Noam Chomsky Lecture

AB03

Yeah, I also got a chuckle out of that passport remark!

Apologies for breaking forum rules, I actually wasnt even aware which forum this thread was in, I just clicked into it from the front page, wont happen again.

gaf:

With regard to the second answer you gave to my questions, I think the term 'gained control' is quite appropriate in reference to america's current administration. How fair were the florida recounts in 2000 for example?
The re-election was a farce from start to finish, even if Kerry had have won, which he was never going to, he's the same as bush for gods sake!
They both went to the same schools, joined the same elitist secret frat society, they have the same financiers, they are both sides of the same coin.

As for my definition of a fair democracy, it might be idealistic, but a democracy consisting of the actual peoples choice, not a 2 party majority both consisting of candidates from almost identical background and who are both essentially acting towards the same goals (referencing to the US here).
In actuality, I think the Irish government of late could be a model for a fair democracy, indeed it has its flaws but fundementally its free, open and election results are fairly ennumerated.

And your answer to question 4 is disheartening. Do you not agree that the long term goals of all world governments should be to tackle the domestic and international problems facing the people in their jurisdiction?
This, SHOULD be the goals of a good government (democratic or otherwise), as opposed to gaining support and increasing the wealth of elite power groups, which seems to be the driving factor behind the current (illegal) ''war on terrorism''.

Nice thorough answer tho, cheers

GypsumFantastic

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

The Guardian correction states: "Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone [Diana Johnstone], who has also written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech."

Yet Chomsky stated in an open letter to Ordfront in 2003 that "Johnstone argues -- and, in fact, clearly demonstrates-- that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication." Like the Faurisson case, Chomsky goes beyond free speech to an endorsement and acceptance of work.

Brockes cited Chomsky as believing the massacre "was probably overstated" - to which he did not object.

So the correction is debatable and is, in fact, being debated.

"In fact he complained when a reporter invented quotes and contexts for him."

It was hardly 'inventing' given Chomsky has stated the massacre was overstated and that he believed that Diana Johnstone - a denier of Serb atrocities - had "clearly demonstrated that much of it is pure fabrication." It is hardly a misrepresentation of his position. It's doubtful whether the Guardian should put the word 'massacre' in apostrophes but that is all.

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.

It is when the article is pulled from the newspaper's website. I personally find something sinister about that. Perhaps you don't.

URL?

Not everything is on the Internet, incredible as that may seem.

Well Guilluame would say that.

And Chomsky would say what he says.

We do know, however, that Chomsky signed a petition supporting the publication of Faurrison's 'findings', that he sent the essay to Faurrison's publisher and that he did describe Holocaust revisionist Faurrison, whether he intended it to be published or not, as 'a sort of apolitical liberal'.

So, in light of those events, I know which chronology of events I believe, ta very much.

was interested in anything other than free speech.

Well, when you say that there is nothing anti-Semitic about denying the Holocaust then I think we're entitled to wonder, eh?

It was signed by alot of people.

But we're not talking about a lot of people. We're talking about Chomsky. And the wording of the petition to which Chomsky agreed went, as I said, beyond advocating free speech and seemed to endorse Faurisson's work.

Do you have evidence for this tantrum?

Such as when he was able to ban Geoffrey Sampson from an American edition of a book because he'd written some midly critical comments about Chomsky in the British edition. Though he defended himself in that case by stating 'readers rely on editors to guarantee that what is presented as accurate, not fabrication and mere slander as in this case.' For Chomsky, criticism of him is more important than whether someone denies the Holocaust - the latter earns you an essay defending your right to publish your 'findings', the former a ban from your American publisher.

You would have to include the UN

Neither the UN, the Red Cross, or any other body, referred to it as 'a silent genocide' on the part of the US. But Chomsky did.

