Noam on Iraq

[Guest MikeSC]

No.

 

You're just an anti-American anti-Semite.

+

If you were to constantly compare Canada to totalitarian regimes with atrocious human rights records --- and come to the conclusion that Canada is worse consistently --- yeah, you'd be anti-Canadian

Wow.

 

First, so what does being "anti-Canadian" mean, then?

 

 

 

Interesting?

 

I never said you were anti-Canadian. You might need to actually READ what was written.

 

It'd be a remarkable change for you.

Were Germans who denounced Hitler "anti-German?"

No, they'd be called "the distinct minority".

 

And, they'd be anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi. Loyalty oaths in Nazi Germany were taken to be loyal TO Hitler, NOT Germany.

People who feel that United States foreign policy is morally wrong are morally right to denouce it.

Yup.

 

And people can feel that civil rights groups are wrong and not be racist.

 

But they can also go to an extreme and become racist.

 

Just as people like...oh, say, you...can become anti-American.

 

Virulently so.

If you disagree with his assessment of, say, the morality of intervention in Indochina, let's stick to the issue itself rather than throwing words like anti-American out there.

Noam Chomksy is an anti-American dolt who has approximately ZERO idea of what American culture IS.

t's basically used to say "this guy would criticize no matter what, so don't listen to his criticism," - which raises the question, by that logic, what criticism of ourselves are we supposed to listen to, even if we don't agree with it?

No, it's used to say "This man ALWAYS bashes America. His opinion on the evils of America might not be all that well thought-out, considering how bloody idiotic his comments have been".

He didn't "underestimate". He CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAPPEN.

 

World of fucking difference.

No, he did not

I have provided quotes to back up my point.

 

You have not.

 

Hmm...

and all your basing that on is your signature which as I proved earlier is merely a bad case of juxtaposition.

No, your "context" only made the quote that much more damning. I find it hilarious that you fail to grasp that.

He underestimated (but did NOT deny) the crimes and later acknoweldged them. But I suppose if he's to fault for this, it totally discredits everything else he says right?

Yeah, calling reports of the atrocities "US propaganda" isn't denying it. Of course.

Um, it VERY much is disproving it. When somebody can prove that a rule you refer to as "universal" is NOT universal --- hey, then your rule HAS been disproven.

No, it hasn't.

Universal:

 

Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=universal

 

If something ISN'T universal, it ISN'T universal.

If I were to say that human's don't need air to breathe, would that mean breathing air to live isn't a universal truth?

No, you'd be an idiot for the first statement and bloody obvious for the latter one.

 

Thanks for the attempt at deep thought.

The correspondence between Chomsky and Faurisson is hardly what you make it out to be I might add.

Faurisson has proof otherwise. He will show it to anybody who asks.

Chomsky does not support the views of Faurisson, and i'd like to see any proof that he does.

His deep connection to VT is a problem.

I've outlined their relationship, including quotes straight from Chomsky regarding the issue that do not prove the position your trying to purport.

And I've provided quotes from people who are every inch as reliable as Chomsky.

 

Namely, Holocaust deniers.

Since this contradicts everything Chomsky has said publicly, the only way it would hold any sort of water is if you believe anything Faurisson has to say. And who does?

Noam Chomsky.

No one. The man's deeply disturbed, you can get that just from half a paragraph of his writings.

Chomsky doesn't.

Oh yeah, finally, the funniest thing is how people who disagree with Chomsky would rather do studies of Chomsky the man, slam him by associating him with types like Faurisson, instead of debating the issues.

The man is so idiotic and uneducated about the issues that debating them is not even a challenge.

 

Note how often his idiotic views are shot down.

Motives are questioned, why he wrote about this thing more often than that thing, and it's all totally irrelevant. Funny that you don't see the left writing books like "the Anti-Dershowitz Reader", for example It would make no sense, it'd be a waste of time, and if anyone bothered I don't think many would read it

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases (do you have a clue how much conservatives hate douches like Falwell?) --- you don't really have a point.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases (do you have a clue how much conservatives hate douches like Falwell?) --- you don't really have a point.

