Noam Chomsky Lecture

Sand

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

Touche?

edanto

Great! Orwell tennis.
And I even found one relevant to the War On Terror.

George Orwell wrote:

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.

Loads to talk about from your good post, but I'll leave it to the morning.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

So it was bombed simply because it happened to be in a Islamic region of the world?

I won't diognify that with a response.

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.

So instead, he waited until he had any sort of justification to strike "out of the blue", on intelligence that could be wrong.

He still used the actions of a terrorist group as justification to attack a nation.

Call it revenge if you like, but it wasnt some random angry lashing out,

So you accept that it was revenge. Thats what I was questioning. The "random" comment I took to be nothing but misleading flippantry, as there was clearly nothing random about it.

BJs analalogy is that the British just randomly bomb somewhere in Dublin as payback for a bombing in London.

He didn't sugegst it was random, any more than I argued that the Sudanese response was random. You've invented this "random" element from somewhere, for some reason I can't fathom.

Theres a lot wrong with the analogy between Ireland and Sudan for starters. Irelands a lawful country that co-operates in defeating terrorism.

So? I wasn't aware that such co-operation was a requirement for a nation to have sovereign rights.

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.

"Just" bombing Dublin? Thats a bit disingenuous, or is your problem that we didn't specify exactly the target and nature of the operation to make it unarguably similar? What if our Dail was bombed at night, while empty, because of our government's willnigness to allow the political arm of the terrorist group responsible for Canary Wharf to openly conduct its business there? Or if it was some presumed-empty SF headquarters?

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.

Now you're apparently suggesting that a better analagy would be if the UK were to bomb, say, some non-irish target because they were attacked by the IRA!

A suspected American arms-dealer, perhaps? A business connection of the IRA, in a third-party nation....if thats not lacking enough detail to be classed as "random" for you?

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!?!?!?"

You think thats accurate?

Where was the terrorist plot? Where was the link to the terrorist attack which triggered the bombing, given that you've basically admitted that there was no evidence the terrorists were Sudanese, and the best you can say is that they may have had links there?

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.

We could indeed, if we decide to leave reality behind us.

Why a country? Why not a continent or planet?

Lets see...I'm not aware of a United Planet organisation, nor of a UInited Continents. I am not aware of any form of international law which draws contintental or full-planet boundaries in terms of defining limits of powers and/or rights.

You may not disagree with the bombing of Sudan, and thats your perogative, but the simple truth is that there was no justification under established international practice and law (as much as international law exists) which makes the US attack on Sudan anything other than an unprovoked act of war.

One nation attacked another. It did not do so in retaliation to an action carried out previously by the nation it attacked, but rather in "retaliation" to a thinly-related event.

And claiming Ireland is a good substitute for Sudan isnt?

Its got nothing to do with the nation being attacked. It has to do with respecting the concepts of international boundaries. While I know you have an incredibly low opinion of the UN, I hardly see how establishing a practice that says "acts of war are ok, as long as you're the good guys" is going to improve things at all.

Its a lazy and illogical analogy that has only served to distract attention from the actual topic.

No, its not lazy and illogical. Its clearly shownig the distinction between the position I would apparently share with Chomsky, and yours.

I (and Chomsky) would argue that international sovereignty is a concept that can only work when its applied to allnations, regardless of what we think of them, how they run their country etc. We have established channels for resolving issues, up to and including the authorisation for war. We should use those...especially if we're claiming that we're the law-abiding good-guys.

Your position appears to be that we should only do this when dealnig with other such good-guys, and when dealing with nations we don't like, or don't trust, or who are just downright evil in our eyes....well....the rules we wrote clearly don't apply to us in those cases....we can do what we want.

This is exactly the mindset that Chomsky was attacking when he was so critical of the US attacks....that the nations involved somehow make a difference when deciding if an actions was justified/correct or not. So if Nation A decides its way of life is threatened by Nation B, it can do whatever it likes to protect itself. If B does the same to A, however, it is wrong, as would Nation C to nation D be wrong, but D attacking C would be fine.

