And the fact that the Chomsky brings up the issue of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is absurd. If he believes that the democracies and dictatorships should have the same standards applied to them, then he must believe that the Nuremburg Trials were a sham and that Allied Commanders should have been indicted as well, which would be absurd.
No one but fringe extremists and 3rd world jingoists believe this. It's too bad Chomsky Inc. believes it.
"Why is one right and not the other?" Because the United States and it's Western allies are democracies, the Taliban was not. Second of all, the United States and it's allies are actual legally constituted and recognized; the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had no international recognition, bar Saudi Arabia and the UAE, so any arguments about the "illegality" of invading other "countries" is moot. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" was NOT A COUNTRY.
@theawesomemanman People who think the US committed "terrorism" in Nicaragua should read "The Civil War in Nicaragua" by Roger Miranda and "Adios Muchachos" by Sergio Ramirez. They were the SANDINISTA DEFENCE MINISTER and VICE PRESIDENT, and even they admit that the Contras were mostly poor, desperate peasants and that Sandinista corruption, brutality and repression was the reason for the rebellion.
I trust the former Nicaraguan leaders to speak on the issue more than Chomsky.
It's standard selfish behavior ... always self-centered, the total opposite of the teachings of Jesus whom so many of these politicians pretend to love. Ah yes, we are so pious .... well OK, we try to look pious when the cameras are on.
Chomsky's assertion is dependent upon the assumption that the bombing of Afghanistan was to punish terrorism. It wasn't. It was to change a regime. Since the US committed terrorism in Nicuragua, the US regime had changed many times, thanks to democracy. And even if it hadn't, no force in the world could accomplish changing a US regime by force. It would have been unjustifiable because the goal would have been impossible. Chomsky's assertion of situational equivalence is thus nonsense.
@athabascka bullshit, it wasn't just to change the regime. It was to get rid of Osama and the terrorists. They don't give a shit about repression otherwise there are many other countries they would also be bombing. The changing of regimes, when that was the motive, was always self-serving - Confessions of an economic hitman, if you are interested. Noam is one of the few honest people in town. Everyone else has a justification.
@claudelebel55: One of the policies was removal of the Taliban from power. Sure, the US had selfish reasons to do so, and innocent people were bombed, but nobody should dispute that getting rid of the Taliban was a good cause. I oppose the bombing, not the policy of removal.
@athabascka Is it up to America to set the world straight when it is having so much difficulty setting itself straight ? Why isn't America intervening in the case of other repressive regimes, like Iran or Israel ? Why did it go along with Kadhafi for 40 years ? This was never about saving the Afgan people from the Taliban. Furthermore, you can not impose a democracy - not to mention the fact that even america's democracy is shaky to say the least.
@claudelebel55: we can agree that America should get its own house in order, although I'm not very optimistic that will happen when we have so much resistance from right wingers who want to protect and support the rich, and make it politically impossible to raise taxes on them.
Actually, the War Aim (Or Policy as you call it) of removing the Taliban from Power wasn't even mentioned prior to the invasion; they went in for the *sole* reason of capturing Osama and thus stifling Resistance to Israeli/U.S Hegemony..
AFTER they got there, they decided to go to War with the Taliban..
@BelfastAtheist: Don't you have any standards for the resistence to Israeli/U.S hegemony? Al Qaeda aren't humanists, or socialists. They're right wing fanatics and mass murderers. The point commonly made is that there is no difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. That means that at best, al Qaeda is no less evil than the U.S. government.
Uh... kinda dishonest of you to change the Subject. Do you intend to answer my last question or not? I'm no more a fan of Al-Qauda than you, but Al-Quada don't form the bulk of resistance to U.S/Israeli hegemony; other sources do.
@BelfastAtheist: You implied Bin Laden was a valuable member of the resistance to U.S. hegemony. Suppose victory for al Qaeda were possible, they wouldn't replace U.S. hegemony with anything better. In fact, it would be much worse. Al Qaeda's official goal is to create a united middle eastern state governed by Salafist ideals. In other words, the most extreme and dictatorial theocracy as a world actor. I must say I prefer U.S. hegemony.
Fatuous argument, considering Al-Qaeda exists *because* of U.S Imperialism, they don't have the resources to really threaten a single State; let alone the Entire Middle-East/Central Asia - they can't become World actors and they never could.
Also, U.S Hegemony has caused many thousands (I use that phrase correctly) of times more Deaths than Al-Qaeda has ever dreamt of, so from a simple Utilitarian position - your argument falls apart.
@BelfastAtheist Crying "Hypocricy" because the US once supported OBL is absurd; first off, who's STILL in power in Washington who can be held responsible for supporting him 30 years ago? Second, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was genocidal in scale; over 1 million dead over the course of 10 years. The communist puppet gov't executed tens of thousands of prisoners as well. With the communists killing so many people, who would have thought OBL would turn out to be evil as well?
It's laughable btw that you claimed I ignored what you said when I pointed out in plain and simple terms how your defense of Chomsky implicitly assumed the kind of moral equivalence on his part which argued for. Of course I'm going to stick w/ that thesis ... you proved it a fortiori!
Really ... REALLY ... you wanna have this whole debate? I don't. Luckily you and Chomsky are in the demonstrable minority on this issue, so I'm not compelled to argue about it. There are more important and relevant issues which deserve my attention.
@theawesomemanman You realize you just referred to "U.S. crimes" ... that in itself presupposes some form of moral equivalence. Surely, there's no strawman.
@theawesomemanman because he is smart enough to know that NOT doing so would provide too much ammunition for his critics. And please take notice of his "condemnations" of terrorists, pirates, dictators and extremists. These condemnations are always perfunctory, half-hearted, insincere and performed solely to provide himself with plausible deniability. Notice also that these "condemnations" also ALWAYS proceed from an indictment of the west.
For reasons which should be obvious, it's incumbent upon Chomsky to show us why any relatively current U.S. policy is the moral equivalent of, say, terrorism. He's yet to do so in any convincing way ... at all. Moreover, as Hitchens has noted, this stuff has truly marred an otherwise exceptional career.
Well there's the bombing of Nicaragua, a case in 1984 where the U.S was convicted guilty of terrorism by the international community, where it than vetoed having to pay for it. Not to mention all the civilian casualties by drones in the wars the U.S has engaged in. Listen to him and you will realize that the life of an american is not worth more than anyone else. If a governement kills someone innocent and it's terrorism, and the U,S has certainly engaged in that.
and yet if Afghanistan were bombing the U.S., Chomsky would be defending it with body and soul. This man is the living embodiment of the shabbiness of the leftist mindset.
REALLY comparing apples & oranges here- state violence is more legitimate as [in the case of the US & her allies] it is adjudicated through democratic processes & the rule of law as well as constant public audits and oversight typical to consensual societies- resulting in more intelligent, judicious & constructive uses of force. Terrorism is stateless, intended to cause as much destruction and fear as possible. One would have to be morally obtuse to believe in this "golden rule run amok" logic.
@rollotwomassey how is state violence more legitimate if it is illegal? what democratic process led to the iraq war? Intelligence was fabricated in order to drum up support how is that more legitimate than terrorists drawing up a list of grievances to gain support for attacks on the united states? how was attacking afghanistand/iraq more intelligent since it increased terrorism worldwide and put us at more risk than ever before?? Is shock&awe not also intended to cause destruction and fear?
@lenglain 1] There is no such thing as intl law. It's theoretical, amorphous and protean at best. 2] The Congressional vote in 10/02 authorized the use of force in Iraq pursuant to the ceasefire stipulations of the '91 ceasefire. 3] There has been NO proof of fabricated intelligence [merely mistaken].