 

I'd love it if you'd elaborate on this point. Liberals seem to group all conservatives into one big monolithic block. I'm sure you'd have no problems explaining for us how conservatives fit into various sub-groups, or what the internal resentments are amongst different factions.

[Guest MikeSC]

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases (do you have a clue how much conservatives hate douches like Falwell?) --- you don't really have a point.

 

I'd love it if you'd elaborate on this point. Liberals seem to group all conservatives into one big monolithic block. I'm sure you'd have no problems explaining for us how conservatives fit into various sub-groups, or what the internal resentments are amongst different factions.

Mainstream conservatives LOATHE a huge chunk of the social conservative base. I am more tolerant of them than most conservatives, and I find groups like PTC to be abhorrent.

 

Look at it this way --- did you see guys like Falwell, Robertson, Bozell, et al during the RNC? Have you seen them in anything resembling a prominent position in the RNC for years?

 

Bush will make the occasional play for them, but you know what really matters to him by what he actually expends energy on. He can discuss the marriage amendment all day long --- he has not actually expended any energy to get it through Congress.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

[college asshole]Hellooooooo, Mike, they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS! Perhaps you think the patriots were the good guys? They were TERRORISTS, our nation was built on TERRORISM. You are simply not educated enough to realize this.[/college asshole]

I have never understood that line of reasoning. Never.

 

Boston Tea Party? Didn't target people, much less innocents.

 

Battles of Lexington and Concord? The patriots stood on the green in Lexington and were shot, the rest scattered, then fought back later in the day.

 

I hate when people do that.

[SuperJerk 0]

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases (do you have a clue how much conservatives hate douches like Falwell?) --- you don't really have a point.

 

I'd love it if you'd elaborate on this point. Liberals seem to group all conservatives into one big monolithic block. I'm sure you'd have no problems explaining for us how conservatives fit into various sub-groups, or what the internal resentments are amongst different factions.

Mainstream conservatives LOATHE a huge chunk of the social conservative base. I am more tolerant of them than most conservatives, and I find groups like PTC to be abhorrent.

 

Look at it this way --- did you see guys like Falwell, Robertson, Bozell, et al during the RNC? Have you seen them in anything resembling a prominent position in the RNC for years?

 

Bush will make the occasional play for them, but you know what really matters to him by what he actually expends energy on. He can discuss the marriage amendment all day long --- he has not actually expended any energy to get it through Congress.

-=Mike

What are some specific differences? Are the "mainstream conservatives" more interested in economic and national security issues?

[Guest MikeSC]

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases (do you have a clue how much conservatives hate douches like Falwell?) --- you don't really have a point.

 

I'd love it if you'd elaborate on this point. Liberals seem to group all conservatives into one big monolithic block. I'm sure you'd have no problems explaining for us how conservatives fit into various sub-groups, or what the internal resentments are amongst different factions.

Mainstream conservatives LOATHE a huge chunk of the social conservative base. I am more tolerant of them than most conservatives, and I find groups like PTC to be abhorrent.

 

Look at it this way --- did you see guys like Falwell, Robertson, Bozell, et al during the RNC? Have you seen them in anything resembling a prominent position in the RNC for years?

 

Bush will make the occasional play for them, but you know what really matters to him by what he actually expends energy on. He can discuss the marriage amendment all day long --- he has not actually expended any energy to get it through Congress.

-=Mike

What are some specific differences? Are the "mainstream conservatives" more interested in economic and national security issues?

Yes.

 

Bush is, whether some people like it or not, a mainstream conservative. He's definitely not far-right (his spending demonstrates that). Mainstream conservatives have some interest in social issues, but the primary concern is economic and nat'l security issues.

