FETZER ON CHOMSKY: Linguistics & 9/11 (snowshoefilms)

[1melahat]

Is Webster Tarpely legit or a gate keeper like Chomsky?

[niriop]

Recent evidence for universal sound symbolism points further towards some form of innate semantics; there's a great lay article by New Scientist called "Kiki or bouba? In search of language's missing link" on their website about it.

Fetzer's syntactic emergentism stills fails to the recognise the comparable grammatical rules that underlie all known languages; no distinct variations have yet to come about; so either grammar is an inside job, or there is a form of innate syntax in the human mind.

[cryptickripke]

He also says you can "call on your concepts" without syntax. But how do you link those concepts up? Like "ball" and "red," leading to "red ball;" and "red ball" and "in the air," leading to "the red ball is in the air." This is syntax, and it can't be acquired from the environment. Whatever elements of syntax are unacquired are Universal Grammar. The only people who deny that UG exists are people like Fetzer who just don't understand the ideas involved.

[cryptickripke]

Fetzer doesn't understand the difference between concepts and linguistic ability--since a child can throw a ball, she obviously has the concept "ball." So "ball", plus the right linguistic stimulus, leads to her ability to use the word "ball." But how does the child know how to construct sentences she hasn't heard before? How can the child distinguish between sentences she hears? How can the child understand the relationship between elements of a sentence? The form of grammar must be unacquired.

[frantorazzo]

That someone's opinion differs to Fetzer's on a particular point is not enough to mark them as morally bankrupt. Chomsky has brought more dissent to bear on the establishment than any other intellectual alive today. The real disappoinment here is the failure of public dissidents like Fetzer and Chomsky (and many others) to unite over their shared aims instead of arguing endlessly over the few points they disagree on. This failure to unite and organize plays right into the establishment's hands.

[bofors7715]

Pot calling the kettle black does not quite capture the absurdity of this, but it is close in simplistic sense.

[sssssjjjj1]

fetzer a gatekeeper. hahahahhahaa That is soooo stupid. Fetzer is a man among boys. He is true blue and chomsky is concerned with his zion masters, period. Have you read the talmud. REad a bit of it and you'll see why he takes this position. Like the masons, it is stated in their literature, it is out there on google in the archives that a mason even if their "brother" mason is on trial even for murder, they will lie to get them off the charge. This is fact. The talmud is for psychos.

[RainmanCT]

Fetzer's comment of Chomsky: "a flagrant failure to fulfill the duties he assumes as a public intellectual" for considering it unlikely that the Bush adminitration was responsible for planning 9/11 - where are his arguments that they WERE responsible for the planning? While it may be obvious that they benefitted from it, the speaker makes no attempt to offer his own theory...perhaps he doesn't consider himself a public intellectual to be held to the same standards.

[PurpleVolvagia]

why do people "unlike" these documentaries? It's just science, people. If it hasn't got enough explosions, watch footage from games.

[Diosibundo]

I comepletely agree. We should be able to easily describe out "innate" describe syntax.

Just as any five year old should be able to describe "digestion" easily... which they cannot. Therefore, digestion is learned, not innate.

Can I publish a book on it now?

[sssssjjjj1]

Fetzer is a mental GUARGANTUA to chumpsky the mental maggot.

[wfenio]

Chomsky's failure to acknowledge the significance of 911 and Kennedy's assasination are really a failure to consistently apply his own principles of analysis. While Fetzer seems correct in his criticisms, we should also remember that Chomsky has been very good on a wide range of issues that are of great significance to the American people. so let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

[ThisSentenceIsFalse]

Trying to figure out what Chomsky means can't be done with sound bites. What did he say before, after, and in what context??? Otherwise, these little clips just "smell" misleading to me. And I've listened to a lot of Chomsky speaking and I just don't think the disagreement Fetzer has with Chomsky is all that huge. It seems both are working out different aspects of the same puzzle. It just looks like they are opposed at the local level.

[Algonkianist]

@ThisSentenceIsFalse You're absolutely right and then some. There is no disagreement between Chomsky and Fetzer because Fetzer has no coherent position. He is apparently relying on an article written by Shoenemann which is a poor summary of some of the work done on whats called emergent grammar but makes no empirical claimes. There is nothing with content in this discussion that could legitimately be called a 'disagreement'. Fetzer just uses different programmatic slogans than Chomsky.

[willesnille]

...large parts of the Bush administration executed. To say that exactly who killed 3000 people isn't that important - when there's plenty of evidenece against the two supposed murderers anyway - sounds cold but it's said every day, just not about white christian people.

[willesnille]

On the linguistic issue I'm not qualified in the least to have an intelligent opinion, so I won't give one. On the other issue, the 9/11 truth movement I'd have to agree w/ Chomsky that it has minor importance in the grander scheme of things. They wanted to escalate the imperial project and were willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of iraqis and thousands of americans. Why are the exact methods they use of such importance? There's already more than plenty of evidence to have....

[photofu]

Chomsky is a fake intellectual.

[NoLies86]

@photofu...oh yeah...he made groundbreaking achievements in linguistics...what a fake intellectual

[Algonkianist]

Has anyone actually read the article by Shoenemann, its hilarious.

