Hitchens inspires a critical admiration. You don't always have to agree with him to love him. Chomsky is a guru who's devotees would set themselves on fire before admitting a heretical thought.
Noam always gives such long answers and I think he's rambling, but he never is, he is just formulating a very complete, fluent and in-depth answer to the question. Hitchens is more acerbic in wit and tongue but Chomsky towers over him in terms of wealth of knowledge, ability to form unique connections, consistency and clarity. Ultimately I find his analyses infinitely more interesting than hitch (zues bless his health).
@enigmism4life "but Chomsky towers over him in terms of wealth of knowledge, ability to form unique connections, consistency and clarity. Ultimately I find his analyses infinitely more interesting than hitch (zues bless his health). "
too funny....lets read ayn rand to gain the perfect insight to the world. you are a complete moron. tell me about ayn rand when you turn 65 and your ss check and medicare is not reality but a pipe dream..... chomsky isnt here to make solution dumbass, hes here to point out bullshit so we can find the solution. i doubt very much your read and if you did, you certainly cant understand chomsky. you aint smart enough brofius as is obvious by your comment.
Has anyone actually ever seen, read or heard the Chomsky, hitchens debate that took place after 9/11.... I can't actually find it anywhere on the internet only there rebuttals to each other post debate. Am I the only one who can't find this debate? I need help yo!
@QwidgyboMan Its in both wikipedia bio's with a citation? both pages may have been vandalized IDK? From hitchens profile "Following the September 11 attacks, Hitchens and Noam Chomsky debated the nature of radical Islam and of the proper response to it. On 24 September and 8 October 2001, Hitchens wrote criticisms of Chomsky in The Nation.[61][62]" I have seen the responses and seems legit?
Yeah, they may have traded barbs in print but certainly not in person. Hitchens says in a video on YT (which I can't find) that he's debated Zinn, Finkelstein but not Chomsky.
Chomsky vs Hitchens on any topic would be a clash of epic proportions.
Chomsky is a hypocrite. He accepts money from institutions he shoots dwon in public, such as the Pentagon, and invests in corporations involved w/ the NYSE (which he calls fascists) for his own retirement plan.
get your head out of alex jones arse. how are you a hypocrite for being an academic? and you're confusing him with michael moore, in the last few lines of your comment
@probber66 - Look buddy, I wasn't sure if you were just a cool dude commenting.. or a troll looking for an argument. Now I'ts a little clearer. Why don't you go stick your precious little BA up your tiny little educated ass & leave happy 'uninformed' people alone. Sound fair? good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@saxengee You want the truth? Noam is nothing more than a radical critic of society. He offers no sollutions, only scare mongering half-facts. I have read numerous books written by him and i can tell you that they are all the same. I wouldnt mind uninformed people, in fact, i almost like them. Chomsky just gives ignorant people half logical talking and quotes out of context, creates a more uninformed world, generally. Read modern Christopher Hitchins or some ayn rand. i think they're both beta
@probber66 "Read . . . some ayn rand." Bwahahahaha!
Are you a complete idiot?
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards."
American regimes kill and kill again whilst robbing the resouces of those they kill and simultaneously spouting platitudes about ''freedom'' ''democracy'' and other such glib, nonsensical tosh.
@wlwak He is a showboater, but he is still a brilliant historical and political scholar. Of course he's looking for attention when he takes on Mother Theresa at al. but he makes good cases, with great attention to detail and isn't restrained by his personal political beliefs. But Chomsky is a finer intellectual by far. It's a little bit fatuous to just write Hitchens off for being obstreperous and iconoclastic.
@wlwak Typical delusional Chomsky-ite. Chomsky’s and his supporters' blood-stained anti-war positions(s) are self-condemning. Hitch’s work far exceeds Chomsky’s, not just the depth but the breadth.
It's funny how some people say in their comments that Hitchens "wiped the floor" with somebody. Then you watch the video and see Hitchens insult and constantly interrupt the other guy.
I read a few of Hitchens' books. He's a bright guy, but he isn't perfect. His "reasoning" about the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is especially misguided.
read a few of Hitchens' books. He's a bright guy, but he isn't perfect. His "reasoning" about the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is especially misguided.
You're right on Hitchens' imperfection, but to say his attitude towards Iraq is misguided is, after all, onlyyour opinion.
Although I would accept Iraq hasn't been handled as well as it might, there's no misguidance in recognising the danger Iraq and the ME poses both regionally and globally, and supporting interventionist policy.
Of course, if Hitchens had read this post, he would have had to comment on the statement that "You're right on Hitchens' imperfection, but to say his attitude towards Iraq is misguided is, after all, onlyyour opinion." He would say, "well of course it's my opinion. Would you rather I state your opinion."
Most comments I saw of you on here, you advocate illegal wars thinking you deserve more right to tell others how to live their lives own and to put up with being harassed,invaded and killed just because your own masters find it a good excuse to rule and lord it over everyone else except their own countries.While you are at,why don't you look into your AIPAC and other warmongering lobbies which would invade any country on earth if they saw it served Israel's imperialism.
Well, I haven't said anything about Israel, so I fail to see its relevance.
I don't advocate illegal wars, and I don't have 'masters'.
The fact that you quote "Israel's imperialism" sets off a few alarm bells though. Let me guess - you're into the whole Zionist New World Order conspiracy theories, right?
Your talking about "conspiracy theories" gives away your real intentions ( as if there was any need of any more proof!) and has indeed exposed your propaganda compaign. Did you too get some cash as a pretext " to aid the recession"?
@mymentor I agree. I greatly admire Hitchens, especially for his stand on religion, but he has absolutely no argument whatsoever when it comes to the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. He's blinded by his hatred for religion and Islam so much (and I too also hate religion and Islam) that he can't see that these wars are imperial ventures.
Only someone who has not read Scott McClellan's book could make such a statement. The criminal Bush, his toadies & cohorts, pressured intelligence to essentially "make stuff up" in order to make the case for war. These lies were passed on to the media & circulated with little investigation or questoning on the part of the so-called "free press."
You're a joke. Hitchens is a joke. Anyone who thinks the war is in any way defensible is a joke.
Thank you for 'putting me in my place'. Very timely.
Actually, the war was entirely defensible (Hussein was one of the most despicable men of the 20th century, and should have been removed at least 10 years earlier) - only not on the bogus WMD deception that was fed to the public, congress and the UN (ie, the world).
Bush's intelligence sources (and Bush himself, if apt) should face severe cenure for that, despite the fact that I fully support the effort to ouster Hussein and his ilk
"Hussein ... one of the most despicable men of the 20th century"
Yeah... despicable guy ... WHOM THE US SUPPORTED IN THE 1980s during the Reagan admin ... supported in part by selling him the chemical technology with which he gassed the Kurds.
There are dozens of despicable tyrants around the world (Burma anyone?) about which the US does fuck-all.
"To understand American foreign policy, the first thing you have to do is understand that morality has little to do with it." - William Blum
Most of Saddam's weapons were bought from Communist bloc countries or the French & Germans, though we did use him too. If Bush 1 knocked him out in 1991, when most of the world was behind us, that would have been so much better than picking a fight 12 years later over false reasons & paranoia. Then again, most of the pro war types didn't really give a fig about the Iraqis anyways.
@mymentor It is definsible if we are going to say hey "Iraqi oil is a valuable resource and we need to secure our supply of it" thus we have to invade Iraq. This I would support...but the average American wouldnt find it very palatable to know we are killing all kinds of innocent people and spending massive amounts of money for oil.
Thus they have to be forcefed a bunch of BS like weapons of mass destruction, freedom for the Iraqi people, and getting rid of a horrible dictator.
Well, I agree that securing the southern oil fields was a significant factor in the Iraq war, and a legitimate one IMO.