 

Mainstream conservatives really don't want the gov't controlling your life. Which is why we don't go nuts for things like gay marriage (which Bush doesn't care that much about).

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush is, whether some people like it or not, a mainstream conservative. He's definitely not far-right (his spending demonstrates that). Mainstream conservatives have some interest in social issues, but the primary concern is economic and nat'l security issues.

 

Mainstream conservatives really don't want the gov't controlling your life. Which is why we don't go nuts for things like gay marriage (which Bush doesn't care that much about).

-=Mike

Bush's seems to be the conservative leader with the closest ties to the religious conservatives.

 

Reagan always gave them enough lip service to get their vote, but Bush seems to me to actually believe as they do (although not as rigid).

 

Bush's strength is that he's equally at home in all three groups (economic, national security, and religious) and all of them realize he's the best thing going for putting forward their agenda.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is, whether some people like it or not, a mainstream conservative. He's definitely not far-right (his spending demonstrates that). Mainstream conservatives have some interest in social issues, but the primary concern is economic and nat'l security issues.

 

Mainstream conservatives really don't want the gov't controlling your life. Which is why we don't go nuts for things like gay marriage (which Bush doesn't care that much about).

            -=Mike

Bush's seems to be the conservative leader with the closest ties to the religious conservatives.

 

Reagan always gave them enough lip service to get their vote, but Bush seems to me to actually believe as they do (although not as rigid).

 

Bush's strength is that he's equally at home in all three groups (economic, national security, and religious) and all of them realize he's the best thing going for putting forward their agenda.

Bush definitely pays them lip service --- but think about it. Where does his EFFORTS go?

 

What is he going to expend more effort on? Social Security reform or a gay marriage amendment?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And, Bacon, an example of Chomsky.

 

10/18/01:

    After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to 1/2 of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. . . .

 

    Well we could easily go on . . . .but all of that . . . .first of all indicates to us what’s happening. Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months . . . .very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind of normal, here and in a good part of Europe.

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm

Now, please note, he's ALREADY stating a genocide in Afghanistan is taking place. I bolded the relevant sentence. He wanted Bush to NEGOTIATE with the Taliban --- as deplorable a group as exists --- and let the Afghan continue their existence under a downright evil regime.

 

So, immediately, he's already showing an astonishing lack of concern of the welfare of others.

 

He follows that up with THIS gem, from 11/10/01 (note the lack of time he spent before he OPENLY condemned the action)

    The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) had already warned, even before the bombing, that over seven million people would face starvation if military action were initiated. After the bombing began, it advised that the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe in the short term was very grave, and furthermore that the bombing has disrupted the planting of 80 per cent of the country's grain supplies, so that the effects next year will be even more severe.

 

    What the effects will be, we will never know. Starvation is not something that kills people instantly. People eat roots and leaves and they drag on for a while. And the effects of starvation may be the death of children born from malnourished mothers a year or two from now, and all sorts of consequences. Furthermore, nobody's going to look because the West is not interested in such things and others don't have the resources.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1824/nc.htm

Because, God knows, mass starvation is nothing if not easy to cover up.

 

And his response to his bilge, now that is has --- AS USUAL --- been proven wrong? In response to this question: "Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?

Mike Dudley, Ipswich

    That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe, and the bland announcements in the press that Washington had ordered Pakistan to eliminate "truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population."

 

    All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain. Unfortunately, it is apparently necessary to add a moral truism: actions are evaluated in terms of the range of anticipated consequences.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profi...sp?story=469811 (subscription required)

In his defense, he did predict nothing. He said it WAS HAPPENING. As in RIGHT NOW. No prediction, per se. Chomsky claimed that FAO was warning that military action would cause big problems, ignoring that FAO was actually stating was that 7M faced food shortage problems regardless and that bombing MIGHT make it worse. And note he now says he said it "might" happen --- when he, in fact, said it "will" happen.

 

The military action, of course, alleviated the problem.