[chowbelly]

Chomsky demonstrates the zionist method of "controlling the opposition". He disseminates zionist propaganda for the intellectually inclined, as opposed to the typical tv news crowd, from a trusted position embedded in our ranks.

[Algonkianist]

thats so insightful.

[rotocon]

If 9/11 was faked for the objective of bringing the public in line with the War on Terror, why were business and military targets chosen instead of residential areas, which would've made for much more effective propaganda? If bin Laden is an accomplice, why is his rhetoric sharply different from George Bush's cartoonish characterization of his motivations: "He hates our freedoms"? Chomsky is right about 9/11. If the US gov't were that ruthless they could've accomplished so much more.

[Judas63]

If only the violin was just a tad bit louder, this video would be great. Having it at that mid level is just not enough. What were you thinking?

[pirbird14]

According to "Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture by David L. Hall ), Roger T. Ames", the grammar of the Chinese language is radically different from all other languages in the world.

If Chomsky is correct about grammar being "hardwired" in the brain, then Chinese brains are radically different from all others.

This is a racist suggestion.

Grammar is a set of rules that govern how words work with each other. How are they hardwired?

[ChuckyHammer]

Is it racist to note differences between groups of people? To note that the female and male brain are different is that sexist? I don't think so.

[Algonkianist]

UG is not a grammar silly, its a skeleton for grammar. Besides, the Chinese language is not "radically different" from any other language in the world, its different, but how different it is depends on a lot of things. But seriously though, Chomsky eats babies.

[Algonkianist]

I love how there are a couple pictures from Syntactic Structures (1965) showing the transformational history of some sentences with a guy talking about something that has nothing to do with Syntax. What is Fetzer talking about HIS RESEARCH, the idea that syntax is an emergent phenomena comes from linguists which he cites (indirectly) in that other video, with the woman obsessed with cancer.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

Newton's Third Law is ALL the evidence needed to prove controlled demolition.

citizens of U.S.A. , your choice; stand up or stand down.

a Socially Adept Psychopath is capable of mass murder. a Socially Adept Psychopath is capable of being elected president.

if you remain silent about the murder of nearly 3,000 of your fellow citizens who will speak for you?

it is long past time for a criminal investigation and trial.

if you CHOOSE to stand down know what you are standing down to.

[smartasa911twoofer]

3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:

Larry Silverstein said "pull it", demolishing WTC 7 and collecting billions in insurance. Why would the insurance company pay the claim when there's evidence of fraud?

If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & NOT damaged by fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads?

Why doesnt Steven Jones say HOW he obtained the WTC dust samples and WHERE they were stored for the past 7.5 years?

[suren1946]

lol: "who cares?"

[zacharysly]

Damn Chumsky to Hell and Fuck Coward Zinn too, Left gatekeeping pussies making sure intelligent people on the left never reach full potential. Evil bastards will be exposed and put on trial for their intellectual slavery tactics in the war on consciousness and humanity

[marx102]

I don't understand why people think 9/11 was a huge event. Every month more american die in care accidents, smoking, obescity but no one cares. These are not huge events. A huge event is the murder of one million iraqis, but you people are more concerned about those 3000. You only care about you rights and no one else's. It is so self centered. Why is the assassination of JFk more important than the assassination of Sadat. Did Sadat get killed by Islamists or Cheney.

[Blissentia]

@marx102

9/11 was a part of a military doctrine called "The Revolution In Military Affairs", the end goal of which the military calls "full spectrum dominance": revolutioninmilitaryaffairs (DOT) com/about/

[Algonkianist]

note to Fetzer: see Chomsky (1965).

[tokotokotoko3]

Simple logic can tell you that Chomsky is right, actually on both issues. That grammar is genetics based just follows from evolutionary rules. Additonally if we look at for example Steven Pinkers work: he does quite clearly define those underlying rules that are valid for all languages.

As for the 911 and JFK events - one must understand what Chomsky is all about. For him Kennedy is nothing special. The important part is the policy of the government - and that one didn't change.

[SmelOdies]

I think even Chomsky's most ardent supporters will concede that "even if it were true, who cares?" were ill chosen words. But that doesn't mean he's not right about the conspiracy theory being fallacious.

[indyleftist]

I would defend that statement

Even it 911 were an inside job it doesn't change the policy discussion

So for instance in Vietnam...The war was wrong before it was known that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged by the gov't.

And on the other side, the people who favor the war in favored it regardless of whether it was true as well.

So why sidetrack yourself on a sub-issue?

The Iraq war is wrong no matter what happened on 911.

[indyleftist]

And of course it wasn't an inside job

Or at least there's no real evidence of that

I suppose anything's possible

[beardedswine]

kennedy was pushing a bill to rid you guys of your federal reserve. it was one of the first bills johnson got rid of when he was sworn in. he got rid of that bill while he was still on the plane

[drewt3]

.All this discourse seems to be generated by the the differing views of two almost, at least to most Americans,unknown academicians. I tend to agree with nikancuole and find that there is little to be gained from yet again parading out the JFK "conspiracy" or 9/11 as well.Fetzer seems to be displaying in his statements concerning these events and Chomsky the same behavior that I can view any night on American junk TV a la Big Brother.Whats to be learned as Rome burns?

[ElwynMaximus]

Jesus Saves. Hallaluja.

God Sucks, however.

