Added: 2 years ago
From: hartcrane
Views: 6,187
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (26)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • thanks for this veryinteresting upload.

    --

    This was recorded?aired when? and where?

    (Please add to the description!)

  • @wda013

    "Hosting the Stranger: Hospitality and Hostility in World Politics" 2009-04-22 -- frontrow(dot)bc(dot)edu/progra­m/chomsky2

  • This is good for insomnia.

  • This line about Kosovo is so illogical and offensive it unfortunately calls into question anything else he has to say, which is a shame because, elsewhere, I think he makes entirely cogent suggestions.

  • I agree with much of what Chomsky says but his suggestion that the bombing of Serbia somehow caused Serbia to commit greater atrocities is absurd and disgusting. What is it exactly about being bombed that forces paramilitaries to engage in mass genocide? A normal defensive reaction would be to flee or desist from any further action - not driving into a UN camp and murdering every man, woman and child there. He's made the same argument in the past to defend the Khmer Rouge and it is wrong.

  • @borjon23

    I'm sure the victims of Srbrenica would be comforted to learn that their murderers had no choice to systematically eliminate each one them because a third party was bombing the murderers. Ridiculous. Whatever the motives of NATO, it was the bombing campaign alone that put an end to the genocide.

    NATO intervention is obviously invariably wicked. After all, they steadfastly refused to intervene in Rwanda and that turned out well, didn't it?

  • @borjon23 I don't know...it tracks with me that if you bomb an populace that there is chaos and general destruction. There is then the ability for some to take advantage of that or to try and crush it. You can look it up if you want to but most everything that Milosevich was charged with happened after the bombing occurred. You can then come to the conclusion that the bombing did nothing to help. And then you could look at historical examples that bombing never helps.

  • @LiquidYogi

    There was chaos and destruction in Poland in early 1945, due to bombing and there was an acceleration of killings in the death camps by the Nazis. Should be then conclude that those killings were the fault of Allied pilots? It is one thing to say the bombing in Kosovo was ineffective, or even motivated by factors other than ending the violence. To say that Serb gov had no choice but to murder more civilians because they were being bombed is insane and insulting to their victims.

  • @borjon23 You're twisting the story exactly in the ways that Chomsky describes in his talk. You say the bombing was not effective - but was done in an effort to do great good. That's just what the government tells us about Vietnam and Iraq.

    You have to look at the true intentions, that's what matters. It was foreseeable that bombing would increase the problem. And the population of the area was opposed to it (not surprisingly).

    And as for WW2: Germany declared war against the Allies.

  • @LiquidYogi

    It's like saying it was understandable a serial rapist raped yet again because he was being harassed by the police. Regardless of the moral standing and motives of the police, would that make one iota of sense? And would it not be a disgusting and cruel insult to the victim?

  • @borjon23 Your command of history is punctured with holes so large through which one could drive a coach and three horses. Chomsky has always condemned the Khmer Rouge. It is the US which supported Pol Pot by opposing the Vietnamese intervention that stopped his genocide as "illegal" and encouraging China to invade Vietnam and Thailand to host the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky is correct about Serbia too: Nato's bombing escalated the atrocities. Why? Because Serbs don't enjoy being incinerated. Who knew?

  • @FromAtomsMade

    And in not enjoying being bombed, they were forced by NATO to escalate their atrocities? The Serbian militias initially engaged in smaller scale rape, murder and expulsions had no choice but to increase them in response to an attack by a third party? Sounds like the logic of wife batterer who's returned from a hard day at work.

  • @FromAtomsMade

    I accept that Serbian militias may have increased attacks out of anger engendered by the bombings, but does that morally exculpate them from committing unspeakable acts against innocent civilians? Again, that my boss has does something unjust to me does not *force* me to come home and beat my wife and it certainly doesn't make him responsible for that action.

  • @borjon23: Foolish is the man who thinks the KLA was an innocent party. They were culpable for large scale violence for which it was listed by the US as a terror group till 1998. Both sides were guilty of war crimes. To try to whitewash the sanguinary history of the KLA is pure anti-Serbian propaganda. The atrocities for which Nato supposedly intervened began AFTER the bombing. Don't confuse cause and effect. The US at the same time was aiding the genocide in East Timor. How very humanitarian.

  • @FromAtomsMade

    I wasn't referring to the KLA but to the civilian population. You don't seem to understand the point about the bombing and I don't have the time to repeat it.

  • @borjon23 How many times were you dropped on your head by your mother? The KLA is perfectly germaine to the conflict because their attacks on Serbs escalated the violence. Both sides were guilty of war crimes, a point of which you seem blissfully ignorant. The indictment of Milosevic at the Hague was only for the crimes undertaken after the Nato bombing commenced . If the US truly cared about human rights, it would not have backed Indonesia's genocide in East Timor at the same time as this event

  • @FromAtomsMade

    No, I'm not ignorant of it; I said nothing to the contrary. Your comprehension is too poor for me to bother with a conversation, I'm sorry.

  • I have big respect for Noam Chomsky, but i don't agree with his interpretation about events in Croatia. According to Yugoslav constitution from 1974. every federal state of Yugoslavia has right to proclaim independence. Results of the referendum (1991.) were in favor of Croatia as independent state. What Serbs did was act of rebellion against Republic Croatia and all citizens (there are lot of minorities in the Croatia, including Czechs, Hungarians, Germans, Bosnian Muslims,etc.)

  • Serbian para-military army killed many civilians, attacked and bombed many cities. Town of Vukovar was totally destroyed, civilians killed or sent in detention camps in Serbia, and that was done by Yugoslav National Army combined with paramilitary troops called Chetnics. The aim was to create Big Serbia under regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

  • Comment removed

  • The term swamp appears everywhere!!

    this guy is trippy as fuck

  • Chomsky was great, but that old guy w/the earring who followed him really needs to learn how to speak. He mentioned "our students" which makes me believe he's some sort of prof. I really feel sorry for anyone who'd have to listen him more than once. I've rarely heard someone so completely annoying, not in what he says, but in his delivery.

  • Split hairs much?

  • this is the second time I've heard him refer to Gareth Evans as the former Prime Minister of Australia!

    He was the Foreign Affairs Minister in the Hawke & Keating governments.

  • no wonder he was so scared of catholics

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more