@lenglain 4] Terrorists arent subject to plebiscites, public audits of a free press or popular pressures resulting in mere "acting out" as it were. States, especially in the West, express the best aspirations of a populace- not 18 malcontents spread across a region of the world. 4] Fear is an unintended consequence of American warfare- we want to kill just the right people as quickly and bloodlessly as possible- fear is an ESSENTIAL psychological component of a terrorist's aims.
@lenglain 6] Iraq and Afghanistan have attrited terrorist numbers far beyond all hope or expectation. If I were to set up traps in a basement, and the next day they were filled with dead rodents...in your world traps would CREATE rodents. I say they were already there, their intentions were latent and it was better just to have it out on ground of our choosing rather than allowing them to stay hidden and strike when the opportunity presented itself.
@vonkleve Chomsky has never defended islamic terrorism. He is however primarily interested in criticising the crimes of the powers that represent him the world ie the US government. As he often says, it has no moral meaning to criticise the crimes of people you can do nothing about. It's easy to bleat on about islamic terrorism because everyone will agree with, you risk nothing and it achieves nothing. Your comment was utterly facile.
@vonkleve That's because he made it clear over and over again, that he is focusing on what the country he lives in are doing around the world. That's the one thing any person has any influence over to change. To condemn the crimes of others doesn't make them go away, nore can you do anything about it. But you can mitigate the things that causes other people to hate you by trying to change.
@PhoenixMoonbeam What do you think about Chomsky working for the Pentagon and living comfortably by serving their interests on money that is extracted forcibly from working people? He's a real egalitarian, isn't he? Chock full of peace and love, eh?
How can you compare this hypocrite lying commie scumbag to Jesus?
@MillionthUsername Well, genius, I was clearly being sarcastic. Anyway, what exactly has Chomsky lied about? I'm not politically aligned with Chomsky or socialists generally but he does have an insightful way of shedding light on things. On another note, Jesus was probably the biggest commie terrorist that there ever was. Praise Christ!
sure he risked his comfy job so you say, but he writes a big book where the zion media pushes it to the max, that totally and horribly tries to say the gov. lone gunman from the 6th floor did this. hhahahhaahhaahaha. It's well known that bush and e. howard hunt were there. HUNT was identified as one of the 3 bums, shooters, who were rounded up, only not in bum close. nice suits without the tie and old hats put on to cover best they could. bush said he wasn't in dallas but pics show was!!
Why don't we bomb fucking Germany! Didn't 9/11 Mohammed Atta come from Hamburg? Was there ever a terrorist attack against Germany? No! Thats where all the terrorists are hiding. Germany started two World Wars, they hate the USA - now they about to prepare WWIII!
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that the Afghanistan regime-change mission was totally illegal and that, at the time, the USA had no evidence that al Qaeda had done 9/11.
@punxsutawneybarney Actually he didn't, he said that the evidence that Bin Laden did it was minimal. I disagree with him on a keypoint here: if we assume he didn't do it, we still know he's involved with a terrorist group which would want to do it, so the point is moot. However, I don't understand how you can say the regime-change mission wasn't illegal under international law - I take it you are familiar with the UN Charter?
@goddedme Dr. Chomsky said the regime-change mission in Afghanistan was totally illegal. He also said last fall that at the time Bush invaded Afghanistan, the US had no evidence that al Qaeda had done 9/11. More recently he said that he thinks Osama did it, but he thinks the US assassinated him because they didn't have enough evidence to convict him in court.
@punxsutawneybarney He actually says the evidence is that they never intended to capture him alive, because "Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges." I don't think legality poses a problem now than to previous US govts, but the political aspect is certainly true. Meanwhile outside the US other countries are concerned with the invasion of Pakistan's sovereign territory - cf. his quote from Helmut Schmidt.
@goddedme Obama declared his contempt for international law on his third day in office when he signed off of drone attacks against a sovereign nation, Pakistan, that was no military threat to us. This was no surprise to many of us who had recognized that when he voted for the Telecom Immunity Bill in 2008 that he was declaring his contempt for the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Chomsky is a very interesting person; I fully agree that we get caught up in our self-righteousness so much that we forget to look at out own follies and point fingers at others. I mean, some people argue that a dictator is suppressing his own people; something must be done. But going by their argument, an outside party should bomb India because the govt. is waging a war against the people in central India or at least intervene. I am an Indian, by the way.
@toseeornot2see Just wait until your next war with Pakistan! Then the power / security systems really come out to play. Rajapaksah's goons are quite famous for cornering the Tamils last year, but less well known are the death squads that roamed Colombo silencing the SL premier families more vocal urban opponents!
Chomsky's argument here is a non sequitur anyway, as we are fighting the imperialistic, territorial ambitions of both Iran & Pakistan, not 'terror'. Whatever that is!
@BelfastAtheist They don't fancy it much anymore I expect, but they both did a decade ago, and will again when the West pulls out of Afghanistan & Iraq.
Whatever joke president is in charge of Pakistan in 5 or 6 years time may take a last ditch attempt to save his or her mandate by invading Pashtun controlled Southern Afghanistan in a populist warmongering move.
Whilst Iran wish to aquire nuclear weapons to cover their ambitions of territorial expansion over Sunni neighbours.
@BelfastAtheist with Pakistan's ISIA running both the Haqqani network & Taliban in order to exert influence in Afghan & ultimately gain strategic depth for its inexorable war with India over Kashmir, makes it pretty obvious.
Why do you suppose Iran want nuclear weapons then, to protect themselves from Israel? or to bully their conventionally armed neighbours?
You're right in saying that they support the Neo-Taliban over Kashmir, I agree with you there - though that's only because the U.S has so blatantly sided with India on the Kashmir issue because India is the growing Economy of the Region.
I expect they want Nuclear Weapons both to deter an Israeli and hypothetical U.S Attack, which of their neighboors do you think they want to bully? Saudi Arabia, the Country that bullies them..? Qatar? Kuwaiit?
Well, thank you for effecting a humiliating climb-down over Pakistan after consulting the most basic evidence. Luckily you managed to blame it on the Yanks anyway - just because they paid for the paramilitary war in Ulster doesn't make them complicit in everything you know. Pakistan are capable of developing enmity with Indians unilaterally.
Iran wish to bully Jordan, Iraq ( non existent ) Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan & of course, significantly, Turkey.
Well, that wasn't actually a climb-down and I've consulted 0 sources since this correspondonce began - what I'm saying is pretty consistent with my earlier remarks; I hardly count Pakistan wanting a fair share of Kashmir of Imperialism..
Do you have any evidence (Which I gather is important to you) to support the notion that Iran wishes to bully Jordan, Iraq (Actually: Iran has been building relations up with Iraq for Years now..), 'Kurdistan' or the others?
Also, for all your talk of Iran wanting to bully Saudi.. why aren't you bringing up the fact that Saudi *directly* asked the U.S to stage an Invasion of Iran and knock out their Government? I mean, that was requested in order that Saudi could maintain it's Religio-Political domination over the Region - a perfect example of Imperialism - which I find it conspicious you're not bringing up.
Noam’s answer to everything we should have done the opposite of what we did; we should do the opposite of what we did. He’s nothing more than a serial contrarian who is very intelligent and so able to make some think he is being rational. He also over indulges in the Jesus slave mortality of ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘treating other the way you want to be treated’… to him prosperous people and anyone from the “west” ought to simply cower to any and all demands made on them by Muslims etc.
The first thing we do when the revolution starts is to kill all the intellectuals. Can't have any of that messy thinking going on. Questions, what use are questions? One voice, one people, one Homeland!
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they didn't have any evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based wars and 9/11"
The man is great at asking questions but if can't come up with an answer to his own question I doubt competency of the engineer that design his logic circuits.
"-We should apply to ourselves the standards we apply to others."
no clue why you would quote it like that when you have the full quote in this video because he isnt arguing that we should apply to ourselves the standards we apply to other but that America DOESNT apply to itself that it applies to others
The problem with Chomsky is that he's never led a real life; his contibution to society has been to spread confusion and promote anarchy - while drawing his income from the very system he condems. He might consider a career in Politics rather than as an armchair critic of it, as it is very easy to criticise from the outside without experience of the realities of the inside. He might also consider getting his hair cut, learning some social skills and/or killing himself. What a Bellend.
