Noam Chomsky on the BBC Interviewed by Tim Sebastian 3/3

[drydust999]

chomsky is a fraud, in all domains.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 Prove it, you can't call someone a fraud without providing evidence.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 You can show all the evidence to the brainless zombies who like this terrorist fraud and they still won't understand he's a fraud. People admire politically because he's an intellectual, and intellectually because he's a political figure, but if you look closely to what he says on both sides, you realise he's shit.

Lol just look at the thumbed-up comments here, they sound just like a bunch of sheep.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 Where's your evidence? All you have done is go into an Anti-Chomsky rant and call him terrorist fraud. Do you even understand the definition terrorism? LOL

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 He defends the idea that a terrorist attack against innocents Westerners, like 911, may diminish the global amount of violence in the world and is therefore acceptable. This type of masochistic view is nothing else than terrorism, pure and simple, by an anarchist fraud.

But surely you have the right to support terrorism and its figures while benefitting from all the good things our society produces, like computers, free healthcare etc. Hypocrisy is no problem for you guys LOL

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 When did Chomsky ever justify terrorists attacks against Westerners? He's simply stating the hypocrisy of states and state terrorism in which the US has been involved in. You need to distinguish between America the country and American state power.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 Since it is mainly "Amercia the country" which is victim of terror (even though it is supposedly because of the deeds of "America the state power", a distinction that is bogus for terrorists), there is no excuse in my mind for justifying terrorism in any form.

Please, don't tell me Americans are terrorists too, as it's clearly not true: even though it happens, their militaries don't target innocents (civilians) like terrorists do.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 The US military doesn't target civilians? Have you seen the Wikileaks video of Collateral Murder targeting innocent news reporters and 2 Iraqi kids in a van, what about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam which killed 400-500 people most of them women and children who were raped and tortured before killed. Exactly there is no excuse for terrorism, so we should condemn all terrorism whether it is committed my people or states.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 I said I know it happens, but Americans don't do it on purpose, as opposed to islamists who specifically target innocents. And America is not a terrorist state; it does wrong and bad things to preserve its interest, but still it's a free society, respectful of individual freedoms—something that's never gonna happen in a muslim state.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 It's a free society but that doesn't discount that is a terror state. Britain was a free society but committed massive terrorism in the 19th century especially against Indians under British rule. You hit the nail on the head preserve it's interests exactly interests of corporations and the bankers who all the corrupt politicians are in the pocket of, not the interests of the American people.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 It's a free society but that doesn't discount that it is a terror state. Britain was a free society but committed massive terrorism in the 19th century especially against Indians under British rule. You hit the nail on the head preserve it's interests, exactly the interests of corporations and the bankers who all the corrupt politicians are in the pocket of, not the interests of the American people.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 Still not terrorism. These days, only muslims use terrorism; not bankers, not Brits, not corporations (they rather do the opposite)—only islam finds terrorism useful, and compatible with its teachings of peace. 

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 Only muslims use terrorism how ignorant is that. The Federal reserve which is debasing the US dollar and creating inflation that's financial terrorism. You need to grow up a little, why are you so brainwashed, why are you putting faith in your government you think they care about you.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 My lols, you're overusing the term terrorism by applying to anything that's bad, without discrimination. You couldn't be less accurate and more wrong; I think it is you who needs some more political maturity before you make gross generalisations; but chomsky surely is no good influence on that front.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 Gross generalizations, only muslims use terrorism don't you think that is a gross generalization. LOL You can't even prove Chomsky is wrong give me some facts a source something dude. You know Chomsky is speaking the truth that's why all you can do is revert to name calling and insults. I would dare you to debate Chomsky you would be just like Tim Sebastian out of his league. LMAO

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 "Educating Eve" by Geoffrey Sampson should give you a good summary of why chomsky is all wrong on every level.

I'm denying his truth by insulting? haha that's a good one, especially since you're the one with no other argument than a patronising attitude. Pathetic, but usual for a leftish zombie.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 PS. 99.7% of terrorists are muslims (according to 2010 FBI sources), but you're right I might be generalising by saying that ALL muslims are terrorists. LOL

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 Yeah that's right lets believe the FBI. LOL You lost credibility right there. Now this is getting pathetic, you post like 10 comments yet no evidence. I'm not going to respond until you give evidence. Chomsky is wrong but your right nice argument. LMAO

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 Evidence right below in my last comment—your laughter sounds terribly forced.