[4ourthofjuly]

I always tell people to ask philosopher's of science what they think about any issue, that they have the best training around.

Not in Fetzer's case, though.

What a jackass.

It does not follow that if syntax were innate, it would therefore have to be easy to discover and work with.

And as far as 911 is concerned, people like Chomsky (and myself) might spend more time looking in to it, if retards like Fetzer weren't involved.

[capelipl]

what a tragedy that chomsky hyas abandoned his lifetime of unique work & chosen complicity in 911 mass murder event instead.

it shows,i think,mankind,that its intellectual heroes r chosen at a tender age,groomed by a singular elite for use as necessary,chomsky teaches me 1 last time, the desperation elites must have over 911 exposure to throw a lifetime of left gatemansship,dowm a toilet, believed chomsky 4 30 years ,thanks to your recent911 and jfk candor im becoming much harder to fool

[pt1gard]

great post... sad to see sheep led by lobotomized bellcows

[SFwizardoakland]

because we are talking a heavy scholastic scientific biological aproach to language that frankly has nothing to do with 911 and dumb as fetzer is trying to make it so...and I do believe 911 was inside job but who cares weather chomsky does, he is still right about linguistics you morons.

[clerkhog]

@SFwizardoakland chomsky would'nt be taken seriously if he were to engage in conspiracy theorys. and he would'nt get the attention he does if he did. he captivates people on the overall issues. he still says the american goverment is the biggest terrorist state in the world. so what if unified evindence, showed up to say 911 was an inside job. he'd still be right.

[cormex55]

Regarding Chomsky's linguistics theory, Fetzer missed the connection that Chomsky was not talking about the ability to form concepts rather, the drive to express them vocally.

However I agree that Noam Chomsky's inability to address, even dismiss, unsatisfied questions of tantamount importance regarding WTC 911 is suspect.

...in the end he still plays an important roll by encouraging questions, discourse and activism.

[nikancuole]

The "MEGA-ISSUES" are not 9/11 and JFK.

The "mega-issues" are the lack of democratically functioning institutions in the US, and the tragic public consequences of that democracy deficency in the US and abroad--consequences that pose real threats to the survival of our species.

Chomsky views elaborate debates about 9/11 and JFK conspiracies as distractions that deflect dissident focus off of the primary objective of democratizing our society and public institutions.

[4ourthofjuly]

No kidding, I would think WWII was a major event.

Maybe Fetzer meant in his view.

This guy is a third rate scholar in what, Duluth Minnesota? Im from the midwest, and dont mean to knock it, but this guy is at a 4th rate school in the middle of nowhere.

[Yoryevrah]

to memeticverb: in the words of David Ray Griffin, let's get empirical. What evidence do you have for your flippant charge that Fetzer is a left gatekeeper? because he has a different view on what technology brought down the WTC buildings? such charges are made too easily.

[memeticverb]

I apologize for being frank. But the reasons are many:

1)Fetzer provides bad evidence for his DEW hypothesis (pm me for specifics) and makes it a dividing point in the SF911T

2)Early lectures by Fetzer contain numerous logical fallacies of such a simple form that he could not possibly have unknowingly committed them.

3)His newer "no-planes" view is clearly disinfo from a rational, empirical standpoint, unlike the rock-solid evidence of CD

[memeticverb]

Fetzer is correct in taking Noam to task, but Fetzer himself is also a disinfo agent. Google left-wing gatekeepers

[blueciel8]

chomsky is just paid off.

[jcjamrock]

I think its BS they want you to question Chomsky however if you actually got your uninformed ass out from in front of the propagand machine and read his books you would understand why they are being critical of him.DUH!!!!If there were no validity to what he was saying then they would just ignore him!! DUH!!!!!!

[memeticverb]

Chomsky has stuck to his theories, but as radical as they were many years ago they are now outdated.

[moorooduc]

i find this video somewhat disappointing. there is NO connection between chomsky's linguistic theories and his political writings. since you connect the two issues, your aim seems to be "chomsky bashing". this absurd combination of unrelated topics weakens your argument, which i share some of. however, you'are suposed to tear to shreds the person AND NOT the well-respected person. the whole video is is disgrace for scientific reasoning.

[moorooduc]

i mixed up the second-last sentence. i was meant to be:

you'are suposed to tear to shreds the arguments AND NOT the well-respected person.

[stupidgirl816]

Chomsky exposed. More a controlled opposition tool for the machine than intellectual of our time.

[euclidxxx]

In spite of my earlier comments (below) in Chomsky's defence, I have now begun to re-examine what I had previously thought I knew about the good Professor... Though not on account of this video, I hasten to add. (I've always felt Fetzer to be slightly unhinged.)

[euclidxxx]

Instead, I'd recommend reading Barrie Zwicker's interesting and penetrating remarks on the subject: 'The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers on the Left' (taken from his book 'Towers of Deception'), which you can find at 'LeftGatekeepers'.

[euclidxxx]

I'm still undecided about Chomsky... There may any of a number of reasons for his being so blinkered and obtuse about 9/11...

[Rickdeckard2020]

This is an interesting and valuable critique.

And this does not only apply to Chomsky, people that have offered valuable criticism or insight into power sometimes also leave out essential factors (blind-spots) required to understand whats going on.