I hardly see discussing that point in greater detail - whether distinguishing between the nations involved should or should not make a difference - as diversionary. I would see it as the core of Chomsky's argument.....which makes it difficult to be distracting attention away from anything.

jc

gaf1983

bonkey wrote:

Its got nothing to do with the nation being attacked. It has to do with respecting the concepts of international boundaries. While I know you have an incredibly low opinion of the UN, I hardly see how establishing a practice that says "acts of war are ok, as long as you're the good guys" is going to improve things at all.

The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty offers compelling arguments about why the concepts of international boundaries should not be respected all the time. As it states on page 27,

2.1 Millions of human beings remain at the mercy of civil wars, insurgencies, state repression and state collapse. This is a stark and undeniable reality, and it is at the heart of all the issues with which this Commission has been wrestling. What is at stake here is not making the world safe for big powers, or trampling over the sovereign rights of small ones, but delivering practical protection for ordinary people, at risk of their lives, because their states are unwilling or unable to protect them.

and

2.10 The established and universally acknowledged right to self-defence, embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, was sometimes extended to include the right to launch punitive raids into neighbouring countries that had shown themselves unwilling or unable to stop their territory from being used as a launching pad for cross-border armed raids or terrorist attacks. But all that said, the many examples of intervention in actual state practice throughout the 20th century did not lead to an abandonment of the norm of non-intervention.

So that said, the attacks by the US on Sudan were arguably justified under the right to self-defence in Article 51 of the UN Chater, as Sudan showed itself unwilling or unable to stop its territory being used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks.

Did anyone read Kevin Myers' piece on Chomsky today? For Myers, this is what the current War on Terrorism boils down to:

This sixth world war is moreover made infinitely more trying by the backward nature of Arab culture. Spain translates more foreign books into Spanish every year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic over the past thousand years. There are millions of pious Arabs who know nothing whatever about the non-Arab world, and for whom the intellectual processes of enquiry, analysis, scepticism and logic are utterly alien.

To such people, education consists of the endless repetition of sacred scripts, Shariah law and recitations of the jihadist loathing of the infidel enemy. Their brains are thus shaped and warped by the blunt instruments of rote and hate. And far from this backwardness being enlightened by the far more sophisticated Islamic countries of Asia, the reverse is happening.

Pakistani, Afghan, Bangladeshi and Indonesian Islam are being Arabised, though two agencies. One is the madrasahs, the Saudi-backed religious schools which are effectively embassies promoting the foreign policy of the fundamentalist Salafiyya/Wabbahi movements. The other is Al Jazeera, the satellite network which promotes jihad and "martyrdom operations" and whose viewers mostly live within a medieval religious culture which has experienced the equivalent of neither the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter Reformation nor the Enlightenment.

The US State Department analyst Tony Corn has identified five columns to the Islamic insurgency. The first four are the house of al-Saud; the now virulently Islamic al-Azhar university in Cairo, in terms of theological authority the equivalent of the College of Cardinals in Rome; al-Qaeda, and Al Jazeera. The fifth column is just that: it is the academic fifth column in Western campuses (as quintessentially represented by Noam Chumpsky and his followers) which, as Tony Corn says, "is increasingly providing both conceptual ammunition and academic immunity to crypto-jihadists, making Western campuses safe for intellectual terrorism".

sovtek

gaf1983 wrote:

The report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty offers compelling arguments about why the concepts of international boundaries should not be respected all the time. As it states on page 27,

I'm just curious as to who or what the ICISS is and when was it ratified and signed by the US along with other UN member nations or a UNGA or UNSC vote on it.

carl_

GypsumFantastic wrote:

"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?"

Sand wrote:

I wouldnt trust Chomsky to have quoted him correctly or in context, given the way he quotes newspaper reviews of his books.

