Noam Chomsky Lecture

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

I already linked to an article that satisfies your demands, googled it in about 5-10 seconds. You couldnt be arsed even opening it apparently - any particular reason I should waste my time digging out another one?

I even linked a prime example of the crap he talks - unless youre going to argue that Clintons bombing of a factory suspected of being used for nerve agent production in the middle of the night when there was no workforce is worse than Bin Ladens WTC attacks in the middle of the rush hour? Its not quite up to that standards of Coulters "convert them to christianity" spiel but its a contender.



Right, its their masterful political analysis that generates them headlines and sells out the RDS..... People have only the vaguest idea of what Chomsky is about and what he stands for - only a few posts ago he was apparently a martyr of those who oppose the US Republican party. I reckon itll be a shock to a lot of those attending that hes not a Clinton fan, Irelands 2nd Kennedy.

Wikipedia is proof that "talks complete crap"? Even when he's not actualy quoted in the article? Sorry that doesn't satisfy my question which was if someone talks complete crap you should give some examples. Perhaps from the person themselves rather than an interpretation on wikipedia.

Your opinion of those attending seems to be very low if you think they all regard Chomsky as a Clinton fan. My point regarding the Republican party is that it seems that anyone who disagrees with them get smeared.

I've never seen Chomsy generating massive headlines, mentioned on tv news or anything much about him in mainstream media must have missed all that.

Sand

My opinion of things is rearly as simple black and white. I didn't say I believed Chomsky was either, what I said was I don't care wheather he is or not. He's a good resource of 'liberal' ideas and information and someone who has aided in my forming of opinions in the past.

You said you hated this black and white, with us or against us crap. Hate has now been watered down to not being a big deal pretty much because its Chomsky. My opinion can vary on a lot of things, people could probably point out a horde of contradictions, real or imagined if they wanted to. Chomskys principles are unwavering - whatever is going on, whoevers involved, whatever caused it Chomsky will come to the same conclusion*. It was a plot by Washington all along. Its like a long running series of Scooby Doo, with Chomsky unmasking the boogyman in every episode as actually being any one of a dozen US presidents. I dont need to refer to Nostradamus to figure out what the gist of his lecture is.

And tbh, claiming Chomsky is a good resource of liberal ideas is an insult to liberalism. Hes not a liberal, in either sense of the word and his views only demean the idea that "liberal" ideas can actually be advocated without exaggeration, deception, sensationalism or rigid support of whoever the current "son of a bitch" happens to be. I mean, is Chomsky all pseudo-liberalism come up with? I dont understand why people are so quick to rush and align themselves with guys like Chomsky, Moore and Coulter. These are the people that contribute nothing but obfuscation of real issues.

Lemming

Where's bonkey when you need him

Sand

Wikipedia is proof that "talks complete crap"? Even when he's not actualy quoted in the article? Sorry that doesn't satisfy my question which was if someone talks complete crap you should give some examples. Perhaps from the person themselves rather than an interpretation on wikipedia.

Google the exact phrase then. That link just came top of a long, long, long list of sites. You know best what you consider to be a valid source. Youve still not bothered to check the original article I found. Until you do, Im not wasting more time googling for you.

Your opinion of those attending seems to be very low if you think they all regard Chomsky as a Clinton fan. My point regarding the Republican party is that it seems that anyone who disagrees with them get smeared.

Oh, you guessed? I met plenty of Chomsky fans in Uni. Informed or freethinking would not be adjectives Id apply.

My point about the Rep party is that whether they smear their enemies has no bearing, seeing as the Dems have just as much reason to hate Chomsky and thus to smear him. He does not oppose any particular establishment party, he opposes the entire establishment down to its very basic values. Trying to paint him as some Rep enemy, whilst excluding his views on the Dems by implication is either dishonest (hes not discredited because he talks rubbish, its because hes an enemy of the evil republicans) or uninformed. If it was the second then my point about the attendees not being aware of his feelings on Clinton or Clintons bombings, invasions and put downs of the U.N. wasnt too far from the truth?

I've never seen Chomsy generating massive headlines, mentioned on tv news or anything much about him in mainstream media must have missed all that.

Sorry, what are you saying? That you feel the world is actually centered around you and ceases to exist at the boundaries of your perception? That Chomsky sells truckloads of books, generates major newspaper profiles in anticipation of a lecture in Ireland and sells out that lecture without any mainstream media image?

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

Google the exact phrase then. That link just came top of a long, long, long list of sites. You know best what you consider to be a valid source. Youve still not bothered to check the original article I found. Until you do, Im not wasting more time googling for you.

A blog and wikipedia. Appreciate the hard work there! How about a source that contains an actual quote from him saying the bombing was worse than 911 should be easy to find.

Sand wrote:

Oh, you guessed? I met plenty of Chomsky fans in Uni. Informed or freethinking would not be adjectives Id apply.

My point about the Rep party is that whether they smear their enemies has no bearing, seeing as the Dems have just as much reason to hate Chomsky and thus to smear him. He does not oppose any particular establishment party, he opposes the entire establishment down to its very basic values. Trying to paint him as some Rep enemy, whilst excluding his views on the Dems by implication is either dishonest (hes not discredited because he talks rubbish, its because hes an enemy of the evil republicans) or uninformed. If it was the second then my point about the attendees not being aware of his feelings on Clinton or Clintons bombings, invasions and put downs of the U.N. wasnt too far from the truth?