I take exception to the implication that "we are killing all kinds of innocent people" for oil. The US-led coalition is doing no such thing - they're killing enemy combatants. Innocent civilian lives have been accidentally taken, true, and it's tragic. But the overwhelming majority of civilian casualites have been inflicted by Muslim insurgents, not Americans.
Over 100,000 (by the most conservative estimates from international aid agencies) Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I still have no problem with that if the US government would be honest about the fact that oil and geostrategic reasons are vital to US interests. However, I dont think most Americans would buy this arguement due to American cultural attitudes.
"Over 100,000 (by the most conservative estimates from international aid agencies) Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq"
I'm aware of that, but they haven't been killed by Americans. The overwhelming majority have been killed by the Muslim mujahideen - just like the 300,000 who were killed between 1992-2002 were killed by Muslim fanatics.
Americans aren't indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians. Muslim jihadists are.
No the 100,000 figure is related to deaths from American bombings and military actions. but even saying you were correct; Specifically in Iraq who unleashed these Islamic forces you suppose? It was a direct result of our invasion and occupation. S. Hussein was doing a remarkable job of crushing these people during his reign because they posed a problem for he regime no?
kalai333, United Nations policy is that when you destablize a country by military attack you are responsible for the violence that follows. Besides Iraq another example is the U.S. bombing of Cambodia that created the conditions for the take-over of the Khemer Rouge.
mymentor, We have killed far more innocent people than were killed in the 9-11 attacks, and although the military claims that these were all unintentional they have fairly good estimates before they begin bombing exactly how many innocents they will kill. The cycle of violence and revenge just keeps escalating, with no end in sight.
@MrSalamander7 no i heard it was a live debate its even confirmed on the wikipedia pages of both chomsky and hitchens. their debate in writing was about 9/11 and thats online- if you haven't already checked it out- but i have heard in numerous places that they debated iraq at i think it was university of chicago, but i havent been able to find a recording.
Are you sure you're not confusing this debate that supposedly took place with their brief exchange over Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?
I've got my fingers crossed that you're not talking out of your hat, so please give me a source if you can.
@chocobosage420 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,please post the link..............I have yet to see anyone hang with or come close to beating Hitch to any degree...........even on individual points.
Watch him with William Lane Craig on "Does God Exist". Hitch can't touch any of Craig's arguments. But then again, Craig's a professor of philosopher, Hitch is a journalist. Have a look, it's the only example I've ever seen of Hitch being challenged.
@towneslives: Lol William Lane Craig "arguments"? There are any, at all? He just didn't trash Craig because there are this ridiculous consensus to chose sides among the "four horsemen" regarding religion...
craig's arguments are farcical, granted, but they give the appearance of being logical. they are pretty easily debunked but hitchens isn't really rational at all - he's a demagogue. hitchens is fine with pejorative righteous indignation and his rhetoric is very emotionally appealing (phrases like "human solidarity and dignity") - they sound like fine sentiments but lack any real intellectual rigour. as soon as you press him, he has to change he subject, or dodge the question.
@towneslives: "craig's arguments are ... but they give the appearance of being logical." Being better articulate don't make him right (he is a "professional filosopher" after all). I agree about Hickens, except about changing the subject (or my interpretation, that he does that because he can't argue). All Craig so-call arguments are easily debunked, I think that both sides on debates (not only them) never really intents to debate, it's go to nowhere eventually.
@iMaDeMoN2012 I honestly can't see either of them really caving or retreating. More like Hitchens maintains an aggressive, witty and eloquent assault while Chomsky responds with a consistent, dead pan and blunt assault of his own with at most the two of them occasionally conceading fact-based points.
@MrSalamander7 Hitchens and Chomsky debated in print the nature of radical Islam and of the proper response following the September 11th attacks. I was taking a jab at Chomsky's pathetic defense of his position in the said debate.
@TheGodlessGuitarist You're exactly and entirely wrong, and clearly have not seen any of Hitch's debates in their totality. Hitch's work, in both depth and breadth, super cedes Chomsky's.
@MattSingh1 "You're exactly and entirely wrong, and clearly have not seen any of Hitch's debates in their totality."
Actually I have watched just about every piece of public footage there is with him or about him, so by all means continue your delusion, but if you hold any value in scepticism then you will examine your certainties, and maybe learn some stuff.
@MattSingh1 I should add that Hitchens is an imperialistic warmonger. He used to be a hero of mine, but now and he just disgusts me. If you had watched and read as much Hitchens as I have you would know why. Chomsky lays bare the indoctrination of the West and the vile aggressive pratices of Western powers.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Ah yes, ok, you're an anti-war/MoveOn.Org-type masochist, who, had you gotten your way, would've gladly seen more than the 3,000 butchered at Srebrenica, also in Rwanda too. You're a part of the 'Status-quo' left that favours surrendering to religious theocrats and fascist lslam. Clearly, like most on the left on this issue, you're against deposing dictators and locking them away and backing democracy, and instead preferred it when it was the other way around.
@MattSingh1 "you're an anti-war/MoveOn.Org-type masochist...would've gladly seen more than the 3,000 butchered at Srebrenica, also in Rwanda too...You're a part of the 'Status-quo' left that favours surrendering to religious theocrats and fascist lslam"
Actually I am not left wing at all, I am simply a humanist, which means nothing more than caring about my fellow beings, but thanks for the strawman. I'll leave you to your imagination since you have no interest in intellectual honesty.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Pah. I see you're such a brave and valiant "Humanist" that the Al-Anfal campaign isn't worth retroactively fighting against( and before you mention it, I know western weaponry was used; this fact re-doubles are commitment to the Kurds). The trouble with your lot is that you pick and chose who your enemy is, and when you want to fight them. Again, people such as yourself have become nothing more than a status-quo, who wished the topic of fascist Islam had never come up.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Typical Chomsky-ite attempt to clear your throat. Enjoy your wallowing in self-pity and self-congratulations. You did, however, just confirm you don't care a jot about the dead at Srebrenica, Rwanda and Kurdistan.
@MattSingh1 The difference between you and me is that I have paid attention to BOTH Hitchens AND Chomsky, I am prepared to challenge my own certainties and I can debate without making wild assumptions about my fellow debater or use marginalisation techniques. I agree that the future is grim, and a great deal more grim than you imagine under Islam, but until you start being intellectually honest with yourself you will never understand what I am talking about.
@TheGodlessGuitarist (1)"...I can debate without making wild assumptions about my fellow debater..."
(2) "...but until you start being intellectually honest with yourself you will never understand what I am talking about."
Nothing quite like contradicting yourself in one fell swoop to throw away any semblance of credibility. " I agree that the future is grim, and a great deal more grim than you imagine under Islam..." Yet more proof you're one those that thinks the west is to blame.
@MattSingh1 "Nothing quite like contradicting yourself ". Not at all. You are a follower of a state religion that favours aggression against small nations in order to take control of their resources, which is far worse than terrorism and predictably results in terrorism by consequence. Furthermore, you made strawman accusations about my political affiliations.
@TheGodlessGuitarist (1) (1) I'm actually anti-theist. (2) But sir, I've already stated, have I not, that the intervention in Iraq was partly about oil- a resource as precious as that SHOULD NOT be left in the hands of psychopathic dictators. (3) Exactly how did we wage a war of aggression by liberating 50% of the population in Afghanistan? (4) "which is far worse than terrorism and predictably results in terrorism by consequence" And there's the line- the cause of terrorism is fighting it(cont)
@MattSingh1 (1) "I'm actually anti-theist", I never said anything about gods. You're jumping to conclusions again. You see what I mean? (2) "oil- a resource as precious as that SHOULD NOT be left in the hands of psychopathic dictators.". Obama/Bush/Blair commit genocide in Iraq, you have zero democracy, and you think Saddam Hussein was worse? As I said, that's your religion, because it certainly has nothing to do with reason or ethics.
