quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I do not do that however, i evaulate each statement made on it's own merit. Why don't you try and dispute some of chomskys information? then i will agree that you have a reason to criticize him.

well said and well versed

___________________

quote:

Matt Welch National Post " ...If there were a patron saint for this kind of rhetorical one-sidedness, it would be Noam Chomsky. Over five decades of campus lectures, anthology introductions and pocket-sized paperback Q&A reactions to world events, the famous linguist has perfected the art of boiling each and every critique down to America's culpability as "a leading terrorist state." When asked in 9-11 to react to the news of foreigners celebrating the Sept. 11 massacre, Chomsky replied: "A U.S.-backed army took control in Indonesia in 1965, organizing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly landless peasants...." When asked whether Arab nations "should have taken responsibility to remove terrorists" from their leadership, Chomsky concluded: "It is rather unfair to blame citizens of harsh and brutal regimes that we support for not undertaking this responsibility, when we do not do so under vastly more propitious circumstances." Chomsky is chiefly concerned with condemning the history of U.S. foreign policy, with special emphasis on 1980s Nicaragua, the Soviet-era Afghanistan War, sanctions on Iraq, support for Israel and the 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan -- which he continues to describe as a much worse crime, comparatively, than Sept. 11. Chomsky, however, is far less sloppy with the facts than the contributors to Beyond the Curtain, unless you count the many facts he chooses to leave out. As a result, it's his conclusions that are suspect, such as this reductive explanation of U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia: "In the early 90s, primarily for cynical power reasons, the U.S. selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients, hardly to their benefit." What about public outcry over Serb atrocities and the siege of Sarajevo? Or former secretary of state Madeleine Albright's very personal belief that appeasing European dictators is bad strategy? Or eloquent and persuasive pressure from international leaders such as Vaclav Havel? Apparently irrelevant, compared to sliming Washington and spreading conspiracy theories. Chomsky's logical gimmick, which involves taking the loftiest of U.S. rhetoric and comparing it with the grimiest of U.S. history, is seductive as it is paralytic, for those inclined to blame America or seek out subversive explanations for official history. The bombing of Serbia couldn't possibly have been motivated by "humanitarian intervention," he argues, because if humanitarian intervention was a real concern, Washington wouldn't have looked the other way while Indonesia massacred the East Timorese. This rhetorical cul-de-sac gains a conspiratorial edge (as it must, to explain away that vast majority of international thinkers who find his theories bunk), by liberal use of the phrase "of course," sprinkled with sarcastic comments about how "the doors are better left closed" on certain topics. But there is a lie in Chomsky's premise. Again and again, he presents his concerns as being rooted in humanism, yet more often than not, his rancid ideology produces analysis that sounds alarmingly inhumane. As in this horrifying exchange, which begins with a feeble stab at hope by one of Chomsky's softball interviewers: "Q: If the Taliban regime falls and bin Laden or someone they claim is responsible is captured or killed, what next? What happens to Afghanistan? What happens more broadly in other regions?" "A: The sensible administration plan would be to pursue the ongoing program of silent genocide, combined with humanitarian gestures to arouse the applause of the usual chorus who are called upon to sing the praises of the noble leaders who are dedicated to 'principles and values' for the first time in history and are leading the world to a 'new era' of idealism and commitment to 'ending inhumanity' everywhere." Ultimately, the questions Chomsky never asks are the ones most damning for him and his followers, who number in the hundreds of thousands: Why is the world a much better place than it was 13 years ago? Why have more than 100 countries ended single-party or military rule? The Chomskyites can rarely bring themselves to admit that the United States has been, in tangible ways, an agent for actual good in the world (though Chomsky's recent acknowledgement, on CNN, that the United States is "the greatest country in the world" was a surprising departure). This