Don't think he markets himself as an enemy of the Republicans. But they are in power at the moment.
[/quote]

Sand wrote:

Sorry, what are you saying? That you feel the world is actually centered around you and ceases to exist at the boundaries of your perception? That Chomsky sells truckloads of books, generates major newspaper profiles in anticipation of a lecture in Ireland and sells out that lecture without any mainstream media image?

lol
Maybe your right.
Must have missed him on the front page of the newspapers in headlines, never heard him mentioned on Sky news or RTE or anyother. Maybe a mention on some channel 4 or BBC 2 program late at night.

Goodshape

He did actually get a spot on RTÉ2 News this evening. 1000 people at UCD to see him apparently, and he was let into the country despite an out-of-date passport.

Jesus1222

Sand, it's hard to take you seriously when you have never read Chomsky. Instead you take discredited smears by certain people, some of them known plagiarists, lazily repeated by Richard Delevan in the Tribune recently (Richard's article was discredited before it hit the newstands) and repeated by you. Presumably after 30 seconds of googling.

It's my experience that people who write articles and internet posts smearing Chomsky in such terms are victims, like poor little Richard from the Tribune, of believing useless discredited anti-Chomsky propaganda possibly resulting in or a result of some pathological hatred of the man - or more precisely the uncomfortable truths he has presented over the last 40 years.
This can result in a condition where by the patient loses the ability to correctly interpret statements (usually very simple, uncontroversial) by Chomsky. Chomskyitus, if you will.

Chomsky has never supported Pol Pot. Post a record of Chomsky's actual words (not interpretations of them by crazies) that show he supported Pol Pot please and we can take the debate from there. Otherwise I'll assume it's yet another case of somebody believing discredited smears without ever reading any of his work or attempting to take on any of his arguments. It's a lazy way out. "Some foaming at the mouth ex-Trot said this about him so I'm
going to ignore all of his arguments". It's moronic.

As for Chomsky's support for Faurrison (the Holocaust revisionist) the case is actually quite simple. Seeing as you are familiar with Wikipedia you will see this for yourself.

Your statement about Chomsky and the Sudanese chemical plant indicates that you too could have contracted Chomskyitus, that's if you have actually read what he says - which I doubt - so it's probably a case of you repeating discredited smears without checking what the man actually said. His point about that incident, made in the aftermath of 911, was that attacks that
result such a loss of life are not uncommon and without precedent. The Sudan attack, which according to those who have looked into it - may have resulted in the deaths of 10,000 people, was one such example. If you bothered to read his actual words instead of repeating nonsense - you
would know this.

As for a cult of personality, the idea has no basis whatsoever in reality so it's difficult to argue against. Perhaps people mistake the respect and high regard he is held in for mindless adulation but anybody who does follow Chomsky and has read his work or heard his talks will know that he constantly encourages people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Many people who attended the talk in UCD today are themselves activists, with their own ideas and thoughts, certainly not mindless followers of Chomsky. If you knew anything about left-wing politics you would know that many of them would engage in nasty yet petty debates about doctrines and principles of non-violent resistance with him given half the chance.

Any mistakes he has made were made honestly. Opponents, deceitfully, claim he is dishonest. Like the time he echoed official UN warnings of famine (like the most respected Western journalist in the Middle East) and castrophe in Afghanistan after the US ordered that aid reaching Afghanistan from Pakistan be stopped. To those who oppose him he was guilty in that case of a monstrous crime - more monstrous even than murdering 15,000 civilians - that of being wrong on something! They used it as a stick to beat him. Few
though, are prepared to take him on in debate and challenge his ideas about society and the political situation we find ourselves in, instead they usually resort to lazy smear tactics. So perhaps, if you are interested in genuine debate, you could read Chomsky and take on some his arguments rather then engage in the type of crap that Richard Delevan peddled in the Tribune the other week. You will get respect for it, you will get exactly no respect for repeating 3rd hand smears and discredited claims in a vain attempt to
appear like you're engaging in debate.

Could you also supply some examples of Chomsky's headline coverage? Again, as soon as you do we could take the debate further but until then you should park it as I've not seen an Chomsky headlines. His visit has generated media coverage alright - but hardly wall-to-wall stuff is it? I listened to George Hook's intro to his show today there was no mention of his visit at all for example. Also, ireland.com had no mention of it on their front page or in their breaking news today. There are a short piece on the 9 O'Clock news I
think...

He may not be 100% right on everything but if you asked him - he would never claim to be. I myself disagree with Chomsky on quite a few of his interpretations of events and his position on certain things but I
don't run around throwing child-like tantrums and spouting barely readable tripe about Pol Pot, Faurrison, 911, his books...and smearing everybody who finds his stuff interesting as stupid, rebellious rich kids (as Richard Delevan said), "hanging on his every word" or in awe of the "demigod"...as some people seem to do. It is clearly nonsense anyway. You only need to be a staff writer for a Sunday to believe it.