@MattSingh1 "Exactly how did we wage a war of aggression by liberating 50% of the population in Afghanistan?". Your so called 'liberation' of Afghanistan has liberated the souls hundreds of thousands of Afghanis to heaven. People just defending their land from an invading force, the US invading force. That is an act of Aggression and the list of war crimes is extensive. And the US is the good guy? As I said, that's your religion.
@TheGodlessGuitarist (cont) It’s such a masochistic mentality that the anti-war Chomsky-ites have on this currently conflict. Fascist Islam has stated it wants to kill all non-believers, it wants to repress all women, stone homosexuals to death, and restore the Caliphate and return to the stone age. There couldn't be a more clear conflict between liberalism and fascism.
There’s a civil war going on in Islam, and we should be taking the side of the people of Iraq/Afghanistan.
@MattSingh1 If you are interested in why I don't take your position anymore; The rich and powerful elite in every nation is comtemptuous of their own people, regarding them as 'ignorant and stupid' and who if left unchecked will compromise the power and wealth of the rich by pursuing such ludicruous notions as equality, justice and liberty. The owners of the world dont like to share. States that are not dominant powers must be subserviant to the most powerful states on investment and trade.
@TheGodlessGuitarist The US gives 'aid' to the brutal dictators and other regimes that comply with the investment and trade terms of the US, funding their armies and death squads to purchase US military hardware so that the ordinary people can be kept on their knees. Almost all of the well known Islamic terrorist groups are actually either freedom fighters or explicitly and indirectly supported by the US/UK. Al Qaeda, the Northern Alliance, Libyan NTC were all trained and funded by the CIA/MI6.
Saudi Arabia which has one of the most extreme Islamic regimes, is propped up by the US. If we want Islamic terrorism to stop, we have to stop funding it, and furthermore we have to stop bombing the shit out of other countries just so we can have their resources at the prices our rich elite are happy to pay.
I have spoken to many Muslims in the Middle East, and from my own experience they are just like you and me. They hate the oppressive nature of Islam as forced upon them by their regimes.
Most Muslims are very like Western Christians. They have a quasi cultural attachment to their state religion, though they have to keep up appearances and attend mosque or prayer 3 times a day. But in private they are as cynical of their religious elite as any Western Christian is of their own (the US being the exception).
Something happened in Ireland that really loosened the grip of the Catholic regime and demonstrates the seemingly pious masses to be largely indifferent to 'their' religion.
In the 50's-70's the Catholic Church, conscious of the needs of the rich elite to work the poor in shifts to serve their interests better, started to introduce multiple services throughout the day in addition to the once a day Mass. All of a sudden the pious masses could get away with telling people, having not been seen at mass, that they went to the morning or afternoon service, in order to keep up appearances. The Catholic Church has been in rapid decline ever since.
If we stop propping up these brutal Islamic governments/regimes with arms, the people will rebel and the Islamic cultural facade will very quickly drop away.
The goal of Western propaganda is to get people like you to go along with the murderous agenda of the US elite and it's plans for total global ownership. The US is still embarking on it's mission to own space from which it will soon have the weaponry and technology in place to strike, nearing instantaneously, anywhere in the world, at countries that do not fall to their knees in the presence of the 'shining beacon on the hill'. The US is also now using predator drones in domestic applications.
Think of the HK's in the the Terminator films. The US vision of the world includes some strong similarities to the HK, aiming to have total control of the global population with these remote and perhaps soon to be autonomously guided killing machines.
None of this is my imagination or duplicitous propaganda. Many of the facts are staring you right in the face. You can read most declassified CIA documents online. I suggest you do, before continuing with your crusade on behalf of the US elite.
I'm often stunned by the number of cronies Christopher has on YouTube. It doesn't matter what you say, if not in abject and absolute praise of the man, your comment will be voted down into the double digit negatives almost as quickly as it takes people to read it.
Hitchens decided long ago to be on the side of the wealthy. He is unsympathetic to those who bend their backs for a living because he never did it in his entire, privelidged life. He is a snobby English cunt with a snobby turn of phrase which fools idiots into thinking he's clever and therefore correct. I don't doubt his limited intelligence ( and limited it is) but he isn't correct just because he's articulate. He's a deceitful, supporter of oppression. He cares not for justice, only for ease.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes, he is a supporter of oppression. It makes me sick when he condemns dogmatic religious doctrines or the homicidal and suicidal attacks in the now democratic Iraq. His contempt for the restoration of a theocratic, Islamic empire makes my heart wrench.
He bent his back when he was working in Cuba in the 60s. He only became privileged in the last few years. He was living paycheck to paycheck for most of his life.
Ann Coulter -- you thoroughly brainwashed dimwit -- grew up in New Canaan, CT, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the U.S. Her father was a union-busting lawyer known for having decertified the union at Phelps-Dodge copper in AZ in 1983.
Ann says her father was the "best friend to the working man."
I say read 'Copper Crucible' by Jonathan Rosenblum and let those miners speak for themselves.
I believe I was being sarcastic. I grew up in CT around arrogant brats like her, so I am naturally inclined to see right through her college educated sophistry. It's just I saw her doing the usual talk radio shtick how "working class" the Bushs or Palins are because they could go and have a beer with the boys in the plant while "elitists" like John Kerry or Maureen Dowd couldn't
Funny, but I was just attacking some Prager supporters, who has got to be the most annoying pompous moralizing phony on earth, by pointing out how he always defends Coulter while he talks about how hateful the Left is, as if such gross over-generalizations aren't borderline lies to begin with.
The book by Jonathan Rosenblum about the copper strike in 1983 is worth seeking out. It will give you ammunition to throw at the Coulter supporters who buy into her "working-class" schtick. As a result of her father's actions, entire families were put on the street.
Yeah ... well ... some of those stockbrokers may have come from working-class stock; people who were just too goddamned tired of living in dire-straits or near-poverty.
For that I can't fault them. People who grew up with little will sometimes become fixated on earning as much money as possible to escape their economic circumstances.
In Ann's case, of course, her family wasn't anything of the sort.
Its funny so many people identified that "they feel they could have a beer with Bush" as the reason they voted for Bush in 2000.
Bush, as anyone informed knows, has said he doesnt drink beer, nominally attributed to his previous problems with drink (and substance abuse with cocaine). This just goes to show you how uninformed the average American voter is. Scary stuff.
There is nothing more funny than some right wing figure playing the populist card. It is so transparent, they accuse the "elitists" of looking down on the fundy & ignorant retards when they feel exactly the same about those ignorant fools they duped.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a atrocity but it was not the only one."
The fact that someone - anyone - brings down a commercial airliner full of civilians is a criminal act, any plane, any where.
A truly independent media dose not need to recall all cases of a similar type whenever an event like this occurs if the have no relationship to it, Chomsky simply has no desire to talk about wrong actions taken by anyone who is not American or "Western".
You missed his point, being that the corporate media exhibits a dualism. When the bad guys "out there" do bad things, the press digs up every shred of evidence of how depraved the bad guys are. By contrast, when the US government does grossly similar bad things, the US press suddenly goes inert. The US media do not ask obvious questions, nor produce investigative reporting which would recognize depravity in any US government actions. The US might make an error, but is never morally culpable.
It's very basic. As Americans, our prime responsibility is to address the crimes of our own state, which we have the power to effect. It's useless to criticize other states, because as ordinary citizens they lie outside of our power.
So I suppose you never criticise the Israeli govt? The Chinese CP? You wouldn't have said a word about the Pinochet regime or South African apartheid?
