/liberty/ - Liberty

>>101152

>anti government shills btfo

Nah, just seems like it's a 'chomsky btfo' thread and even then it's a bit sloppy, especially in regards to the Middle East section.

>Egypt didn't want the existence of Israel in 1968, ergo they can't follow a different policy in 1971 under a different leader

>pre-1968= oy vey

In fact most of the paper in general is either fairly sloppy or kind of misses the entire point of the argument in general but I suppose most written pieces made during one's free time on the internet are, but there's some mistakes here that are genuinely in the realm of stupidity.

Just so some anons can get an impression of what I'm talking about, here's an excerpt from the pdf:

>"The [9/11] terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)

his reponse:

>"After al-Qaeda destroyed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hudreds, the US bombed a factory in Sudan. The bombing was conducted at night so that civilians would not be hurt. One security guard died. Amnestry international, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, and Doctors Without Borders were all free to investiage and none alleged that the bombing caused mass deaths surpassing 9/11.

It's a sort of dense nature that pollutes most of his arguments. Notice how the core argument was both a.) Not addressed and B.) side-stepped in an odd fashion. "the bombing only killed one security guard", yes but this was THE major pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, a third world country that quite obviously doesn't have the same resources in terms of producing medicine that other countries do. This is obviously going to have a much more tangible impact on Sudan's population than just "oh hey, a security guard died". More than that, how does this change the fact that the US government completely vetoed a UN investigation for a genuine crime that had little to no logical reasoning behind it. He addresses this of course by waving around 9/11 as though that's the thesis put forward or that it's some sort of "get out of jail card".

Make no mistake, Chomsky, especially in the realm of economics and his apologist nature for socialism, communism and the like, is a fucking moron. The problem here is that the author isn't too bright either.

>pic unrelated but hey, it's got something do with a hospital

>>101177

>Sudan was in fact housing bin Laden specifically because Saudi Arabia kicked him out so they arent at all comparable.

Actually anon, Sudan also did the same, they kicked him out in 1996 as well as took all of his assets in order to comply with US and Saudi demands. So they really are very much comparable. The house that he lives in actually remains empty to this day, whether that's out of fear from another attack or anything else is negotiable.

> Hassan Al Turbani, the president of Sudan at the time,

He was never president though? He was a prominent big-wig politician but he was never president, I don't know where you got that idea from.

> Also, keep in mind that bin Laden was a mulitimillionaire with extensive construction companies and subsidiaries he ran through the family company. He not only had a base of operations and training facility in Khartoum, but he was also involved with the Sudanese government and was responsible for a lot of construction projects in the country. You know that famous newspaper article everyone always post? That's what its about, its asking why this known terrorist is so involved with Sudans government in construction contracts.

Right, when you're a Saudi millionaire engineer with money to throw at everything from the earth to the sun, you tend to have (or have had) links with pretty much most organizations under the sun. That doesn't make it logical to bomb anyone in any country that had anything to do with him. He was responsible for a lot of the infrastructure from farms to bridges and in this case pharmaceuticals. Suspicion could be productive but outright action without actual evidence is ridiculous and that's what happened with the strike in 1998.

>comparing a terrorist attack in which civilians were specifically targeted which ends up being the deadliest terror attack in US history killing ~3,000 people is no where even remotely close to the US government staging a targeted strike against a specific target and ensuring no civilians are hurt and in the end only one security guard dies.

Again, you are missing the point so I'll try and condense it as best as I can

>This is a major medical facility, responsible for the production of half of the country's medicine

>Facility gets bombed, completely destroyed.

>medicine output is put at about a half of what it was originally, many people who need various pharmaceutical needs met find themselves without medicine.

>This inevitably causes a good amount of deaths.

The criticism isn't toward the military nature of "Doing it at night and killing only one security guard", it's the implication that bombing the country's most prominent source of medical supplies had a fairly good impact on the country, causing potentially millions of people to die or to suffer due to lack of medical supplies including maria tablets and TB drugs (something of which the country was always in need of due to the standard of living of most people, it's also worth noting that this was the only facility capable of producing it at a reasonable cost.)