And I certainly don't believe the smears - simply because there is no basis in reality for them. But if Chomsky is a liar and a charlatan, his "lies" are absolutely miniscule next to the lies told by the leaders of the free world. Those are lies that have consequences - such as 125,000 civilian dead in 2
wars. Curiously (or perhaps not) they escape the anti-Chomsky brigade's radar. That tells you something about those that oppose him.

Thanks for reading all of that (if you got that far)

Jesus1222

Jesus1222 wrote:

Sand, it's hard to take you seriously when you have never read Chomsky.

If you read the thread, Sand has actually refuted that.He's not said he hasnt read chmosky.

Instead you take discredited smears by certain people, some of them known plagiarists, lazily repeated by Richard Delevan in the Tribune recently (Richard's article was discredited before it hit the newstands) and repeated by you. Presumably after 30 seconds of googling.

See'ing as it seems so important to you to refer to lazyiness , perhaps you could provide a link to said discreditation and other assorted statements you are making.

AB03

Jesus1222:

Well said my friend, well said.
I was going to go into a diatribe against sands and his ill informed view, but you said it all for me, good man!

bobbyjoe

Earthman wrote:

If you read the thread, Sand has actually refuted that.He's not said he hasnt read chmosky. See'ing as it seems so important to you to refer to lazyiness , perhaps you could provide a link to said discreditation and other assorted statements you are making.

Delevan's piece is written in a sarcastic tone he's obviously hostile to him. He has "appearance" and "interview" in quotes. The blog contains no actual quotes from Chomsky. I think its up to Sands to find some actual Chomsky quotes if he/she wants to assert that he "repetedly talks complete crap" should be very easy.


Anyone go to the UCD lecture what was it like?

mike65

Goodshape wrote:

He did actually get a spot on RTÉ2 News this evening. 1000 people at UCD to see him apparently, and he was let into the country despite an out-of-date passport.

Ha, he pontificates on US foreign policy around the world and he lets his passport lapse then expecs to get into a soverign state on it. Should have turned him away at the airport.

Mike.

AB03

Another question for you all actually:

(The following is v.left wing by the way, and I expect the flames to follow)

Fair enough, if some of you disagree with some of chomskys writings or views, but to those who do:

Can, and do you, support the elitist public/private military industrial regimes that have gained control in the west, most notably the UK and US?

Furthermore, do you deny the existance of the above?

Do you believe that there still exists a fair democracy in, specifically, the US?

Do you believe that those in power (democrat or republican, in my opinion this has mattered little for about 25 years and this is my opinion) are acting in the best interests of US & world peace and safety or are they acting in their own best interests?



If you can answer yes to any of the above then you need to take your head out the sand imho. There is a lot going on in the world right now that needs to change. People like chomsky, michael moore *cringe*, bill hicks and many others are trying to bring these unaccounted, power hungry, and generally, wholeheartadly evil people and the institutions that they stand behind to the forefront. People do not know what is really going on and has been going on for generations. People like Sand are compounding the problem and unknowingly acting on behalf of these powers, simply through blind ignorance.
Many people have seemingly decided to fall ignorant to the current state of the world and its powers. I have tried to explain to many people and it seems a lot of the older generation just dont care and dont have time to hear it.

To those, I always ask the question:

Have you ever thought about what kind of society your children will live when they get to your age?
Do you have confidence in the fact that we will live in a secure, free society, safe from unobstructed power and their will?
If they answer, yes, I say, "well, let me show you something"
It generally only takes 10 minutes of the stephen greer headed, disclosure project national press club conference or 30 mins of a chomsky talk to show them how closed minded they have unknowingly been.
Im not saying that they should believe everything I say or they read either, Im just showing them how much of the world and its goings on, that they know literally nothing about and have never even thought about.

The sad fact is, the world in 30 years time is looking like a very dangerous & unstable place to survive in. We are on the verge of enviormental collapse, world food & water shortage, fossil fuel depletion and massive social change, unprecedented in history are all looming, not to mention natural disaster. Social change greater than the rule of hitler, napolean and ceasar is quite a possibility right now and I feel we are slowly (or perhaps quickly) moving towards it, under the guise of the "war against terror", which of course, is ridiculous.
The american nation has become an almost police state already, with the implementation of the patriot act and the patriot act II sitting in waiting (probably in waiting for another terrorist attack, aka, the next moment to strike). Those familiar with that piece of legislation will know exactly what I mean, those who are not, I advise you to do some research, its extremelly scary.

Anyway, I'll stop now for a while, the flames from this should keep me warm until summer

Snickers Man

Earthman wrote:

If you read the thread, Sand has actually refuted that.He's not said he hasnt read chmosky. See'ing as it seems so important to you to refer to lazyiness , perhaps you could provide a link to said discreditation and other assorted statements you are making.

Here's the original article and here's the
letter rubbishing it that was published the following week. It could have been longer but there's plenty there to be getting on with.

Actually, you have to register for the Tribune (it;'s free but it's hassle)_ so I've plagiarised them for you below. (To stay within limits I'v had to cut Delevan's waffle down a bit. Say "Thanks Snickers".

Tough questions for that demigod of Irish journalism, Noam Chomsky
Richard Delevan

THE only time, in Ireland, I've heard Noam Chomsky interrupted was about three years ago........ Chomsky has graced the phone lines of most top Irish current affairs programmes, and never has anyone in the Irish media, to my knowledge, made any attempt meaningfully to challenge him or even contextualise his comments for listeners with some reminders about the professor's past statements.