@EddyBlueEyes Really? So one cannot talk about the system that they are forced into participating because they are not actively trying to enact political change within it?
@EddyBlueEyes The guys 81 and still lectures full time, he grew up in a working class background, he risked his nice comfy job in the 60s to actively demonstrate against the Vietnam War, and has raised 2 children. I could go on, but I think this rather disproves your statement that "he's never led a real life."
@goddedme He means living a life outside the ivory tower, which is one thing that discourages me about college professors, left or right. For me, truth is an event, and only through experience can the veracity of a truth be verified
@GoingGoingGalt Yes I agree. However I don't think it's fair to say that Chomsky is up in his ivory tower, regardless of whether you agree with his politics.
@goddedme Chomsky has been funded by the Pentagon for decades. He's made millions from "the most evil institution on earth." He is the prime example of base hypocrisy.
@MillionthUsername He has admitted that he has received funding for his linguistic research from the Pentagon, and that is why it is all the more important that he criticises it. It is possible to make a case for hypocrisy, I grant you that, but if we assume it to be so there would still be much worse cases of hypocrisy within the government (as he points out) and more importantly, it doesn't affect any validity his arguments may have. Surely this is correct?
@goddedme Are you kidding me? If Chomsky can make millions as a defense contractor, then why can't Halliburton and Blackwater and all the rest? That is the ESSENCE of hypocrisy, didn't you know? X can do something and it's moral, but if B does the same thing then it's immoral. This is the very simplest example of a contradiction. It is a blatant contradiction. It obviously undermines everything he says because he's making moral arguments all the while he himself lives in the way he decries!
@EddyBlueEyes@EddyBlueEyes Yeah...I think you underestimate the power of ideas. It is extremely important to our civilization, to have clear moral thought. Man is a beast without it; Chomsky's contribution is paramount. Is that.. "comprehensible" to you? Probably not.. you are ugly, but you are standard.
@EddyBlueEyes - Don't worry, not everyone belongs to the Cult of Chomsky. There are many of us who can identify Postmodern Relativism when we see it. Especially when we're villified and shouted down by the real hypocrites who scream about civil rights.
@EddyBlueEyes If you were in 1930's Germany would you have "consider[ed] a career in politics" to try and halt the systematic execution of their atrocious plans (assuming you do disagree with them, which most of Germany didn't). If so, would you have been able to succeed with a propagandist and government dominated media?
His hair is fine and he wore it short most of his life. He's 81, he's allowed.
This is not an exhibition of his social abilities, it's an interview.
@EddyBlueEyes You're delusional. Chomsky has done a lot of things in his life; a lot more than you probably have. We get it, you don't agree with Chomsky's politics. So what? Are people not allowed to have an opinion that is different than your own? He didn't lie. In fact, what he said is common sense.
it's ugly but it's standard - selfish, violent and unconscious human behavior. This is what Jesus was up against and many of his followers still haven't understood. They think believing in Jesus is enough, that you don't have to pay attention to what he said - 'turn the other cheek', 'love your enemies', etc This is either hipocracy or deep ignorance - 'forgive them for they know not what they do'.
dead on - what a huge double standard when it is OK to bomb and kill tens of thousands of innocents in the middle east and to cry foul when a few of ours get killed. And when mistakes are made - oh we're sorry we killed your family and friends - it was a mistake. If this happened in your own backyard, how would you feel.
Just like Israel - 1000 of yours for everyone of ours
love the ultra right wing republicans and their witless remarks. a practicing catholic you say so when you havent got your preachers cock in your arse your talking out of it you numpty nick nack. bloody idiot catholics forever shouting about helping poor africans who have aids while telling them they must never use a condom as every sperm is sacred. the only weight you carry is your obese gut. you social misfit. now go have a wank over a gun magazine. lard arse.
@Madiovich Could you tell me what situation you are referring to? The one on the video or the multiple arguments I was having with the socialists on here? Thanx.
Sorry it is never Hipocrisy. It is the good old basic instinct Racism. "Us vs Them". There will always be "Them" who are not as good as "Us". Similar to monkey tribalism but the latter is much more civilized
@Donryall Don't be afraid to post a relevant counter-argument every now and then, seeing as you're so much smarter than Chomsky. Chomsky is far less a socialist than a critic of capitalism. While he's willing to consider other ways of managing society, you the capitalist act as if capitalism, with all of its horrendous faults and consequences, is the be all end all of social systems. No respectable academic should be so narrow minded.
Oh you wanted a counter argument against Chomsky's socialist principles, where do I begin. The Holomador, the Cambodian killing fields, Mao's purges in China and multiple "little cases" of housecleaning ( such as Afghanistan in 79) when they took power. I revile the constant chirping of academics like Chomsky done with no other purpose than destabalization of the free society which we enjoy, if he was that concerned he should run for office.
@Donryall No, when I said *relevant*, I wanted a rebuttal pertaining to the content of this video. As Chomsky has made the point before, the political systems of the countries you mentioned bore no resemblance to basic socialist principles, exactly the opposite. I'm not a socialist, and barely is Chomsky, I don't think socialism or capitalism have even the slightest glimpse of functionality.
Ok after 911 all intelligence pinpointed that there were multiple terrorist training camps run by the taliban in the failed state of Afghanistan( foriegn and domestic intelligence) those camps were bombed, not afghanistan per se but the camps that were indeed present, after the taliban refused to remove them. So I don't know why he says hypocrisy but it was a necessary act as it has come out that al queda had trained many operatives there. It is not a double standard to defend.
@Donryall Invading and bombing someone else's country is not a necessary or acceptable act by any standards, it is a severe war crime. Just imagine some American Christian fundamentalists went and blew up Mecca, I suppose that would give the Saudis just cause to invade the US (ignoring the logistical impossibilities)
@Donryall Although middle easterners barely need an extra excuse to invade the US, considering the countless acts of savagery the US has committed against them in the name of imperialism. If you believe that the US has the right to invade any country it wishes, you are at odds with the rest of the world my friend, who is staunchly against you.
Oh spare me your PC-dhimmi attitude. All country's reserve the right to defend themselves as did the US in response to 9/11. Or do you think that right is reserved only for middle eastern countrys. Here we get to the heart of it, your response marks you as one who would see the downfall of the west by acceptance of these attacks and giving no answer except subservience. I have long ago learned that u cant rationalize with someone like yourself, this debate is over.
@Donryall Last time I checked, invasion does not count as 'defence', that is well and truly offence. If you tbelieve that the US has the right to go invading any country it wishes when it believes it's in its own best interest of 'defence', then you are at odds with the rest of the world, and don't expect any rational person to support your tirade anytime soon.
SHUUUUUT UUUUUUP! wow, for so many intelligent people to COMPLETELY miss the point. almost every single comment i read here was about past events or documented past numbers/statistics...... STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!! it doesn't matter WHAT people did before, we learn from it, and move AHEAD. whomever you believe is corrupting the world/causing the problems, you are playing right into their hands. get off the god damn couch and BE ACTION. not petty words and arguments. do ur own research
@knutoletube I'm all for applying the same standards for us as we do the Taliban for example, in which case we come out looking like gold and the Taliban look like the criminal dirt they are. Chomsky was never ever ever for equal standards. He was for skewing everything against the West and in favor of various murderous Communist regimes. I only wish we did treat the US equally against the Taliban or against Alqaeda or against Saddam or against the Vietnamese Communists. Would that it was so
You really have to be stupid to find this guy intelligent, brilliant or a "genius" or perhaps so blinded by agreement on ideology with him that you can't see through his ridiculous arguments.
