Sorry, you can jump on my case about this, but I put Chomsky into the same realm as our friend Michael Moore. I can't even read the rhetoric these two spew in the name of their own agenda. Someone needs to tell them both that communism failed and there's a reason why what they "preach" will never be taken seriously by the main stream American public. Bash away at the country that gave you free speech and prosperity, offer no reasonable alternatives or positive criticism and blatantly ignore the other side of issues and you'll be relegated to where these two men find themselves; gonzo journalism. They've found a hardcore audience to which they continuously spew the same rehashed ideas on how our government commits one atrocity after another while the "innocent man" is yet again degraded. There will always be some conspiracy nut or anti-government fanatic out there for them to sell their books and lectures to, thankfully these people do not make up the concensus of the American population. Hunter S. Thompson may have coined the term "gonzo journalism," but these men try to push off their "New Journalism" as the ultimate truth, and that's what pisses me off.

And no, I didn't even read the article. I've read enough of his books and listened to more than enough of his lectures to know he is blinded by his own bias and agenda.

Blah blah blah.. chomsky is this ,, michael moore is that...

Im not surprised that when a politocal dissedent gets just a bit of mediation, they are condemned from people who complain about how they whine, as opposed to WHY they are expressing their concerns and intellect.

ITs just "cool" to dislike these guys, becuase you cant disprove their heavy research and analytical observations.

Ill take Chomsky's words over any American news agency.

You are whining about whining...he is whining about Something that should be mediated...

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

Where does he distort truth... you are not arguing how he is wrong..you seem to only use labels to get your argument through.

I guess every single thing that he mentions in his book is distorted and unfactual and just fucked up, even though its been re-iterated, and researched by other political dissedents.

Please give me the links to these "smarter" people and how they "tore" apart Chomsky.

I have yet to see an equally strong oppositional response to Chomsky's political words.

I can call anyone "bias" in many different and unique way.... the english language is powerful inthat respect...however, it still doesnt hold a plausible attack compared to the MIT professor.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth." That is what I'm "whining" about. Many people, smarter than me, have torn apart Chomsky and his "heavy research and analytical observations." If you'd like links, I'd be happy to oblige.

your words are no better than chomsky's "lies" until you disprove them yourself. until you do that, then im afraid youre just fighting fire with fire.

___________________

[ Romans Chapter 1, Verse 6: And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. ]

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, I'm "whining" about someone who distorts the truth or flat out lies, and then sells it as the "utlimate truth."

We share common ground my friend. I also loathe being misled, whether by a journalist, political pundit, or...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...836#post2195836

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Neophono, let me help you out, i despise Noam even more so then Moore. the last straw for me with noam was in one of his books about the israeli/palestinian conflict. he went on for a whole page describing how israeli's had shot at ambulances and conducted seizers and blocks for passing emergcy vehicles. In all his ramblings of this inhumanity and violations of the geneva accord, not once did he mention the fact that on numerious occasions (ie, more the once) ambulances were caught smuggling terrorists and weapons.

anyways let me take a few pot-shots at this current post

quote:

Naom Chomsky: Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

hindsight is twenty-twenty. it's easy to look back and see if you have made a mistake or not. what about the ones the were not mistake? you wont hear about those. At the time of each administration's dilema (what ever the crisis maybe) much thought goes into desciding a certain course of action or position. it's not like the government goes into an issue happazardly and innocent and decides. the state department and CIA employ thousands of people to advise the president on the possibilities and their consequences.

quote:

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

although there have been no WMD found nor do i think any will be, it's still to early to say that saddam did not have a plan for them or even developing them. furthurmore for noam to say saddam did not have links to terror is the most absurd thing ever. What about terrorism money linked directly to hamas and families of suicide bombers, what about the terror he inflicted on kuwait...

quote:

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

quote:

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

here's why i have my red flag warning go off... after i read the israeli ambulance shooting stuff i explained earlier, Noam here gives me nothing to compare to. What if the other alternatives for wolfowitz's support were ten times worse. by not showing that there was a better alternative noam proves nothing. all he is doing is stating one fact and giving it a mean adjective (such as murderous dicators), pointless brabble. agian the fact he is argueing my be corrent (im not knowledgable in asian affiars) but the way he constructs his arguements is childish.

quote:

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

LIE!!! i caught him
the UK has already been awarded many contracts
"THE BBC has been awarded the first contract to help get Iraq’s television and radio stations back on air." from:
http://www.business.scotsman.com/me...m?id=1396892003
and there are many more to come... i saw on CNN that spain was about to get one of the contracts and italy is in the running for another.

quote:

...putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

oh no run for your lives, it's the Western corporations, how evil

i bet i could go more indepth and disect more of his arguements, but frankly i could care less....

seriously cyrus, there are much better anti-war critics out there then noam chomsky... just look at renegade

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

LINK

This is perhaps my favorite of the more recent critiques on Chomsky. It is long, but a great summary of the "history" of Chomsky and his repeated contradictions and gonzo technique from Vietnam to today. It is written by an Australian political professor, so please don't give me any "American bias" on this one.