(Except for past iterations of the sole message Chomsky has peddled since 1967 . . . only America can do wrong, and all wrong is done by America. Anyone who disagrees with Chomsky is not just wrong, but evil. ) So I have some advice for the Irish government after the long distance bitch-slap Chomsky gave it last week, accusing Bertie of being Bush's boot polish boy for allowing the US use of Shannon. Relax. Consider the source. Wait till he's here.

Because unless Chomsky plans to repeat his 2002 "appearance" at UCD and webcam it in, he may be here long enough actually to answer some questions not posed from a kneeling position. That might bear uncomfortably close resemblance to journalism, rather than hagiography.

In a 2002 Irish Times "interview" with Chomsky under the byline of Johnny Ryan, Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying that only undergrads take Chomsky seriously. I've never seen the quote elsewhere, but I accept the attribution may be accurate. Certainly the statement is true.

That the Johnny Ryan the Irish Times sent to interview Chomsky was, in fact, a graduate student should also be unsurprising, if ironic. That so many alleged grown-ups in the Irish media melt at the mention of Chomsky, like a sophomore with a crush on the lecturer, should be a cause for concern.

No wonder he loves it here. For all his status as the Great Thinker of Our Time, with nipple-pierced, doublebarrel-named, Dalkeyreared anti-globalisation skate rats toting identical copies of the fun-sized Chomsky' brand 9/11 tome available at the Tower Records till with the other socially conscious impulsebuy fashion accessories, the must-have Little Red Book for the Naughties to signal your authentic, unique, nobody-but-Noam-knowsthe-depths-of-me defiance of all authority, the real Chomsky isn't one for being questioned.

So I'm offering some new questions for the lucky presenter and producer who get Chomsky. (Print journalists are unlikely to get a shot, after Chomsky made the Guardian pull their November interview with him. The professor apparently didn't like being revealed as dissing victims at Srebrenica and dismissing Bosnian Muslims as the "Balkan clients" of the US. ) First, a question for the lecture's sponsors, Amnesty International. How do you justify awarding this prestigious speaking platform to an unrepentant Khmer Rouge apologist who, in a 1977 Nation article arguing that reports of genocide in Cambodia's killing fields were so much US propaganda, insisted that those slaughtered "numbered at most in the thousands", citing nonexistent studies in, among other places, the Economist, when your own organisation put the number at 1.4 million dead, and others put it closer to two million?

(Chomsky still defends the statement. ) The rest of the questions are for Chomsky.

In the preface you wrote to the 1980 memoir of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, you judged him an "apolitical liberal". You've also said you find nothing anti-Semitic in Faurisson's denial of the existence of the Nazi gas chambers or the Holocaust itself. Do you still hold those beliefs?

Do you now admit you erred when you predicted the US response to 9/11 in Afghanistan would lead to a "silent genocide" with millions dead from starvation, when in fact the collapse of the Taliban regime led to more food aid reaching Afghans?

Do you regret the hypocrisy of placing the multimillion-dollar earnings from your books and speaking fees . . . which you reportedly raised by 33% within weeks of 9/11 . . . into "irrevocable trusts" to protect your wealth, using the very tax shelters you condemn when used by other capitalists even more successful than you?

There are plenty of other questions for and about Chomsky, almost all of which will be entirely new to Irish audiences, because no one here has seen fit to ask them. Email me for the rest of them.

If no one else has the stomach actually to put them to Chomsky, I'm free.

And here's the rebuttal letter

Delevan wrong on Chomsky

RICHARD Delevan's article (News, 1 January, 2006) entitled "Tough questions for that demigod of Irish journalism, Noam Chomsky" contains some serious errors of fact.

Delevan claims that Chomsky forced The Guardian to pull their interview with him because (I quote Delevan here): "The professor apparently didn't like being revealed as dissing victims of Srebrenica and dismissing Bosnian muslims as the 'Balkan Clients' of the US."

In fact, The Guardian published a full retraction and apology on Thursday, 17 November 2005 for attributing this remark to Chomsky: "during the Bosnian war the 'massacre' at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre. )" He also accuses Chomsky of dismissing Bosnian Muslims as the "Balkan clients of the US." In fact there is abundant evidence that they were US clients, as many serious books on the subject (ie, Lord David Owen's Balkan Odyssey, Susan Woodward's Balkan Tragedy, or Diana Johnstone's Fools' Crusade) make clear.

Delevan also claims that Chomsky is an unrepentant Khmer Rouge apologist. In the 1977 article from The Nation that Delevan refers to, Chomsky and his coauthor Edward S Herman were presenting the conclusions of highly qualified specialists at the time.

Delevan's accusation of a "non-existent study" in The Economist is also false. The reference to "analyses by highly qualified specialists" in The Nation article was referring to a letter to The Economist's editor published in and therefore provided by, the paper, by Cambodia demographer WJ Sampson, an economist-statistician who was living in Phnom Penh and worked in close contact with the government's central statistics office. Sampson's work is cited with respect by Nayan Chanda, at the time the most highly respected journalist in southeast Asia, writing for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Delevan's next accusation begins: "In the preface you wrote to the 1980 memoir of French holocaust denier Robert Faurisson." However, the preface was written independently as an essay and then inserted in the book as a preface without Chomsky's prior approval.