Armed Mad House for example gives great insight into the Oil rational behind the Bush administration and Iraq, but completely avoids the slightess mention of AIPAC which have undoubtedly at least some influence.

[stupidgirl816]

They are the controlled opposition.

[baiyuantongbei]

Whatever Fetzer's faults on 911, he at least demonstrates his integrity as a scholar. Noam Chomsky is a monstrous disappointment, possibly marking himself as a tool of the machine he purports to criticize. His obtuseness regarding overwhelming evidence that 911 was an inside job is unconscionable. And, Fetzer really helps me understand why I never liked Chomsky's generative grammar anyway :) Oh come on... generative grammar sounds like an argument for "intelligent design" -- get real.

[euclidxxx]

(cont'd)

I should add that Fetzer himself is far from being a reliable guide to the events of 9/11. Physicist Steven Jones -- who is one of the leading scholars in the 9/11 truth movement -- has publicly distanced himself from Fetzer because of the latter's outlandish views and theories, which he felt were undermining the movement. In sum: Fetzer is eccentric and unpredictable; I wouldn't rely on him for anything balanced or well-considered.

[euclidxxx]

(cont'd)

And what on earth do Chomsky's linguistic theories have to do with Sept. 11? Also, I don't see why Vietnam, East Timor, Nicaragua, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, only count, in Fetzer's mind, as, "the intermediate range of issues," and not, "the mega-issues, the ones that are of truly historical importance."

[stupidgirl816]

Builds a case, pretty strong one, that he is intellectually dishonest.

[jcjamrock]

Your very bright.

[euclidxxx]

(cont'd)

and he most certainly did NOT mean that the murder of 3,000 or so people in New York on Sept. 11 would have no significance. This is clear if you listen to Chomsky's answer on that occasion in full. (See the relevant youtube video.)

[euclidxxx]

(cont'd)

It's important to point out that when Chomsky said, "Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance..." he only meant that we already know the US Government is capable of mass-murder (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc);

[euclidxxx]

I agree that, given his wonted intellectual rigour, Chomsky's analysis of 9/11 has been, on the whole, less than adequate. But this kind of public attack does nothing whatsoever to move the debate forward, and is certainly unbecoming of a "philosopher".

[cormex55]

Regarding Chomsky's linguistics theory, Fetzer missed the connection that Chomsky was not talking about the ability to form concepts rather, to express them vocally.

However I agree that Noam Chomsky's inability to address, even dismiss, unsatisfied questions of tantamount importance is suspect.

...in the end he still plays an important roll by encouraging questions, discourse and activism.

[aspakowski]

You're missing the point of the book. You should try reading past the title.

[swennsyever9]

Please pardon my ignorance and I mean no disrespect but doesn't Prof Fetzer's 9-11 analysis violate critical thinking's reqs, ie, consider both sides' arguments and reach for the most reasonable conclusion. What am I missing?

[swennsyever9]

typo:: "...9-11/JFK analysis..."

[tarnopol]

Finally, I don't see what Chomsky's linguistic theories, right or wrong, has to do with this at all. Except in Fetzer's mind (or career).

[tarnopol]

Anyone who doesn't think the govt wouldn't kill thousands of Americans through negligence -- or action -- is blind to history. What matters is what happened from 10AM ET on 9/11/01 to the present day. No need for conspiracies there, right? So why waste time and effort trying to figure out something highly unlikely either to have happened or to have left sufficient evidence to convince anyone?

[tarnopol]

On 9/11: Chomsky has said, and it is completely obvious, that "TLIH" is very definitely true: for years, US foreign policy has been begging for a terror attack. It happened to the same bldgs in 1993. They got 'em in 2001, among other places. In that crucial sense, TLIH. Now, TMIH does seem to me to be at best unprovable. Did Cheney ground interceptors as it was happening to maximize the problem? Maybe. Maybe the command structure was simply incompetent. So what? (cont'd)

[tarnopol]

I don't see the big to-do over Chomsky wondering whether it matters who killed JFK? It's pretty clear that JFK wasn't going to shift on Vietnam policy (look at the documentary record); so if some mob and/or Cuban conspiracy (or whatever) took him out, so what? In the larger scheme of things, it truly doesn't matter. (Next comment on 9/11.)

[Davey1977]

His argument against innatism is that "syntax is extremely complex"?? Just because something is difficult to understand, has nothing to do with its innate nature. I haven't the foggiest idea about how my liver works; that doesn't mean I don't have one. The whole beauty of innatism is that you don't HAVE to understand syntax in order to be able to use it, and every human being (apart from rare deficiences) acquired their language, regardless of its complexity.

[JoeStunner]

Fetzer should be on bended-knee, thanking Chomsky for his uncharacteristic diplomacy in not dismissing the 9/11 conspiracy theorists as the nut-jobs they are. 9/11 was planned by Bush and his puppet-masters? Yeah, right. And the moon's made of cheese.

[duhCider]

Kennedy also said the CIA had deceived him. He was furious with the agency, leading to the firing of Richard Bissel and Allen Dulles. To me, the record is unclear how much, if any, of those further CIA-sponsored activities against Cuba Kennedy allowed. What I have taken from the historical record, and what has been borne out since, is that no US President can completely control the covert operations of our government.