AB03

Nutzz I find it hard to believe that you can honestly believe that, but I think Im going way off topic here with my argument. Im not exactly pro or anti chomsky, Im just anti us administration, so I best get off this thread

ronbyrne2005

Nuttzz wrote:

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

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

republican senator john mc cain has recently acknowledged the military industrial complex's effects on american society as predicted by eisenhower,theres nothing controversial in this assertion. the internet is one example of spin off's from the miliatary industrial complex,was created by scientists in military for military needs.

mike65

Jesus1222 wrote:

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.

May I suggest you read my words again.

Originally Posted by mike65
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.

Note the word LAPSE, not DENY If the man gads about the planet he should be like a good boy scout.

Mike.

bobbyjoe

Regarding the holocaust denial stuff.
In his own word, not a blog, or wikipedia or an interpretation.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm

In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure Robert Faurisson's "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies" (he denies the existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews and questions the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary, among other things), apart from noting that they were the cause of "efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression." It did not specify the steps taken against him, which include suspension from his teaching position at the University of Lyons after the threat of violence, and a forthcoming court trial for falsification of history and damages to victims of Nazism.


Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

GypsumFantastic

bobbyjoe wrote:

to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure Robert Faurisson's "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies"

This is more Chomsky piffle.

The petition Chomsky signed and promoted stated that Faurisson had been "conducting extensive historical research into the 'Holocaust' question." So Chomsky knew full well it was an issue of Holocaust study, despite his claims.

bobbyjoe wrote:

Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished.

Chomsky is at least correct to say that it was his decision to forward it to Faurisson's publishers with the instruction that they do with it as they wish - as I stated earlier.

bobbyjoe wrote:

In this statement, I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work,

Other than to call the Holocaust revisionist 'a sort of apolitical liberal'. Chomsky wrote this well aware of the nature of Faurisson's work. How could Chomsky make such a statement knowing Faurisson's work and then attempt to claim he is dealing solely from a civil libertarian point of view?

ronbyrne2005

GypsumFantastic wrote:

This is more Chomsky piffle.

The petition Chomsky signed and promoted stated that Faurisson had been "conducting extensive historical research into the 'Holocaust' question." So Chomsky knew full well it was an issue of Holocaust study, despite his claims.



Chomsky is at least correct to say that it was his decision to forward it to Faurisson's publishers with the instruction that they do with it as they wish - as I stated earlier.



Other than to call the Holocaust revisionist 'a sort of apolitical liberal'. Chomsky wrote this well aware of the nature of Faurisson's work. How could Chomsky make such a statement knowing Faurisson's work and then attempt to claim he is dealing solely from a civil libertarian point of view?

considering he is a jew himself and worked on settlements in israel i dont think he feels the holcaust didnt occur,so he must just have been standing up for free speech,why would he label himself as a holocaust denier even if he actually denied the holocaust?

bobbyjoe

GypsumFantastic wrote:

This is more Chomsky piffle.

The petition Chomsky signed and promoted stated that Faurisson had been "conducting extensive historical research into the 'Holocaust' question." So Chomsky knew full well it was an issue of Holocaust study, despite his claims.



Chomsky is at least correct to say that it was his decision to forward it to Faurisson's publishers with the instruction that they do with it as they wish - as I stated earlier.



Other than to call the Holocaust revisionist 'a sort of apolitical liberal'. Chomsky wrote this well aware of the nature of Faurisson's work. How could Chomsky make such a statement knowing Faurisson's work and then attempt to claim he is dealing solely from a civil libertarian point of view?

So you consider him a liar then?
He publicly explains the reasons for signing the petition but secretly its because he denies the holocaust and your somehow privy to this?

GypsumFantastic

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

considering he is a jew himself and worked on settlements in israel i dont think he feels the holcaust didnt occur,so he must just have been standing up for free speech,

He must have been even if the evidence says otherwise...

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

why would he label himself as a holocaust denier even if he actually denied the holocaust?

I've never said he denies the Holocaust - I said he supports Holocaust revisionists. Others have argued, like you, that it's about freedom of expression although I have pointed out that his support goes beyond civil liberties and into actual endorsements of Holocaust revisionists works - such as saying there's nothing anti-Semitic about denying the Holocaust or signing petitions endorsing Holocaust revisionists as 'respected' academics. That kind of thing.

