Noam Chomsky Lecture

Miss Fluff

I only found this thread now and can't believe I missed it!! I reckon everyone should HAVE to read Understanding Power. Where was it advertised as a matter of interest?

bobbyjoe

Miss Fluff wrote:

I only found this thread now and can't believe I missed it!! I reckon everyone should HAVE to read Understanding Power. Where was it advertised as a matter of interest?

I heard about it on the radio Newstalk I think.

ronbyrne2005

Miss Fluff wrote:

I only found this thread now and can't believe I missed it!! I reckon everyone should HAVE to read Understanding Power. Where was it advertised as a matter of interest?

theres an interview with him on newstalk with eamon dunphy,its repeated at 10pm tonight on 106fm.

Lemming

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

I was (trying anyway) being smart when said that bonkey

bonkey

I know - I just couldn't resist

Sand

" 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?

A) Why quote the entire post if youre only going to respond to a partial sentence?

Slagging implies personal insults - Ive only criticised his work and analysis. He might be the greatest guy to know ever, but I dont care either way.

C) Both the links quoted Chomsky. They then examined and criticised his stated views. A link to Chomskys quote alone is useless without the criticism. Seeing as you refuse to accept any source other than Chomsky, perhaps you should visit his site and read some of his articles, perhaps the article cited and demolished in that blog you dismissed without reading.

From the article

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).

The blog you ignored already examined the bombing. One janitor died in it as it was carried out in the middle of the night to minimise casualties. It was bombed on intelligence that nerve agents were being produced there and in response to the Embassy bombings carried out by AQ only 2 weeks before which killed 257 people, mainly Africans.

No NGO or other reputable agency working in Sudan reported any spike in deaths due to the bombing or loss of pharmaceutical supplies. the HRW communications director specifically denied Chomskys claim that they had prepared estimates of tens of thousands of deaths. Oh I know, you wont believe that. Heres the HRW documents on Sudan, knock yourself out digging out the one where HRW link the bombing to a medical shortage causing tens of thousands of deaths. You might start with the only document mentioning the bombing at all, the one which doesnt mention any such deaths or shortage. His other source was a German ambassador having a rant. And yet Chomsky persists in talking rubbish to the gullible.

Do you know what I find odd? Its that in every single source Ive found for Chomskys quote above, it never says "in terms of number of victims", it says "in terms of scale". Only Chomskys online, easily edited article uses that phrase instead of scale... Who knows, perhaps every other single source out there made the exact same mistake in quoting it. Even sites like Commondreams there on the first page. Maybe Chomsky went back and altered it slightly so it said the same thing but being different enough that he could fight it better. If he says scale, its a question of his judgement, if he says numbers he can later pretend he was only misinformed. Hard to say without access to a hardcopy of the article.

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

Of course it wasnt. UN mandates restricted the armies that had liberated Kuwait from doing anything about the suffering of the Shias and Kurds in Iraq. But then, isnt the UN the greatest thing ever? If only the UN could run everything.

To do the right thing, the UN had to be sidelined. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Jesus1222

Of course it wasnt. UN mandates restricted the armies that had liberated Kuwait from doing anything about the suffering of the Shias and Kurds in Iraq. But then, isnt the UN the greatest thing ever? If only the UN could run everything.

To do the right thing, the UN had to be sidelined. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Unfortunately you're wrong on that. The opinion of the governments of the Middle East, the fact Saddam still had a reasonably strong army (unlike in 2003, when it was virtually non-existent thanks to 12 years of sanctions) and the fact the US wanted Saddam to remain in power (at least ahead of a state with an independent Kurdish north and Shia south) were the reasons they didn't occupy Iraq. They would have been faced with an uprising from Cairo to Peshawar.

Hobbes

They had Noam on RTE last night. I have never seen such a moronic interviewer in my whole life. Just kept asking the same crap over and over even Noam says "Look I have already answered that question".

Nuttzz

when rte grill bush they are heros, when they grill chomsky they are morons...;)

MikeHunt

high quality MP3 of the lecture here

[link removed]

DadaKopf

Both were bad interviews. But last night's was awful. And they had to roll out Mark 'nutbag' Dooley as the 'anti-Chomsky'. Ye Gods.