[AntonBatey]

Kennedy fired Allan Dulles, Richard Bissell and General Charles Cabell because they lost the Bay of Pigs. Had the Bay of Pigs been a success, they would have been awarded medals, you know it and I know it. Just like if the War in Iraq was succeeding right now, all the hypocritical Democrats who authorized the War would be bragging about it, not retracting their initial support for it. Kennedy made it clear he wanted Castro dead.

[duhCider]

To Anton: Appreciate the reply. They deceived JFK, assured him U.S. military support was not needed. Then the op fell apart & they were adamant that JFK give air support. They blamed him for not following thru when they had previously assured him it was not necessary. JFK felt duped. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE FIRED!!! JFK felt he was being led by the nose into larger conflicts by his own intel agencies.

[AntonBatey]

The CIA is just one bureaucracy that the President will blame if things go wrong. Since Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs, he was for it. They lost the Bay of Pigs, so someone (or some people) had to be the fall guy. Happens all the time. Just like Bush blames intelligence agencies about WMDs in Iraq -- that's how the system survives; nobody takes responsibility because there's so many groups you can point the finger at.

[duhCider]

Kennedy refused to provide air cover for the Bay of Pigs invading force on the beach. He did approve the invasion, but did NOT want direct involvement of the U.S. military. The force was composed of American-trained anti-Castro Cubans and others opposed to Castro, but OFFICIALLY had no U.S. military assets. Kennedy was ADAMANT about not involving our military & risking WWIII w/Russia.

[AntonBatey]

I answered all the bullshit you said when I was going back and forth with the other guy on here. Kennedy, as you admit, authorized the Bay of Pigs, and created, along with his brother, an even worse terrorist, illegal operation against Cuba called "Operation Mongoose". Read about it and then we'll talk.

[duhCider]

To Anto: Fully aware of "Mongoose." Once you tread in those murky waters, nothing is ever the same, or sane. Every US President who defied his intel agencies has suffered immensely. We will never know the truth as to what, if any, "tricks" against Castro JFK approved.

[AntonBatey]

Actually you're wrong. We do have quite a rich documentary record that goes almost day by day, during the Kennedy Presidency. He clearly approved the measures of industrial sabotage against Castro, the bombing of ships, hotels, and even planned an attack on Cuba in October, 1963. That all changed when the USSR said "that's enough" and intervened, hence, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[duhCider]

To Anton: Again, appreicate the reply. Actually, you're wrong. The Cuban missile crisis was Oct. 1962. As far as what JFK approved is unclear. I don't know. You don't know. The CIA covers its asses better than any President could hope to. They operate above the law with no real checks or balances.

[AntonBatey]

Yes, I meant October 1962 -- excuse me.

According to Memorandums to the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the Bay of Pigs to the Missile Crises, Kennedy did have plans to invade them in October, 1962. And to claim that we "don't know" is wrong. We DO know -- the documentary record is not blotched out, we know the names of the planners, etc. They WERE planning to invade Cuba until the USSR sent nuclear weapons. I can give you the dates where they specifically talked about it.

[robtran]

Geez, the man just can't win. Starting forty years ago, with his organizing of MIT students' resistance against the war in Vietnam, Chomsky has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. But because he does not agree with the theories about JFK and 9/11, he's a "dupe." What a crock of shit.

[AntonBatey]

Well put.

[chrismca]

No innate aspect of syntx, then how could this happen? I joked with a three-year-old saying, "You're a silly." He relpied, "No, you're a house. HA HA HA!" How could he learn to identify my use of silly as a noun (probably every time he heard it before it was used as an adjective), and then choose a noun to replace it? He couldn't have copied my sentence then just put in "house," or lexical-functional grammar wouldn't work. Fetzer doesn't answer, he just gripes. Same with his politics.

[robtran]

Excellent riposte. These nitwits don't belong standing in the same room with Chomsky, let alone criticizing him in this manner.

[Contraceptor2000]

Chomsky is today's Einstein. Einstein was a Jewish fabrication who stole four patents from the Bern patent office where the Jews got him a job as a clerk. After the Jews propped Einstein up as the world's greatest genius Einstein was used to parrot Communist ideas, e.g. "There is one race, the human race." Chomsky has been set up as today's greatest living genius and is saying what he is told to say.

[AntonBatey]

Hate to break it to you, but scientifically, there is "one race". Scientists do not consider such superficial distinctions as a valid taxonomy with humans. But from soneone who claims that Einstein is a "Jewish fabrication", it'll be difficult for you to admit it. But it's true if you admit it or not; so you may as well.

[haroldoftherock2006]

if all of what u say to explain Chomsky is true, then who knows what Chomsky is saying since he could be part of the state conspiracy and who cares since he is in the hands of the state and no amount of truth that Chomsky tries to dish out will ever change the status quo.

[Stanley1969]

Fetzer's views on language go back to the 18th century and are insensitive to the complexities particular to syntax, independent of general concepts. Any student of 101 linguistics will tell you the same. Don't take my word for it, just do some research yourself and stop watching self-serving videos.

[AntonBatey]

Regarding 9/11, the "9/11 Conspiracy" is just a diversion that waters down the crimes committed abroad that undermines why anyone WOULD want to attack America. There are legitimate (but nevertheless terrible) reasons why the US would be attacked by an outside force, and instead of obligating yourself to learning of those crimes, you focus so much energy on whether there was some conspiracy.