If Delevan had taken the trouble to read Chomsky's essay he would see that it is purely a defence of the unqualified and irrevocable right to free speech. His defence of the right to free speech in no way constitutes an endorsement of Faurisson's own views.

Delevan also claims that Chomsky predicted "silent genocide", with millions dying of starvation, as a result of the US invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, the New York Times itself had said in 2001 that there were seven to eight million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. They were surviving on foreign aid.

On 16 September, the New York Times reported that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. After the first week of bombing the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims.

Chomsky was paraphrasing their conclusions when he said, "it looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide".

So there you have it. BTW is anybody else here a "nipple-pierced, doublebarrel-named, Dalkeyreared anti-globalisation skate rat"?

No?

Me neither.

Nuttzz

elitist public/private military industrial regimes

stopped reading when I saw this, every country has a military, every country has industry, every country has a class system, to describe the west as "elitist public/private military industrial regimes" is only anarchist spin...

GypsumFantastic

Chomsky on Pol Pot's Cambodia -

The Khmer Rouge had "constructive achievements for much of the population." The Political Economy of Human Rights. Chomsky and Herman

On reviewing John Barron and Anthony Paul's 'Murder of a Gentle Land' which detailed the extent of the atrocities, Chomsky stressed "the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution."

The atrocities in Cambodia were "as many close observers suspect, the result of localised peasant revenge and the acts of undisciplined troops." The Political Economy of Human Rights. Chomsky and Herman.

When French priest Francois Ponchaud, who had lived in Cambodia for 10 years, detailed the centrally directed nature of the atrocities in 'Cambodia: Year Zero', Chomsky opined that "Ponchaud cannot be taken very seriously because he is simply too careless and untrustworthy."

Chomsky conducted a long apologia for the Pol Pot regime, relying on either the output of Khmer Rouge sympathisers or the State-owned media in Cambodia whilst dismissing the output of free newspapers such as the New York Times as mouthpieces of US propaganda.

Chomsky on Holocaust denial -

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurrison's [Robert Faurrison, Holocaust 'revisionist'] work." Private correspondence to Bill Rubinstein.

"Faurrison is best described as a sort of apolitical liberal." La Stampa, December 1980

Chomsky on Afghanistan -

"Starvation of 3 to 4 million people...Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. Plans are being made and programs implemented that may lead to the death of several million people very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it. That's just kind of normal here." www.zmag.org, September 2001. No such thing transpired.

Interviewer: "Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan in 2001?"
Chomsky: "That's an interesting fabrication. First, the facts: I predicted nothing." The Independent, December 4, 2003

AB03

To describe the west as such?
I was describing the powers that control the west and particularly the US, not the west.
I have no leaning towards any particular style of government, anarchist or otherwise.
And to not read the rest of my post based on that is a bit ignorant is it not?

GypsumFantastic

What's wrong with Chomsky?

Oliver Kamm

Noam Chomsky has a new book: Hegemony or Survival. The dust jacket bears the legend, which one can't be around a Chomsky fan for long without hearing:

"Arguably the most important intellectual alive" - The New York Times

This very old quotation from the newspaper of record is in fact truncated. The full quotation reads as follows:

"Arguably the most important intellectual alive, how can he write such nonsense about international affairs and foreign policy?"

Chomsky is the master of using selective evidence to weave pseudo-plausible scenarios of conspiracy and evil intent on the part of those with whom he disagrees politically. Gore Vidal is his acolyte and Michael Moore a pathetic loser wannabe.

In his new blog, Noam Chomsky offers this, in a post entitled The Invasion of Iraq:

"We may have our own subjective judgments about this matter, but we should at least have the honesty to recognize that they are completely irrelevant. Completely. Unless the population is at least given the opportunity to overthrow a murderous tyrant, as they did in the case of the other members of the rogue's gallery supported by the US and UK (including the current incumbents), there is no justification for resort to outside force to do so. Another truism, which has repeatedly been pointed out -- and systematically ignored within the doctrinal system."

I am constantly surprised that an MIT Professor of Linguistics should produce such consistently execrable English prose. Redundant phrases, clichés and solecisms pile up, one damn thing on top of another. Witness the embarrassing attempt at dramatic elision with the single-word sentence. Embarrassing. So is the construction of sentences without verbs.

Look at that enervating prose of Chomsky’s again, and see if you can make sense of the assertion that Iraq’s population should have been ‘given the opportunity to overthrow a murderous tyrant’. It makes you wonder if they ever receive modern communications media in Massachusetts. What does Chomsky suppose the Iraqi Kurds and Shi’ah Muslims were given the opportunity and encouragement to do after the supposed cease-fire agreement that concluded the first Gulf War? Saddam thoroughly bamboozled Coalition forces and the Bush administration, which was far too solicitous of the letter of UN Security Council Resolutions that authorised only the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, and put down rebellions both north and south with a brutality that defies the imagination. In a single month (March 1991) he killed an estimated 20,000 Kurds and 30-60,000 Shi’ah. Without the courage and skill of British and American pilots patrolling the no-fly zones for a dozen years he would have slaughtered far more.