Chomsky is a compulsively dishonest Stalinist. Not intelligent, his word games are not clever, his rationales are stupid, and he's not above lying outright in defense of various Communist takeovers when necessary, as he has done on many occasions (China, Cambodia, Vietnam).
@RuflessRecords Chomsky is not a supporter of Stalin or any form of the Soviet system watch John Pilger interviews Noam Chomsky 25 Nov 1992 Part 1. It's easy to say things when you have no basis to back them up. The sound is low.
@ludvan64 his career speaks for itself. If someone spent a lifetime defending Nazi Germany, defending Mussolini's Italy, and lying in support of Fascist Spain, we would know them to be a fascist, whatever label they gave themselves. Chomsky's "clever" tactic is to, when necessary, throw overboard past Communist regimes that can no longer be defended, but claim current ones are kindhearted, not murderous etc; as he did with China, Cambodia and Vietnam during periods of mass murder.
@RuflessRecords It's obvious that you are right wing , and anti socialist. So there is no point in discussing Chomsky with you. You insist he is a Stalinist, when in the video I suggested you watch you clearly states that any movement named after a person he decries. My wife spent several years in one of Stalin's Gulags. We hate Stalin, and I would not support anyone who did. You call those who regard Chomsky "stupid". Well I suggest you look in the mirror.
@ludvan64 if your wife really had spent years in the Gulag, you would loathe Chomsky 10 times more than I do, which is saying a lot. Chomsky praised and defended and lied in favor of several Communist regimes that were as bad as the Soviets. Gulag prisoners for Chomsky? That's like Holocaust survivors supporting Goebbels.
@RuflessRecords Are you calling me a LIAR. My wife was born in a Gulag. You simply don't understand what Chomsky is saying. It's your mind set. Your of the right, and with that intellectual handicap are simply incapable of seeing through your own prejudices. In the final analysis, who are you, and look where Chomsky is. He changed the world of linguistics, has written many books on many subjects. Your not fit to lick his boots. I shan't respond, or read any more of your postings.
@RuflessRecords It's obvious that you are right wing , and anti socialist. So there is no point in discussing Chomsky with you. You insist he is a Stalinist, when in the video I suggested you watch you clearly states that any movement named after a person he decries. My wife spent several years in one of Stalin's Gulags. We hate Stalin, and I would not support anyone who did. You call those who regard Chomsky stupid. Well I suggest you look in the mirror.
@RuflessRecords I would like to see some sort of basis to yor assertions here. I have read several of Chomsky's books and journals,and based on what I have read, I disagree with your judgements about the man and his work. Maybe if you are so inclined, you could back up your statements here with some evidence: quotations, interviews , journals , etc. Which directly relate to your criticisms. I am interested, you have my attention.......
@knwitham Ok. Chomsky on China: "Also relevant is the history of collectivization in China, which, as compared with the Soviet Union, shows a much higher reliance on persuasion and mutual aid than on force and terror, and appears to have been more successful". American Power and the New Mandarins. In fact, millions were murdered in cold blood (and tens of millions starved during the Great Leap Forward). Chomsky doing his throw-overboard-past-Commie-faves-to-help-defend-current-killers routine
@RuflessRecords Thanks for your quick reply! I will look into these carefully when I have more time, I am a wage-slave after all! It may take me some time to find the quotations, and put them into context, but I will try to be quick about it.
@knwitham on the brutal postwar killings of at least 50,000 people following the Communist enslavement of S. Vietnam, Chomsky said: "In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and restraint...has been almost totally ignored". The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, 1979. This "miracle" was putting hundreds of thousands not killed in camps.
"support for bombing Afghanistan" as if it's just in general, immediate lying from the beginning, a constant Chomsky trait, the bombing is select Taliban and Alqaeda targets, & most civilians killed are at the hands of the Taliban. The US didn't deliberately kill civilians in Nicarauga so there's no comparison, we were trying to stop Communists that Stalinist Chomsky supported from taking over a country--with Soviet military aid by the way--.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This man has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of millions who hang his every word. He simply babbles on in academic no-speak that is meaningless in the real world. He is nothing more than a self-hating Jew who has found a way of getting attention and this ultraliberal, soft-speaking nonsense is no more than schtick that even he doesn't believe. When all the kids in his neighborhood were Yankee fans, he was a Dodger fan, just to be contrary. He is the diseased spawn of red diaper babies.
@ExistentialNihilist He describes being in opposition of norms a nuissance. The truths Chomsky has devoted his life (and risked his freedom) to expose would require effort from all of us to remedy. No one wants to be implored to reason. It's far easier to bash him as an individual and refuse to pull the elitist bullshit from your own eyes. He has a boring tone of voice. So? You would be wise to hear his message despite that, and RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF. I have not be able to prove him wrong
@omusialo Okay, for one, in the Real World intelligent people know the difference between saying that someone made them "nauseous" and someone made them "nauseated." If you are "nauseous" then you are so disgusting that a a person would get "nauseated" looking at you. I may have nauseated you, but I didn't make you nauseous. (It must be difficult understanding a blowhard like Chomsky when your ability to speak English is flawed.)
I can't comprehend why a SANE linguist would try to convince ANY small part of the world that he really knows ANYTHING about real world economics. cHOMSKY = Good intellectual ACTOR. Fortunately only half as dumb as David Harvey, a Marxist Anthropologist with the same fantasy.
Bombing Taliban in Aphganistan is a based on an extremely complex theory. Self defense. Using preemptive strike. Of course, for Chomsky, enemies of USA are NOT enemies. So, he cannot understand this. Some wars, including bombing caves, are justified. Even Catholic church admits this. Quite a sill Ivory Tower type.
@forwardmover whats the point of having enemies, spending billions on self - defense, losing lives, loved ones, when you can live in a worldwide community that helps and benefits from each other? I think Chomsky is a just smarter than you and he sees past nationalism, where as you are trapped by it.
@omusialo Actually, I want to be connected on an interplanetary basis. Someone told me that they should soon have a SUPER GIANT spaceship ready, I believe, called UTOPIA. Have you heard that story?I have friends who need help and I am overwheLmed helping them. Could please post your phone number or email, so I can have them contact you? Thanks.
The intellectual standard is hypocrisy. Just don't uncritically accept anyone who claims to have expertise on domestic politics or international relations.
Air Force General Chennault in 1940 commented in a letter made public about Japan and how the US-held Philippines and Hawaii and bases in China could be used to launch B-17s "to burn out the industrial heart of the Empire with fire-bombing attacks on the teeming bamboo ant heaps." Therefore, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a pretty acceptable action. It falls very strictly within official U.S. doctrine and it's even less contentious than the invasion of Iraq.
Could it be that even people who are intellectual just get caught up with what is going on around them just as everybody else does thus resulting in them becoming partial to what the natives are calling for.
I find it concerning that so called intellectualls show such hypocrisy when considering the actions of the country they reside in.
Wait a minute. Are you saying if another country attacks you and you attack them back then you are being a hypocrite unless you attack your self? LMAO you guys think this man is a genius.
He is saying that America it self is a terrorist nation and it is hypocritical for America to defend it self against other nations for the reasons of terrorism. Yes I will admit not all of American foreign policy has been a success, but when you take a look at history it easily becomes understandable.
It is far easier to criticize foreign policy than to provide solutions. I think it is hypocritical to complain about something you don't even understand and then offer no solution.
America was defending itself from Vietnam was it? Please.
America was defending itself from the Palestinians was it? Please.
Against Panama was it? Please.
Get an education you brain-washed fool. America is the aggressor, far more often than not and then when something like 911 happens you all stand around and act like it's a major historical event because it happened to us. Try living in half the countries that America has illegally devastated.
2.The aid the US sends to Palestine is to appear somewhat diplomatic but it's considered a joke by anyone in the know. It doesn't begin to make up for 35 years of unilateral support given to the Israeli's to massacre and commit atrocities. It's to imply that it does is disgusting.