It's funny you should mention Israel, Pinochet and South Africa, because as American citizens, we have/had a duty to speak up about our country's support for those regimes, which enabled all of them to survive. China? China does what it wants. What can we do about it?
hahah more like what have we done about it. let me tell you america killed hundreds thuosands chinese innocents and troops not to mention using germ warfare against them with the aid of japan ofcourse.
The Japanese ALONE murdered millions of Chinese in WW ll, 250K alone in the area where Doolittle's planes landed. The JAPANESE ALONE practiced germ warfare in Manchuria. All you are referring to is that the US let the Jap culprits off so we could steal their research
Chomsky has openly stated that it is his belief that we (the West) should pay attention to our own crimes before we can begin to point the finger at the crimes of others.
So yes he explicitly focusses on the crimes of the USA. This is largely because these crimes are not reported by mainstream western media. So yes the acts of suicide bombers etc are evil, but it is hypocritical for the US to criticise these crimes when they are responsible for many equally criminal acts.
Who is we? The government can fuck off and have its crimes on its own conscience, I didn't vote for it. I absolutely agree we should pay attention to they crimes they commit, but unfortunately since the Western governments have most of the power and influence they are the only ones really capable of dealing with the crimes of others, even the ones with their roots in the crimes of previous administrations. It may make them hypocrites but we'll wait a long time for a perfect government anywhere.
"We" is the west (like i said above), lets say US Government to be more specific.
The point Chomsky is making is that media reports selctively in the US. It frames international politics as good (the US) vs evil (anyone who opposes the US). The example he gives is spot on. The Lockerbie bombing is an undoubted atrocity and it should be reported, but if the media were truly independent it would also report on similar atrocities committed by the US - but it doesn't.
If Chomsky was independent he wouldn't seek to minimise or excuse crimes committed against the US by bringing up unrelated crimes committed by US governments. That is my point of dispute.
Morality is universal and these kind of crimes are wrong where ever they take place and who ever the victims are. News media should report and investigate all crimes of equal magnitude with equal effort but they don't because in general peoples interest in world affairs is limited.
he doesn't "seek to minimise or excuse crimes committed against the US by bringing up unrelated crimes committed by US governments"
Hence he says Lockerbie was an atrocity - I don't think that is excusing it.
It's not Noam's job to go aroung pointing out the crimes of America's enemies because there are plenty of mainstream media doing that. They don't report on similar or worse atrocities by the US. Noam is simply trying to shed light on this striking inequity.
"Western Governments have most of the power and influence they are the only ones really capable of dealing with the crimes of others" - By and large Western govt's don't care about the crimes of others, they care about their own influence and power and expanding it. Occasionally they will exploit the crimes of others to this end. e.g. 9/11 and Iraq.
"we'll wait a long time for a perfect government anywhere."
- agreed govt's are imperfect, but does that mean we shouldn't criticise them?
"By and large Western govt's don't care about the crimes of others, they care about their own influence and power and expanding it."
True of all governments I've heard of and many individuals. Which is not to say that governments and leaders should not be held to account - hopefully we are about to see Karadzic
...Karadzic on trial, something which would not have happened with out US/EU action. The fact that the Balkan wars could have been prevented or at least ended sooner with proper action from Clinton/Major/Mitterrand/Kohl is relevant.
Chomsky does the same thing he always does - refuse to talk about anything bad done by anyone without bring up something bad but irrelevant done by the US
Hitchens inspires a critical admiration. You don't always have to agree with him to love him. Chomsky is a guru who's devotees would set themselves on fire before admitting a heretical thought.
paxtexana 1 month ago
Noam always gives such long answers and I think he's rambling, but he never is, he is just formulating a very complete, fluent and in-depth answer to the question. Hitchens is more acerbic in wit and tongue but Chomsky towers over him in terms of wealth of knowledge, ability to form unique connections, consistency and clarity. Ultimately I find his analyses infinitely more interesting than hitch (zues bless his health).
enigmism4life 7 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@enigmism4life "but Chomsky towers over him in terms of wealth of knowledge, ability to form unique connections, consistency and clarity. Ultimately I find his analyses infinitely more interesting than hitch (zues bless his health). "
Hear hear!
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
Does anyone know where I can see or hear the Hitchens / Heston debate?
Jrunri 10 months ago
too funny....lets read ayn rand to gain the perfect insight to the world. you are a complete moron. tell me about ayn rand when you turn 65 and your ss check and medicare is not reality but a pipe dream..... chomsky isnt here to make solution dumbass, hes here to point out bullshit so we can find the solution. i doubt very much your read and if you did, you certainly cant understand chomsky. you aint smart enough brofius as is obvious by your comment.
abortfailure7646 11 months ago 7
@abortfailure7646 ss and medicare are a pipe dream? the facts say otherwise
redryan20000 1 month ago
Where is the rest of the debate,like part 2 and 3,I've found 4 and 5.
k9a2g6 1 year ago
DEBATE IRAQ LOL
radomu1 1 year ago
Has anyone actually ever seen, read or heard the Chomsky, hitchens debate that took place after 9/11.... I can't actually find it anywhere on the internet only there rebuttals to each other post debate. Am I the only one who can't find this debate? I need help yo!
ryanlk 1 year ago
@ryanlk
It doesn't exist because it never happened. Hitchens has never debated Chomsky in person to my knowledge.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Its in both wikipedia bio's with a citation? both pages may have been vandalized IDK? From hitchens profile "Following the September 11 attacks, Hitchens and Noam Chomsky debated the nature of radical Islam and of the proper response to it. On 24 September and 8 October 2001, Hitchens wrote criticisms of Chomsky in The Nation.[61][62]" I have seen the responses and seems legit?
ryanlk 1 year ago
@ryanlk
Yeah, they may have traded barbs in print but certainly not in person. Hitchens says in a video on YT (which I can't find) that he's debated Zinn, Finkelstein but not Chomsky.
Chomsky vs Hitchens on any topic would be a clash of epic proportions.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Maybe your right, but the way it is stated makes it seem like, they appeared and debated then they responded. I guess not
ryanlk 1 year ago
Chomsky' s website has some great articles on US terror over the years. chomsky.info
beradification 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
I just got a boner. Chomsky and Hitchens together? NICE
bfoaliali 1 year ago
8:30 Noam Chomsky debated Charlton Heston? I want to see that.
bapyou 1 year ago
Chomsky is a hypocrite. He accepts money from institutions he shoots dwon in public, such as the Pentagon, and invests in corporations involved w/ the NYSE (which he calls fascists) for his own retirement plan.
VasOling 1 year ago
@VasOling
And that proves what he says wrong how?
DDBOOGER 1 year ago
@VasOling SOurce your calims. And, if true, what are their signficance?
bapyou 1 year ago
@VasOling
Ad hominem attacks are interesting, but remember they do nothing to disprove an assertion.
perpetualpeace81 1 year ago
@VasOling
get your head out of alex jones arse. how are you a hypocrite for being an academic? and you're confusing him with michael moore, in the last few lines of your comment
halbermenschot 1 year ago
hitchens is a krypto-neocon
djboony 1 year ago
why does noam chomsky drink herbal tea
Jakomancer 1 year ago
Because property is theft :)
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
chomsky wins every debate because he is a man of principles and values others are not
timetochilli 1 year ago 4
I love Noam
saxengee 1 year ago 20
@saxengee you wont after you graduate your ba
probber66 1 year ago
@probber66 - Thats OK , I don't intend to. I love Noam
saxengee 1 year ago
just like most uninformed kids
probber66 1 year ago
@probber66 - Look buddy, I wasn't sure if you were just a cool dude commenting.. or a troll looking for an argument. Now I'ts a little clearer. Why don't you go stick your precious little BA up your tiny little educated ass & leave happy 'uninformed' people alone. Sound fair? good.
saxengee 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@saxengee You want the truth? Noam is nothing more than a radical critic of society. He offers no sollutions, only scare mongering half-facts. I have read numerous books written by him and i can tell you that they are all the same. I wouldnt mind uninformed people, in fact, i almost like them. Chomsky just gives ignorant people half logical talking and quotes out of context, creates a more uninformed world, generally. Read modern Christopher Hitchins or some ayn rand. i think they're both beta
probber66 1 year ago
@probber66 "Read . . . some ayn rand." Bwahahahaha!