To those who are unfamiliar with history, Chomsky's political writings might seem a rational and informed case. Yet when you strip away the invective you're left with little but heroic assumption, tendentious assertion, egregious omission and even outright fabrication. Unfortunately, historical literacy is an increasingly scarce condition, and Chomsky has managed to build a large constituency on the strength of it among those of college age. The Berkeley economist Brad DeLong has written about this curious phenomenon in his blog:

The Chomsky defenders - and there seem to be a surprisingly large number of them - seem to form a kind of cult. Arguing with them seems to be a lot like trying to teach Plato's Republic to a pig: it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

What I object to is that Chomsky is an intellectual totalitarian. What I object to is that Chomsky tears up all the trail markers that might lead to conclusions different from his, and makes it next to impossible for people unversed in the issues to even understand what the live and much-debated points of contention are. What I object to is that Chomsky writes not to teach, but to brainwash: to create badly-informed believers in his point of view who won't know enough about the history or the background to think the issues through for themselves.

It's unfortunate – most of all for the believers – that those books have received little sustained criticism by competent authorities, largely because the competent authorities have better things to do with their time. I know of only one long informed critique of Chomsky in a weighty or academic journal, and that was more than 20 years ago (by Stephen Morris in Harvard International Review – not online to my knowledge). As a result of being observed mainly or only by the true believers, Chomsky has managed also to put in circulation a carefully-sanitised account of some of the issues DeLong raises (especially on the affair of the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson).

I plan at some point to post on this site a long review of Chomsky's entire political output, but I'm finding it's quite an undertaking given the scale of the task of disinterring the historical errors and sly omissions. As an illustration of the problem in dealing with Chomsky, my favourite – if that's the appropriate word – citation comes from a collection of 'interviews' (more accurately, gentle lobs) entitled Class Warfare:

My impression is that the Nagasaki bomb was basically an experiment.... Somebody ought to check this out, I'm not certain.

So there we have it. Chomsky asserts that the United States dropped the bomb because of a Mengele-like determination to conduct an experiment in human life and death on a mass scale. He has no evidence for this grotesque calumny and doesn't attempt to adduce any. Well might he add hurriedly that he's 'not certain'. But a historian or serious political analyst – indeed anyone of the slightest pretension to objectivity, fairness and critical inquiry – doesn't act that way.

Freelancer

AB03 wrote:

Anyway, I'll stop now for a while, the flames from this should keep me warm until summer

I think the phrase don't flatter yourself, springs to mind....... :rolleyes:

No wonder he loves it here. For all his status as the Great Thinker of Our Time, with nipple-pierced, doublebarrel-named, Dalkeyreared anti-globalisation skate rats toting identical copies of the fun-sized Chomsky' brand 9/11 tome available at the Tower Records till with the other socially conscious impulsebuy fashion accessories, the must-have Little Red Book for the Naughties to signal your authentic, unique, nobody-but-Noam-knowsthe-depths-of-me defiance of all authority, the real Chomsky isn't one for being questioned.

Its the classic caricature used by right wing journalists in this country, dress up anyone under the age of thirty has a funky yuppie from the southside, replace Chomsky's 9/11 with "Namoi Klein and No Logo" and this could be one of Ellish O'Hanlon's pitiful little rants in the Sindo.

gaf1983

AB03 wrote:

1. Can, and do you, support the elitist public/private military industrial regimes that have gained control in the west, most notably the UK and US?

2. Furthermore, do you deny the existance of the above?

3. Do you believe that there still exists a fair democracy in, specifically, the US?

4. Do you believe that those in power (democrat or republican, in my opinion this has mattered little for about 25 years and this is my opinion) are acting in the best interests of US & world peace and safety or are they acting in their own best interests?

5. People like chomsky, michael moore *cringe*, bill hicks and many others are trying to bring these unaccounted, power hungry, and generally, wholeheartadly evil people and the institutions that they stand behind to the forefront. People do not know what is really going on and has been going on for generations.

6. People like Sand are compounding the problem and unknowingly acting on behalf of these powers, simply through blind ignorance.

Here are my answers:

1. Not really, but they were all democratically elected so in a democracy we have no choice but to stand aside and accept those that were deemed by the electorate to be suitable to govern. There's nothing stopping us, however, from campaigning against them, lobbying them to improve, informing people of their misdeeds when they occur.

2. No, but I take issue with your use of the term "gain control" - this carries extremely negative connotations, i.e. that the only way the current US and UK governments have come to power is through political deceit and subterfuge. I had presumed they took power because a sufficiently high proportion of their respective electorates who bothered showing up to vote were happy with their progress in their previous terms in government and liked the look of their manifestos.

3. Maybe democracy simply doesn't work effectively in places with such large populations - Russia is another example - I am a firm believer that governments should be accountable at the lowest level possible - i.e. I think most places can benefit enormously from having the strongest local government possible. A definition of a "fair democracy" would be handy when you make accusations about whether or not it works in one place or not.

4. Their own interests obviously, just like politicians everywhere, from Spiddal to the Spanish Anarchist movement of the 1930s. They are elected to represent the people of their own country, so they are obviously going to act in a way that they feel will benefit their electorate, or at least allow them to couch their policies in terms that makes it seem like their electorate are benefitting.