Actually, I'm not surprised you don't see the relevance.
Basically, this responds to the flawed assumptions behinds the questions posed in the comment that starts with 'America was defending itself from Vietnam was it? Please.'
The reality is that there wasn't a single Vietnam. There was a Communist North invading the South. The US was defending the South from the North.
Then how do you explain the bombing of South Vietnam, three times as intense as the more publicized bombing of the North? You are ignorant of history.
(Personal feelings: bombing North universities and South hamlets was completely unjustified. There was no excuse or military purpose for that. These tactics, as one commentator noted, made more commies than it killed. I wish I could change it, save My Lai, pull the napalm back, etc. But these are real issues, not ignoble ranting.)
Ignoble ranting? Those words came to mind when you stated the US was defending the South and thus had a right to intervene and annihilate millions of people and their country.
Millions of people? You must be referring to the Communist consolidation of power over North and South together. The most extravagant figure for Vietnamese civilians killed during the war, regardless of who killed them, is 2 million.
Nevertheless, did you read that I didn't support the killing of civilians?
The US-supported puppet in Vietnam refused to hold elections and Truman said that if we allowed elections in united Vietnam Ho Chi Minh would certainly had won. So US had the right to deny the people of Vietnam an election and then the US had the right to bomb 4 million Vietnamese and Cambodians for no reason?
And the fact that the Chomsky brings up the issue of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is absurd. If he believes that the democracies and dictatorships should have the same standards applied to them, then he must believe that the Nuremburg Trials were a sham and that Allied Commanders should have been indicted as well, which would be absurd.
No one but fringe extremists and 3rd world jingoists believe this. It's too bad Chomsky Inc. believes it.
CrocodilusPontifex 1 month ago
"Why is one right and not the other?" Because the United States and it's Western allies are democracies, the Taliban was not. Second of all, the United States and it's allies are actual legally constituted and recognized; the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had no international recognition, bar Saudi Arabia and the UAE, so any arguments about the "illegality" of invading other "countries" is moot. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" was NOT A COUNTRY.
CrocodilusPontifex 1 month ago
@theawesomemanman People who think the US committed "terrorism" in Nicaragua should read "The Civil War in Nicaragua" by Roger Miranda and "Adios Muchachos" by Sergio Ramirez. They were the SANDINISTA DEFENCE MINISTER and VICE PRESIDENT, and even they admit that the Contras were mostly poor, desperate peasants and that Sandinista corruption, brutality and repression was the reason for the rebellion.
I trust the former Nicaraguan leaders to speak on the issue more than Chomsky.
CrocodilusPontifex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we don't apply the same standard because we're good and they're bad. thank you. next question.
TheRouterDotNet 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheRouterDotNet 1 month ago
It's standard selfish behavior ... always self-centered, the total opposite of the teachings of Jesus whom so many of these politicians pretend to love. Ah yes, we are so pious .... well OK, we try to look pious when the cameras are on.
claudelebel55 1 month ago
Chomsky's assertion is dependent upon the assumption that the bombing of Afghanistan was to punish terrorism. It wasn't. It was to change a regime. Since the US committed terrorism in Nicuragua, the US regime had changed many times, thanks to democracy. And even if it hadn't, no force in the world could accomplish changing a US regime by force. It would have been unjustifiable because the goal would have been impossible. Chomsky's assertion of situational equivalence is thus nonsense.
athabascka 2 months ago
@athabascka bullshit, it wasn't just to change the regime. It was to get rid of Osama and the terrorists. They don't give a shit about repression otherwise there are many other countries they would also be bombing. The changing of regimes, when that was the motive, was always self-serving - Confessions of an economic hitman, if you are interested. Noam is one of the few honest people in town. Everyone else has a justification.
claudelebel55 1 month ago
@claudelebel55: One of the policies was removal of the Taliban from power. Sure, the US had selfish reasons to do so, and innocent people were bombed, but nobody should dispute that getting rid of the Taliban was a good cause. I oppose the bombing, not the policy of removal.
athabascka 1 month ago
@athabascka Is it up to America to set the world straight when it is having so much difficulty setting itself straight ? Why isn't America intervening in the case of other repressive regimes, like Iran or Israel ? Why did it go along with Kadhafi for 40 years ? This was never about saving the Afgan people from the Taliban. Furthermore, you can not impose a democracy - not to mention the fact that even america's democracy is shaky to say the least.
claudelebel55 1 month ago
@claudelebel55: we can agree that America should get its own house in order, although I'm not very optimistic that will happen when we have so much resistance from right wingers who want to protect and support the rich, and make it politically impossible to raise taxes on them.
athabascka 1 month ago
@athabascka
Actually, the War Aim (Or Policy as you call it) of removing the Taliban from Power wasn't even mentioned prior to the invasion; they went in for the *sole* reason of capturing Osama and thus stifling Resistance to Israeli/U.S Hegemony..
AFTER they got there, they decided to go to War with the Taliban..
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist: Don't you have any standards for the resistence to Israeli/U.S hegemony? Al Qaeda aren't humanists, or socialists. They're right wing fanatics and mass murderers. The point commonly made is that there is no difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. That means that at best, al Qaeda is no less evil than the U.S. government.
athabascka 1 month ago
@athabascka
Uh... kinda dishonest of you to change the Subject. Do you intend to answer my last question or not? I'm no more a fan of Al-Qauda than you, but Al-Quada don't form the bulk of resistance to U.S/Israeli hegemony; other sources do.
Anyways, mind answering my last question?
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist: You implied Bin Laden was a valuable member of the resistance to U.S. hegemony. Suppose victory for al Qaeda were possible, they wouldn't replace U.S. hegemony with anything better. In fact, it would be much worse. Al Qaeda's official goal is to create a united middle eastern state governed by Salafist ideals. In other words, the most extreme and dictatorial theocracy as a world actor. I must say I prefer U.S. hegemony.
athabascka 1 month ago
@athabascka
Fatuous argument, considering Al-Qaeda exists *because* of U.S Imperialism, they don't have the resources to really threaten a single State; let alone the Entire Middle-East/Central Asia - they can't become World actors and they never could.
Also, U.S Hegemony has caused many thousands (I use that phrase correctly) of times more Deaths than Al-Qaeda has ever dreamt of, so from a simple Utilitarian position - your argument falls apart.
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist Crying "Hypocricy" because the US once supported OBL is absurd; first off, who's STILL in power in Washington who can be held responsible for supporting him 30 years ago? Second, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was genocidal in scale; over 1 million dead over the course of 10 years. The communist puppet gov't executed tens of thousands of prisoners as well. With the communists killing so many people, who would have thought OBL would turn out to be evil as well?
CrocodilusPontifex 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist Also, the US supported and armed Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh during the Second World War. Why isn't the left upset by this?
CrocodilusPontifex 1 month ago
I just found a new IDOL on youtube!
Bartolomeus002 2 months ago
It's laughable btw that you claimed I ignored what you said when I pointed out in plain and simple terms how your defense of Chomsky implicitly assumed the kind of moral equivalence on his part which argued for. Of course I'm going to stick w/ that thesis ... you proved it a fortiori!
AWASHA 2 months ago
Really ... REALLY ... you wanna have this whole debate? I don't. Luckily you and Chomsky are in the demonstrable minority on this issue, so I'm not compelled to argue about it. There are more important and relevant issues which deserve my attention.
AWASHA 2 months ago
@theawesomemanman You realize you just referred to "U.S. crimes" ... that in itself presupposes some form of moral equivalence. Surely, there's no strawman.