Are you a complete idiot?
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards."
bapyou 9 months ago
@bapyou hahahahahahah
munkdo3 7 months ago
American regimes kill and kill again whilst robbing the resouces of those they kill and simultaneously spouting platitudes about ''freedom'' ''democracy'' and other such glib, nonsensical tosh.
wlwak 2 years ago
Hitchens is a show boater and Chomsky is an intellectual with principles.
wlwak 2 years ago 13
@wlwak They're both geniuses.
jstewart0420 1 year ago
@wlwak He is a showboater, but he is still a brilliant historical and political scholar. Of course he's looking for attention when he takes on Mother Theresa at al. but he makes good cases, with great attention to detail and isn't restrained by his personal political beliefs. But Chomsky is a finer intellectual by far. It's a little bit fatuous to just write Hitchens off for being obstreperous and iconoclastic.
bertiethetoupee4 1 year ago 2
@wlwak Typical delusional Chomsky-ite. Chomsky’s and his supporters' blood-stained anti-war positions(s) are self-condemning. Hitch’s work far exceeds Chomsky’s, not just the depth but the breadth.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@keelorenz
I noticed that too.
It's funny how some people say in their comments that Hitchens "wiped the floor" with somebody. Then you watch the video and see Hitchens insult and constantly interrupt the other guy.
I read a few of Hitchens' books. He's a bright guy, but he isn't perfect. His "reasoning" about the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is especially misguided.
AdamSzm 2 years ago
read a few of Hitchens' books. He's a bright guy, but he isn't perfect. His "reasoning" about the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is especially misguided.
You're right on Hitchens' imperfection, but to say his attitude towards Iraq is misguided is, after all, onlyyour opinion.
Although I would accept Iraq hasn't been handled as well as it might, there's no misguidance in recognising the danger Iraq and the ME poses both regionally and globally, and supporting interventionist policy.
mymentor 2 years ago
Of course, if Hitchens had read this post, he would have had to comment on the statement that "You're right on Hitchens' imperfection, but to say his attitude towards Iraq is misguided is, after all, onlyyour opinion." He would say, "well of course it's my opinion. Would you rather I state your opinion."
gtechatheist 2 years ago
mymentor,
You are a warmongering bitch and should be put down in accordance with interventionist policies!
SheerGenius2 2 years ago
Well, having never mongered a war in my admittedly insignificant life, I must plead not guilty on that front.
But your suggestion that I be exterminated is duly noted.
mymentor 2 years ago
mymentor,
Most comments I saw of you on here, you advocate illegal wars thinking you deserve more right to tell others how to live their lives own and to put up with being harassed,invaded and killed just because your own masters find it a good excuse to rule and lord it over everyone else except their own countries.While you are at,why don't you look into your AIPAC and other warmongering lobbies which would invade any country on earth if they saw it served Israel's imperialism.
SheerGenius2 2 years ago
Well, I haven't said anything about Israel, so I fail to see its relevance.
I don't advocate illegal wars, and I don't have 'masters'.
The fact that you quote "Israel's imperialism" sets off a few alarm bells though. Let me guess - you're into the whole Zionist New World Order conspiracy theories, right?
mymentor 2 years ago
mymentor,
Your talking about "conspiracy theories" gives away your real intentions ( as if there was any need of any more proof!) and has indeed exposed your propaganda compaign. Did you too get some cash as a pretext " to aid the recession"?
SheerGenius2 2 years ago
With any luck my clandestine offshore account will be a little fatter by the end of the day.
Mind you, sometimes the Agency can be a little tardy with the payments.
mymentor 2 years ago
@mymentor I agree. I greatly admire Hitchens, especially for his stand on religion, but he has absolutely no argument whatsoever when it comes to the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. He's blinded by his hatred for religion and Islam so much (and I too also hate religion and Islam) that he can't see that these wars are imperial ventures.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 2 years ago
Iraq a danger?
Only someone who has not read Scott McClellan's book could make such a statement. The criminal Bush, his toadies & cohorts, pressured intelligence to essentially "make stuff up" in order to make the case for war. These lies were passed on to the media & circulated with little investigation or questoning on the part of the so-called "free press."
You're a joke. Hitchens is a joke. Anyone who thinks the war is in any way defensible is a joke.
You've been put in your place.
bapyou 2 years ago
Thank you for 'putting me in my place'. Very timely.
Actually, the war was entirely defensible (Hussein was one of the most despicable men of the 20th century, and should have been removed at least 10 years earlier) - only not on the bogus WMD deception that was fed to the public, congress and the UN (ie, the world).
Bush's intelligence sources (and Bush himself, if apt) should face severe cenure for that, despite the fact that I fully support the effort to ouster Hussein and his ilk
mymentor 2 years ago
if his dad went the extra mile (or two) in 1991, I doubt he would have caused too many more ripples.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
"Hussein ... one of the most despicable men of the 20th century"
Yeah... despicable guy ... WHOM THE US SUPPORTED IN THE 1980s during the Reagan admin ... supported in part by selling him the chemical technology with which he gassed the Kurds.
There are dozens of despicable tyrants around the world (Burma anyone?) about which the US does fuck-all.
"To understand American foreign policy, the first thing you have to do is understand that morality has little to do with it." - William Blum
bapyou 2 years ago 2
Most of Saddam's weapons were bought from Communist bloc countries or the French & Germans, though we did use him too. If Bush 1 knocked him out in 1991, when most of the world was behind us, that would have been so much better than picking a fight 12 years later over false reasons & paranoia. Then again, most of the pro war types didn't really give a fig about the Iraqis anyways.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
@mymentor It is definsible if we are going to say hey "Iraqi oil is a valuable resource and we need to secure our supply of it" thus we have to invade Iraq. This I would support...but the average American wouldnt find it very palatable to know we are killing all kinds of innocent people and spending massive amounts of money for oil.
Thus they have to be forcefed a bunch of BS like weapons of mass destruction, freedom for the Iraqi people, and getting rid of a horrible dictator.
kalai333 2 years ago
@kalai333
Well, I agree that securing the southern oil fields was a significant factor in the Iraq war, and a legitimate one IMO.
I take exception to the implication that "we are killing all kinds of innocent people" for oil. The US-led coalition is doing no such thing - they're killing enemy combatants. Innocent civilian lives have been accidentally taken, true, and it's tragic. But the overwhelming majority of civilian casualites have been inflicted by Muslim insurgents, not Americans.
mymentor 2 years ago
@mymentor
Over 100,000 (by the most conservative estimates from international aid agencies) Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I still have no problem with that if the US government would be honest about the fact that oil and geostrategic reasons are vital to US interests. However, I dont think most Americans would buy this arguement due to American cultural attitudes.
kalai333 2 years ago
@kalai333
"Over 100,000 (by the most conservative estimates from international aid agencies) Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq"
I'm aware of that, but they haven't been killed by Americans. The overwhelming majority have been killed by the Muslim mujahideen - just like the 300,000 who were killed between 1992-2002 were killed by Muslim fanatics.