LINK 2

This link gives more examples of Chomsky not using facts in his "research."


LINK 3

This is a chapter from a Cambodian political refugee's honors thesis, describing the difference in what Chomsky told us of the actions of Pol Pot, versus what he was a direct witness to. Along with this is also an explaination of the way Chomsky led everyone so astray.


LINK 4

Another great current critique of Chomsky and his tactics.


LINK 5

Another article.


LINK 6

On Chomsky's poor understanding of economics.


That should satisfy my lack of examples. If you'd like more let me know. Just make sure you read all of these first. If you can't find any clear examples in there, more probably won't help.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy Neophono, let me help you out, i despise Noam even more so then Moore. the last straw for me with noam was in one of his books about the israeli/palestinian conflict. he went on for a whole page describing how israeli's had shot at ambulances and conducted seizers and blocks for passing emergcy vehicles. In all his ramblings of this inhumanity and violations of the geneva accord, not once did he mention the fact that on numerious occasions (ie, more the once) ambulances were caught smuggling terrorists and weapons. anyways let me take a few pot-shots at this current post

are you going to condemn him of all his knowledge becuse of this? He is merely describing the collective punishment the israeli government imposes on palestinians, EVEN when there are no hidden terrorsits caught...

Ive seen video on numerous occasion whereambulances with their flashing emergency lights have been HELD, not even checked for terrorsists... HELD, as the IDF take their time while someone is in labour or is bleeding to death. In any case, the womans baby died in that incident while settler cars were driving by in the dozens.

And as a matter of fact, he does mention it in Prates and Emperors: old and New.

Does is really take that long to check an ambulance?

quote:

hindsight is twenty-twenty. it's easy to look back and see if you have made a mistake or not. what about the ones the were not mistake? you wont hear about those. At the time of each administration's dilema (what ever the crisis maybe) much thought goes into desciding a certain course of action or position. it's not like the government goes into an issue happazardly and innocent and decides. the state department and CIA employ thousands of people to advise the president on the possibilities and their consequences.

OBVIOUSLY THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THE WORLD HATES THE US!

this is a pattern that the US has taken on numerous occassions. Most times, by looking at history, one can get a picture of the consequences, espescially, like the case in the US, when it has happened within 50 years.

quote:

although there have been no WMD found nor do i think any will be, it's still to early to say that saddam did not have a plan for them or even developing them. furthurmore for noam to say saddam did not have links to terror is the most absurd thing ever. What about terrorism money linked directly to hamas and families of suicide bombers, what about the terror he inflicted on kuwait...

Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation. Chomsky was not reffering to the terrorism caused by palestinians to the israeli's which he may have had a connection. He is very specific, yet you generalize everything he says.

quote:

is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

quote:

here's why i have my red flag warning go off... after i read the israeli ambulance shooting stuff i explained earlier, Noam here gives me nothing to compare to. What if the other alternatives for wolfowitz's support were ten times worse. by not showing that there was a better alternative noam proves nothing. all he is doing is stating one fact and giving it a mean adjective (such as murderous dicators), pointless brabble. agian the fact he is argueing my be corrent (im not knowledgable in asian affiars) but the way he constructs his arguements is childish.

POINTLESS 'BRABBLE'?????????

Supporting a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants is pointless babble????? Even without the adjectives, this supportive measure speaks for itself...

Did you think it is "babble" when Chomsky highlights the supportive measures saddam was given in the 80's when the US supported him in gassing the kurds and torturing thousands of his own civilians? He is giving EXAMPLES of how hypocritical a man like Wolfowitz is, a man proclaiming that just and democratic nations should veil the mid-east, that people should be "liberated" and "freed"....yet he was one that supported the dictators who went against everything this so called "moral" man espressed.

quote:

LIE!!! i caught him the UK has already been awarded many contracts "THE BBC has been awarded the first contract to help get Iraq’s television and radio stations back on air." from: http://www.business.scotsman.com/me...m?id=1396892003 and there are many more to come... i saw on CNN that spain was about to get one of the contracts and italy is in the running for another. oh no run for your lives, it's the Western corporations, how evil i bet i could go more indepth and disect more of his arguements, but frankly i could care less.... seriously cyrus, there are much better anti-war critics out there then noam chomsky... just look at renegade

Corporations have benefitted from the blood of Iraqi's....the US will get the most out of this... they are the ones who bassically CONTROL and DECIDE who gets what...Iraq is in the hands of Corporate America, they will reap the benefits. By just saying the UK has got a contract means didly without mentioning that the US granted them this venture.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

OBVIOUSLY THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THE WORLD HATES THE US!