GypsumFantastic

bobbyjoe wrote:

So you consider him a liar then?

Yes, I do.

bobbyjoe wrote:

He publicly explains the reasons for signing the petition but secretly its because he denies the holocaust and your somehow privy to this?

I never said he denies the Holocaust - I said he supports Holocaust revisionists, which he does. Such as calling them 'apolitical liberal' or promoting petitions in support of their 'findings'. That kind of thing.

As for publicly explaining his reasons for signing the petition - as I've demonstrated to you, he even lies about what was written on the petition that he signed and promoted. He just can't help himself, can he?

bobbyjoe

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Yes, I do.



I never said he denies the Holocaust - I said he supports Holocaust revisionists, which he does. Such as calling them 'apolitical liberal' or promoting petitions in support of their 'findings'. That kind of thing.

As for publicly explaining his reasons for signing the petition - as I've demonstrated to you, he even lies about what was written on the petition that he signed and promoted. He just can't help himself, can he?

You got the wording of the petition he signed?

ronbyrne2005

i wouldnt use a contentious petition to judge a mans entire work.im sure all of us have signed things or endorsed things without realising the full extent of the issue.im sure he's asked to sign hundreds of petitions,lets not labour the point.

Snickers Man

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Ye olde rebuttal letter -

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.

That is completely unfair. In fact it's utter bollox, and taken in conjunction with Delevan's assertion that 'Chomsky got the Guardian to pull an interview with him' when he didn't like the findings, you are trying to make it appear that Chomsky's support of free speech is selective.

He didn't 'get the interview pulled.' It was published in full in the print version of the Guardian. To 'have it pulled' would imply that he got sight of it before it went in and 'approved' the copy in advance. The stuff of PR men's dreams and anathema to the concept of free speech.

AFTER it was published in full, he complained that he had been misrepresented and that untruths had been written in the article. It is an essential corollary of free speech that those who are written ABOUT have a right to reply. He exercised that right to reply in a letter that was published in the Guardian.

The newspaper then, to its credit and in keeping with its own commitment to a freedom-of-speech culture, referred the matter to its own Reader's Editor, a type of ombudsman for reader complaints. He found that the journalist had got things wrong and recommended that the paper print a retraction and remove the article from its Website.

What is your problem with this? An Irish politician, or racehorse owner, or media magnate would have sued the Guardian's ass for libel. Chomsky, to the best of my knowledge, only asked that it acknowledge its error.

The paper made a mistake and rectified it by apologising and attempting to undo the damage. The whole episode is an example of both parties being committed to a freedom of speech culture and its attendants shortcomings and obligations.

Yet people like you and Delevan are distorting this to make it appear like totalitarian control of the media by a huge egotist.

For shame.

Go the nipple-pierced, Dalkey-reared, antiglobalisation skate rats.

Down with the tattooed, whooping, hollering, NASCAR-following, NRA members with great big American cheeseburger arses.

It's easy to stereotype people,isn't it?

sovtek

GypsumFantastic wrote:

What's wrong with Chomsky?


"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?"

OH MY GOD.... A BOOK PUBLISHER ACTUALLY TOOK A CRITIC OUT OF CONTEXT FOR IT'S BOOK JACKET

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.

Attack the person, not what they say eh?

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.

eh he's now grading his grammar?

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.

Yea those "no-fly zones" patrols and bombings were carried out for 13 years to protect the poor little shia's...even though in the outset of the insurection the very same skilled pilots watched as Saddam slaughtered Shia and Kurds them with British and American bought weapons.

I

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.

...and yet this "journalist" doesn't seem to be able to give an example of any of these assertions.

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.

even though he constantly states to not take his word for it...or that he's no different than anyone else that has the ability to read and disseminate (spelling?) information.

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 guess he's saying someone from the NYT isn't competant. I'd partially agree with em there.