I've done a small bit of searching on this and so far all I've come up with is...

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/mc/mc-supp-019.html wrote:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

The New York Times Book Review, February 25, 1979

Can you tell me how you came across your version?

edanto

In the film version of Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky remarks to an auditorium about how the truncated version of that quote is often touted and then reads out the whole quote, to laughter.

He's a big enough man to find the episode funny - I think it's obvious that he didn't personally chose the quote for the dust jacket.

I think that focusing on this kind of pedantic detail distracts from the thrust of his arguments. (although that may be the objective of those that disagree with him)

carl_

Well, it doesn't surprise me if GypsumFantastic is correct, as the portion "maddeningly simple-minded" indicates something of a negative review. I agree with you on:

edanto wrote:

I think that focusing on this kind of pedantic detail distracts from the thrust of his arguments. (although that may be the objective of those that disagree with him)

Sand

So you accept that it was revenge. Thats what I was questioning. The "random" comment I took to be nothing but misleading flippantry, as there was clearly nothing random about it.

Bonkey, thats below you. You know what I said, I wont type it out again.

He didn't sugegst it was random, any more than I argued that the Sudanese response was random. You've invented this "random" element from somewhere, for some reason I can't fathom.

What BJ said

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.

Dublin is a pretty big place. If you want a missle to hit some target in particular you need to give better directions than "Dublin". Even north, or south side would be a help. But if youre not bothered where in Dublin you hit "Dublin" will do just fine.

You think thats accurate?

Where was the terrorist plot? Where was the link to the terrorist attack which triggered the bombing, given that you've basically admitted that there was no evidence the terrorists were Sudanese, and the best you can say is that they may have had links there?

Yep, I do. In fact, thats quite an accurate description of the actual event that hasnt been transported a thousand miles and lightyears in context from actual events. And its common knowledge I thought that the Khartoum government hosted Bin Laden during the 1990s - If you read the Irish Times today, youd see that noted briefly in the story on page 11 regarding Sudans efforts to shed its pariah status. Bin Laden has numberous business interests there and assisted the Khartoum crowd in their fight against Southern Christian and animist seperatists.

Seriously Bonkey, the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Its a lousy analogy, and claiming Sudan=Ireland is an insult to the people who risk life and limb to get out of Sudan and get to places like Ireland. They see a difference in the ethos of the government and the society, maybe you cant with the mantra "All states are exactly the same and must be treated exactly the same", but they do. Sometimes the spirit of the law has to come before slavish devotion to the letter of it.

We could indeed, if we decide to leave reality behind us.

Hey, Im sticking to the facts - youre trying to imply Sudan was attacked, when Sudan is a patched up artificial creation where the Khartoum government was busy fighting a civil war against the South and is currently waging a genocidal campaign in Darfur. But when it suits, theyre all one big happy clappy family? Give me a break. Sudan exists only on maps. The factory was attacked because of what was going on there, not of where it was. Trying to portray an attack on a factory producing nerve agents as an attack on Sudan itself is nonsense.

One nation attacked another. It did not do so in retaliation to an action carried out previously by the nation it attacked, but rather in "retaliation" to a thinly-related event.

Maybe, but who attacked who? Sudan hosted a terrorist who was launching attacks on the US. Are you seriously arguing that they could be trusted to investigate and prosecute a factory that is suspected of producing nerve agents? The U.S. took the only realistic option open to it.

That U.N. mindset is locked in a WW2 style view of the world order. States can only declare war on states, states cannot fight wars against multi-national groups or organisations. Post-nationalist terrorist groups that ignore legal nicities like borders dont exist. All states are law abiding, strive to uphold human rights and political liberty and are eager to do their part in erradicating terrorist groups. All terrorists wear uniforms and are either career criminals or proffessional soldiers.

Theres a difference between how you want the world to be and how it is. Getting the two confused is dangerous for all concerned.