That's the argument here. The fact that one security guard died is not the issue here, it's the aftermath of bombing on the country's only major medical suppliers and the effects that has on the people afterwards, that's the problem. and that's what Chomsky makes a point about.

>>101182

>No they arent because Saudi Arabia never housed and aided in bin Ladens terrorism like Sudan did.

Anon I'm sorry to break it to you but that's just not true at all. Saudi Princes actually paid lots of money to Al Qaeda before 9/11 (along with that, many key members of Saudi intelligence actually helped make sure 9/11 came to be) and directly supported him up until his citizenship was revoked in 1994. Even then after a 1995 bombing incident, two Saudi princes kept sending money his way to convince him not to attack Saudi Arabia but to keep his operations going wherever else he wanted. If handing them money on behalf of the kingdom isn't aiding then I genuinely don't know what is.

>. I wrote all that other stuff about the bin Ladens ties with the government there to establish that this wasnt some random strike for no reason like Chomsky and you make it out to be.

No one stated that it was a random strike for no reason, again I think you're missing the argument. The argument is that there was no credible pretext, which is to say there was absolutely no evidence that this facility had any production of chemical weapons at all, I'm genuinely confused as to why this is the hill you want to die on, but please go on to defend the Iraq war while you're at it, because you're making about as much sense.

>. Again, there is a very clear distinction between an attack specifically intended to murder thousands of civilians and a targeted strike on infrastructure that kills one person. To just play dumb and not understand this is completely dishonest.

I don't know what you're not comprehending, you even say later on that you have no counter to the notion that this destruction of infrastructure didn't just kill one security guard but also inevitably resulted in the deaths of thousands who needed various medications that the facility supplied but go on to repeat it over and over. What's not registering for you exactly?

>Do you think Clinton knew full well that it wasnt producing nerve gas and decided to bomb it anyway because he wanted people in Sudan to not have medicine?

I don't know, nor do I care because what was going on in Clinton's head is unfortunately irrelevant. What happened was that based on lack-luster research (if any at all), a medical facility that the whole country essentially relied on was bombed to oblivion. Whether or not it came with good intentions or not is irrelevant, the results and the aftermath of the bombing is what's relevant and that's what Chomsky is referencing.

>I know, I never said anything counter to this. Again, the claim is that America prevented any research into this (which is false)

lol wut? That's not even really the central claim of this part of the argument, this part of the argument revolves around comparing 9/11 and the aftermath of the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, I don't know what youe'e going on about but even then, as stated before the United States government did veto a UN investigation into the incident as earlier stated, if that's not a degree of denying some sort of research then I don't know what is.

>Chomskys point is wrong and you dont even understand it in the first place.

Anon, I don't think you understand a fucking thing about anything that's being said, your hatred of Chomsky is so blinding to the point where you're just missing the point of the argument for the sake of spiting him which is not a very good course of thought in any manner at all. In fact you've gone into full 'suck-off-the-American-Gov" mode just because you hate this guy, which is a retarded point of view proven wrong time and time again.

>>101199

I'm convinced you're actually retarded. Not only do you have no grasp on anything that went on, but you go to make the most backwards arguments I've seen.

>YOU ARE DELIBERATELY BEING RETARDED ON PURPOSE TO PRETEND YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THIS FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCY

Bombing the nation's most major medical production facility whether "Crafted in a way to limit the number of deaths as much as possible" or not makes no difference, you're still going to kill thousands of people due to their inability to get critically required medicine, that is the fucking point here and one that you completely and utterly fail to address and have said you have no counter to.

>Y-you're skipping over this.

I'm not, it just has no relevance as I've said over and over but you're jut so brain-dead that you genuinely can't comprehend the point but I'll go ahead and repeat it again.