Manic Moran

Originally Posted by mike65
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?

Bizarre...

You try getting into a country when your passport has expired and you haven't bothered to try getting a new one. Even without political pontification.

NTM

mike65

er Manic I did'nt say that, Jesus1222 came up with that gem.

Mike.

Sand

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

Jesus (Which works on so many levels), I have read Chomskys work. I have never stated I didnt. I have already corrected another poster who tried to imply I didnt. I have actually had to educate a few people on this thread about who Chomsky is and what he stand for.

What I said was I dont need to read any of his works to know what his position is. Hes never, ever, ever, ever surprised me with a summary of how he views an event and who he holds ultimately responsible.

The rest of your post isnt really worth responding to in detail. Ive provided backup, from multiple sources. If youre unaware of the man or the positions hes taken then Im not in a position to expend the neccessary patience educating you. GF seems to be taking the lead on this, may God grant him stength.

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

About as fair a democracy as exists here, give or take the fact that we have a mafia-terrorist political front sitting in our Dail. Its regularly involved in criminal and subversive activity, but it may well hold the balance of power in the next Dail.

But dont worry about that, worry about the illuminati.

considering he is a jew himself and worked on settlements in israel i dont think he feels the holcaust didnt occur,so he must just have been standing up for free speech,why would he label himself as a holocaust denier even if he actually denied the holocaust?

Youre glossing over what he said and did, and came to a conclusion that ignores that he personally supported a writer, not his right to air his views, but the writer himself. I wouldnt claim Chomsky is a holocaust denier, Id claim hes very foolish and out of his depth when it comes to political analysis and value judgements.

i wouldnt use a contentious petition to judge a mans entire work.im sure all of us have signed things or endorsed things without realising the full extent of the issue.im sure he's asked to sign hundreds of petitions,lets not labour the point.

I wouldnt either, but its just one of many "mistakes" hes made. Its not an isolated event, its part of a trend of lazy investigation, inept analysis and blatant muddying of the waters. Like I said, I rate him with down there with Moore and Co. The revolution has well and truly been comercialised.

Yea those "no-fly zones" patrols and bombings were carried out for 13 years to protect the poor little shia's...even though in the outset of the insurection the very same skilled pilots watched as Saddam slaughtered Shia and Kurds them with British and American bought weapons

I thought you were against military action in Iraq, supported the sovereignty of nation states and the international rule of law where only the UN can authorise action? Im getting very confused now that youre criticising the coalition that was there for not doing what youre completely against.....

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

Jesus (Which works on so many levels), I have read Chomskys work. I have never stated I didnt. I have already corrected another poster who tried to imply I didnt. I have actually had to educate a few people on this thread about who Chomsky is and what he stand for.

What I said was I dont need to read any of his works to know what his position is. Hes never, ever, ever, ever surprised me with a summary of how he views an event and who he holds ultimately responsible.

The rest of your post isnt really worth responding to in detail. Ive provided backup, from multiple sources. If youre unaware of the man or the positions hes taken then Im not in a position to expend the neccessary patience educating you. GF seems to be taking the lead on this, may God grant him stength.



About as fair a democracy as exists here, give or take the fact that we have a mafia-terrorist political front sitting in our Dail. Its regularly involved in criminal and subversive activity, but it may well hold the balance of power in the next Dail.

But dont worry about that, worry about the illuminati.



Youre glossing over what he said and did, and came to a conclusion that ignores that he personally supported a writer, not his right to air his views, but the writer himself. I wouldnt claim Chomsky is a holocaust denier, Id claim hes very foolish and out of his depth when it comes to political analysis and value judgements.



I wouldnt either, but its just one of many "mistakes" hes made. Its not an isolated event, its part of a trend of lazy investigation, inept analysis and blatant muddying of the waters. Like I said, I rate him with down there with Moore and Co. The revolution has well and truly been comercialised.



I thought you were against military action in Iraq, supported the sovereignty of nation states and the international rule of law where only the UN can authorise action? Im getting very confused now that youre criticising the coalition that was there for not doing what youre completely against.....