AWASHA 2 months ago
@theawesomemanman because he is smart enough to know that NOT doing so would provide too much ammunition for his critics. And please take notice of his "condemnations" of terrorists, pirates, dictators and extremists. These condemnations are always perfunctory, half-hearted, insincere and performed solely to provide himself with plausible deniability. Notice also that these "condemnations" also ALWAYS proceed from an indictment of the west.
oldstock1607 2 months ago
For reasons which should be obvious, it's incumbent upon Chomsky to show us why any relatively current U.S. policy is the moral equivalent of, say, terrorism. He's yet to do so in any convincing way ... at all. Moreover, as Hitchens has noted, this stuff has truly marred an otherwise exceptional career.
AWASHA 3 months ago
@AWASHA
Well there's the bombing of Nicaragua, a case in 1984 where the U.S was convicted guilty of terrorism by the international community, where it than vetoed having to pay for it. Not to mention all the civilian casualties by drones in the wars the U.S has engaged in. Listen to him and you will realize that the life of an american is not worth more than anyone else. If a governement kills someone innocent and it's terrorism, and the U,S has certainly engaged in that.
TheBlackcat415 2 months ago
nice philosophy, but no practical plan
HardCoreProgrammer1 3 months ago
and yet if Afghanistan were bombing the U.S., Chomsky would be defending it with body and soul. This man is the living embodiment of the shabbiness of the leftist mindset.
oldstock1607 3 months ago
George Bush's favorite philosopher "Jesus Christ.
AaronTheBalloonMan 4 months ago
REALLY comparing apples & oranges here- state violence is more legitimate as [in the case of the US & her allies] it is adjudicated through democratic processes & the rule of law as well as constant public audits and oversight typical to consensual societies- resulting in more intelligent, judicious & constructive uses of force. Terrorism is stateless, intended to cause as much destruction and fear as possible. One would have to be morally obtuse to believe in this "golden rule run amok" logic.
rollotwomassey 5 months ago
@rollotwomassey how is state violence more legitimate if it is illegal? what democratic process led to the iraq war? Intelligence was fabricated in order to drum up support how is that more legitimate than terrorists drawing up a list of grievances to gain support for attacks on the united states? how was attacking afghanistand/iraq more intelligent since it increased terrorism worldwide and put us at more risk than ever before?? Is shock&awe not also intended to cause destruction and fear?
lenglain 5 months ago
@lenglain 1] There is no such thing as intl law. It's theoretical, amorphous and protean at best. 2] The Congressional vote in 10/02 authorized the use of force in Iraq pursuant to the ceasefire stipulations of the '91 ceasefire. 3] There has been NO proof of fabricated intelligence [merely mistaken].
rollotwomassey 5 months ago
@rollotwomassey hahahahasdkjshadklasd
vesemre 3 months ago
@vesemre Is that Turkish?!?!
rollotwomassey 3 months ago
@rollotwomassey Yes
vesemre 3 months ago
@vesemre You magnificent Anatolian bastard!
rollotwomassey 3 months ago
@lenglain 4] Terrorists arent subject to plebiscites, public audits of a free press or popular pressures resulting in mere "acting out" as it were. States, especially in the West, express the best aspirations of a populace- not 18 malcontents spread across a region of the world. 4] Fear is an unintended consequence of American warfare- we want to kill just the right people as quickly and bloodlessly as possible- fear is an ESSENTIAL psychological component of a terrorist's aims.
rollotwomassey 5 months ago
@lenglain 6] Iraq and Afghanistan have attrited terrorist numbers far beyond all hope or expectation. If I were to set up traps in a basement, and the next day they were filled with dead rodents...in your world traps would CREATE rodents. I say they were already there, their intentions were latent and it was better just to have it out on ground of our choosing rather than allowing them to stay hidden and strike when the opportunity presented itself.
rollotwomassey 5 months ago
War is too important and too dangerous of an endeavor, to have it left up to politicians to decide anything with respect to its prosecution.
centurion180ad 6 months ago
Chomsky: the only man who can write a 200 page book on terrorism without once mentioning Islam !
vonkleve 7 months ago
@vonkleve Chomsky has never defended islamic terrorism. He is however primarily interested in criticising the crimes of the powers that represent him the world ie the US government. As he often says, it has no moral meaning to criticise the crimes of people you can do nothing about. It's easy to bleat on about islamic terrorism because everyone will agree with, you risk nothing and it achieves nothing. Your comment was utterly facile.
fiveredpears 6 months ago
@fiveredpears
Chomsky is a Jew who hates himself for being a Jew - cf. Soros
vonkleve 5 months ago
@vonkleve That's because he made it clear over and over again, that he is focusing on what the country he lives in are doing around the world. That's the one thing any person has any influence over to change. To condemn the crimes of others doesn't make them go away, nore can you do anything about it. But you can mitigate the things that causes other people to hate you by trying to change.
Tyrfingr 4 months ago
what you need to understand is that Chomsky is basically Jesus... but better
PhoenixMoonbeam 7 months ago
@PhoenixMoonbeam What do you think about Chomsky working for the Pentagon and living comfortably by serving their interests on money that is extracted forcibly from working people? He's a real egalitarian, isn't he? Chock full of peace and love, eh?
How can you compare this hypocrite lying commie scumbag to Jesus?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Well, genius, I was clearly being sarcastic. Anyway, what exactly has Chomsky lied about? I'm not politically aligned with Chomsky or socialists generally but he does have an insightful way of shedding light on things. On another note, Jesus was probably the biggest commie terrorist that there ever was. Praise Christ!
PhoenixMoonbeam 7 months ago
I don't agree with Chomsky on much, but it's extremely saddening to see all these Chomsky-haters utilize ad hominem attacks in order to degrade him.
If you disagree, why must you commence on the personal attacks? Counter his argument with something rational - doesn't that make sense?
l3lip 7 months ago
hate to pee pee on your easter bunny fantasy but these guys are all zionist mason liars.
sssssjjjj1 8 months ago
sure he risked his comfy job so you say, but he writes a big book where the zion media pushes it to the max, that totally and horribly tries to say the gov. lone gunman from the 6th floor did this. hhahahhaahhaahaha. It's well known that bush and e. howard hunt were there. HUNT was identified as one of the 3 bums, shooters, who were rounded up, only not in bum close. nice suits without the tie and old hats put on to cover best they could. bush said he wasn't in dallas but pics show was!!
sssssjjjj1 8 months ago
Communist scum, hurry up and die already.
TheGoldenKing20 8 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Aren't you nice.
goddedme 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why don't we bomb fucking Germany! Didn't 9/11 Mohammed Atta come from Hamburg? Was there ever a terrorist attack against Germany? No! Thats where all the terrorists are hiding. Germany started two World Wars, they hate the USA - now they about to prepare WWIII!
TheCentralServices 8 months ago
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that the Afghanistan regime-change mission was totally illegal and that, at the time, the USA had no evidence that al Qaeda had done 9/11.
See my video:
Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney Actually he didn't, he said that the evidence that Bin Laden did it was minimal. I disagree with him on a keypoint here: if we assume he didn't do it, we still know he's involved with a terrorist group which would want to do it, so the point is moot. However, I don't understand how you can say the regime-change mission wasn't illegal under international law - I take it you are familiar with the UN Charter?
goddedme 7 months ago
@goddedme Dr. Chomsky said the regime-change mission in Afghanistan was totally illegal. He also said last fall that at the time Bush invaded Afghanistan, the US had no evidence that al Qaeda had done 9/11. More recently he said that he thinks Osama did it, but he thinks the US assassinated him because they didn't have enough evidence to convict him in court.
For more about Chomsky and Osama see my video:
Chomsky on Faith-Based Wars and 9/11
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney He actually says the evidence is that they never intended to capture him alive, because "Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges." I don't think legality poses a problem now than to previous US govts, but the political aspect is certainly true. Meanwhile outside the US other countries are concerned with the invasion of Pakistan's sovereign territory - cf. his quote from Helmut Schmidt.
goddedme 7 months ago
@goddedme Obama declared his contempt for international law on his third day in office when he signed off of drone attacks against a sovereign nation, Pakistan, that was no military threat to us. This was no surprise to many of us who had recognized that when he voted for the Telecom Immunity Bill in 2008 that he was declaring his contempt for the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
"Without a shred of evidence, people claim that there are morals that humans should adhere to."