I (and Chomsky) would argue that international sovereignty is a concept that can only work when its applied to allnations, regardless of what we think of them, how they run their country etc. We have established channels for resolving issues, up to and including the authorisation for war. We should use those...especially if we're claiming that we're the law-abiding good-guys.

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

Im getting value for money out of that quote in fairness.

All states are not the same. Many, many states are little more than armed gangs looting their own people. Again, how we want the world to be and how the world is are two very different things.

Your position appears to be that we should only do this when dealnig with other such good-guys, and when dealing with nations we don't like, or don't trust, or who are just downright evil in our eyes....well....the rules we wrote clearly don't apply to us in those cases....we can do what we want.

My position is that laws are a tool to *help* achieve good government or a good outcome. They are not good government or a good outcome in and of themselves. What if the laws are set to protect the corrupt and the cruel?What then? Did the people who broke down the Berlin wall break any laws doing so? Should they be arrested or denounced for not petitioning the U.N. to do something about the regime they were under?

I think that focusing on this kind of pedantic detail distracts from the thrust of his arguments. (although that may be the objective of those that disagree with him)

The thrust of that argument has to be based on reliable information or its useless. Its not pedantic to note that Chomsky is notoriously untrustworthy and dishonest regarding the basis for the thrust of his arguments. Would you reckon that reminding the likes of David Irving that the holocaust *did* happen is focusing on pedantic detail that distracts from the thrust of *his* arguments?

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Seriously Bonkey, the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. Its a lousy analogy, and claiming Sudan=Ireland is an insult to the people who risk life and limb to get out of Sudan and get to places like Ireland.

I've never claimed Sudan = Ireland, so there's no hole to dig out of. I've claimed that Chomsky's stance is based on the assumption that the rules which determine what is and is not acceptable in terms of inter-national relations should be unrelated to the nations involved. Thus, an example using Ireland is every bit as valid as any other example.

Hey, Im sticking to the facts - youre trying to imply Sudan was attacked,
when Sudan is a patched up artificial creation where the Khartoum government was busy fighting a civil war against the South and is currently waging a genocidal campaign in Darfur. But when it suits, theyre all one big happy clappy family? Give me a break. Sudan exists only on maps.

SO a nation only counts as a nation when it suits? The borders that the western powers drew in some parts of the world are inviolable despite having resulted in "patched up artificial creations", but when we're talking about a nation where such inviolability would be awkward....nah....they're just stupid lines on a map that no-one takes seriously.

The factory was attacked because of what was going on there, not of where it was.

The factory was attacked when it was in response to a non-related event. The US chose to act unilaterally, rather than follow established channels, usnig a non-related event as some sort of bullsh1t justification.

If you want to defend it on these lines, then explain why it was attacked in response to a terrorist attack, and not on its own merits? Seems to me that you're the one digging here, because after putting yourself in the hole of saying it was in response to a terrorist attack against hte US, you're now trying to argue that there were all sorts of other valid reasons.

Its the type of shifting argument that seems quite familiar: "They've got WMDs...oh...no...wait....its because they were despotic"

Im getting value for money out of that quote in fairness.

Yes, I've noticed that. Pithy quotes are a terrible substitute for a reasoned argument though.

So you've asserted that the notion of rules being objectively applied is so foolish that only the intelligent could be stupid enough to believe in it...eh?

I must say...I'm glad you don't run our legal system.

All states are not the same.

This is what it boils down to. Chomsky's fundamental disagreement is with exactly that mindset - the notion that we can decide that we should play by the rules when dealing with some nations, but not with others. The idea is one I find utterly repellant - that we can decide that by breaking the rules when it comes to some nations, the rules are not actually being broken.

Of course, when nations we don't like use similar arguments....then its not justifiable, but rather an indication of the contempt they ultimately hold our system in.

Again, how we want the world to be and how the world is are two very different things.

Yes indeed.