" Ive provided backup, from multiple sources"
A blog, wikipedia and a cartoon.
If you wanna slag the guy of you should do better than that.
Like an actual quote from him or something?

Lemming

Interesting talk tonight.

ronbyrne2005

yeah it was interesting to hear him in person,thought the anarchist guy who asked him a question was a good laugh. had heard most of this lecture before in downloaded lectures from other events etc,didnt think the standing ovation was deserved or required and didnt stand up.i think the crowd were mainly anti war rather than anti capitalist or anarchist is any way,most would not oppose america if their comfortable western way of life was threatened.

bobbyjoe

Text of the lecture available here.

http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/5051/

oscarBravo

In MS Word format. FFS.

gaf1983

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

considering he is a jew himself and worked on settlements in israel i dont think he feels the holcaust didnt occur,so he must just have been standing up for free speech,why would he label himself as a holocaust denier even if he actually denied the holocaust?

I'm sorry but this is aside, but I think we should bear in mind wikipedia's guidelines on usage of the word "Jew" -

Some uses of the term "Jew" are tainted by historic anti-Jewish bigotry. The correct adjectival form is "Jewish"; the use of "Jew" as an adjective (as in "Jew lawyer" rather than "Jewish lawyer") is associated with bigotry. The use of "Jew" or "jew" as a verb (as in "to jew someone down": to bargain for a lower price) is generally seen as an extremely offensive expression based on stereotypes.

Even when used in a grammatically correct manner as a noun, the term "Jew" has been used to objectify and separate Jews from the remainder of the population, often by referring to the majority population by the name of the country ("Countrymen") but referring to Jewish citizens as "Jews."

I'd also like to ask GypsumFantastic or anyone else in the forum have they got the wording of the petition supposedly linking Chomsky with Holocaust revisionists, or else directions about where to find said petition?

Here is a 1980 article of his in which he replies to the response generated by his signing of the petition:

For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions -- indeed, gone to far greater lengths -- on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson's civil rights, and for exactly the same reason. I do not read the Communist Party press, but I have little doubt that the commissars and apparatchiks have carefully perused these petitions, seeking out phrases that could be maliciously misinterpreted, in an effort to discredit these efforts to prevent the suppression of human rights. In comparison, when I state that irrespective of his views, Faurisson's civil rights should be guaranteed, this is taken to be "scandaleuse" and a great fuss is made about it in France. The reason for the distinction seems obvious enough. In the case of the Russian dissidents, the state (our states) approves of supporting them, for its own reasons, which have little to do with concern for human rights, needless to say. In the case of Faurisson, however, defense of his civil rights is not officially approved doctrine -- far from it -- so that segments of the intelligentsia, who are ever eager to line up and march off to the beat of the drums, do not perceive any need to take the stance accepted without question in the case of Soviet dissidents.

From my reading of that article, Chomsky backs up his signing of the petition in the following lines:

Let us suppose that this person finds Faurisson's ideas offensive, even horrendous, and finds his scholarship to be a scandal. Let us suppose further that he is correct in these conclusions -- whether he is or not is plainly irrelevant in this context. Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was "scandaleuse" because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression...

My conclusion is that given the fact that he states he has signed many petitions on behalf of parties whose ideas they advocate he finds horrendous, is that he is a supporter of people's freedom to express their belief that the Holocaust did not happen, or that the US was right in invading Iraq, or that religious chauvinism should be advocated, rather than a believer in any of these ideas.

One line that caught my eye just from glancing through the Amnesty speech was this one:

It’s commonly claimed that critics of ongoing policies do not present solutions. Check the record, and I think you will find that there is an accurate translation for that charge: “They present solutions, but I don’t like them.”

Touché. What sort of solutions did Chomsky advocate as an alternative to the invasion of Iraq?

bonkey

Lemming wrote:

Where's bonkey when you need him

Need me for what?

To help with the deification of Chomsky? Not gonna happen.