What if the Nazis rounded up people who were deemed "psychopaths" and placed them into concentration camps?
Aren't psychopaths people, too? Don't psychopaths have rights?
bradchesney11 9 months ago
Comment removed
bradchesney11 9 months ago
Chomsky is a very interesting person; I fully agree that we get caught up in our self-righteousness so much that we forget to look at out own follies and point fingers at others. I mean, some people argue that a dictator is suppressing his own people; something must be done. But going by their argument, an outside party should bomb India because the govt. is waging a war against the people in central India or at least intervene. I am an Indian, by the way.
toseeornot2see 10 months ago 5
@toseeornot2see Just wait until your next war with Pakistan! Then the power / security systems really come out to play. Rajapaksah's goons are quite famous for cornering the Tamils last year, but less well known are the death squads that roamed Colombo silencing the SL premier families more vocal urban opponents!
Chomsky's argument here is a non sequitur anyway, as we are fighting the imperialistic, territorial ambitions of both Iran & Pakistan, not 'terror'. Whatever that is!
RonnieJamesable 2 months ago
@RonnieJamesable
You're saying Iran and Pakistan wish to expand their Borders..?
Bullshit.
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist They don't fancy it much anymore I expect, but they both did a decade ago, and will again when the West pulls out of Afghanistan & Iraq.
Whatever joke president is in charge of Pakistan in 5 or 6 years time may take a last ditch attempt to save his or her mandate by invading Pashtun controlled Southern Afghanistan in a populist warmongering move.
Whilst Iran wish to aquire nuclear weapons to cover their ambitions of territorial expansion over Sunni neighbours.
RonnieJamesable 1 month ago
@RonnieJamesable
Absolute rubbish - do you have *any* evidence to back up either of those claims, or is this merely an ''educated'' guess?
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist with Pakistan's ISIA running both the Haqqani network & Taliban in order to exert influence in Afghan & ultimately gain strategic depth for its inexorable war with India over Kashmir, makes it pretty obvious.
Why do you suppose Iran want nuclear weapons then, to protect themselves from Israel? or to bully their conventionally armed neighbours?
RonnieJamesable 1 month ago
@RonnieJamesable
You're right in saying that they support the Neo-Taliban over Kashmir, I agree with you there - though that's only because the U.S has so blatantly sided with India on the Kashmir issue because India is the growing Economy of the Region.
I expect they want Nuclear Weapons both to deter an Israeli and hypothetical U.S Attack, which of their neighboors do you think they want to bully? Saudi Arabia, the Country that bullies them..? Qatar? Kuwaiit?
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@BelfastAtheist
Well, thank you for effecting a humiliating climb-down over Pakistan after consulting the most basic evidence. Luckily you managed to blame it on the Yanks anyway - just because they paid for the paramilitary war in Ulster doesn't make them complicit in everything you know. Pakistan are capable of developing enmity with Indians unilaterally.
Iran wish to bully Jordan, Iraq ( non existent ) Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan & of course, significantly, Turkey.
RonnieJamesable 1 month ago
@RonnieJamesable
Well, that wasn't actually a climb-down and I've consulted 0 sources since this correspondonce began - what I'm saying is pretty consistent with my earlier remarks; I hardly count Pakistan wanting a fair share of Kashmir of Imperialism..
Do you have any evidence (Which I gather is important to you) to support the notion that Iran wishes to bully Jordan, Iraq (Actually: Iran has been building relations up with Iraq for Years now..), 'Kurdistan' or the others?
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
@RonnieJamesable
Also, for all your talk of Iran wanting to bully Saudi.. why aren't you bringing up the fact that Saudi *directly* asked the U.S to stage an Invasion of Iran and knock out their Government? I mean, that was requested in order that Saudi could maintain it's Religio-Political domination over the Region - a perfect example of Imperialism - which I find it conspicious you're not bringing up.
BelfastAtheist 1 month ago
Noam’s answer to everything we should have done the opposite of what we did; we should do the opposite of what we did. He’s nothing more than a serial contrarian who is very intelligent and so able to make some think he is being rational. He also over indulges in the Jesus slave mortality of ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘treating other the way you want to be treated’… to him prosperous people and anyone from the “west” ought to simply cower to any and all demands made on them by Muslims etc.
Royak 10 months ago
The first thing we do when the revolution starts is to kill all the intellectuals. Can't have any of that messy thinking going on. Questions, what use are questions? One voice, one people, one Homeland!
Darrylizer1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can comprehend that he is a mental light weight that cant comprehend what we can comprehend.And thats about all his opinion is worth .
stevekon11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they didn't have any evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
The man is great at asking questions but if can't come up with an answer to his own question I doubt competency of the engineer that design his logic circuits.
MichelSainteClaire 1 year ago
"-We should apply to ourselves the standards we apply to others."
no clue why you would quote it like that when you have the full quote in this video because he isnt arguing that we should apply to ourselves the standards we apply to other but that America DOESNT apply to itself that it applies to others
MarioBrosClassic 1 year ago
Brilliant!!! Ahhh, cool, crisp.. refreshing. Thanks for friending me!
zigzigerblat 1 year ago
If I believed in a Jezus, It Would be Chomsky
hollandshoop 1 year ago
The simple truths are the hardest to detect. That's why it takes the genius of Noam Chomsky to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the war.
Mr. Chomsky, you are IRREPLACEABLE.
If I could die, so you could live forever, I'd do it in an instant.
gunnerfan87 1 year ago
Bombing Afghanistan? Thats not really whats happening...
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
The problem with Chomsky is that he's never led a real life; his contibution to society has been to spread confusion and promote anarchy - while drawing his income from the very system he condems. He might consider a career in Politics rather than as an armchair critic of it, as it is very easy to criticise from the outside without experience of the realities of the inside. He might also consider getting his hair cut, learning some social skills and/or killing himself. What a Bellend.
EddyBlueEyes 1 year ago
@EddyBlueEyes Really? So one cannot talk about the system that they are forced into participating because they are not actively trying to enact political change within it?
Dabba23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dabba23 one can talk about it but really have no voice
MarioBrosClassic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. obviously cant refute anything he says therefore TROLOLOLOLOLOL
MarioBrosClassic 1 year ago
@EddyBlueEyes The guys 81 and still lectures full time, he grew up in a working class background, he risked his nice comfy job in the 60s to actively demonstrate against the Vietnam War, and has raised 2 children. I could go on, but I think this rather disproves your statement that "he's never led a real life."
goddedme 1 year ago 52
Wow. That was perfectly articulated. I like your comment below as well. Awesome.
jiggity99 1 year ago
@goddedme He means living a life outside the ivory tower, which is one thing that discourages me about college professors, left or right. For me, truth is an event, and only through experience can the veracity of a truth be verified
GoingGoingGalt 10 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Yes I agree. However I don't think it's fair to say that Chomsky is up in his ivory tower, regardless of whether you agree with his politics.
goddedme 10 months ago
@goddedme Why not?
GoingGoingGalt 10 months ago
@goddedme Chomsky has been funded by the Pentagon for decades. He's made millions from "the most evil institution on earth." He is the prime example of base hypocrisy.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername He has admitted that he has received funding for his linguistic research from the Pentagon, and that is why it is all the more important that he criticises it. It is possible to make a case for hypocrisy, I grant you that, but if we assume it to be so there would still be much worse cases of hypocrisy within the government (as he points out) and more importantly, it doesn't affect any validity his arguments may have. Surely this is correct?
goddedme 7 months ago
@goddedme Are you kidding me? If Chomsky can make millions as a defense contractor, then why can't Halliburton and Blackwater and all the rest? That is the ESSENCE of hypocrisy, didn't you know? X can do something and it's moral, but if B does the same thing then it's immoral. This is the very simplest example of a contradiction. It is a blatant contradiction. It obviously undermines everything he says because he's making moral arguments all the while he himself lives in the way he decries!