You want a world where the UN etc. are reformed to an image where the rule of law is applied differently depending on who's involved. Where an act will be criminal for one nation, but perfectly acceptable for another. Where subjectiveism from a single perspective will somehow become the definition of what is right and wrong for all nations.

I see how the world is, and how actions like the bombing of Sudan are in violation of the objective precepts that nations like the US have sworn to uphold.

I accept that the idealistic view of the UN may never come about. Then again, I also accept that we're never likely to eliminate murder from our streets, but that doesn't mean I'm going to suggest that its ok for a fine, law-abiding upstanding member of society to wipe out scumbags if he can offer any sort of half-assed "I felt threatened" excuse.

What if the laws are set to protect the corrupt and the cruel? What then?

You campaign to have the laws changed.

You don't decide that you are above the law where it disagrees with your own ideology, but still insist that others must be held accountable when you decide they should be despite the law disagreeing with their ideology.

Or you sign out. Walk away. Say "I'm not willing to be bound by this agreement any more". The US made a big deal when it withdrew from the NPT (or whichever nuclear treaty it was) some years ago, that the US does not break treaties. It abides by them, or withdraws when it is no longer willing to be held by them. That position, I can understand. The hypocracy of ignoring the laws when they're inconvenient, but still claiming both to be a fine law-abiding citizen and that others must comply fully with the law.....that I will not accept as anything but a contemptible stance.

Did the people who broke down the Berlin wall break any laws doing so?

I don't believe they did. However, thats not the point.

I have long admitted that the US actions some years ago in Eastern Europe were illegal but were (arguably) the least worst option. I still take that stance. The attack on Sudan was equally illegal, and I've yet to hear a single person argue that it was so and then go on to explain why it was the least-worst option. Time after time I instead hear the same old "but the laws shouldn't apply in this case, so nothing wrong was done" that you're repeating here.

This is the problem, because what it basically amounts to is an insistence that "I can do what I want, as long as I believe its right" is an acceptable basis for action.....but only when you agree with it. So what you basically end up with is "Whats right is what I decide" as the basic underlying tenent, which - in the real world - can only lead to one thing: Might is Right. He who can enforce his viewpoint with sufficient force is right.

Maybe that still is the reality of the world, but y'know what....its a ****ing terrible system which has never led to anything in the long term except conflict.

You see laws as a tool. Fine. Tools are only as useful as you can trust them to be. A law that might apply, sometimes, if you're friends with the right people....thats not a trustworthy tool. Thats just a handy means of justification for anything.

jc

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

Did the people who broke down the Berlin wall break any laws doing so?


I don't believe they did. However, thats not the point.

Destruction of government structures, illegal immigration, illegal emigration... That last one used to be a shooting offense on the East side.

NTM

Sand

I've never claimed Sudan = Ireland,

Grand, so its a lousy analogy to substitute one for the other and assume the same conditions exist in both. Thanks.

If you want to defend it on these lines, then explain why it was attacked in response to a terrorist attack, and not on its own merits? Seems to me that you're the one digging here, because after putting yourself in the hole of saying it was in response to a terrorist attack against hte US, you're now trying to argue that there were all sorts of other valid reasons.

And what I said....

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.

Yes, I've noticed that. Pithy quotes are a terrible substitute for a reasoned argument though.

They are the icing on the cake though, arent they?

So you've asserted that the notion of rules being objectively applied is so foolish that only the intelligent could be stupid enough to believe in it...eh?

Oh, so why did you run a mile in the first part of your post from comparing Ireland to Sudan? Go on then, indulge me by explaining why the Sudanese government is just as valid as Irelands - Id like to understand why you feel that legitimacy of a government/state is not linked to the will of the people being governed though. Irelands citizens vote for their government, Sudanese try to avoid getting killed by their government but minor detail Im sure.

I see how the world is, and how actions like the bombing of Sudan are in violation of the objective precepts that nations like the US have sworn to uphold.