Bit Torrent is frowned upon on boards as unmentionable as its usually associated with downloading copyrighted stuff illegally.

Could someone please confirm that whats on the above site is legit and ergo using torrents from it is legit.
I see one BBC programme there as it stands.

bobbyjoe

Its on the RTE website.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0119/primetime.html

MikeHunt

On chomsky.info ("official site") it states "many more media files available at Chomsky Torrents" and a link to the site is provided... so I'd say it's safe to assume it's above board, especially since it's a recorded speech we're talking about rather than a broadcaster's production

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

when rte grill bush they are heros, when they grill chomsky they are morons...;)

Different interviewers. There is one thing questioning what Noam is talking about but the interviewer kept going on about "People who don't like you say ...." (sic). Even after getting an answer he just asked the same question in a different way.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Different interviewers.

similar techniques....i agree with dadakpof both were bad interviews.

on the topic of torrents, cant see the cnn stuff not being copyrighted...

/edit http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html see 5 b and c

Ok I've pulled the torrent link.
Anyone that wants such things can google them but please dont mention it here.

Hobbes

http://www.chomsky.info/index.htm

That is his personal site. I have checked all the links. Anything that is owned by a particular news site is linked off to that site in question. So that should be acceptable.

Doesn't have the latest stuff yet though.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

A) Why quote the entire post if youre only going to respond to a partial sentence?

Slagging implies personal insults - Ive only criticised his work and analysis. He might be the greatest guy to know ever, but I dont care either way.

C) Both the links quoted Chomsky. They then examined and criticised his stated views. A link to Chomskys quote alone is useless without the criticism. Seeing as you refuse to accept any source other than Chomsky, perhaps you should visit his site and read some of his articles, perhaps the article cited and demolished in that blog you dismissed without reading.

From the article


The blog you ignored already examined the bombing. One janitor died in it as it was carried out in the middle of the night to minimise casualties. It was bombed on intelligence that nerve agents were being produced there and in response to the Embassy bombings carried out by AQ only 2 weeks before which killed 257 people, mainly Africans.

No NGO or other reputable agency working in Sudan reported any spike in deaths due to the bombing or loss of pharmaceutical supplies. the HRW communications director specifically denied Chomskys claim that they had prepared estimates of tens of thousands of deaths. Oh I know, you wont believe that. Heres the HRW documents on Sudan, knock yourself out digging out the one where HRW link the bombing to a medical shortage causing tens of thousands of deaths. You might start with the only document mentioning the bombing at all, the one which doesnt mention any such deaths or shortage. His other source was a German ambassador having a rant. And yet Chomsky persists in talking rubbish to the gullible.

Do you know what I find odd? Its that in every single source Ive found for Chomskys quote above, it never says "in terms of number of victims", it says "in terms of scale". Only Chomskys online, easily edited article uses that phrase instead of scale... Who knows, perhaps every other single source out there made the exact same mistake in quoting it. Even sites like Commondreams there on the first page. Maybe Chomsky went back and altered it slightly so it said the same thing but being different enough that he could fight it better. If he says scale, its a question of his judgement, if he says numbers he can later pretend he was only misinformed. Hard to say without access to a hardcopy of the article.



Of course it wasnt. UN mandates restricted the armies that had liberated Kuwait from doing anything about the suffering of the Shias and Kurds in Iraq. But then, isnt the UN the greatest thing ever? If only the UN could run everything.

To do the right thing, the UN had to be sidelined. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

a) Its quicker
b) He repeatedy talks crap is kind of slagging but who cares its immaterial.
c) The guy lectures all the time. He probably does the same lecture many times with small differences, he also gets interviewed a lot so there are probably loads of slightly different versions of what he says. Considering the amount he publishes it must be easy to find mistakes, contradictions etc.