[AntonBatey]

Regarding the JFK assassination, Chomsky is correct: who knows, and who cares? Kennedy's policy was a continuation of Eisenhower/Nixon and was continued by Johnson and Nixon. According to the declassified record, Kennedy was a brutal hawk toward Cuba (read about Operation Mongoose), and wanted Vietnam to be a subservient colony to the United States.

[simeetg]

"Kennedy was a brutal hawk towards Cuba"

Right, that's why he refused to guarantee an invasion in 1961 and 1962 when he had total power to do so..

"Kennedy wanted Vietnam to be a colony to the US"

Right, that is why he said the war was for the Vietnamese to win or lose, and asked the Pentagon to prepare withdrawal plans, which they did

And then there is the Test Ban Treay and American University Peace Speech,

AntonBatey, have you ever actually read about JFK?

[AntonBatey]

According to the documentary record, Kennedy not only authorized the Bay of Pigs, but also its descendant, Operation Mongoose, which was far worse. They blew up ships, engaged in germ warfare, industrial sabotage, etc.; you know- things that violate international law. NSM 263 secured withdraws WITH victory, as he himself explained in many quotes. 273 was authorized before Kennedy died, as well, which reversed on any "withdraw policy".

[AntonBatey]

Kennedy also engaged in terrorist methods against SOUTH Vietnam in October, 1962, using bombs, napalm and industrial disruption. He also expressed numerous times, saying flat out, "we're going to stay". Have you just watched JFK, or have you taken more than 3 hours to actually read the declassified documentary record?

[simeetg]

The only person who stopped the USA from going to war i Vietnam was President Kennedy. He was strongly pressured by the military and advisors to pour in 100,000 men in 1961. JFK refused to go to war in Laos, and refused to sent combat troops to Vietnam consistently, until his death. Kennedy made a mistake authorizing any military action in Vietnam, and he was going to reverse that mistake but he was killed. Kennedy was not perfect, but that misses the point.

[AntonBatey]

What do you mean Kennedy was the "only person who stopped the USA from going to war in Vietnam"? On October 11th, 1961, Kennedy ordered dispatch of a US Air Force Farmgate squad to South Vietnam, and in March, 1962, US officials announced publicly that US pilots were engaged in combat missions (bombing and strafing).

[AntonBatey]

Look, there are three main articles of evidence to consider: historical facts, public statements, the internal planning record, and the memoirs and other reports on Kennedy insiders. In these exist substantial verification that Kennedy was, by and large, no different from Nixon or Johnson. As I said, a day before he died NSM 273 was authorized, then signed on the 26th of November. Please -- lay these infantile theories to rest.

[simeetg]

Howard Jones, Robert Dallek, Vincent Bugliosi, and David Kaiser are among the many independent historians who support the contrary opinion. "I am of the belief that no amount of military assistance can defeat an enemy that has the covert support and sympathy of the people, one that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time," Sen. John F. Kennedy

[AntonBatey]

Oh, so you want to start quoting Kennedy, do ya? On July 17th, 1963, he said, "for us to withdraw from that effort would mean collapse not only for South Vietnam, bu Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there." On September 2nd, 1963, he bluntly said, "I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw", and then on the 9th said, "I think we should stay, we should not withdraw".

[simeetg]

Why did Kennedy, whenever his advisors pushed him to send tens of thousands of Marines to fight in Vietnam, always say, go convince Douglas MacArthur? Kennedy did say these things, but in the same Cronkie September 2 1963 interview he said, "In the final analysis, it is their war, they have to win it or lose it, we can help them..but the people of Vietnam are gonna have to win it." JFK never planned for an escalation, but he did for withdrawal. So there.

[AntonBatey]

Of course politicians often make contradictory statements, but his statements regarding his apparent unwillingness to withdraw troops from Vietnam are what's in accordance with the declassified documents. Remember, Johnson also said, "We don't want our American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys", and that Nixon ran on an anti-war campaign in 1968. The truth is, Kennedy expanded the troop level from 1961-1963.

[simeetg]

I recommend you watch "The Fog of War" and "Would JFK Have Pulled Out of Vietnan" parts I and II here on YouTube.

And read the essays by John F. Galbraith, Jr. in addition to the book "Death of a Generation"

In 1963, Vietnam was not a major national issue, with only 30% even aware there was a conflict there.

JFK had also been keeping the option open of a diplomatic solution through Poland or India, much like Laos. Google "Papers Reveal JFK Efforts in Vietnam"

[AntonBatey]

John Kenneth Galbraith, along with others who favored political settlement over military victory (like Chester Bowles), was distanced from political planning by Kennedy himself, and barley appears in the internal record. Those "withdraw without victory" views were not tolerated by Kennedy and his Administration.

You *seriously* need to read the declassified accounts.

[simeetg]

If you study the papers of Robert McNamara, he strongly as possible states that Kennedy was prepared to withdraw troops even if a military victory was not achieved.

I have studied the record, and NSAM 263 clearly laid the groundwork for a withdrawal starting with 1,000 and finishing in 1965. John Kenneth Galbraith was a tremendous influence on Kennedy...