 

So, again, he ignores a REAL genocide in Cambodia and rails on a fictitious one in Afghanistan.

 

THAT is why you can't take this stain on the undies of life seriously.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Noam Chomksy is an anti-American dolt who has approximately ZERO idea of what American culture IS.

 

This man ALWAYS bashes America. His opinion on the evils of America might not be all that well thought-out, considering how bloody idiotic his comments have been

 

The man is so idiotic and uneducated about the issues that debating them is not even a challenge.

 

Again, I'd put money on you not fully reading anything he's written. Prove me wrong.

 

Noam Chomsky is an uneducated dolt? The guy fucking teaches at one of the most revered technical institutions in the world. But I mean, if you say he knows nothing I guess you're right.

 

Considering that conservatives don't applaud their nutcases

 

Bush?

 

edit: didn't notice the thread above, will look at now.

[Justice 0]

Noam Chomksy is an anti-American dolt who has approximately ZERO idea of what American culture IS.

 

This man ALWAYS bashes America. His opinion on the evils of America might not be all that well thought-out, considering how bloody idiotic his comments have been

 

The man is so idiotic and uneducated about the issues that debating them is not even a challenge.

 

Again, I'd put money on you not fully reading anything he's written. Prove me wrong.

 

Noam Chomsky is an uneducated dolt? The guy fucking teaches at one of the most revered technical institutions in the world. But I mean, if you say he knows nothing I guess you're right.

Just because you are a mathamatician doesn't mean you are necessarily literate in the Ancient History of Mesapotamia. Linguistics doesn't seem to have much crossover value into International Relations and Politics, so one could very well argue that he is fairly misinformed or such in that area. I mean, just look at the Colorado topic if you need proof that just because you can teach doesn't mean you are intelligent.

 

Bush?

 

Says the man who reads commondreams.org...

[cbacon 0]

Mike:

 

Chomsky's response looks good to me. He didn't make a prediction, nor did he say a genocide was already happening (unless you're a fan of taking the literal meaning of words completely out of context); he described what was happening, and said that it may well be leading to a genocide. Nothing hard to grasp. Your weak allegations are getting quite tiresome though.

 

 

Just because you are a mathamatician doesn't mean you are necessarily literate in the Ancient History of Mesapotamia. Linguistics doesn't seem to have much crossover value into International Relations and Politics, so one could very well argue that he is fairly misinformed or such in that area. I mean, just look at the Colorado topic if you need proof that just because you can teach doesn't mean you are intelligent.

 

True enough, but his history and reputation with discussing foriegn affairs are amongst the most respected and revered, regardless of whether you believe he literally thought the Khmer Rogue weren't committing genocide, he's anti-semitc, he supports terrorism, he sold poisoned milk to school children, etc., etc.

 

 

Says the man who reads commondreams.org...

 

I frequent it from time to time yes, usually to read guest articles by Chalmers Johnson, Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh, and the like.

[Justice 0]

True enough, but his history and reputation with discussing foriegn affairs are amongst the most respected and revered, regardless of whether you believe he literally thought the Khmer Rogue weren't committing genocide, he's anti-semitc, he supports terrorism, he sold poisoned milk to school children, etc., etc.

I would hardly say he's in high regard. I'd more say he's very niche when talking about anything other than linguistics. I don't think he's poisoning small children (OMG BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT BUSH IS DOING IN IRAQ~!@#!@!$@# ), but he hardly qualifies as an excellent source. He's too full into his own opinion that he doesn't make considerations for anything else, which is why he's so God-damn out there to us all.

 

I frequent it from time to time yes, usually to read guest articles by Chalmers Johnson, Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh, and the like.

 

And your point here is...?

[cbacon 0]

I would hardly say he's in high regard. I'd more say he's very niche when talking about anything other than linguistics. I don't think he's poisoning small children (OMG BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT BUSH IS DOING IN IRAQ~!@#!@!$@# wink.gif), but he hardly qualifies as an excellent source. He's too full into his own opinion that he doesn't make considerations for anything else, which is why he's so God-damn out there to us all.

