d6De4JWL9AH6.BQ/A=6260316/R=0/SIG=11bc8n8gt/*>
        if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['3Ol2n2KImhQ-']='=13crfitvh%2fN%3d3Ol2n2KImhQ-%2fC%3d493064.14543977.14365476.10835568%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6260316%2fV%3d1';           
         




        Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. <http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15okkq3ik/M=493064.14543979.14365478.13298430/D=groups/S=1705137079:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1305189884/L=521b0b34-7c63-11e0-88f2-afc93fc6547b/B=2.l2n2KImhQ-/J=1305182684275501/K=QcAOyA3d6De4JWL9AH6.BQ/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*>
        if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['2.l2n2KImhQ-']='=13c1jdt5k%2fN%3d2.l2n2KImhQ-%2fC%3d493064.14543979.14365478.13298430%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6060255%2fV%3d1';           
         
         

         <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcGZxMGNmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1NjgxMzI2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTEzNzA3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMwNTE4MjY4Mw-->  
        Switch to: Text-Only <mailto:americancomm-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional> , Daily Digest <mailto:americancomm-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest>   Unsubscribe <mailto:americancomm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>   Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
         
            
         
         
            
        .
          

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.