5. Afraid Bill Hicks RIP doesn't do it anymore. My problem with him was that his arguments against corporate power, US neo-imperialism etc were full of generalisations and he didn't really offer any alternatives. On the other hand I admired him for highlighting the view that a comedian's role should be to show up the problems with society.

6. If you disagree with the political views of people like Sand, I would prefer it if instead of accusing them of blind ignorance, you would instead highlight points they made where you feel this ignorance is evident, and then refute these points. This explaining of your position with reasoned arguments requires more effort than simply casting aside someone's views as "blind ignorance" and is one of my pet hates about internet forums - it's easy to offer a quick dismissal of someone's point of view without going into the details of while you feel that way. Sorry if it seems like I'm having a go at you specifically for this, I don't mean to, it's a feature you get in all forums, it just does me head in.

And to go back to something mentioned earlier in the thread, here is a link (and the first two paragraphs) of Chomsky's hastily written reponse to the September 11th outrages, in which he compares that atrocity to the US bombing of the Sudanese pharaceutical factory, but doesn't, in my opinion, overtly state which is worse.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20010912.htm

A Quick Reaction
Noam Chomsky
CounterPunch, September 12, 2001
The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do 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 probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt.

The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

And FINALLY,

Was anyone at any of his lectures? What did he say? Was there a Q & A session?

AB03

AB03 wrote:

And to not read the rest of my post based on that is a bit ignorant is it not?

Read the charter aka politics posting guidelines.
Calling or asking if another poster is ignorant is not allowed here period
If I see that or any more personal abuse here again I will ban the poster throwing it.
You may disect and attack the post but not the individual poster.

GypsumFantastic

Ye olde rebuttal letter -

In fact, The Guardian published a full retraction and apology on Thursday, 17 November 2005 for attributing this remark to Chomsky: "during the Bosnian war the 'massacre' at Srebrenica was probably overstated.

The matter of the 'correction' is ongoing as Chomsky's position on the Srebrenica massacre is hardly misrepresented. He does believe it was overstated and, like Diana Johnstone, doesn't exactly deny war crimes took place but does seek to deflate their importance.

Though it's an illuminating insight into Chomsky who supports Holocaust revisionists on the grounds of 'free speech' but is always, always, quick to lean on newspaper editors and publishers whenever it suits him.

Delevan also claims that Chomsky is an unrepentant Khmer Rouge apologist. In the 1977 article from The Nation that Delevan refers to, Chomsky and his coauthor Edward S Herman were presenting the conclusions of highly qualified specialists at the time.

No, he and Hermand reviewed 3 books in the Nation magazine. Two, Barron & Paul and another by Ponchaud, were critical of the Khmer Rouge whilst a third, by Hildebrand and Porter, was supportive of the regime. Hildebrand and Porter's book was a 'carefully documented study' whilst Barron and Paul's anti-Khmer Rouge book 'collapses under the barest scrutiny." Serious readers were also advised to be 'wary' of Ponchaud's anti-Khmer Rouge book.

So rather than merely 'presenting the conclusions of specialists at the time', Chomsky and Herman sought to dismiss the books that detailed Khmer Rouge atrocities whilst endorsing a book that presented Khmer Rouge as building a new Utopia - this was done under the pretence of academic standards and research sources.

Interestingly, though, it was Porter and Hildebrand book that relied heavily on Khmer Rouge radio broadcasts and interviews with Khmer Rouge officials. This is the book Chomsky felt was closer to the truth than the other two which relied on refugee accounts - Chomsky believing these to be 'unreliable' and to be treated with 'great caution'.

Delevan's next accusation begins: "In the preface you wrote to the 1980 memoir of French holocaust denier Robert Faurisson." However, the preface was written independently as an essay and then inserted in the book as a preface without Chomsky's prior approval.

Yet Chomsky sent it to Faurrison's publisher, Pierre Guillaume, with the instruction from Chomsky that he make best use of it. This was in October 1980. It's true that Chomsky had a change of heart, two months later, but by then the book had already been published. Guillaume maintains that when he spoke to Chomsky on December 12, Chomsky had again changed his mind and stated he was happy with the preface and that his letter of retrieval was null and void.

If Delevan had taken the trouble to read Chomsky's essay he would see that it is purely a defence of the unqualified and irrevocable right to free speech. His defence of the right to free speech in no way constitutes an endorsement of Faurisson's own views.

Yet Chomsky knew full well Faurrison's views and even signed a petition, drawn up by another Holocaust revisionist Mark Weber, to support Faurrison's 'findings'.

And, as Chomsky demonstrates with his tantrum with the Guardian, he is not so keen on free speech, after all.

Delevan also claims that Chomsky predicted "silent genocide", with millions dying of starvation,

There's no 'claim' about it. He did.

Chomsky was paraphrasing their conclusions when he said, "it looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide".

How do you paraphrase a newspaper report that international aid may not be reaching people because of the Taliban as 'a silent genocide' by the US? You do if you're Noam Chomsky.

