Chomsky & War - Page 2




 
--
Chomsky & War
 
May 27th, 2006  
sandy
 
Chomsky & War
International low and security relationship is very difficult.
National sovereignty often bothers international law.
The way of a sign where these treaties [international law] are ignored is more conspicuous in each step more than a sign of obeying.
When giving only one example, there are also no cases for the case you made guilty of a genocide treaty by summer in 98 after it's established in 1948.
For the first time, one person of a setter of a group slaughter in Rwanda pronounced guilt by international court of ARUSHA in summer in 98.
I increase in the number of a treaty by the field of human rights and also increase the number of people of the protection of human rights activist in each country, but still cruel ill-treatment is repeated continuously.
A moral principle in the field is stopping at an exception as before rather than normality about a war law.
By an international society and actual place and we're an old doctrine as national sovereignty, international interdependence and a dilemma with the ethics born again as corporate responsibility and are stopping at noncommittal borderland.
May 27th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
I just saw his interview with an Arab channel on MEMRI.org tv and I decided to stop reading his stuff.

He proved to be a real leftist terrorist apologist/sympathizer
May 27th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Chomsky is a linguist. The fact that anyone even listens to anything he writes is a testament to his ability to write... nothing more. He is an open admitted communist. He is entitled to his beliefs. What I don't understand is why people give him any credence when he starts talking outside of his depth, ie international law, military doctrine, public policy etc. It is no different than the fallacy of logic that advertising uses when they employ Arnold Schwarzenegger to sell mouthwash. His knowledge and fame in one area does not lend itself logically to being an expert in another discipline.
--
Chomsky & War
May 27th, 2006  
loki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Chomsky is a linguist. The fact that anyone even listens to anything he writes is a testament to his ability to write... nothing more. He is an open admitted communist.
He is an open admitted anarchist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
He is entitled to his beliefs. What I don't understand is why people give him any credence when he starts talking outside of his depth, ie international law, military doctrine, public policy etc. It is no different than the fallacy of logic that advertising uses when they employ Arnold Schwarzenegger to sell mouthwash. His knowledge and fame in one area does not lend itself logically to being an expert in another discipline.
His theories also have great philosophical and psychological relevance. Especially the latter, he's said to have influenced 20th century psychology significantly.

I think its quite reasonable to listen to what someone like him has to say about the formation of opinion, how consent is formed, the role of the media in modern society and related subjects. He also published rather scientific works on the subject, like in the book "Manufacturing Consent, the Political Economy of the Mass Media".

Concerning foreign policy, economy and such I agree that this is not his academic field of knowledge. But many journalists that write on those subjects aren't studied political economists either, so hes as good as any of those. Personally I find those short articles of his mostly annoying though in that they are so overtly polemic and all written with that slightly bitter/frustrated undertone.
May 27th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
I don't give the journalists any more credence than him. The man is a fraud. He wails on about anarchy, communism and socialism all the while making millions on the stock market.
On top of all that he was a traitor and betrayed his country and is a worthless sack of I wouldn't cross the street to urinate on were he on fire.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=12904
Quote:
Noam Chomsky was among those on the Left who traveled to Hanoi. In his At War With Asia (1970), the linguist-turned-activist fondly recounted how he found a country that was “unified, strong though poor, and determined to withstand the attack launched against [it] by the great superpower of the Western world.” Everywhere he went, Chomsky found people “healthy, well-fed, and adequately clothed.” Indeed, he saw great promise in Vietnamese Communism. “My personal guess is that, unhindered by imperialist intervention, the Vietnamese would develop a modern industrial society with much popular participation” and “direct democracy.” While in Hanoi, Chomsky broadcasted a speech of solidarity on behalf of the Communists. He declared that their heroism revealed “the capabilities of the human spirit and human will.” “Your cause,” he continued, “is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.” Chomsky was so moved by his journey that, at one point, he proudly “sang songs, patriotic and sentimental, and declaimed poems” with his hosts.
May 27th, 2006  
loki
 
Sheesh you're pretty harsh on the old man. I think hes quite likeable... though I mostly don't agree with his political ideas either. But I don't think he has any bad intentions and some of the things he criticizes are very true.