To help show that those criticising him are generally using the very same types of tactics and techniques that they are criticising Chomsky for employing? Should already be obvious to anyone willing to do more than have their information spoon-fed to them.

To argue that the truth is somewhere in the middle? Has been said by enough people on this thread that I didn't feel it needed repeating.

jc

sovtek

Sand wrote:

I thought you were against military action in Iraq, supported the sovereignty of nation states and the international rule of law where only the UN can authorise action? Im getting very confused now that youre criticising the coalition that was there for not doing what youre completely against.....

Actually I was correcting mis-statements in the article.
...and the "no-fly zone" was not UN mandated.

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

Need me for what?

To help with the deification of Chomsky? Not gonna happen.

To help show that those criticising him are generally using the very same types of tactics and techniques that they are criticising Chomsky for employing? Should already be obvious to anyone willing to do more than have their information spoon-fed to them.

To argue that the truth is somewhere in the middle? Has been said by enough people on this thread that I didn't feel it needed repeating.

jc

Hehe, Chomsky reminds me of the Politics board, minus the ego.

SOMEONE wrote:

Outrageous statement.

OTHER PERSON wrote:

Link me.

Chomsky assembles and presents facts to develop or support a point of view. When he doesn't have data, he doesn't venture an opinion. Sounds sensible to me. Much smarter than other people who slam him for saying outrageous things he never actually says.

From the Irish Times yesterday:

Iran would be "crazy" if it did not develop nuclear weapons, the controversial US academic Noam Chomsky told an audience in Dublin last night.

So Chomsky supports Iran's right to develop a nuclear arsenal, does he? Eh, no. What he actually said was that he absolutely doesn't want Iran, or anyone to have nuclear weapons, but from a geostrategic perspective, he can understand why Iran would want them. Not wanting them would be strategic suicide. The invasion of Iraq and the US and EU bearing down on them is the biggest fact of all supporting this view.

Very interesting that Joe Humphreys' article missed out on the most important point he made about Iran that definitely needs more investigation: that the Iran-Nukegate issue is actually a ploy by the US to weaken Europe - to strike enough fear into the hearts of European businessmen that they withdraw their investments from Iran. But that's just not controversial enough, zey'deh.

GypsumFantastic

bonkey wrote:

To help show that those criticising him are generally using the very same types of tactics and techniques that they are criticising Chomsky for employing? Should already be obvious to anyone willing to do more than have their information spoon-fed to them.

May I touch your cloak?

LostinBlanch

DadaKopf wrote:

So Chomsky supports Iran's right to develop a nuclear arsenal, does he? Eh, no. What he actually said was that he absolutely doesn't want Iran, or anyone to have nuclear weapons, but from a geostrategic perspective, he can understand why Iran would want them. Not wanting them would be strategic suicide. The invasion of Iraq and the US and EU bearing down on them is the biggest fact of all supporting this view.

Yeah he said the same thing on Dunphy this morning but said he was actually quoting an Israeli military historian whose name I didn't catch. If you want to hear the interview you can get a podcast from www.newstalk106.ie

DadaKopf wrote:

Very interesting that Joe Humphreys' article missed out on the most important point he made about Iran that definitely needs more investigation: that the Iran-Nukegate issue is actually a ploy by the US to weaken Europe - to strike enough fear into the hearts of European businessmen that they withdraw their investments from Iran. But that's just not controversial enough, zey'deh.

He also said on the same interview that Europe was under severe pressure from the US not to honour a diplomatic agreement with Iran which would garauntee it's security, and that this is what was driving the current crisis. I hadn't heard anything about this in the media, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

GypsumFantastic

GypsumFantastic wrote:

May I touch your cloak?

Nope
But you may touch your mouse,hover it over politics at the top of this page,left click,load forum 99 and hover the mouse over the posting guidelines sticky,left click again,let the page load and then read

All posters read that charter and when posting follow the guidelines.
Specefically in this case deal with the post and not the poster.

Thank you.