 

For the past 30 years+ his work has been openly praised and discussed around the world . I'd say that puts him in high regard, even if that means not everything he says is agreeable by those who read it. He's not an excellent source? He's one of the top 5 of referenced sources in the world, up there with the likes of Shakesphere. He takes an objective stance on facets of American foreign politics which is why he's seen as being so God-damn out there to those with a conservative agenda.

 

 

 

And your point here is...?

 

I'm agreeing with your statement that I do indeed frequent commondreams.org is all

[Justice 0]

For the past 30 years+ his work has been openly praised and discussed around the world . I'd say that puts him in high regard, even if that means not everything he says is agreeable by those who read it. He's not an excellent source? He's one of the top 5 of referenced sources in the world, up there with the likes of Shakesphere. He takes an objective stance on facets of American foreign politics which is why he's seen as being so God-damn out there to those with a conservative agenda.

Openly praised by...? Seriously, honestly don't put him in any sort of regard when it comes to International Relations. He appeals some people, yes, but I hardly think that he's a 'highly regarded International Relations' person. Again, I'll give him gracious credit for his work in linguistics, but I have yet to read anything by him that is at all decent when it comes to International Relations. He's hardly 'objective' ('Pompous and arrogant' is more like it); his own opinon colors his view WAY too much to call him anything close to 'objective'. Why is he accepted in places other than America? Because his view is pretty attractive to people who don't like America for being America. I'm not saying he's a tool of terrorists or something like that, but if you have an irrational hatred of America, Noam's commentary does look pretty attractive, no matter his credentials.

 

He might be one of the top 5 sources in the world, but again, for what? Linguistics, or IR? You are falling into the trap of "He's reknown for this, so it must carry over!" I honestly doubt that even 5% of those are for anything involving world politics.

[Boon 0]

The highest regard I've seen for the man came when he was put on a list of the top 100 intellectuals in America, and that was predominantly for his work w/ linguistics. If I recall, he was toward the bottom, if anyone is interested.

 

Side-bar: We were talking today in one of my lectures about his theory that all languages are extremely similar and simple in structure when broken down, and that is why infants can pick up a language quickly. Something about the way the human brain is wired to interpret and understand SVO. Interesting stuff.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike:

 

Chomsky's response looks good to me. He didn't make a prediction, nor did he say a genocide was already happening (unless you're a fan of taking the literal meaning of words completely out of context);

I took the LITERAL words he WROTE in FULL CONTEXT.

 

But, he said something different --- if you think words don't actually have concrete meanings.

he described what was happening, and said that it may well be leading to a genocide.

Except he said it was ALREADY happening --- based on him misreading shitty UN figures.

Nothing hard to grasp. Your weak allegations are getting quite tiresome though.

You are SUCH a Noam lemming.

Just because you are a mathamatician doesn't mean you are necessarily literate in the Ancient History of Mesapotamia. Linguistics doesn't seem to have much crossover value into International Relations and Politics, so one could very well argue that he is fairly misinformed or such in that area. I mean, just look at the Colorado topic if you need proof that just because you can teach doesn't mean you are intelligent.

True enough, but his history and reputation with discussing foriegn affairs are amongst the most respected and revered, regardless of whether you believe he literally thought the Khmer Rogue weren't committing genocide, he's anti-semitc, he supports terrorism, he sold poisoned milk to school children, etc., etc.

Ward Churchill wasn't frowned upon, either.

 

Your point is?

 

Lemmings can create an image of legitimacy.

Says the man who reads commondreams.org...

I frequent it from time to time yes, usually to read guest articles by Chalmers Johnson, Robert Fisk, Seymour Hersh, and the like.

Seymour Hersh?

 

Doesn't he have more lies to spread about the Kennedy clan?

-=Mike