[JJbubbs23]

@drydust999 What evidence? Educating Eve by Geoffrey Sampson that fraud who's been exposed over and over again. That book is an argument against Chomsky's linguistics not his political positions, so how is this relevant. 99.7% Muslims are terrorists, there is around 1 billion Muslims in the world your telling me there is almost 1 billion terrorists.

[drydust999]

@JJbubbs23 Lol if you're in the domain you domain you know chomsky's shit has never, ever been proven empirically in 50 years, quite the contrary.

When you speak unproven shit for 50 years and you're more like the head of a church than an academic, then you're a fraud. Case made.

In fact there's much more than 1 million muzz terrorists. Anyone who follows this system a little bit rigorously is compelled to murdering the infidels, hence a terrorist. Second case made.

[LogicPunch]

@drydust999

"99.7% of terrorists are muslims (according to 2010 FBI sources)"

Rubbish. Where did you pull that statistic from?

It's actually 6%, and that's according to the FBI database.

[drydust999]

@LogicPunch My lols, your numbers come from propagandists on yahoo answer.

Now think; just the 3000 ppl that are dead on 911 represent more than 99.99% of ppl dead of terrorism in America in the last 10 years. If you include Europe, numbers a practically the same—as Madrid and London were the deadliest attacks on the continent in the same period.

The ppl you mention think that American soldiers killing Iraqi and afghan soldiers are terrorists—that's wrong, and it biases the numbers drastically.

[LogicPunch]

@drydust999 You're equating "terrorist" with "successful kill in a Western country". You also clearly haven't researched it properly, as it's not including innocents killed by us, although the figures are staggering compared to the amount killed in 9/11, 7/7 etc.

Again, the figures from the FBI's own website.

[drydust999]

@LogicPunch Killing people in Western countries means killing who don't wanna be killed. Killing people in the Middle East means (mostly, not always) killing people who are at war.

Not the same thing.

[LogicPunch]

@drydust999 ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RETARDED?

of course "Killing people in the Middle East" doesn't not mean mostly killing people at war. The women and children getting bombed to shit didn't ask to be at war with anyone.

Fuck me some people are thick.

[drydust999]

@LogicPunch And?

[nomis101uk]

How on Earth does he both know and remember so much, in such detail, that he answer ANY question or criticism put to him, no matter how specific or distant?! O_o

Always amazes me.

[owenhunt]

@nomis101uk I always wish the likes of Stephen Fry would pursue activism, like Chomsky does. We need more punctilious and broad minds converging to improve this world.

[jacksawild]

@Maticprimc Typical american "reasoning". It doesn't work in country X therefore it does not work. The world laughs at the so called free press of the "land of the free" as the politicians are run by the same people who run the news outlets. You keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night and we will sit back and watch the crumbling empire collapse under the weight of its own ignorance.

[phooey108]

Chomsky is getting older now, but in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, he`d answer hostile questions with the force of a freight train. But now he`s older, and talks much slower, and is better absorbed in print format.

[BBOYMONI]

Tim Sebastian comes of like an idiot in this. Any time Chomsky makes a good point he tries to steer of course and distort. That was just petty at the end asking what he thought Chomsky had achieved. More than Sebastian ever will being a vulgar apologist for western crimes!

[BBOYMONI]

@thoughtvideo The Chomsky Perle debate makes me laugh out load every time I hear it. Perle didn't know what hit him!

[JusticeNature]

great interview....where is Sebastian now?

[PennStateSJP]

@JusticeNature I know he's the moderator for the "Doha Debates". From my observation of him on the Doha Debate as moderator, he is even handed.

[BrideAndGroomFilmsHD]

The best interviews, like this, is when the interviewer is being antagonistic. Take a look at the interview with Evan Solomon and Chomsky. That's the best interview. I have a feeling Tim Sebastian is just being antagonistic and doesn't believe what he's saying. I think he's pushing Chomsky to do his best. However, I fear Solomon is just a moron and believes what he's saying. See also Solomon interviewing Richard Dawkins. I find it hard to believe Solomon was acting.

[goc1973]

Hmmm...well, I thought Sebastian was a complete idiot (asking the sort of pretzel logic questions that we get on Fox News), but if he's just playing devil's advocate to get responses out of Noam, then maybe he's not such a dumb-ass. I'll have to take your word for it, since I've never seen Hard Talk...