Selectively though. You feel that Sudan, one of the worst violators of those objective precepts that it has signed up to, shouldnt have that held against it. That it should be considered exactly the same as a state that has a rather good record in upholding those precepts, and has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives in doing so.
Do you feel the AU was completely out of order in swinging an emergency deal to keep Sudan from chairing the organisation despite it being Sudans turn?

I don't believe they did. However, thats not the point.

Yes they did, and its exactly the point.

This is the problem, because what it basically amounts to is an insistence that "I can do what I want, as long as I believe its right" is an acceptable basis for action.....but only when you agree with it. So what you basically end up with is "Whats right is what I decide" as the basic underlying tenent, which - in the real world - can only lead to one thing: Might is Right. He who can enforce his viewpoint with sufficient force is right.

Maybe that still is the reality of the world, but y'know what....its a ****ing terrible system which has never led to anything in the long term except conflict.

As I said before the US took the only realistic option open to it in hitting the factory. Approaching either the Sudanese government or some UN bureacrat would only have tipped off the terrorists. Now if you would care to demonstrate how there was a whole host of better options in how they could deal with this factory, be my guest.

As for your impassioned denouncment might makes right - DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH - the entire thread you have been arguing for an invariable respect for the sovereignty of any state or government, regardless of whether they are representitive or not. That is explicit support for might makes right - if a dictator *can* oppress everyone else and run the country then by your version of international law, hes just as much right as any other state. Off the moral high horse please.

You see laws as a tool. Fine. Tools are only as useful as you can trust them to be. A law that might apply, sometimes, if you're friends with the right people....thats not a trustworthy tool. Thats just a handy means of justification for anything.

Who did those Germans knocking down that wall think they were? Did they get planning permission to carry out that demolition? I hope they locked them all up. They only get away with it because everyone thinks theyre "right". They probably think theyre generally good and law abiding people too. Hypocrites!

Akrasia

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?

The article you likned to was nothing more than a vitriolic rehash of refuted allegations about chomsky. It was about as journalistic as the average Fox news political debate, the claims that Chomsky is a revisionist are ridiculous, all he did was defend free speech with no endorsement of the content of that instance of free speech and the claims that he supports Pol Pot are absolutely ludicrous, i could find thousands of quotes from chomsky where he describes Pol pot as a monster, i doubt you could find even one where he defends the regime.

I even linked a prime example of the crap he talks

no you linked to a prime example of a groundless character assasination

- 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?

Chomsky's argument is that because that factory was destroyed, The only factory in the Sudan that produced medicines for the sudanese people, tens of thousands of people died from lack of medication as a direct result of clinton's 'mistake'. that is a fact. It takes a twisted mind to say that the death of these people is somehow lesser than the death of 3000 americans.

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

People like you perhaps. Just because you don't know anything about him doesn't mean nobody else does either.

- only a few posts ago he was apparently a martyr of those who oppose the US Republican party.

well he's not a martyr because he's still alive and fourishing, but he is a very strong ally of those who oppose the GOP

I reckon itll be a shock to a lot of those attending that hes not a Clinton fan, Irelands 2nd Kennedy.

nor is he a fan of JFK, Ireland's first Kennedy. You are claiming that Chomsky enjoys a 'cult of personality' and you are using the fact that he does not share Irelands and from what you are saying, your, overbearing obsession with JFK and Clinton's cult of their personality' as somehow proof that he is undeserving of our trust and respect?
Goodshape 20:55pm

And Chomsky has no information that can be taken seriously - hes a linguist, with no other standing or expertise

What persay is a necessary qualification before one's opinion counts in the field of politics and global affairs? Are we only allowed to listen to heads of state? perhaps a bachelor of arts degree in political science might give him a more reliable credential? Chomsky is one of the most well informed political commentators in the world today, he has written dozens of books, given countless lectures and done decades of research into his topics of expertise, he could pass any PHD course with flying colours if he so wished.