Americans aren't indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians. Muslim jihadists are.
mymentor 2 years ago
@mymentor
No the 100,000 figure is related to deaths from American bombings and military actions. but even saying you were correct; Specifically in Iraq who unleashed these Islamic forces you suppose? It was a direct result of our invasion and occupation. S. Hussein was doing a remarkable job of crushing these people during his reign because they posed a problem for he regime no?
kalai333 2 years ago
@mymentor
What is your source for this? Pentagon propaganda? the US State Department? Human Rights Watch has asserted the EXACT opposite of what you claim.
phooey108 1 year ago
kalai333, United Nations policy is that when you destablize a country by military attack you are responsible for the violence that follows. Besides Iraq another example is the U.S. bombing of Cambodia that created the conditions for the take-over of the Khemer Rouge.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago
mymentor, We have killed far more innocent people than were killed in the 9-11 attacks, and although the military claims that these were all unintentional they have fairly good estimates before they begin bombing exactly how many innocents they will kill. The cycle of violence and revenge just keeps escalating, with no end in sight.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago 3
What you've written is a complete lie, a lie contradicted by every human rights organization that's studied the issue.
bapyou 2 years ago
These two should debate the war in Iraq.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 46
they did
Bellantoni 2 years ago
Where can I read or watch it?
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
@MrSalamander7 they did, its probably the greatest debate in history however, there isn't a recording of it that I can find
Bellantoni 1 year ago
@Bellantoni I know they exchanged brief arguments in writing, but they were short and not really about Iraq per se.
I'd never heard of them having an actual formal verbal debate.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 no i heard it was a live debate its even confirmed on the wikipedia pages of both chomsky and hitchens. their debate in writing was about 9/11 and thats online- if you haven't already checked it out- but i have heard in numerous places that they debated iraq at i think it was university of chicago, but i havent been able to find a recording.
Bellantoni 1 year ago
@Bellantoni
Are you sure you're not confusing this debate that supposedly took place with their brief exchange over Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?
I've got my fingers crossed that you're not talking out of your hat, so please give me a source if you can.
Thanks.
polymath7 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 Im pretty sure Chomsky would own.
longliverocknroll22 1 year ago
@longliverocknroll22 Yeah, but I think between Hitchens' wit and extreme knowledge of the topic, he'd give Chomsky more trouble than anyone else.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago 2
@MrSalamander7 I agree, Hitchens would certainly give him a run for his money.
longliverocknroll22 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 they have debated it mr. chomsky wins of course
chocobosage420 1 year ago
@chocobosage420 Do you know where I can find footage or a transcript of it?
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@chocobosage420 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,please post the link..............I have yet to see anyone beat Hitch to any degree...........even on individual points.
AutoBahnForever 1 year ago
@chocobosage420 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,please post the link..............I have yet to see anyone hang with or come close to beating Hitch to any degree...........even on individual points.
AutoBahnForever 1 year ago
@AutoBahnForever
Watch him with William Lane Craig on "Does God Exist". Hitch can't touch any of Craig's arguments. But then again, Craig's a professor of philosopher, Hitch is a journalist. Have a look, it's the only example I've ever seen of Hitch being challenged.
towneslives 1 year ago
@towneslives: Lol William Lane Craig "arguments"? There are any, at all? He just didn't trash Craig because there are this ridiculous consensus to chose sides among the "four horsemen" regarding religion...
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
@strattfordcrass
craig's arguments are farcical, granted, but they give the appearance of being logical. they are pretty easily debunked but hitchens isn't really rational at all - he's a demagogue. hitchens is fine with pejorative righteous indignation and his rhetoric is very emotionally appealing (phrases like "human solidarity and dignity") - they sound like fine sentiments but lack any real intellectual rigour. as soon as you press him, he has to change he subject, or dodge the question.
towneslives 11 months ago
@towneslives: "craig's arguments are ... but they give the appearance of being logical." Being better articulate don't make him right (he is a "professional filosopher" after all). I agree about Hickens, except about changing the subject (or my interpretation, that he does that because he can't argue). All Craig so-call arguments are easily debunked, I think that both sides on debates (not only them) never really intents to debate, it's go to nowhere eventually.
strattfordcrass 11 months ago
@MrSalamander7 Hitchens would march out, and serve Chomsky half a dozen
Hitch-slaps. Chomsky, paralyzed, would only cry out, '(he) cannot mean what he (slaps) is clear. We can therefore disregard it.'
Typical Chomsky retreat.
iMaDeMoN2012 1 year ago
@iMaDeMoN2012 I honestly can't see either of them really caving or retreating. More like Hitchens maintains an aggressive, witty and eloquent assault while Chomsky responds with a consistent, dead pan and blunt assault of his own with at most the two of them occasionally conceading fact-based points.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 Hitchens and Chomsky debated in print the nature of radical Islam and of the proper response following the September 11th attacks. I was taking a jab at Chomsky's pathetic defense of his position in the said debate.
iMaDeMoN2012 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7
"These two should debate the war in Iraq."
As much as I love Hitchens, Chomsky would row his ass!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist You're exactly and entirely wrong, and clearly have not seen any of Hitch's debates in their totality. Hitch's work, in both depth and breadth, super cedes Chomsky's.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 This seems incorrect especially if you include Chomsky's contributions to modern linguistics.
S2Cents 2 months ago in playlist More videos from assaultivebear
@S2Cents I, as you'd assume, disagree, however your measured and salient retort, is welcomed.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 "You're exactly and entirely wrong, and clearly have not seen any of Hitch's debates in their totality."
Actually I have watched just about every piece of public footage there is with him or about him, so by all means continue your delusion, but if you hold any value in scepticism then you will examine your certainties, and maybe learn some stuff.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Naturally, I disagree, of course, but your reasoned and rational response is indeed appreciated.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 Naturally
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 I should add that Hitchens is an imperialistic warmonger. He used to be a hero of mine, but now and he just disgusts me. If you had watched and read as much Hitchens as I have you would know why. Chomsky lays bare the indoctrination of the West and the vile aggressive pratices of Western powers.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Ah yes, ok, you're an anti-war/MoveOn.Org-type masochist, who, had you gotten your way, would've gladly seen more than the 3,000 butchered at Srebrenica, also in Rwanda too. You're a part of the 'Status-quo' left that favours surrendering to religious theocrats and fascist lslam. Clearly, like most on the left on this issue, you're against deposing dictators and locking them away and backing democracy, and instead preferred it when it was the other way around.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 "you're an anti-war/MoveOn.Org-type masochist...would've gladly seen more than the 3,000 butchered at Srebrenica, also in Rwanda too...You're a part of the 'Status-quo' left that favours surrendering to religious theocrats and fascist lslam"
Actually I am not left wing at all, I am simply a humanist, which means nothing more than caring about my fellow beings, but thanks for the strawman. I'll leave you to your imagination since you have no interest in intellectual honesty.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Pah. I see you're such a brave and valiant "Humanist" that the Al-Anfal campaign isn't worth retroactively fighting against( and before you mention it, I know western weaponry was used; this fact re-doubles are commitment to the Kurds). The trouble with your lot is that you pick and chose who your enemy is, and when you want to fight them. Again, people such as yourself have become nothing more than a status-quo, who wished the topic of fascist Islam had never come up.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 I'm just not interested in having discussions with people who do not value intellectual honesty.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Ok, goodbye. One day you'll regret taking your stance on this, and many other, issue(s).
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 Regardless of what happens my conscience will be clear and my intellectual honesty intact.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Typical Chomsky-ite attempt to clear your throat. Enjoy your wallowing in self-pity and self-congratulations. You did, however, just confirm you don't care a jot about the dead at Srebrenica, Rwanda and Kurdistan.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 The difference between you and me is that I have paid attention to BOTH Hitchens AND Chomsky, I am prepared to challenge my own certainties and I can debate without making wild assumptions about my fellow debater or use marginalisation techniques. I agree that the future is grim, and a great deal more grim than you imagine under Islam, but until you start being intellectually honest with yourself you will never understand what I am talking about.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist (1)"...I can debate without making wild assumptions about my fellow debater..."