[jacksawild]

@goc1973 Hardtalk is from a tv company which has no advertisers or commercial interests to pander to and is legally bound to be politically unbiased so I doubt you will ever see anything like it in your "land of the 'free' ".

[waspbr]

Apparently you are not familiar with hardtalk, the point of hardtalk is for the intervier to play devils advocate so that the guest can defend itself, regardless of the guest. It's a way of clarifying the subject by providing a counter point to the guest.

Tim Sebastian has had a brilliant carrier in hardtalk and even though he can come off as arrogant in the program, I hardly think that this reflect his views.

it's not called hardtalk for nothing.

[artemis7114]

Chomsky is a highly skilled individual has the ability to see a topic from multiple perspectives at the same time and can answer an interviewer spot-on as a result every time. He's always 5 steps ahead of an interviewer. An incredible listener not a selective one; deductive over inductive.

[poop121]

he can also accurately cite an extremely wide range of information off of the top of his head.

[artemis7114]

poop121... you got it. He's like a piece of software that can refer to other contextual or analogous topics at any time. Did you hear that his wife recently passed away?

[Ullbritt]

Look at Chomsky laughing at the end though, I think he enjoys a bit of verbal sparring from time to time.

[paganiniGOGO]

I doubt that anyone who's intellect remotely approaches chomsky's would be in stark opposition to the application of basic elementary truisms of the kind Chomsky describes in this interview; thus you will never see such a debate, with an adversary spewing meaningless, superfluous and loaded questions and retorts.

The closest thing I could recommend for you is the Buckley debate, which you've probably seen already.

If you wanna see a real debate, you can look at Chomsky vs. Foucalt.

[adcashmo]

Thanks I'll check out Foucalt. Have u seen the Derschowitz (can't remember spelling or be bothered to check right now) debate? I found that after I posted this and I think that's nearing what a good head-head should be. Buckley debate was a bit lame. Buckley was an arse.

[paganiniGOGO]

I saw one of the Dershowitz debates, they mentioned that they had a few debates over the decades.

Buckley was an arse but Chomsky still killed him.

[SweetDissident]

Chomsky owned Dershowitz; I thought Dershowitz looked like a fool in that debate; but it is a good one to watch for the information.

[BBOYMONI]

@SweetDissident I agree. Dershowitz just avoided the issue and tried to smear Chomsky throughout their debate. You know this and I know this but the people who support Dershowitz's point of view just seem to have an in built filter to block out any inconvenient facts they would rather not here.

[danboy2000]

He is definitly not an idiot, tim sebastian is a smart man...of course not in chomsky's league but who is!! He's probing for reactions. The interviewers role is not to express his opinion but to try and cover as many angles and differing opinions..I think he did an okay job. Watch charlie rose interviewing him to witness a true Idiot!

[adcashmo]

This guy is even more stupid:

watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg

[Lbptn111]

that probably is true for most journalists interviewing great minds... isn't is the point - to learn and let others learn through your questions? he got me intersted in Chomsky, so Sebastian has his uses;-) I personally like his style and most of what he did on HardTalk and Doha Debates

[Lbptn111]

No. This is his style. Sebastian is a great interviewer and playing devils's advocat is something he does with people he mostly agrees. check out 10 year anniversary of HardTalk... his personal views of the people he interviewed over the years kind of show...

[slovakmath]

I can't tell... is he playing devil's advocate or does he really disagree with Chomsky on all these issues? He's genius & is obviously logically correct on EVERY point that he is asked about, therefore I find it hard to believe that the interviewer truly disagreed on all the points/questions that were directed for Chomsky to defend/respond. To my original question, if the later is true then he really is an idiot, I got the feeling that Noam was being interviewed by an overgrown infant that talks

[tangent272]

tharnax: On the one hand I'm happy that you've come here to have your views challenged. However, you don't seem to be debating in good faith.

You claim to have "read Chomsky for 6 years", this is either a lie or an admission of some very deep brainwashing becuase most of your arguments are non-sensical to anyone who knows even the basic background.

Maybe you're a troll? No problem, I'd be considered a troll on a lot of fundy threads but I argue honestly and rationally. Give it a try.

[wdednam]

And history has obviously vindicated Chomsky. Afghanistan and Iraq are quagmires. Alone, mostly, the US government of today shall bear the burden of its shame, because this time around most of the world was able to witness its brazen disregard of non-US life. Thank God for the internet and independent media!