and a track record of misinformation to rival the CIA and extremely questionable value judgements that have seen him taking at least as many immoral positions on various dictatorships, events and groups as the governments he criticises.

this broad sweeping and unsubstantiated statement comes under the 'if enough people repeat it often enough it'll have to become true' school of slander and debasement. All of the allegations against him have been answered comprehensively. He does not support nazi revisionism, he was not a fan of pol pot, the allegations that he was defending pol pot came from the fact that Chomsky spoke out about the 10 years of secret bombings by the U.S. in cambodia that might have killed as many if not more people as Pol Pot did. It is also Ironic that the people who claimed that Chomsky supported his regime were defending Nixon and Kissinger who genuinely did support Pol Pot with far more than just the alleged praise Chomsky was accused of offering.

Dont worry, itll pass - anarchism relies on rigid application to the law to work

you obviously have no idea what anarchism is.

An anarchist revolt on Friday would end up as a police state dictatorship by Monday.

If there wsa a genuine anarchist revolution the police would no longer exist as a force to control a state dictatorship.
Anarchism would work based on 2 main changes to society, Workers local control of the means to production (private property) and direct democracy from the bottom up, meaning decisions are made by the people on the ground and then put to federal assemblies if there needs to be wider coordination. There is no concrete framework of an anarchist society because it would be up to each community to build one for themselves as they decide.

I'm not unsympathetic to anarchists views on the dangers of state power, but their system would devolve to tyranny like so many early attempts at democracy.

The biggest threat to a genuine anarchist society would not be from within, but from the interference of outside immoral and totalitarian regimes who do not want the threat of a good example to plant ideas in the minds of their own populations. this is why America sabbotaged and subverted every socialist movement in latin america and around the world in the 60's and 70's and continue to this day.

Húrin

A lot of what Chomsky says is right, but he seems inconsistent on the issue of humanitarian intervention. He makes the point that often what is declared as "humanitarian intervention" is nothing of the sort, and that the results are often not at all humanitarian, but he seems to have ruled out any possibility of a western country carrying out such an operation with justification.

I also have little respect for the man. Good as his points may be, he has his fingers in almost everything he denounces. Most of the stock he owns is in such respectable, constructive institutions as oil companies and the military-industrial complex. Nice.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Given his support for the totalitarianism of people like Pol Pot

This one's not true. He has often said how he respects the 1979 Vietnamese toppling of the Khmer Rouge, and attacked the US government of the time for supporting that regime.

Húrin

Sand wrote:

He appeals to the same crowd as Michael Moore does, end of. I dont really need to buy a Chomsky book or read any of his articles or attend any of his lectures. I've got a good idea of what his position is already. Indeed, I can predict the future - in every conflict or foreign policy between now and his death that involves the US - and even plenty that dont, hell lay the blame firmly at the door of the US. See? I saved you all that money and time youd have wasted buying his stuff.

Empirical evidence would suggest that he will oppose the US government in all future conflicts, but let's face it, none of us can predict the future.

Also, an outright refusal to read his material and then making judgements is just wilful ignorance. :mad:

Wicknight wrote:

I don't normally agree with Sand, but I think people should be a bit more causious in involving them in what Sand calls the "cult of personality"

By all means listen to what Chomsky says, agree with him disagree with him, but I think there is far too much "This guy is great, I will let him make up my mind on political views" going on in the modern world, be it Chomsky, Michael Moore, Gerry Adams, Bill O'Reilly etc etc.

I agree, people worship political idols and pundits without thinking way too much. This is not a new problem.

Sand wrote:

Really? Because thats all he and his tribute act, and *his* rival Coulter deal in. Ive never seen, nor heard of Chomsky taking anything other than a extreme view on events.

Ann Coulter is not Chomsky's rival. I'm not sure she's even Michael Moore's rival. If any one figure can be singled out as Chomsky's rival it's probably David Horowitz.