[AntonBatey]

The article in 263 which spoke about a withdraw had a stipulation, which the McNamara-Taylor Report articulated; victory must be assured. Just as President Bush though it'd take a month to be in and out or Iraq, the Kennedy Administration thought by the end of 1965, the job would be finished, Ho Chi Mihn and his Vietcong would be destroyed, and they would again, be a colony of one of the imperial powers.

[simeetg]

You are not aware of declassified White House tapes which show that after the McNamara-Taylor report in October 1963, McNamara and Kennedy were heard discussing the withdrawal plans, which should be implemented quickly.

JFK was a supporter of national independence movements, and however murky the situation with Vietnam nothing JFK said or did indicated he wanted to make it a major American war.

[AntonBatey]

Yes, WITHDRAW WITH VICTORY, as they started many, many times in the documentary record. I gave you the quotes of them, while they were in private. Only two weeks before he was assassinated, he authorized military action against Vietnam, and after he was assassinated, NSAM 273 was signed by Johnson; a document that was endorsed by Kennedy, showing that no significant change took place.

[AntonBatey]

On September 26th, 1963 he ridiculously said, "Our freedom is tied up with theirs", and that the "security of the United States is thereby endangered" if Nam passes "behind the Iron Curtain. So all those who suggest we withdraw, I would not disagree with them more". So sorry -- you're wrong in your non-scholarly attempt to romanticize Kennedy.

[simeetg]

Don't get personal. First off, there is such a thing as political talk. He was facing an election against likely Barry Goldwater, and had to make public statements like that. I don't deny that. However, privately and even publicly Kennedy made it clear he would not sent combat troops to take over in Vietnam.

[AntonBatey]

You claiming that he "truly wanted to pull out" is nothing more than blind faith, based on nothing but the belief that Kennedy had some spiritual quality absent in EVERYONE around him, leaving no detectable trace. McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, Paul Harkins, Hilsman, Forrestal, or ANYONE else in his Administration would agree that Kennedy would allow withdraw without victory.

[simeetg]

But Robert McNamara and Roger Hilsman both state that JFK would leave Vietnam without so-called military victor.

Your point about Johnson and Nixon is apt, but remember President Kennedy was more self-confident and would not bow to pressure from aides and the military. Proof of that is JFK's reasoned and restrained response to the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Wall, Laos situation, etc. Nixon and Johnson did not have.

[AntonBatey]

No, McNamara, Hilsman and Maxwell Taylor wrote that the "overriding objective" was victory, a matter "vital to United States security". At a White House conference on October 5th, 1963, Kennedy personally approved a telegram to Ambassador Lodge to "increase effectiveness of war effort". Two weeks before Kennedy got assassinated; he also urged (privately) that everybody "focus on winning the war".

[simeetg]

Galbraith was sent to Vietnam by Kennedy. Galbraith proposed a step by step plan to leave Vietnam. Implement a phased withdrawal, work out a diplomatic settlement, put in a government in South Vietnam that will ask us to leave, never put in ground troops.

Look, I am against the Vietnam War and all action staken there, but there is nothing you are showing me that Kennedy was planning to put in ground troops.

[AntonBatey]

Wrong again. McNamara said, regarding hesitation of escalation of US troops "would inevitably mean a new government in Saigon that would in short order b Communist-dominated", which the stakes were "so high" that "we must go on bending every effort to win". FFS, read the McNamara-Taylor Report, where they specifically said that that "overriding objective" was "victory". NSAM 273 was also prepared by Bundy and guess who else? McNamara. So sorry; you're wrong about McNamara.

[AntonBatey]

Galbraith WAS distanced from Kennedy since he spoke of a withdraw-without-victory policy (which all of Kennedy's people opposed). Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield also advocated a withdraw-without victory strategy, whom Arthur Schlesinger and JFK shunned. Don't forget...Kennedy authorized NSAM 273, which clearly said "It remains the central objective of the US in South Vietnam to assist the people and government to win". Again -- withdraw ONLY with victory.

[simeetg]

You don't know that Mike Mansfield reported a personal Oval Office meeting with JFK where the Prez was upset that he agreed with Mansfield, and told him he could not withdraw until after the '64 election.

For expedience, do research. And also, research the JFK assassination. It was a political murder.

[AntonBatey]

Nice assumption you made; asking me to "research the assassination". I've probably read just as many books as you regarding the subject, if not more. Of course he told Mansfield things that contradicted what he told other people -- he was a politician. The most objective resource we have is what we should utilize -- the documentary record AND what actually was happening in Vietnam from 1961-1964.

[simeetg]

Look, I think JFK was too smart to commit the mistake of sending ground troops into Vietnam. He learned from the Bay of Pigs, he distrusted his advisors and deeply disliked the military. The man had his brains blown out in 1963. We can't prove what he was or was not going to do. But it is my feeling that altough JFK campaigned as a Cold Warrior, he was a politician, he was committed to world peace and human progress, and did not consider Vietnam that important. .

[AntonBatey]

It's interesting; a study prepared by the Pentagon estimated that between 1961 and 1965, 89,000 Vietnamese were killed due to (US) state terror by "napalm, jet bombers and finally vomiting gas". As for personnel, US forced peaked at 16,700 under Kennedy. At the time Kennedy was assassinated, the war was still at the level of extreme state terror but limited aggression. And for the record, he authorized the Bay of Pigs.