Why is he a traitor because he visited north Vietnam? Prolly not very patriotic at that time, but what harm did it do to any american?
May 27th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 

Topic: Bravo Sierra


Quote:
For a great many people, it’s not enough that Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, offered encouragement to an army that was daily killing her countrymen, climbed up on that anti-aircraft gun, insisted that all American prisoners were well treated, and so on.

Ramsey Clark went to Hanoi during the war. So did Joan Baez and William Sloane Coffin, Noam Chomsky and Pete Seeger, Rennie Davis and Judy Collins.
http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...2001_7_9.shtml

Quote:
The impact of leftist propaganda (much of it produced by the USSR or local American communists and sympathizers, and disseminated by the anti-war movement) is another lesson. Millions of Americans were led to believe that the war in Vietnam was between the US as an imperialist power (which is absurd given US history and the facts at the time) and the oppressed peasants of South Vietnam. The dangers of international Communism were obscured. Although there was some truth early in the war that the US was propping up a very unpopular and oppressive regime (Diem, until JFK had him deposed), in fact the most oppressive faction in the war was the North and through them, the Viet Cong.
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000354.html

Quote:
The volume examines a variety of controversies that have swirled around the famous scholar and anti-American propagandist. While it challenges his veracity on a number of issues and his reputation as a pioneer linguist, it does not provide a satisfactory explanation for Chomsky's unremitting attacks on the land of his birth. Whence comes Chomsky's great hatred of America, a country that has afforded him and his family a lifetime of comforts? In words penned in 1979, he described Washington as the "torture and political murder capital of the world" — this at the time when cruel communist regimes, particularly that of Cambodia's Pol Pot (whose murderous reign Chomsky was unwilling to confront), were responsible for the genocidal deaths of millions. His views on America have not changed. He considers the 9/11 attacks a justifiable and overdue response — America is to blame. Only an Islamic fanatic could match Chomsky for such vehemence and vitriol.

Just as perplexing are the origins of his equally great hatred for Zionism, an ideology he once admired, and for Israel, a country for whose welfare he struggled as a youth. He has described as "Nazi-like" the actions of Israel fighting for its survival. There can be no more hateful expression against the land and people of Israel than to brand them with that label.
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/20...x-chomsky.html

Quote:
Radical American thinker and MIT professor Noam Chomsky met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut today and branded the U.S. a terrorist state.

“I think that Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and a persuasive argument that they (the weapons) should be in the hands of Hizbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that. So, I think his position, if I am reporting it correctly, and it seems to be a reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region and the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent. The Lebanese army cannot be a deterrent.”
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...Hizballah_Iran

Quote:
Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

Quote:
Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research.
Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Hardcover)

Quote:
Noam Chomsky: One of the premiere anti-capitalists and anti-militarists in academia today, Chomsky, a self-described "anarchist-socialist," has been paid millions by the Pentagon—which he once called "the most hideous institution on this earth"—over the last 40 years, as well as various corporations, which he has described as "just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism." When asked by Schweizer about his seeming contradiction, Chomsky responded (via email), "I think we should be responsible for what we do, not for the bureaucratic queston of who stamps the paycheck." Chomsky then went on to rationalize his wealth achieved via Pentagon contacts by stating that anyone who uses the Internet, which was created the U.S. military, is guilty of working for the Pentagon. Though he has lectured that other university professors should ween themselves of Pentagon funding in the form of grants and scholarships, he has yet to do so himself.

Chomsky's public condemnations of capitalism, which he calls a "grotesque catastrophe," are similarly contradicted by his private lifestyle. Mr. Chomsky lives in an $850,000 house and has a $1.2 million vacation home, both in Massachusetts. A critic of the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," he has called tax rebates "equivalent to a welfare payment," yet has set up trusts in his children's and tax attorney's names in order to avoid future payment of inheritance taxes. His loathing of copyrights and patents has also not stopped him from copyrighting his lectures, speeches and articles over the years (which can be downloaded—for a fee—off the Internet). After speaking at a benefit sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left where Chomsky stated, "A democracy requires a free, independent and inquiring media," a reporter named Deborah Bolling was told that she would have to pay $35 to interview him. Perhaps most damning is his impressive stock portfolio, which includes shares in oil companies, military contractors and pharmaceuticals.