Regarding his point about the factory bombing in Sudan I have the hard copy of his 911 book. He's probably made this point many times talking and writing so there are probably many versions of the quote. He is refering to how the west has attacked many times. Imagine if the British fired a missile at Dublin in retaliation for Canary Wharf bombing. It would be an outrage. Yet we retaliate like that in the middle east and its ok. Besides the moral issue of doing this it also helps create more terrorists. How many people died because of that I don't know, doubt anybody knows.
In terms of scale, number of victims, don't see much difference between the two terms and like I said he writes and talks a lot so he's hardly going to use the same terms everytime. An attack doesn't just consist of those who die immediatly it also has long term cosequences. American NGO's and charities left the Sudan as a result, how many died because of that? Then the lack of medicines many more. The head of HRW said that they didn't investigate it and it would need thorough research to find out. HRW has repeatedly asked the US to investigate it and to show why they thought the factory was producing chemicals but they have not done so.

Its also a bit much assuming that anyone who goes to the lecture or reads him is doing so because he's some kind of media figure or fashionable dissident. Like everyone else people listen then take what they want from it. Very few people believe every word that someone says. As Chomsky says himself look at the facts and make up your own mind.
Considering the given view for the motivations of terrorists and the war in Iraq is one line slogans "they hate our freedom" etc many people want to hear other views that are a bit more sophisticated. I agree he does seem a bit "everything is Americas fault" but he is American so of course he talks a lot about America. If we want to understand why the west is being attacked we have to look at how the west has behaved towards the middle east. Saying this does in no way indicate support for the terrorists. Understanding the situation is the first step in solving it. All we hear about in the west is faceless psycho's brainwashed by Islam. Taking away human characteristics from people there and portraying them that way is simplistic and designed to numb us to whats happening over there.

jrey1981

GypsumFantastic wrote:

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

I have read significant evidence to suggest this was the case - I just cannot remember where. The US chose to ignore the facts and demonstrate the awesome power of the atom bomb to the rest of the world.

ronbyrne2005

jrey1981 wrote:

I have read significant evidence to suggest this was the case - I just cannot remember where. The US chose to ignore the facts and demonstrate the awesome power of the atom bomb to the rest of the world.

there was no need for a second atomic bomb,the japanese would have surrendered after one,also the first bomb could have been droped on to an military or naval installation rather than a civilian target.

Manic Moran

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

there was no need for a second atomic bomb,the japanese would have surrendered after one,also the first bomb could have been droped on to an military or naval installation rather than a civilian target.

Heaven forbid that Hiroshima's Army depots, naval base and communications center might qualify as military targets.

As for the likelihood of surrender after the first bomb, that is still a matter of some dispute. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet was evenly split on the issue, and the Emperor himself basically made the decision. Bear in mind that in terms of sheer destruction in one raid, Japan had been through worse, such as the incendiary bombing of Tokyo.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Heaven forbid that Hiroshima's Army depots, naval base and communications center might qualify as military targets.

Makes you wonder then why they dropped in on the city itself and not its military structures then. Hiroshima had little military importance what-so-ever compared to other cities in Japan. It was one of the few cities with no POW camps in it though.

TBH up until this point I have never heard anyone argue that it was dropped for damaging military structures.

Japan had been through worse, such as the incendiary bombing of Tokyo.

True however to that point the thought of "one bomb" doing so much destructive damage was unheard of.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Makes you wonder then why they dropped in on the city itself and not its military structures then. Hiroshima had little military importance what-so-ever compared to other cities in Japan. It was one of the few cities with no POW camps in it though.

Well, if you were going to try to take out a whole bunch of things with one bomb, it makes sense to aim in the middle, no?

Besides, the whole civilian argument is irrelevant. By the standards of the time, the actions were quite acceptable, and cities had been valid targets for the previous five years. The only difference was, as you point out below, that it was done with a single bomb. Otherwise, it was business as usual and it is a mistake to judge the actions of 60 years past, in the throes of total war, by the moral standards of today.

TBH up until this point I have never heard anyone argue that it was dropped for damaging military structures.

Truman's diary entry, July 25 1945:
"I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord.