(2) "...but until you start being intellectually honest with yourself you will never understand what I am talking about."
Nothing quite like contradicting yourself in one fell swoop to throw away any semblance of credibility. " I agree that the future is grim, and a great deal more grim than you imagine under Islam..." Yet more proof you're one those that thinks the west is to blame.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 "Nothing quite like contradicting yourself ". Not at all. You are a follower of a state religion that favours aggression against small nations in order to take control of their resources, which is far worse than terrorism and predictably results in terrorism by consequence. Furthermore, you made strawman accusations about my political affiliations.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist (1) (1) I'm actually anti-theist. (2) But sir, I've already stated, have I not, that the intervention in Iraq was partly about oil- a resource as precious as that SHOULD NOT be left in the hands of psychopathic dictators. (3) Exactly how did we wage a war of aggression by liberating 50% of the population in Afghanistan? (4) "which is far worse than terrorism and predictably results in terrorism by consequence" And there's the line- the cause of terrorism is fighting it(cont)
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 (1) "I'm actually anti-theist", I never said anything about gods. You're jumping to conclusions again. You see what I mean? (2) "oil- a resource as precious as that SHOULD NOT be left in the hands of psychopathic dictators.". Obama/Bush/Blair commit genocide in Iraq, you have zero democracy, and you think Saddam Hussein was worse? As I said, that's your religion, because it certainly has nothing to do with reason or ethics.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 "Exactly how did we wage a war of aggression by liberating 50% of the population in Afghanistan?". Your so called 'liberation' of Afghanistan has liberated the souls hundreds of thousands of Afghanis to heaven. People just defending their land from an invading force, the US invading force. That is an act of Aggression and the list of war crimes is extensive. And the US is the good guy? As I said, that's your religion.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist (cont) It’s such a masochistic mentality that the anti-war Chomsky-ites have on this currently conflict. Fascist Islam has stated it wants to kill all non-believers, it wants to repress all women, stone homosexuals to death, and restore the Caliphate and return to the stone age. There couldn't be a more clear conflict between liberalism and fascism.
There’s a civil war going on in Islam, and we should be taking the side of the people of Iraq/Afghanistan.
MattSingh1 2 months ago
@MattSingh1 If you are interested in why I don't take your position anymore; The rich and powerful elite in every nation is comtemptuous of their own people, regarding them as 'ignorant and stupid' and who if left unchecked will compromise the power and wealth of the rich by pursuing such ludicruous notions as equality, justice and liberty. The owners of the world dont like to share. States that are not dominant powers must be subserviant to the most powerful states on investment and trade.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist The US gives 'aid' to the brutal dictators and other regimes that comply with the investment and trade terms of the US, funding their armies and death squads to purchase US military hardware so that the ordinary people can be kept on their knees. Almost all of the well known Islamic terrorist groups are actually either freedom fighters or explicitly and indirectly supported by the US/UK. Al Qaeda, the Northern Alliance, Libyan NTC were all trained and funded by the CIA/MI6.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
Saudi Arabia which has one of the most extreme Islamic regimes, is propped up by the US. If we want Islamic terrorism to stop, we have to stop funding it, and furthermore we have to stop bombing the shit out of other countries just so we can have their resources at the prices our rich elite are happy to pay.
I have spoken to many Muslims in the Middle East, and from my own experience they are just like you and me. They hate the oppressive nature of Islam as forced upon them by their regimes.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
Most Muslims are very like Western Christians. They have a quasi cultural attachment to their state religion, though they have to keep up appearances and attend mosque or prayer 3 times a day. But in private they are as cynical of their religious elite as any Western Christian is of their own (the US being the exception).
Something happened in Ireland that really loosened the grip of the Catholic regime and demonstrates the seemingly pious masses to be largely indifferent to 'their' religion.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
In the 50's-70's the Catholic Church, conscious of the needs of the rich elite to work the poor in shifts to serve their interests better, started to introduce multiple services throughout the day in addition to the once a day Mass. All of a sudden the pious masses could get away with telling people, having not been seen at mass, that they went to the morning or afternoon service, in order to keep up appearances. The Catholic Church has been in rapid decline ever since.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
If we stop propping up these brutal Islamic governments/regimes with arms, the people will rebel and the Islamic cultural facade will very quickly drop away.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
The goal of Western propaganda is to get people like you to go along with the murderous agenda of the US elite and it's plans for total global ownership. The US is still embarking on it's mission to own space from which it will soon have the weaponry and technology in place to strike, nearing instantaneously, anywhere in the world, at countries that do not fall to their knees in the presence of the 'shining beacon on the hill'. The US is also now using predator drones in domestic applications.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
Think of the HK's in the the Terminator films. The US vision of the world includes some strong similarities to the HK, aiming to have total control of the global population with these remote and perhaps soon to be autonomously guided killing machines.
None of this is my imagination or duplicitous propaganda. Many of the facts are staring you right in the face. You can read most declassified CIA documents online. I suggest you do, before continuing with your crusade on behalf of the US elite.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
Here is an example of Western elites in action. : watch?v=KJStWuU1gfU
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
I'm often stunned by the number of cronies Christopher has on YouTube. It doesn't matter what you say, if not in abject and absolute praise of the man, your comment will be voted down into the double digit negatives almost as quickly as it takes people to read it.
keelorenz 2 years ago 5
Proved wrong by thumbs. Or are the cronies being a bit sneaky?
lightfunk 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@lightfunk "Proved wrong by thumbs. Or are the cronies being a bit sneaky?"
Perhaps people are waking up to Christopher Hitchens' imperialistic warmongering.
TheGodlessGuitarist 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I highly dislike Hitchens.
samerk321 2 years ago
I guess it would be a form of appeal to authority.
SecondsToLast 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is an accursed fool.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
I don't know its name, hehe.
Pommit 2 years ago 2
Ones understanding of linguistics does not necessarily mean that you have to be good at public speaking.
Pommit 2 years ago 2
Hitchens decided long ago to be on the side of the wealthy. He is unsympathetic to those who bend their backs for a living because he never did it in his entire, privelidged life. He is a snobby English cunt with a snobby turn of phrase which fools idiots into thinking he's clever and therefore correct. I don't doubt his limited intelligence ( and limited it is) but he isn't correct just because he's articulate. He's a deceitful, supporter of oppression. He cares not for justice, only for ease.
PeelTower 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yhea he is a real shit. he is from royal naval ilk and has submitted to the will of rome.
monkeysmile1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, he is a supporter of oppression. It makes me sick when he condemns dogmatic religious doctrines or the homicidal and suicidal attacks in the now democratic Iraq. His contempt for the restoration of a theocratic, Islamic empire makes my heart wrench.
rothery86 2 years ago
He bent his back when he was working in Cuba in the 60s. He only became privileged in the last few years. He was living paycheck to paycheck for most of his life.
sisyphusdy75 2 years ago 2
Not a working class hero like Coutler or Limbaugh, real salt of the earth living simply.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
lol working class heros
rring88 2 years ago
Ann Coulter a "working class hero"?
That would be news to the working class.
Ann Coulter -- you thoroughly brainwashed dimwit -- grew up in New Canaan, CT, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the U.S. Her father was a union-busting lawyer known for having decertified the union at Phelps-Dodge copper in AZ in 1983.
Ann says her father was the "best friend to the working man."
I say read 'Copper Crucible' by Jonathan Rosenblum and let those miners speak for themselves.
bapyou 2 years ago
I believe I was being sarcastic. I grew up in CT around arrogant brats like her, so I am naturally inclined to see right through her college educated sophistry. It's just I saw her doing the usual talk radio shtick how "working class" the Bushs or Palins are because they could go and have a beer with the boys in the plant while "elitists" like John Kerry or Maureen Dowd couldn't
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
Ahhh sarcasm. Difficult to communicate in writing. Glad you see her through the arrogant facade for the fascist she is.
bapyou 2 years ago
Funny, but I was just attacking some Prager supporters, who has got to be the most annoying pompous moralizing phony on earth, by pointing out how he always defends Coulter while he talks about how hateful the Left is, as if such gross over-generalizations aren't borderline lies to begin with.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
Prager is a smarmy creep. Agreed 100%.