stance, coupled with the one-sided drumbeat of criticism, has created a distorting, if attractive, dogma of its own. For years, this ideological subculture thrived in the academic shadows, far from the glare of public attention, comfortable in its grievances about being ignored. After Sept. 11, this cushy arrangement came to a crashing end. When Islamo-fascists mouth Berkeley slogans while waving around severed American heads, an engaged citizenry is now bound to take note. "It is important," Chomsky concludes in 9-11,"not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do." Unluckily for Noam Chomsky's false world, people are finally taking his advice to heart." CHOMSKY FALLS FLAT BY CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON islamabad -- american dissi-dent professor Noam Chomsky has a cult following in Pakistan among the political and academic establishment whose American counterparts shun him, and he's often quoted here in the kind of respected newspapers that ignore him in his homeland. Dawn, this country's largest English-language daily, sponsored Chomsky's gala speaking tour of Lahore and Islamabad this week with the kind of fanfare usually reserved for pop stars. The paper pictured the Cold War warrior and MIT prof on the front page Tuesday, November 27, affording him more play than the meeting of Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf and Japanese foreign minister Makiko Tanaka. The gala Chomsky affair a day earlier was as close as this conservative Muslim capital gets to a rock concert. People in traditional shalwar kameez dress lined up outside a glittering convention centre, a cross between a concert hall, parliament and an Islamic shrine. No tickets were available for the invitation-only event, a privilege of the elite of this military-run nation. "We have been waiting for a long time for this," says Mehr Shah, daughter of a retired colonel. "We don't often get visiting professors here." Indeed. The audience of about 1,500, including cabinet ministers, professors, colonels, journalists, students and nuclear scientists, took this afternoon off -- during the height of the Afghan crisis, no less -- to hear Chomsky pontificate on the news of the day. Pakistani cricket-legend-turned-politician Imran Khan was also in attendance. Organizers, seemingly lacking a sound technician, fumbled to correct the annoying acoustics. When they could finally hear him, many a wrinkled nose and raised eyebrow were evident. They were baffled, no doubt, by Chomsky's ramblings into irrelevant tangents and hasty conclusions based on thin evidence, dubious statistics and official statements taken out of context. Instead of leading opinion about contemporary issues, Chomsky dusted off his tired 80s commentaries about the Cold War arms race and American bullying of Nicaragua. At a time of unprecedented urgency, his academic abstractions had the intelligentsia yawning. He spoke more about Reagan and Schulz than about Bush and Powell, more about the U.S. Civil War and the history of massacres of indigenous peoples in America and Mexico than about the carnage next door in Afghanistan. Asked whether the world was giving Pakistan strongman President Musharraf a blank cheque, Chomsky rambled for 10 minutes about the crimes of U.S.-backed former Indonesian dictator Suharto. On how to solve the India-Pakistan conflict, which threatens to evolve into nuclear confrontation over Kashmir, Chomsky shocked the audience by suggesting the two countries form one state, which is as likely as Iran joining Iraq. Later, Chomsky admitted what many in attendance had gathered -- that he had only been studying the politics of the region for the last month. "He doesn't seem to know about our history," said disappointed lecture-goer Shahrazad Shah. Chomsky completely overlooked gender issues, which have been a hot topic on campuses here since the Taliban imposed traditional Pashtun village culture on urbanites and other ethnic groups. He also shed no light on how to bridge the gap between rich and poor. He stayed on the vague side when asked if the military could restore democracy here. In a country where hundreds of Islamic extremists have been jailed in recent weeks for protesting the killing of Muslims by American infidels, where mothers are mourning the massacre of hundreds of Pakistanis who crossed the border to fight in Afghanistan, where students idolize the soft-spoken preachings of Osama bin Laden, Chomsky said there was no clash of religions. Not long after, a disappointed crowd filed out to break their Ramadan fast and sink deeper into introspection. The slow-moving processes of academia seemed left behind in a world where news is breaking by the hour.