The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered"

A somewhat amusing read is this section taken from the minutes of the first meeting of the targetting committee. Somehow, I can't imagine this sort of thing being written today:

"It should be remembered that in our selection of any target, the 20th Air Force is operating primarily to laying waste all the main Japanese cities, and that they do not propose to save some important primary target for us if it interferes with the operation of the war from their point of view. Their existing procedure has been to bomb the hell out of Tokyo, bomb the aircraft, manufacturing and assembly plants, engine plants and in general palayse the aircraft industry so as to eliminate opposition to the 20th Air Force operations. The 20th Air Force is systematically bombing out the following cities with the prime purpose in mind of not leaving one stone lying on another:... Colonel Fisher also advised that the 20th Air Force existing operational plans pointed toward dropping 100,000 tons of bombs on Japan per month by the end of 1945"

That is the sort of standards of the time that the world was dealing with. That a city was chosen instead of some outlying military facility was of course deliberate, the whole point was shock effect. It is also to be noted that part of the choice of Hiroshima was precisely for the analytical purpose of finding out just what the bomb's effects were. That there was a good military presence there, it had so far been untouched by 20th AF, and also military factories were around made the site 'perfect.' This site has an indicator of Hiroshima's state before the bombing.

http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html

True however to that point the thought of "one bomb" doing so much destructive damage was unheard of.

The daft thing was that given the production rates of the A-Bombs, the USAF would have dropped far more power in conventional bombs than in A-Bombs had the war continued with full use of both. The very fact that it was only one bomb that did the damage is what villifies the A-Bomb drops, the damage in itself was, well, not incidental, but not something in particular to set records.

NTM

Sand

Unfortunately you're wrong on that. The opinion of the governments of the Middle East, the fact Saddam still had a reasonably strong army (unlike in 2003, when it was virtually non-existent thanks to 12 years of sanctions) and the fact the US wanted Saddam to remain in power (at least ahead of a state with an independent Kurdish north and Shia south) were the reasons they didn't occupy Iraq. They would have been faced with an uprising from Cairo to Peshawar.

Unfortunately Im not. The UN mandate was only to liberate Kuwait. Invading Iraq and completing the removal of Saddam would have split the coalition, with the European and Arab members retreating or working against it. The Europeans because they wouldnt want to endanger their oil supplies, the Arabs because any argument for removing Saddam would be quite compatible with their own regimes as well.

a) Its quicker

Its annoying, and it saves you no time when you highlight and quote a few words seperately below.

b) He repeatedy talks crap is kind of slagging but who cares its immaterial.

Yeah, kind of. Kind of is 100% conclusive by Chomsky standards so I can understand the confusion.

c) The guy lectures all the time. He probably does the same lecture many times with small differences, he also gets interviewed a lot so there are probably loads of slightly different versions of what he says. Considering the amount he publishes it must be easy to find mistakes, contradictions etc.

Were not talking about a lecture, were talking about an article and the interview he gave on that article and on that quote in particular. Hes not writing it out by hand a million times and decorating the passages like the Book of Kells. If there are changes between what he orginally wrote, and what hes now got on his site its more than likely a deliberate edit. And Im quite inclined to believe he would do that.

Imagine if the British fired a missile at Dublin in retaliation for Canary Wharf bombing. It would be an outrage. Yet we retaliate like that in the middle east and its ok.

Yadayada - imagine this, imagine that, imagine your uncle was your auntie. The bombing of the Sudan factory was not a random revenge attack, it was a strike on a factory suspected of producing nerve agents in the middle of relatively unpopulated industrial district in the middle of the night to minimise casualities, in response to bombings 2 weeks prior that killed hundreds. Stick to the facts, not what you or Chomsky wish it was.

Its also a bit much assuming that anyone who goes to the lecture or reads him is doing so because he's some kind of media figure or fashionable dissident.

Thats exactly why they go. They certainly dont go to be enlightened by a guy whose analysis if often hyped up nonsense based on suspect or downright deceitful information. Youve seen the sort of deceit he engages in with the Sudan situation, forcing the HRW to deny his claims. He invents HRW reports. How can you trust his other analysis? And dont tell me you run off to check his claims with your own investigations. Youve fought tooth and nail to deny what he said on Sudan demanding I go do your investigation for you rather than look for yourself. Even now when its demonstrated for you its "Ah give Chomsky a break, hes a busy man. Who can keep track of the facts when hes so busy?" Im sorry, it doesnt give me the impression of a detached examination of the arguments to discover the hidden truth.

Considering the given view for the motivations of terrorists and the war in Iraq is one line slogans "they hate our freedom" etc many people want to hear other views that are a bit more sophisticated.