[thelaughingman]

why cant american tv be this good. the interviewer asked hard questions and got good answers but never turned into the yelling contest that is american news.

[marcus3379]

Once again Chomsky hands another critic their ass on a silver platter.

[tharnax]

Sudan has no oil, correct. The oil in Iraq is important to the economies of the entire WORLD. Do you honestly believe that the US ships every drop of that oil to the US? It's distributed on the world market where China and India gobble it up as well as The rest of the world. You should really re-think your Leftist nonsense.

[kmarkymark]

why do you watch hundreds of chomsky videos then attack them? The oil is shipped everywhere, but using US multinationals and with US milatary bases gaurding they oil. Critical leverage

[wdednam]

Not to mention the profits the US reaps from being able to ship the oil all over the world.

[gomey70]

Chomsky has media hacks like this for breakfast.

You just can't argue with facts and logic so plainly spelled out.

tnx for vids.

[tharnax]

You never answered my question: Did you prefer the Taliban government to the current, freely elected one? Attacking a government is very different from "attacking civilians". The US is a beacon of hope to oppressed peoples around the world, not the leading precipitator of terrorism. Terror is precipitated by Islamic radicals, plain and simple.

[MopacMurtaza]

What freely elected one? Karzai was hand picked, cus he was an adviser in a giant US corporation.

Current is allot better, but before cheering the US for liberating Afghanistan, ask first who was it that put the taliban in power? Im afghan, and i like the change, but i despise US for destroying my country in the first place.!

[tharnax]

Oh, I see. The Soviet Union didn't destroy Afghanistan in a wreckless war and invasion, the US was the bad guy! Get real. The taliban harbored a nest of Islamic murderers, that regime fell based on that fact. If you harbor Islamic radicals, we will turn up the heat. The US now has a zero tolerance policy on Islamic terror. that is a good thing for Afghans and other free peoples.

[LolAtComments]

Only if, what is good for the U.S. is what's good for the rest of the world. That's the fundamental ideal behind any notion that the U.S. has the right to do what it does; without permitting those same rights to other sovereign countries.

[tharnax]

Exactly. We act in self-interest first. It just so happens that our self-interest dovetails neatly with what is best for the world and the citizens of countries like Nicaragua, Afghanistan, El Salvador, etc,.

[LolAtComments]

Unfortunately, I don't believe you until you offer some good evidence to our "self-interest" as being best for countries like Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and El Salvador. In fact, why don't you actually LISTEN to Chomsky's interviews so you can discover the rebuke for yourself.

[tharnax]

Chomsky is a typical Leftist, I read Chomsky for 6 YEARS, he's obsessed with American 'crimes' and oblivious or indifferent to dictators and other butchers. I repeat, we have a vested interest in a stable, democratic, non-communist Nicaragua, which is EXACTLY what Nicaragua is today thanks to our and efforts and the efforts of free Nicaraguans.

[LolAtComments]

I don't think Chomsky is very "typical" at all.

Furthermore, because the U.S. supported people like Anastasio Somoza García--known to have executed hundreds of people, including children--that they (U.S.) were at all concerned with "butchers" or "dictators". I DO believe that the U.S. had a vested interested in the Nicaragua Canal, and maintaining an imposed influence on these latin countries.

Communism was synonymous to what "terrorism" is today in the rhetoric of the U.S. mass media.

[tharnax]

Are you trying to say that the Sandinistas were not communist? Are you trying to say that? Were they not supported by Cuba? Absurd. The US supported Somoza, absolutely. So because of that, we should let communism and marxism spread unchecked. It did not happen, it will never happen. The USA stopped for the good of the Nicaraguan people, they now embrace capitalism and freedom.

[wdednam]

Please get over your 'Communism' complex. There is no such thing around today. Maybe two or three small countries are nearly communist. In America, they apparently believe everything they get taught in the classroom. If I had in mine, I would probably have ended up approving of apartheid.

[MopacMurtaza]

If you study harder, you would know that the democratically elected president of chile, nicaragua and guatemala all were dispanded cus they didnt believe in the imperialist ideologi and they wouldnt let united fruit company to treat the workers as slaves!

What did the US do? They did what they always do, a coup de´ tat. How can you in your rigth mind justify this?

[tharnax]

It's not attempt to justify anything, it's an effective rejoinder to common leftist hate. America has had many different administrations and many different policies, it doesn't make us imperialist, it demonstrates that we are a democracy and we support other democracies.