While Chomsky has championed free speech and denounced what he sees as a lack thereof in the United States, he has often visited Communist nations completely devoid of free speech and given speeches celebrating the sociopolitical systems of Laos, Cambodia, China, North Vietnam and Cuba, never denouncing the imprisonment of political dissidents in those nations or speaking out against the various human rights abuses so rapant in totalitarian regimes.
http://www.answers.com/topic/do-as-i-say

Quote:
Noam Chomsky is particularly interesting. This self-professed radical socialist actually set up a trust to avoid paying taxes, even though he has denounced trusts in his book. I contacted Chomsky by an e-mail. To his credit, he did respond and I asked him, “How can you, in good conscience, denounce rich people avoiding paying taxes when you’re doing the very same thing?” His explanation was, “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children or grandchildren.” For a radical socialist, that sounds pretty bourgeoisie, doesn’t it?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=22207

He is a lying duplicitous wit and his fount of crap has hurt Americans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians, Sudanese... Don't just glean over the highlights read the whole articles. Noam Chomsky is far worse than Jane Fonda or Benedict Arnold ever were. Its high time he is sent off to put his arse where his mouth is and live outside the country he hates and vilifies to anyone that will listen. He might be old but he is far from harmless.
May 28th, 2006  
loki
 
Ok thanks for picking all those quotes. Thats indeed some very unfavorable parts of his biography. Anyway a good quote of him I remember reading is "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." From your other posts I assume you agree with that as you said "hes entitled to his beliefs" - even if they were complete nonsense and offensive.
May 28th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
READ the entire articles mate, these are the highlights or are you unwilling to challenge your preconceived ideas?

Nonsense? Offensive? Sure, but not sedition. In my opinion this wind-bag is a seditious traitorous bastard who deserves nothing less than forcible public castration followed by a live tele-cast of him eating said removed parts. He has hurt millions of people with his crap which he himself does not believe enough to follow. He is a master of twisting the language and if you take a step back you might be able to dispell the trance he puts people under when he begins to spin his web of deceit.


May 28th, 2006  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Bulldogg,

Your anti-Chomsky sections shocked me somewhat. I am too lazy to check your sources, so I will accept what you have selected as valid. I do not have any problems with Chomsky's accumulation of wealth. I do, however, have problems with his use of military (government) funds. All of this seems incredibly hypocritical.

Let us divorce the person from the ideas, however, and get back to the question of "just war". I will try to state more basic questions:

1. Should we have international rules concerning war initiation?
2. Should we have a Geneva Convention concerning POW treatment?
3. What is a "unjust war"? (Don't just say Hitler's wars. Explain why).
4. What is a "just war"? (Don't just say wars against Hitlers. Explain why).

I am looking for help because I CANNOT answer these questions myself. I do not know the difference between an "unjust" and "just" war...that is unless I swallow state propaganda. I understand why the American military tortures Muslim captives and why the Muslims kill their hostages. I understand why Bin Laden stuck America and I understand why the United States struck back. I even understand why Hitler attacked Poland and why the British and French responded with force.

I do not understand what makes one act "good" and the other "bad". What in any case is political morality? As far as I am concerned, international law can be reduced to the following: whatever my side does is "good"! Whatever the other guy does is "bad"!

[I am not against war or the use of coercive power. My belief is simple, pragmatic and a typical one. The side that enhances my quality of life normally acts in the appropriate manner. I do not care if they are morally "good" or "bad" because I do not even know how to make such a determination. Even apparently immoral acts, like dumping tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam, can be rationalized. The killing of POWs follows a similar pattern. Normally, what my side does is good and the other side is bad...irrespective of what actually happens. This logic sits behind the worldviews of most people. They just believe the BS that they constantly repeat to themselves.

Of course, the problem is much more complex than this simple post makes out. That is why we need binding rules.]