Jesus1222

Earthman wrote:

If you read the thread, Sand has actually refuted that.He's not said he hasnt read chmosky. See'ing as it seems so important to you to refer to lazyiness , perhaps you could provide a link to said discreditation and other assorted statements you are making.

It's clear that he hasn't read Chomsky. He hasn't actually commented on anything Chomsky has actually wrote. He only has generalised (very general - and innaccurate also) about his work.

http://www.tribune.ie - you have to register to view the letter and the article. the discreditations have been covered by this thread also.
http://www.richarddelevan.blogspot.com - the article is there.

Why would I provide a link to other assorted statements I am making? Could you clarify please. If you don't specify, I won't know. Because I am not psychic.

Jesus1222

mike65 wrote:

Ha, he pontificates on US foreign policy around the world and he lets his passport lapse then expecs to get into a soverign state on it. Should have turned him away at the airport.

Mike.

This is possibly the most stupid thing I've ever read on boards.ie. It's in the stratosphere of stupidity. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's criticises foreign policy so he shouldn't be allowed have a passport? Or an emergency passport?

What absolute tripe.

Jesus1222

Nuttzz wrote:

stopped reading when I saw this, every country has a military, every country has industry, every country has a class system, to describe the west as "elitist public/private military industrial regimes" is only anarchist spin...

"I'll stop reading because it's true". I like that.

Jesus1222

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The matter of the 'correction' is ongoing as Chomsky's position on the Srebrenica massacre is hardly misrepresented. He does believe it was overstated and, like Diana Johnstone, doesn't exactly deny war crimes took place but does seek to deflate their importance.

In fact, he said it was a massacre. And has referred to it in such terms. People who read Chomsky know this.

Though it's an illuminating insight into Chomsky who supports Holocaust revisionists on the grounds of 'free speech' but is always, always, quick to lean on newspaper editors and publishers whenever it suits him.

In fact he complained when a reporter invented quotes and contexts for him. He wrote to the Guardian saying he took no responsibility for anything in the interview and wrote to the reader's editor with a complaint. How that constitutes "leaning on newspaper editors" is beyond me.

Yet Chomsky sent it to Faurrison's publisher, Pierre Guillaume, with the instruction from Chomsky that he make best use of it. This was in October 1980. It's true that Chomsky had a change of heart, two months later, but by then the book had already been published. Guillaume maintains that when he spoke to Chomsky on December 12, Chomsky had again changed his mind and stated he was happy with the preface and that his letter of retrieval was null and void.

URL? Well Guilluame would say that. In any case, there is nothing there to suggest that Chomsky, Jewish himself (his thoughts on the Holocaust are on record - again Chomsky readers know this) was interested in anything other than free speech. Chomsky has made the point that historical truth should not be matter of a court case and that those challenging historical record should stand or fall by the accuracy/quality of their academic work. Not by beatings or broken bones, like Faurrison was subjected too.

Yet Chomsky knew full well Faurrison's views and even signed a petition, drawn up by another Holocaust revisionist Mark Weber, to support Faurrison's 'findings'.

It was signed by alot of people. Not just Chomsky. Again, there is nothing to suggest that Chomsky was interested in anything other than free speech. His record shows that.

And, as Chomsky demonstrates with his tantrum with the Guardian, he is not so keen on free speech, after all.

Do you have evidence for this tantrum? For anybody who has read Chomsky's comments it is anything but a tantrum. This reminds of a recent medialens.org article on Harold Pinter, which exposed those who described Harold Pinter as throwing "tantrums". They simply weren't true.

There's no 'claim' about it. He did.

How do you paraphrase a newspaper report that international aid may not be reaching people because of the Taliban as 'a silent genocide' by the US? You do if you're Noam Chomsky.

You would have to include the UN (who iirc gave a warning that starvation would result if the current actions were continued, in fact probably only the quick capitulation of the Taliban prevented that "silent genocide"), Red Cross, various other humanitarian organisations & various experienced Middle East correspondents (it wasn't the Middle East as such but those correspondents covered it) in that too. Not just Chomsky.

Jesus1222

Earthman wrote:

Read the charter aka politics posting guidelines.
Calling or asking if another poster is ignorant is not allowed here period
If I see that or any more personal abuse here again I will ban the poster throwing it.
You may disect and attack the post but not the individual poster.

If I may be very briefly allowed go OT:

Please read the guidelines and/or what he actually said. For a start, it was a question. Also, he asked was the _action_ ignorant. He did not insult the poster, only the action of the poster. Therefore it was not personal abuse. It is like calling an idea or statement stupid. It's simply not personal abuse. No amount of twisting and turning will make it so. Thanks for not banning me!

Jesus1222

And FINALLY,

Was anyone at any of his lectures? What did he say? Was there a Q & A session?

www.ucd.ie/news/jan06/011306_chomsky.htm

Webcasts of the lectures are there. I was there!

Nuttzz

Jesus1222 wrote:

"I'll stop reading because it's true". I like that.

no because it is spin...read all the BS you want to believe

Jesus1222

Nuttzz wrote:

no because it is spin...read all the BS you want to believe

What does that mean? I don't get it. You said it was true and because of that you weren't going to read it. Not me

Nuttzz

try re-reading my post again then....

elitist public/private military industrial regimes are as real as WMDs in Iraq in 2003....