[tharnax]

At least United Fruit was creating jobs! What is you solution to eliminating poverty? The State? A poor country like Gautemala at that time needed every job they could get for their people. Welfare is not an option in a poor country, capital investment and jobs are the best options.

[mmgg33]

By creating jobs, you must mean owning the majority of Guatemalan land, but only using 15 percent of it. The state would be very effective in land redistribution which was possibly the best way to help the impoverished people very quickly.

[tharnax]

The Guatemalan government could have reclaimed those lands at any time. And the workers could have quit working for that company at any time. United Fruit is a guest of the government, it has no right to the land. The Guatemalan government could have booted it out of the country just as Cuba did. You are giving a pass to the Government in Guatemala.

[mmgg33]

"The Guatemalan government could have reclaimed those lands at any time. And the workers could have quit working for that company at any time. United Fruit is a guest of the government, it has no right to the land."

I wouldn't quite say that, but we basically agree that when elite corporations abuse the resources of an impoverished country, any decent government should stand against the company to help the people.

[wdednam]

Like in my country South Africa, a perfect example of Capitalist success, where more poor people sleep on the streets of Johannesburg every day and with one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. It's almost a capitalist's dream with the rights of Corporations enshrined in our constitution. Marvellous! You haven't the foggiest notion of REALITY. You've been completely indoctrinated by hysterical anti-communist rhetoric which is the staple of your country's politics.

[MopacMurtaza]

What you crazy? Americans killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans, took down the elected president and restored a dictator! Whats good about that? America is selfish, you care so much about what saddam did, you didnt care what happend in Rwanda? You are my man a hypocrite!

[tharnax]

Your accusation about America killing 'tens of thousands' in Nicaragua is insane, Spain maybe. Not America. We usually had to go in to stabilize an out-of-control situation that was not of our making. Get a balanced perspective for once!

The US has condemned the genocide in Darfur time and again. Do you recommend a US invasion of Sudan?

[MopacMurtaza]

No i dont want your imperialist army to invade sudan, just pointing out the hypocrisy of invading iraq and doing nothing for Rwanda where 2 mill were killed, but then again Rwanda didnt have oil so what were you going there for?

[tharnax]

Sudan has no oil, correct. The oil in Iraq is important to the economies of the entire WORLD. Do you honestly believe that the US ships every drop of that oil to the US? It's distributed on the world market where China and India gobble it up as well as The rest of the world. You should really re-think your Leftist nonsense.

[SwordOfJesus87]

It makes no sense talking to someone, who obviously supports a murderous imperialist empire like the US and even defends it!

[tharnax]

LOL! More Leftist nonsense!

[MopacMurtaza]

I know what life was befoe the taliban, i saw it, all afghans supported the soviets-afghan government. The taliban is all afghanies enemy, they are a bunch of PAKISTANIS they not afghan.

And if you saw the beauty afghan was during soviet time and look what the taliban brought you would support the soviet. Please you dont know anything, then stop acting like you do!

[tharnax]

So the Soviets made an Afghan paradise? Very nice, even Chomsky would reject that. Why not Email Chomsky and argue that point? Even a radical Anarchist like Chomsky would reject that nonsense!

[MopacMurtaza]

Yes Afghanistan was destroyed much, but only cus fighting against taliban, who you and PAISTAN SUPPORTED, Pakistan has a history of trying to control Afghanistan and look how they did?

[tharnax]

Anyone that refers to "the beauty of afghanistan during soviet time" is disturbed and a communist. Pakistan is a sovereign country, the Taliban was a rotten regime, Irefer you to my previous comments.

[wdednam]

Ha! Pakistan is a DICTATORSHIP, PERIOD! But not for long...

[tharnax]

Sovereignty is the right of every nation, when that nation allows Islamist, or Fascist, or even Communist influence to take root, other sovereign democratic nations have the right to intervene to the extent that they are able to protect the inhabitants of these often hapless and victimized countries from the horrors that these types of regimes have in store for them.

[tharnax]

The world court is a joke to the US, just as it is a joke to China, to Russia, or any other sovereign country for that matter. It is a vestige of a nascent global government that will never fully come to be. The growth of this global government is irrevocably stunted by the Sovereignty of all nations.

[tharnax]

I followed Prof. Chomsky for years, I broke ranks with he and the Left in general after it became painfully obvious that they were deluded.

[mmgg33]

In what way?