Now who's making generalizations? In all caps to boot.

quote:

Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation.

That depends on who you believe. I've given a list in a previous post of the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein, along with their various sources. You believe Chomsky, who has a record of fabricating his "facts," and I believe a broad base of differing individuals all confirming the links between these two terrorists.

quote:

more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

You contradict this in your own post. You tell us of how horrible Saddam (and the US) are for the times he "gassed the kurds and tortured thousands of his own civilians," yet now they are worse off? I find it very, very hard to believe that there are "more people dying" then before the US stepped in. Please give some figures on this one...I'm dying to see what you find.

quote:

You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy... WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

Okay, what are you complaining about here? First you state that the Iraqi's aren't free, as they've been "occupied" for nine months. Then you go on to say that the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need in Afghanistan. So in Iraq our occupation in itself is a violation of freedom, but in Afghanistan our occupation should do more to bring about more freedom? Are you saying a US occupation should lead to more freedoms, or none at all?

quote:

Corporations have benefitted from the blood of Iraqi's....the US will get the most out of this... they are the ones who bassically CONTROL and DECIDE who gets what...Iraq is in the hands of Corporate America, they will reap the benefits. By just saying the UK has got a contract means didly without mentioning that the US granted them this venture.

US blood was lost in this "war" along with US dollars. It is rediculous to think that countries that stood in the way of the removal of Saddam should "reap the benefits" (as you put it) of the blood and money lost by coalition forces.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono LINK This is perhaps my favorite of the more recent critiques on Chomsky. It is long, but a great summary of the "history" of Chomsky and his repeated contradictions and gonzo technique from Vietnam to today. It is written by an Australian political professor, so please don't give me any "American bias" on this one.

havent read the others yet, but isnt this written by the same guy who is trying to justify the british colonization of tazmania, by saying that the aborigines had it coming to them because of their "criminal" behavior?

anyways, it was an interesting read (did a good job at making noam look like a hypocrite, not to say that he is or isnt one, yet) until i read this near the end:

quote:

This kind of two-faced morality has provided a model for the world-wide protests by left-wing opponents of the American-led coalition’s war against Iraq. The left was willing to tolerate the most hideous acts of state terrorism by the Saddam Hussein regime, but was implacable in its hostility to intervention by Western democratic governments in the interests of both their own security and the emancipation of the Iraqi people. This is hypocrisy writ large.

if he is going to bash one person for hypocrisy, fine. however, this whole paragraph is a generalization obviously motivated by his bias. in other words, this statement is bullshit in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Bush was making a simple statement, that Hussein and Alqaeda had a connection, and implied that he had something or will have something to do with a terrorist attack like 9/11 on american soil. That is what he is reffering to, and there is yet no evidence proving this bold accusation. Chomsky was not reffering to the terrorism caused by palestinians to the israeli's which he may have had a connection. He is very specific, yet you generalize everything he says.

correct. i whole-heartedly concur.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You sound like Bush. Where is the freedom? they have been occupied for 9 months...more people are dying than before, the place is anarchy...

i suppose weve missed something. weve invaded iraq to give them freedom, but:

quote:

"Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning." Demonstrators risk a year in jail and, if they work for the state as civil servants or teachers, they will loose their jobs, the message said. All demonstrations are illegal in the U.S.-occupied province.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackag...&storyID=423620

gotta love our views of "freedom", huh? but i guess we can always just use our ever so abused "terror" excuse to justify this oppression...

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King WHat about afghanistan...WOMAN are not completely free there still...yeah there are freedoms that have been reinstituted, however, the US has not done enough reconstruction to help those in need. America has forgotten about that country. Even with this new government, there is still instability. Iraq is the new problem.

afganawhat?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy is there anything wrong with freeing a people from tyranny and making sure a government is held accountable by its citizens?

no. it sounds quite heroic, actually. however, using this and other self-righteous excuses to justify our immperialist war wont change the fact that this war was to serve a capitalist and neo-conservative agenda. i wonder what excuses well use next? holy war against those savage and backwards people to teach them the proper way to live? nah, already taken.

___________________

[ Romans Chapter 1, Verse 6: And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. ]