Actually as mocked as that Bush quote is, it is closer to the truth than arguing AQ are the arab nationalist front despite them targeting arabs....(BTW, theres a further link there on the right)

bonkey

Sand wrote:

. The bombing of the Sudan factory was not a random revenge attack, it was ... in response to bombings 2 weeks prior that killed hundreds.

I've cut out some other (extraneous) bits of what it was, but it seems to me that you're saying its not revenge....its revenge under a different name.

The bombing wasn't carried out because it was allegedly a nerve-agent factory. The decision to bomb was made - as you point out - as a form of "retaliation" for a prior attack against US interests. The implication is that had the bombnig which killed hundreds not been carried out, this factory would not have been bombed.

So the analagy is fully accurate. A nation was bombed in response to an attack carried out by terrorists with some tenuous connection to the nation.

Just like Chomsy pointed out - how we would we feel if Ireland was bombed in retaliation (lest you object to the word revenge) to an IRA attack on UK interests.

Claiming that its a completely unrelated, spurious, what-if scenario is disingenuous. A nation was attacked in response to a terrorist activity. Would Irish people accept that as a reason for their nation being attacked? Would British? Americans? Hell no. Would Irish people accept America being attacked by a third party using such justification? Well - if they did, they'd almost automatically be branded anti-American. Does this make American actions anti-Sudanese? Anti-Islamic? Anti-Arabic? Or still just "perfectly justified and reasonable"...just like the slaughter wreaked by a hellfire missile in a Pakistani village a week or so ago was, apparently.

jc

edanto

Full text of the Chomsky 'War on Terror' RDS lecture http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/5051/

MP3s of the RDS talk, Q&A session and an interview with Eamonn Dunphy, all on the newstalk site at http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

bobbyjoe wrote:

Its also a bit much assuming that anyone who goes to the lecture or reads him is doing so because he's some kind of media figure or fashionable dissident.

Sand wrote:

Thats exactly why they go.

Sand, what do you base your assumptions about the people that go to the Chomsky lectures on? I've seen the sort of dismissive debating style that you have, how can I trust your analysis?

Say, for example, do you really believe your filibuster cartoon site? Would you really trust an American political site like that to give an accurate represenation of the position of Al-Q? No chance it might be over simplified?

To look closely at the 'they hate our freedoms' assumption, I could point you to pg 11 of the Chomsky RDS speech where he said

The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, writes that “bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.” Osama’s concern “is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world,” Scheuer writes: “He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.” As Osama constantly repeats, “Al Qaeda supports no Islamic insurgency that seeks to conquer new lands.”

A Pentagon advisory Panel concluded a year ago that “Muslims do not `hate our freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies,”

- but you would probably dismiss his research, right? I mean, I've not actually read the Scheuer reference, nor was I part of any Pentagon advisory panel and Chomsky is obviously unhinged since he's so opposed to the establishment...

In that case, let me point you to a statement that Al-Q made in Oct 01 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1590350.stm

Let the United States know that with God's permission, the battle will continue to be waged on its territory until it leaves our lands, stops its support for the Jews, and lifts the unjust embargo on the Iraqi people who have lost more than one million children.

Before you find the temptation irresistable to shout, "Ah HA - implicit support for Hussein by Al-Q!!", I'll just point you at pg 5 of this document prepared by the Library of Congress on Al-Q statements and ideology. Bin Laden is quoted as saying “We, as Muslims, do not like the Iraqi regime but we think that the Iraqi people and their children are our brothers and we care about their future.”

That should show clearly that the Al-Q position is more detailed than 'they hate our freedoms' and I was able to show that with twenty minutes of interneting. It's nowhere near the truth to suggest that they are freedom hating maniacs - but putting them in that distorting frame suits an administration that wants to use maximum military effort against a distant enemy.

So, why would I go to the trouble of researching the goals of an organisation that I detest?

'Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding' - Einstein

edanto

edanto wrote:

Full text of the Chomsky 'War on Terror' RDS lecture http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/5051/

MP3s of the RDS talk, Q&A session and an interview with Eamonn Dunphy, all on the newstalk site at http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

Good a nice legal source.
I take chomsky with a large tumbler of salt to be honest but its good to hear his views.