[tharnax]

In this case, the Left was deluded to think that the US would tolerate a nest of Islamist murderers with a homebase in Afghanistan. Regardless of wether or not the taliban turned Bin Laden over. That regime was destined to be wiped out.

[mmgg33]

Tolerate it?!! The US CREATED this nest of 'Islamic murderers!' The US war in Afghanistan was so brutal on the population that they not only accepted, but WELCOMED Taliban rule.

[tharnax]

If your talking about our support for the taliban against the Soviets in the 80's. We absolutely created them through the CIA, that was the Cold War. Do you think that support gives them the right to kill Americans here? That's what I mean by 'deluded'. We have every right to respond by wiping them out.

[mmgg33]

Imagine you are an Afghan. What right does the US have to devastate your country and KILL AFGHANS? Would you believe that Afghans have the right to respond by "wiping out" Americans?

[tharnax]

Imagine you are a German in 1944. Do the Allies have the right to bomb you and kill your family because of what Hitler did? He did'nt even attack America. We never deliberately target civilians, and you know it. The right to respond? The taliban is responding today, we are also responding against military targets only, not civilians. It's war my friend, it's ugly but sometimes it has to be done.

[mmgg33]

No, the Allies don't have the right to bomb me and kill my family simply because I am a German, just as Bin Ladin didn't have the right to run a plane into the US and kill Americans indiscriminately. We have deliberately targeted civilians in numerous, numerous cases which I can go into in further detail if you want. Yes the Taliban is responding today, and it is just as wrong as the US invasion and occupation of their country.

[mmgg33]

Also, how does this war "have to be done?" The removal of the Taliban was never a stated war aim for entering Afghanistan, and like I said before, the US CREATED the Afghanistan run by the Taliban that we know today.

[tharnax]

As I said before, the CIA aided the fighters that became the Taliban. Sounds like you are saying that we had no right to attack Afghanistan after 9-11, obviously we did, and future generations of Afghans will be safer and happier for it. Just as millions of Japanese our safer and happier today thanks to the USA.

[mmgg33]

No. What I said was that the US had no right to attack Afghanistan for the purpose of demolishing their government, which was of no immediate threat to the US. How is it "obvious" that we had to attack Afghanistan and demolish their government?

[tharnax]

Because their government aided Al-Qaeda within its own borders. Did you miss that? These fundamentalists are our enemies, they enjoy killing American civilians. I'm sorry you think that makes the taliban regime untouchable. We don't engage in much diplomacy with any government that supports the murder of our own civilians! Do you care about Americans? Are you an American??

[mmgg33]

Hahaha--Did WE enjoy killing innocent Japanese civilians? As you said, it was BETTER for them in the end. The Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. Does the US deserve to be hit by a plane because they supported FUNDAMENTALISTS who enjoyed killing in Afghanistan and numerous other places around the world?! And you're right: no, I don't care about Americans, I care about humans.

[tharnax]

Still trying to understand your strange logic. Do you believe that Al Qaeda and the USA are equals? It seems that you do, if so, I am very sorry that you are this deluded. Please re-examine your twisted views. And stop laughing when talking about dead civilians, its really not funny.

[mmgg33]

No, what I am saying is that the US needs to identify itself as the leading precipitator of terrorism around the world, and recognize that attacking civilians and destroying their governments is not the way to stop it.

[tharnax]

We haven't been struck since 9-11. Do you believe that the way to stop terrorism to is to work through the powerless World Court? Do you honestly believe the UN can stop terrorism? You sound upset that the taliban government was put down, did you like that government better than the current, freely elected one?

[mmgg33]

The UN and World Court have as much power as the US defers to them to stop terrorism. The way to put down a government is not to demolish it militarily, which has the "strange" effect of further radicalizing the population, but to support internal democracy forces.

[mmgg33]

Secondly, the US overthrow of the Taliban was illegal, horrible, and caused a horrific humanitarian crisis, with huge amounts of the population without necessary food or supplies, as well as other general destruction of the country. And as I said before: "the US needs to identify itself as the leading precipitator of terrorism around the world, and recognize that attacking civilians and destroying their governments is not the way to stop it."

[mmgg33]

And by the way, it's been nice debating with you this week. A good way to formulate your argument. : )

[tharnax]

The world court is a joke to the US, just as it is a joke to China, to Russia, or any other sovereign country for that matter. It is a vestige of a nascent global government that will never fully come to be. The growth of this global government is irrevocably stunted by the Sovereignty of all nations.