[AntonBatey]

Kennedy "learned from the Bay of Pigs"? He authorized Operation Mongoose, a harsh, clandestine project which was worse than the Bay of Pigs. Your posts are full of subjectivity, basing your opinion off faith. Kennedy served the interests of the military-industrial complex, funded the moon race, etc., and EVERY President's meaning of "peace" is "submissiveness".

[simeetg]

sighh.The Bay of Pigs was formulated under Eisenhower. JFK did sign off on it, but fired Dulles and Cabell and privately blamed the CIA.

I understand the dynamics of the Cold War-era, and I can't agree with the basic idealogy. I don't think anyone was an angel during that time.

Kennedy had advisor in Vietnam, and no indication he was gonna make it a real American war.

[AntonBatey]

Yes, I'm aware that within months of the Cuban Revolution, the Eisenhower/Nixon administration wanted to replace Castro for him nationalizing Esso, Shell, United Fruit and kicking out the mafia; and Kennedy continued these policies. He authorized, and was routinely briefed on Operation Mongoose for Christ's sake -- how the hell can you get around that?

[AntonBatey]

He fired Alan Dulles, Richard Bissell and General Charles Cabell because they made him look bad -- certainly not because he had any ideological differences between them.

[simeetg]

Fidel Castro said that President Kennedy could have gone down as the greatest American President in history. Why? Because JFK was sending peace feelers to Cuba. Kennedy was beginning to seriously consider a neutral Cuba, and Vietnam too. Kennedy wanted to end the Cold War and work for world peace and human progress. "Together Let us Explore and Stars, and bring out the wonders of science instead of its horrors...in the final analyis, we all breathe the same air, we are all mortal." JFK

[AntonBatey]

You have absolutely Z E R O evidence that JFK wanted to "end the Cold War" -- what a ridiculous statement. His rhetoric towards the USSR was, like any politician, mild at times and harsh at other times, but he took drastic measures to get Castro killed, retain Vietnam as a colony, and he also took measures that leas to a fascist coup d'etat in Brazil in 1964. He stated numerous times that he supported the Truman Doctrine, so how was he going to "end the Cold War"?

[AntonBatey]

Castro's statements (over 30 years after JFK's death) never praised him as a "good man", as for any one or two comments he made being civil to Kennedy, I can give you 100 where he says the opposite. You still didn't answer my question -- if JFK wanted to come to peaceful terms with Cuba after the Bay of Pigs (which HE authorized), why did he implement an even more aggressive Operation Mongoose?

[simeetg]

JFK was a special president, and despite operating in the height of the Cold War, he was not a conventional Cold Warrior. I am not supporting the policies of the time, rather I am on the side of Howard Zinn. However, if JFK was so interested in toppling Castro, why didn't he seize on the perfect opportunity, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? WMDs...Castro...Soviet Union aliance. JFK's was HEAVILY pressured to do so, and he said NO.

[AntonBatey]

First of all, I want you to admit that you can't answer my question: If Kennedy wanted to make "peace" with Cuba, why did he authorize Operation Mongoose, a terrorist campaign that's illegal under international and domestic law that involved blowing up hotels, sinking fishing boats, blowing up industrial installations, bombing airplanes, etc. trying 8 times to assassinate Castro...?

[AntonBatey]

Second, according to the Freedom of Information Act materials, the United States DID have plans for an invasion for October 1962. American naval and military units were being deployed for an invasion before the beginning of the Missile Crises. Guess who authorized this invasion? Yep...Mr. Kennedy.  Of course, when the Crises came, they had that famous agreement that if the US didn't invade Cuba and took their nukes out of Turkey, they'd take the Missiles back. Study history.

[robtran]

Excuse ME, but Kennedy did NOT authorize The Bay of Pigs. He inherited it from the Eisenhower Administration. He was also against the idea, but the arguments of the CIA won out. Kennedy then reluctantly agreed to let the plan go forward, with the caveat that it would receive no air support.

[AntonBatey]

Read the record. Kennedy went ahead and authorized it; he allowed it; didn't stop it. I know he inherited it from Eisenhower/Nixon, but he agreed with Eisenhower/Nixon on how Cuba should be dealt with obviously.

Learn history.

[qbeac]

Even if society could do nothing "practical" about the crimes of the elite (Ex: 9/11, JFK, etc.), to say "who knows and who cares", it is "morally" unacceptable.

It is a moral obligation to denounce crime and to try to do something about it.

9/11 = Inside job.

Criminals to jail and not running any government.

Impeachment now !!!

People, wake up and support the 9/11 Truth Movement and the decent politicians such as Kucinich, Ron Paul, etc., who are trying to end the crimes of the elite.

[blaynestaley]

What do you think Chomsky is about? Ending the crimes of the elite.

[rspawn]

That's why it's odd that Chomsky stops talking about false-flag ops and political assassination when it concerns really high profile cases and persons inside the US.

Chomsky does not deny such things are done by the US abroad and inside the US concerning lower level cases and individuals. About those Chomsky does not say "who cares". He only says that about cases the he denies are for real.

[greenback001]

Chomsky is full of hot air. Worst of all, doesn't he know that it is rude to whisper when talking.