I am by no means well-versed on chomsky at all ... so I'm not going to try to dispute him directly. Given the time to write a good research paper however, it seems that I could argue many of his claims. I'm just trying to make a point that you can't really trust everything that you read or find on the internet (Even these articles that I posted ... I don't really trust anything that doesn't come from a major news source, and that includes chomsky).

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I am by no means well-versed on chomsky at all ... so I'm not going to try to dispute him directly. Given the time to write a good research paper however, it seems that I could argue many of his claims. I'm just trying to make a point that you can't really trust everything that you read or find on the internet (Even these articles that I posted ... I don't really trust anything that doesn't come from a major news source, and that includes chomsky).

I wouldn't put much faith in the major news sources either actually. Most of them are run by economical interests, often as private owned companies, which means that by the end of the day they must make a profit. This can (not always) result in news that's not deemed "selling" enough to be omitted and that a cheaper news item is preferred before an big expensive investigating journalistic one. This could lead to less scrutinizing regarding the various news item which in turn could lead to less quality and sometimes even factual errors.

Then we have news sources run as a public service (BBC etc). They might not feel the same economic constraints as a private one but they can on the other hand be a bit too controlled by the owning government.

That's why I try to get news from various different places, big or small, so I can try to get a better picture of this jig-zaw puzzle we call reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish I wouldn't put much faith in the major news sources either actually. Most of them are run by economical interests, often as private owned companies, which means that by the end of the day they must make a profit. This can (not always) result in news that's not deemed "selling" enough to be omitted and that a cheaper news item is preferred before an big expensive investigating journalistic one. This could lead to less scrutinizing regarding the various news item which in turn could lead to less quality and sometimes even factual errors. Then we have news sources run as a public service (BBC etc). They might not feel the same economic constraints as a private one but they can on the other hand be a bit too controlled by the owning government. That's why I try to get news from various different places, big or small, so I can try to get a better picture of this jig-zaw puzzle we call reality.

Agreed. I like to read 4 or 5 different major news sources. American news, BBC, Australian news, etc. I still tend to shy away from small or unknown news sources. Yes editorials by people like Chomsky can be informative, however more often than not these people have agendas themselves and write loaded articles. I can write an article praising Hitler for his economic and education policies while completely leaving out his societal policies and one who wasn't versed in history wouldn't be the wiser. That's taking things to extreme, but the point is that you have to ask yourself what's being left out rather than focusing on what's being said. For someone as opinionated as Chomsky, he's most certainly going to point out the facts that support his theories and completely ignore the ones that don't help his cause. At least major news sources have some semblance of impartiality

Very well-reasoned article. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Noam Chomsky and his views, it has to be respected that the man looks at issues, takes a stance, and argues for it up in a calm and straightforward manner. In my opinion, he hits the nail on the head in the second paragraph:

quote:

Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason - namely that since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda trying to bludgeon people into the belief that not only is Saddam a terrible person but in fact he's going to come after us tomorrow unless we stop him today. And that reaches people. So if you want to understand the actual opposition to the war in the US you have to extract that factor. The factor of completely irrational fear created by massive propaganda, and if you did I think you'd find it's much like everywhere else.

Columnist Joan Vennochi, in today's Boston Globe, puts it in even simpler terms:

[QUOTE
The Boston Globe
Thursday 13 February 2003

It is the legacy of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Their horror led to an overwhelming desire to reclaim the feeling of safe harbor that used to be associated with life on American soil. Now, war is promoted as the way to get it back.[/QUOTE]

There may be some very smart people in the Bush Administration, but it seems that there is some ulterior motive hiding behind every action. I agree with Izzy that "nation-building" in Iraq would probably take many years, but politicians and bureaucrats don't want to hear that, so oftentimes they don't plan very well ahead for the future, as their foresight is usually about as far as the end of their term. Remember not so very long ago when the prospective rebuilding of Iraq was being equated to that of post WWII Japan? A laugh!

To TranceGiant:

quote:

as for chomsky: not only is he a crock he can also suck my......shmock. Got a book by him and immediately went to change it. Attention whores who break so called (self-proclaimed!)tabooes and call Israel an Apartheid State and the USA terrorists, deserve no respect. He, Susan Sontag, this Indian Roy girlie, Finkelstein and the rest of the Ivy League "I'm A jew and bash Israel 'nevertheless' " gang are pathetic idiots.

While you're at it, why don't you add Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Miguel Estrada, and countless others to your list. It seems to be a popular trend that, nowadays, any independent-minded person who holds public views which are not in line or conforming with the perceived consensus of their ethnicity, race, gender, creed, nationality, etc. is almost automatically chastised as a sell-out, or in your particular words, a "pathethic idiot." Everybody holds a personal opinion, usually grounded in their personal experience or knowledge of the world; at least Chomsky takes the time to substantiate his views and argue for his particular stance on issues, which is much more than a lot of other people usually do. Being the revolutionary linguist he is though, he does tend to get under the skin of many, especially those who do not share the same line of thinking!

Peace to all, and may cooler heads guide us in this time of great uncertainty!

Reminder, Noam Chomsky spoke up FOR the Khmer Rouge.