> The criticism isn't toward the military nature of "Doing it at night and killing only one security guard", it's the implication that bombing the country's most prominent source of medical supplies had a fairly good impact on the country, causing potentially millions of people to die or to suffer due to lack of medical supplies including maria tablets and TB drugs (something of which the country was always in need of due to the standard of living of most people, it's also worth noting that this was the only facility capable of producing it at a reasonable cost.)

Read the above until that mongoloid brain of yours actually processes it, you absolute imbecile. I didn't skip over anything, rather I showed how it's completely irrelevant to the argument at hand, which it is.

>no, the entire argument hinges on whats going through Clintons mind actually

No it doesn't, you're just pulling this out of your ass now maybe because you think there's a rational argument there when again, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Again, I've addressed this:

>What happened was that based on lack-luster research (if any at all), a medical facility that the whole country essentially relied on was bombed to oblivion. Whether or not it came with good intentions or not is irrelevant, the results and the aftermath of the bombing is what's relevant and that's what Chomsky is referencing.

Read this over and over, I promise at some point during your repeated reading you'll understand the argument.

>which isnt even true as my link points out and which you conveniently ignored

If you want to actually make an argument, make it. I'm not here to read your fucking links like I owe you my time. Make the argument and prove me wrong or fuck on off back to your short bus you retard.

>. You also completely moved the goalpost from saying the Saudi Arabian state supported bin Laden to saying the prince did.

You can't be this fucking stupid, now can you?

>Youre also using hindsight years after this to make it seem the US attacked it for no reason, or specifically to limit.

You don't need hindsight to know that you actually need evidence to bomb an institution that's being purported as facilitating the production of chemical weapons. Kind of like how you don't need hindsight to know that you can't just invade a country that's accused of hiding chemical weapons without credible evidence. Getting a trend here?

>Youre so hung up on your retarded anti american shit that you have to intentinally be retarded and outright claim you "dont care" what Clintons motivation for the attack was, even though its the entire premise of the argument.

No, that's a premise of some made up argument that has nothing to do with the actual argument at hand, I don't know why it's another one of this hills that you really want to die on, but as per usual it's shit. If being 'pro-American' means sucking my government's cock then yes I'm as anti-American as charged, however the intentional retard might just be you (that is unless that nigger of a mother of yours dropped you on your head to insure that she'd get some disability bux, in which case you're just retarded without your own volition).

>Youre too hung up on gay ancap shit to seriously discuss this

kek, yeah sorry rabbi. Please direct me to my nearest rabbi so I can repent for not being a good goy and donate some shekkels.

Get the fuck out of here retard, you don't even understand half the shit you're talking about and you don't even have the mental capacity to comprehend the argument at all.

>>101212

>Is this even true?

Yes, this one facility was actually responsible for a hefty portion of the nation's medicine (with most estimates going as far as 50%) and along with that they produced very specific medications that the country was in dire need of, as mentioned earlier (TB drugs, Malaria tablets, etc).

>Why would any nation rely on one manufacturer let alone one facility to provide medicine, when they could simply decentralize it and/or provide an environment suitable for multiple producers?

Good question! The answer is incompetence, third world shitholes tend to be third world shitholes for a reason. When you have a barely functional economy due to government activity, you don't really have much leeway in regards to the resources you can spare towards any given goal. Sudan never exactly had much of a free market as one can imagine, so of course the amount of pharmaceutical manufacturers of the sort is limited. There were about 2 other facilities in the entire country that could compare, and even then "compare" is being very, very generous.

>Why could they not import or receive aid?

The government of Sudan would unfortunately not allow any aid to the country despite the dire need for it, this was due to a state of civil war, this in conjunction with a fairly shitty agricultural season made for a famine that's estimated to have killed 2.8 million people. The average individual who needed that facility couldn't even bother with the idea of importing from other countries on their own accord due to the cost (something of which they could not satisfy, certainly not when compared with the cheap nature of the facility that once existed).

>pic not related.

>>102355

>toxic

>(you) Americans

>I r smart oldfag