Sand, what do you base your assumptions about the people that go to the Chomsky lectures on? I've seen the sort of dismissive debating style that you have, how can I trust your analysis?

You could start by disecting it with reasonable counter points like he does with every one else.When people fail to do that I usually take it that they cant and ergo I apply more weight to the unopposable view.
You've defacto done that in your post by picking a part of what chomsky said and presenting it to Sand as a rebuttal.
Now I await Sands response

Subscription to the thread added

Sand

The bombing wasn't carried out because it was allegedly a nerve-agent factory. The decision to bomb was made - as you point out - as a form of "retaliation" for a prior attack against US interests. The implication is that had the bombnig which killed hundreds not been carried out, this factory would not have been bombed.

So it was bombed simply because it happened to be in a Islamic region of the world? They were out to get some random Muslim as payback so it was just some poor guys bad luck to be Muslim and a janitor of a factory in an industrial park?

For the relationship between the bombings and the factory strike, Id imagine Clinton had the intel on this factory on his desk for quite some time but couldnt see his way to justifying a strike out of the blue on intelligence that could always be wrong. When the embassy bombings came along, like the WTC attacks, they placed the onus on striking at terrorist targets rather than preparing the case for the prosecution. Call it revenge if you like, but it wasnt some random angry lashing out, it was carried out because the bombings changed the political realities facing Clinton, making strikes that were politically impossible, possible. They did not provide Clinton with the impetus to deal decisively with AQ and Co though, it took 9/11 for that.

BJs analalogy is that the British just randomly bomb somewhere in Dublin as payback for a bombing in London. Theres a lot wrong with the analogy between Ireland and Sudan for starters. Irelands a lawful country that co-operates in defeating terrorism. Sudan is not, and is currently engaging in ethnic cleansing in Darfur which does not impress me with their zeal for doing the right thing. Why would Britain bomb Ireland when we are their ally in defeating the IRA? The whole Ireland-Sudan analogy breaks down before it even lifts off.

Secondly the US strike was not random, they didnt just carpet bomb Khartoum. They struck a specific target, with specific cause, taking measure to minimise casualities so that only one person died. So again, the analogy of the UK just bombing Dublin as payback breaks down.

Thirdly, BJs analogy links the UK attack on Dublin with the action of Irish (or to be realistic, theyre more than likely from Belfast/UK) terrorists. An attack on Ireland in retaliation for Irish terrorists. There is no indication that the Embassy bombers were Sudanese, though they may have had links there. It is known Bin Laden spent time there and had business interests in Sudan. Neither were their aims some form of Sudanese nationalism. The Sudanese factory was targeted because of intelligence on the activity carried out there, not simply because it was a Sudanese factory.

An accurate analogy would be

"So Sand, say you lived in a lawless 3rd world state riven by civil war, ethnic cleansing and poverty. A factory in this state is identified by some distant, demonised superpower as producing nerve agents as part of a terrorist plot. They do not trust your government, representive as it is of the Sudanese people (who they might end up being is currently being decided with systematic rape, machetes and bullets), to investigate and arrest the wrongdoers and instead launch a pinpoint missle strike on the factory in the middle of the night, killing one person and destroying the factory - How does that make you feel!?!?!?"

Well seeing as theres a good chance my Sudanese government is trying to kill me and/or my family, who can say if that nerve gas is intended for me? Id say good on them. But then, Im not a sucker for the "800 years" justification of SFIRA either, so Im maybe not a good test case for tribalistic appeals.

So the analagy is fully accurate. A nation was bombed in response to an attack carried out by terrorists with some tenuous connection to the nation.

Why limit yourself to a nation Bonkey? Why not "a continent was bombed", or even better yet "a planet was bombed"? We could do re-enactments with clips from Star Wars IV.

Claiming that its a completely unrelated, spurious, what-if scenario is disingenuous.

And claiming Ireland is a good substitute for Sudan isnt? Its a lazy and illogical analogy that has only served to distract attention from the actual topic.

Sand, what do you base your assumptions about the people that go to the Chomsky lectures on? I've seen the sort of dismissive debating style that you have, how can I trust your analysis?