The book by Jonathan Rosenblum about the copper strike in 1983 is worth seeking out. It will give you ammunition to throw at the Coulter supporters who buy into her "working-class" schtick. As a result of her father's actions, entire families were put on the street.
bapyou 2 years ago
According to the average con, some stock broker or salesman making 150K a year is working class.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
Yeah ... well ... some of those stockbrokers may have come from working-class stock; people who were just too goddamned tired of living in dire-straits or near-poverty.
For that I can't fault them. People who grew up with little will sometimes become fixated on earning as much money as possible to escape their economic circumstances.
In Ann's case, of course, her family wasn't anything of the sort.
bapyou 2 years ago
@MongoloidBabyUSA
Its funny so many people identified that "they feel they could have a beer with Bush" as the reason they voted for Bush in 2000.
Bush, as anyone informed knows, has said he doesnt drink beer, nominally attributed to his previous problems with drink (and substance abuse with cocaine). This just goes to show you how uninformed the average American voter is. Scary stuff.
kalai333 2 years ago
There is nothing more funny than some right wing figure playing the populist card. It is so transparent, they accuse the "elitists" of looking down on the fundy & ignorant retards when they feel exactly the same about those ignorant fools they duped.
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
@MongoloidBabyUSA
Too true.
Go Palin ! haha ha ha ha ha
kalai333 2 years ago
What are you talking bout?
adeadlysniper 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Holy shit, Chomsky is a complete moron ...
c6gunner 3 years ago
Go away you pathetic troll.
Gregorypeckory 3 years ago
hmmm Hitchens was rather quiet during this talk.
zigzagbigbag 3 years ago 2
What year is this?
hunterthompson123 3 years ago
1992
zigzagbigbag 3 years ago
Mork Chomsky, as in Mork and Mindy...
PorchMoneky 3 years ago
Sad to hear Hitchens before the booze affected his brain /elocution, and before ambition caused him to jettison most of his principles.
flimpkin4 3 years ago
Two intellectual giants of our time. What a pleasure to hear them together :)
Viconiuz 3 years ago
Chomsky is god.
trance2307 3 years ago
Irrelevant to the subject of discussion.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a atrocity but it was not the only one."
The fact that someone - anyone - brings down a commercial airliner full of civilians is a criminal act, any plane, any where.
A truly independent media dose not need to recall all cases of a similar type whenever an event like this occurs if the have no relationship to it, Chomsky simply has no desire to talk about wrong actions taken by anyone who is not American or "Western".
david552 3 years ago
You missed his point, being that the corporate media exhibits a dualism. When the bad guys "out there" do bad things, the press digs up every shred of evidence of how depraved the bad guys are. By contrast, when the US government does grossly similar bad things, the US press suddenly goes inert. The US media do not ask obvious questions, nor produce investigative reporting which would recognize depravity in any US government actions. The US might make an error, but is never morally culpable.
NubeDude 3 years ago 2
Probably true, but Chomsky and his type have a tendency to mirror this behaviour.
david552 3 years ago
It's very basic. As Americans, our prime responsibility is to address the crimes of our own state, which we have the power to effect. It's useless to criticize other states, because as ordinary citizens they lie outside of our power.
lGnossos 3 years ago 3
So I suppose you never criticise the Israeli govt? The Chinese CP? You wouldn't have said a word about the Pinochet regime or South African apartheid?
david552 3 years ago
It's funny you should mention Israel, Pinochet and South Africa, because as American citizens, we have/had a duty to speak up about our country's support for those regimes, which enabled all of them to survive. China? China does what it wants. What can we do about it?
lGnossos 3 years ago
hahah more like what have we done about it. let me tell you america killed hundreds thuosands chinese innocents and troops not to mention using germ warfare against them with the aid of japan ofcourse.
Lucifer986 2 years ago
are you high again?
tvicena 2 years ago
no its fact. America and japan together experimented with germwarfare and DI use it against china
Lucifer986 2 years ago
Don't blame the drugs.
niginit 2 years ago
The Japanese ALONE murdered millions of Chinese in WW ll, 250K alone in the area where Doolittle's planes landed. The JAPANESE ALONE practiced germ warfare in Manchuria. All you are referring to is that the US let the Jap culprits off so we could steal their research
MongoloidBabyUSA 2 years ago
Hello Hello Davud 552
Swedetres 3 years ago
Hello Hello Swedetres!
david552 3 years ago
Chomsky has openly stated that it is his belief that we (the West) should pay attention to our own crimes before we can begin to point the finger at the crimes of others.
So yes he explicitly focusses on the crimes of the USA. This is largely because these crimes are not reported by mainstream western media. So yes the acts of suicide bombers etc are evil, but it is hypocritical for the US to criticise these crimes when they are responsible for many equally criminal acts.
fourbiscuits 3 years ago
Who is we? The government can fuck off and have its crimes on its own conscience, I didn't vote for it. I absolutely agree we should pay attention to they crimes they commit, but unfortunately since the Western governments have most of the power and influence they are the only ones really capable of dealing with the crimes of others, even the ones with their roots in the crimes of previous administrations. It may make them hypocrites but we'll wait a long time for a perfect government anywhere.
david552 3 years ago
"We" is the west (like i said above), lets say US Government to be more specific.
The point Chomsky is making is that media reports selctively in the US. It frames international politics as good (the US) vs evil (anyone who opposes the US). The example he gives is spot on. The Lockerbie bombing is an undoubted atrocity and it should be reported, but if the media were truly independent it would also report on similar atrocities committed by the US - but it doesn't.
fourbiscuits 3 years ago
Again them not me.
If Chomsky was independent he wouldn't seek to minimise or excuse crimes committed against the US by bringing up unrelated crimes committed by US governments. That is my point of dispute.
Morality is universal and these kind of crimes are wrong where ever they take place and who ever the victims are. News media should report and investigate all crimes of equal magnitude with equal effort but they don't because in general peoples interest in world affairs is limited.
david552 3 years ago
he doesn't "seek to minimise or excuse crimes committed against the US by bringing up unrelated crimes committed by US governments"
Hence he says Lockerbie was an atrocity - I don't think that is excusing it.
It's not Noam's job to go aroung pointing out the crimes of America's enemies because there are plenty of mainstream media doing that. They don't report on similar or worse atrocities by the US. Noam is simply trying to shed light on this striking inequity.
fourbiscuits 3 years ago
"Western Governments have most of the power and influence they are the only ones really capable of dealing with the crimes of others" - By and large Western govt's don't care about the crimes of others, they care about their own influence and power and expanding it. Occasionally they will exploit the crimes of others to this end. e.g. 9/11 and Iraq.
"we'll wait a long time for a perfect government anywhere."
- agreed govt's are imperfect, but does that mean we shouldn't criticise them?
fourbiscuits 3 years ago
"By and large Western govt's don't care about the crimes of others, they care about their own influence and power and expanding it."
True of all governments I've heard of and many individuals. Which is not to say that governments and leaders should not be held to account - hopefully we are about to see Karadzic
david552 3 years ago
...Karadzic on trial, something which would not have happened with out US/EU action. The fact that the Balkan wars could have been prevented or at least ended sooner with proper action from Clinton/Major/Mitterrand/Kohl is relevant.
david552 3 years ago
Chomsky does the same thing he always does - refuse to talk about anything bad done by anyone without bring up something bad but irrelevant done by the US
david552 3 years ago