[tharnax]

Good to debate you as well, but please answer my specific questions!

[tharnax]

It doesn't have to be a 'stated war aim' to be the right thing to do. We owe the Afghans their freedom which they could not secure on their own.

"the US CREATED the Afghanistan run by the Taliban that we know today."

If you will take notice, the US has helped to bring about a stable democracy today in Afghanistan, pay attention! Policies and administrations change.

[mmgg33]

No, the fact that it wasn't a stated war aim tells you something about the real reasons. Which were, by the way, just as illegal and horrific as the stated ones.

[tharnax]

Nonsense. The taliban was horrible and needed to be put down, America changed its policy on brutal regimes. Thank goodness policy makers are more thoughtful and pragmatic than you are. Afghanistan is free and will stay that thanks to the USA.

[gomey70]

"the US has helped to bring about a stable democracy today in Afghanistan".

lol, u idiot.

[tharnax]

Are you saying that the Afghan Government is not democratic? LOL

[Redcarpet01]

It's no more democratic than the regime installed in Greece in the late 1940s by the US or Chile in 1973.

[tharnax]

Absurd. Your warped logic is revealed for all to see.

[wdednam]

Very stable indeed! The MASS media even report frequently on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan now. And Musharraf will be out the door soon; the US government's favourite neighbourhood dictator.

[tharnax]

America was not about to sit idly by after being attacked by a nest of Islamist murderers holed up in Afghanistan. We took action with or without U.N. approval, America is not controlled by a global committee. When a democracy is attacked, the public demands action be taken against the attackers. Bin Laden laughed about the 3,000 murders, We now laugh at his latest cave that he hides in like a coward.

[tharnax]

I've said many times that Chomsky cannot be defeated in a debate. It's still rings true, however, winning a debate does'nt mean you are 'correct'. Comparing the US to Nicaragua is absurd, just as comparing Afghanistan to the US is absurd.

[edwardosaido]

I disagree with the below comment. The "semantics" debate is absolutely paramount in today's age of distortions and fantical jingoism. Proper examination reveals that semantics is at the heart of all dissent. Political revoultions are redefinitions of government preceded by redifition of language i.e. semantics.

[tuntitommosille]

Chomsky appears a bit irritated, perhaps because a lot of time was spent correcting misinterpretations and arguing semantics. I know hardtalks format requires Tim to chime in constantly in an effort to look smart and push the other guy into a corner, but they should have realized this is futile with Chomsky and just let him finish answering the questions.

[Hijodelarebeldia]

I think Tim Sebastian does a great job. He does what he can to clarify Chomsky´s point, although he sometimes appears to be "irrational" Mr Chomsky has a moral and intellectual authority which needs to be pushed to the limit to be fully understood. Chomsky the Great!

[JoeStunner]

Poor old Tim. Chomsky's eloquence, serenity and downright air-tight logic is marvelous. No wonder he's so revered. How can someone who's so correct NOT be respected?

[euclidxxx]

Agreed.

[JuanDeSoCal]

How scary would it be to lock horns with Chomsky? Not recommended! His ability to recall facts always astonishes me. Keep in mind too, he's a pretty old guy now.

[Webins]

This Tim Sebastian employs the same tactics as the right-wing tv news hosts in AMerica do, which is to lean forward and talk loud and interrupt and accuse, all i the hopes of intimidation.

Unfortunately for him Prof.Chomsky isn't intimidated, and still managed to kick his ass.

[HauntingTheHoly]

I much prefer these kinds of hostile interviews. They are worth so much more than the ones where you got some guy kissing Chomsky's ass. It's amazing to see how easily the holes in Sebastian's logic are exposed. Funny how he just moves on every time after being pwned.

[fuckthepain]

You're right. Hostile is better. Moving on is what they're supposed to do, though. The question has been answered.

[NathanZackery]

Yes that is the tactic with these 'tough' interviewers. They focus on a single point until they are defeated and then, without even pausing for breath, move on to a completely different topic. This could phase some interviewees but not Noam.

[Dondonovan]

3 words. Chomsky fucking rules!

[ofpfury]

I find it damn irksome that time after time, Chomsky's interviewers refuse to accept basic documented facts and/or simple logic. Are they brain washed? Brain dead? ARGHHH! Chomsky's patience is admirable.

[Duckthunda]

Chomsky kicks yet another ass!

[Chomskyan]

Agreed. Sebastian is a hack job.