On what Chomsky offers his audience. Bad analysis supported by bad information. And with Chomskys relentlessly unsurprising conclusions, I suspect that the analysis comes first, and the "facts" come later. He may get it right sometimes, like a stopped clock is right twice a day, but are my standards of asking analysis to be at least reasonably trustworthy ridiculously high? Claiming a HRW estimate exists is credible, but it was a lie. How many other credible "facts" are in Chomskys work that slip by because A) Theyre little lies, like saying a HRW study exists that doesnt or Because Chomsky fans are extremely forgiving of his "mistakes" despite kicking and screaming over any accusation of inaccuracy in Chomskys work?

A guy like Chomsky would be destroyed on this board with its constant requests for links to backup and sources. If a lecturer cant meet the standards of a message board, then hes not really worth seeing for anything other than the media circus? Are people saying that Chomsky is as good as it gets for those who oppose US foreign policy? A guy whose a notoriously bad fact checker?

Say, for example, do you really believe your filibuster cartoon site? Would you really trust an American political site like that to give an accurate represenation of the position of Al-Q? No chance it might be over simplified?

Its a cartoon, of course its simplified. And its Canadian, not American. But it does make the point that yes, a large part of the AQ view of the world is hostile towards secularism or what we would describe as liberal democracy, despite the "informed" sneering that greeted the "they hate our freedoms" speech. And youll have to forgive me and my over-simplified view of Bin Laden and Co, but why is AQ in Iraq targeting Shia Muslims and trying to provoke a Shia-Sunni civil war? Arent they all Middle Easterners motivated to join AQ by Western inteference in the ME? Shouldnt they be teaming up, not trying to kill each other? Why are they blowing up Jordanian hotels full of Muslims celebrating weddings when they should be getting feted by these guys as heroes fighting the Great Satan? Im sorry, Ive just got this crazy idea that theres more to AQ than being some sort of Arab vigilante force.

Theres a lot of simple analysis out there. Not all of them are offered by Bush. The cartoon was making that point, not providing a detailed analysis of its own.

- but you would probably dismiss his research, right? I mean, I've not actually read the Scheuer reference, nor was I part of any Pentagon advisory panel and Chomsky is obviously unhinged since he's so opposed to the establishment...

I wouldnt trust Chomsky to have quoted him correctly or in context, given the way he quotes newspaper reviews of his books. Even if he were accurate, Id disagree with the analysis. Bin Laden and AQ have a vision for the Arab and Islamic world. They would not be satisfied with an Islamic world without American troops and embassies, but still with local secular dictatorships, or even secular, representitive democracies. To claim otherwise, would be, dare I say it, overly simple. And ironic, because no one is willing to extend Bush the credibility that he may have gone to war in Iraq because he thought they had WMDs, but are quite willing to believe Bin Laden that hes going to war because the US protected Bosnian muslims from genocide in the Balkans. But then, only American leaders can lie about their intentions or motivations, right?

As for the Pentagon panel, are "AQ" and "Muslims" interchangeable now? Bush was not referring to Muslims when he said "they hate our freedoms".

Before you find the temptation irresistable to shout, "Ah HA - implicit support for Hussein by Al-Q!!", I'll just point you at pg 5 of this document prepared by the Library of Congress on Al-Q statements and ideology. Bin Laden is quoted as saying “We, as Muslims, do not like the Iraqi regime but we think that the Iraqi people and their children are our brothers and we care about their future.”

A) I do not consider it all that likely that Saddam had anything to do with AQ, despite the enemy of my enemy stuff. IIRC, my position was that seeing as Saddam had already developed and employed WMDs it was quite likely they would do so again, but that I didnt care either way because removing Saddam was justification in itself. So, wasting your time with that tbh.

Im sure his brothers are delighted with the care he has extended so far. Does he gift wrap all the suicide bombers he sends them to exspress his love for them?

So, why would I go to the trouble of researching the goals of an organisation that I detest?

I dont know, why wouldnt you?

'Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding' - Einstein

There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.
George Orwell

Yes, I know I quote Orwell too much, but he is very quotable.

ianmc38

sand doubles as a soothsayer on weekends, as his intellect obviously stretches much fartehr than that of Noam Chomsky.