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
Comment removed
AscensionofMen 1 year ago
@EddyBlueEyes @EddyBlueEyes Yeah...I think you underestimate the power of ideas. It is extremely important to our civilization, to have clear moral thought. Man is a beast without it; Chomsky's contribution is paramount. Is that.. "comprehensible" to you? Probably not.. you are ugly, but you are standard.
AscensionofMen 1 year ago 31
@EddyBlueEyes - Don't worry, not everyone belongs to the Cult of Chomsky. There are many of us who can identify Postmodern Relativism when we see it. Especially when we're villified and shouted down by the real hypocrites who scream about civil rights.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi Hahahaha the "Cult of Chomsky"... you now have a name for your bullshit?
MarioBrosClassic 1 year ago
@EddyBlueEyes If you were in 1930's Germany would you have "consider[ed] a career in politics" to try and halt the systematic execution of their atrocious plans (assuming you do disagree with them, which most of Germany didn't). If so, would you have been able to succeed with a propagandist and government dominated media?
His hair is fine and he wore it short most of his life. He's 81, he's allowed.
This is not an exhibition of his social abilities, it's an interview.
jmichaelrout 1 year ago
@EddyBlueEyes You're delusional. Chomsky has done a lot of things in his life; a lot more than you probably have. We get it, you don't agree with Chomsky's politics. So what? Are people not allowed to have an opinion that is different than your own? He didn't lie. In fact, what he said is common sense.
moonshiny74 1 year ago
it's ugly but it's standard - selfish, violent and unconscious human behavior. This is what Jesus was up against and many of his followers still haven't understood. They think believing in Jesus is enough, that you don't have to pay attention to what he said - 'turn the other cheek', 'love your enemies', etc This is either hipocracy or deep ignorance - 'forgive them for they know not what they do'.
claudelebel55 1 year ago
dead on - what a huge double standard when it is OK to bomb and kill tens of thousands of innocents in the middle east and to cry foul when a few of ours get killed. And when mistakes are made - oh we're sorry we killed your family and friends - it was a mistake. If this happened in your own backyard, how would you feel.
Just like Israel - 1000 of yours for everyone of ours
claudelebel55 1 year ago 2
love the ultra right wing republicans and their witless remarks. a practicing catholic you say so when you havent got your preachers cock in your arse your talking out of it you numpty nick nack. bloody idiot catholics forever shouting about helping poor africans who have aids while telling them they must never use a condom as every sperm is sacred. the only weight you carry is your obese gut. you social misfit. now go have a wank over a gun magazine. lard arse.
chindit83 1 year ago
Yes, Noam, you are quite right. You would be considered insane.
MentalSentinel 1 year ago
@MentalSentinel Forgive me if you're being sarcastic, but Noam didn't say bombing Washington is right. He's said if one is right, so is the other.
DeePhlat 1 year ago
@Madiovich Could you tell me what situation you are referring to? The one on the video or the multiple arguments I was having with the socialists on here? Thanx.
Donryall 1 year ago
Sorry it is never Hipocrisy. It is the good old basic instinct Racism. "Us vs Them". There will always be "Them" who are not as good as "Us". Similar to monkey tribalism but the latter is much more civilized
saleemalbuz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saleemalbuz
ww w.anarchadia.c om
Check it!
Join us on youtube!
disgracious23 1 year ago
This man is a well known "Useful idiot" of socialist destablization. Epic fail.
Donryall 1 year ago
@Donryall Don't be afraid to post a relevant counter-argument every now and then, seeing as you're so much smarter than Chomsky. Chomsky is far less a socialist than a critic of capitalism. While he's willing to consider other ways of managing society, you the capitalist act as if capitalism, with all of its horrendous faults and consequences, is the be all end all of social systems. No respectable academic should be so narrow minded.
orangejuuz 1 year ago
@orangejuuz
Oh you wanted a counter argument against Chomsky's socialist principles, where do I begin. The Holomador, the Cambodian killing fields, Mao's purges in China and multiple "little cases" of housecleaning ( such as Afghanistan in 79) when they took power. I revile the constant chirping of academics like Chomsky done with no other purpose than destabalization of the free society which we enjoy, if he was that concerned he should run for office.
Donryall 1 year ago
@Donryall No, when I said *relevant*, I wanted a rebuttal pertaining to the content of this video. As Chomsky has made the point before, the political systems of the countries you mentioned bore no resemblance to basic socialist principles, exactly the opposite. I'm not a socialist, and barely is Chomsky, I don't think socialism or capitalism have even the slightest glimpse of functionality.
orangejuuz 1 year ago
Comment removed
Donryall 1 year ago
@orangejuuz
Ok after 911 all intelligence pinpointed that there were multiple terrorist training camps run by the taliban in the failed state of Afghanistan( foriegn and domestic intelligence) those camps were bombed, not afghanistan per se but the camps that were indeed present, after the taliban refused to remove them. So I don't know why he says hypocrisy but it was a necessary act as it has come out that al queda had trained many operatives there. It is not a double standard to defend.
Donryall 1 year ago
@Donryall Invading and bombing someone else's country is not a necessary or acceptable act by any standards, it is a severe war crime. Just imagine some American Christian fundamentalists went and blew up Mecca, I suppose that would give the Saudis just cause to invade the US (ignoring the logistical impossibilities)
orangejuuz 1 year ago
@Donryall Although middle easterners barely need an extra excuse to invade the US, considering the countless acts of savagery the US has committed against them in the name of imperialism. If you believe that the US has the right to invade any country it wishes, you are at odds with the rest of the world my friend, who is staunchly against you.
orangejuuz 1 year ago
@orangejuuz
Oh spare me your PC-dhimmi attitude. All country's reserve the right to defend themselves as did the US in response to 9/11. Or do you think that right is reserved only for middle eastern countrys. Here we get to the heart of it, your response marks you as one who would see the downfall of the west by acceptance of these attacks and giving no answer except subservience. I have long ago learned that u cant rationalize with someone like yourself, this debate is over.
Donryall 1 year ago
@Donryall Last time I checked, invasion does not count as 'defence', that is well and truly offence. If you tbelieve that the US has the right to go invading any country it wishes when it believes it's in its own best interest of 'defence', then you are at odds with the rest of the world, and don't expect any rational person to support your tirade anytime soon.
orangejuuz 1 year ago
America funded the Taliban and they supported Pakistan's right to nuclear weapons.
In the UK politicians are talking about this dangerous mix while the Taliban are in Pakistan.
I think we know who to blame...
soyousay18 1 year ago
SHUUUUUT UUUUUUP! wow, for so many intelligent people to COMPLETELY miss the point. almost every single comment i read here was about past events or documented past numbers/statistics...... STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!! it doesn't matter WHAT people did before, we learn from it, and move AHEAD. whomever you believe is corrupting the world/causing the problems, you are playing right into their hands. get off the god damn couch and BE ACTION. not petty words and arguments. do ur own research
rosspreston33 1 year ago
@knutoletube I'm all for applying the same standards for us as we do the Taliban for example, in which case we come out looking like gold and the Taliban look like the criminal dirt they are. Chomsky was never ever ever for equal standards. He was for skewing everything against the West and in favor of various murderous Communist regimes. I only wish we did treat the US equally against the Taliban or against Alqaeda or against Saddam or against the Vietnamese Communists. Would that it was so
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
We obviously don't have any standards to apply to others.
What he's saying here is it's strange to bomb others if we don't like to get bombed ourselves.
What's genius about that?
Chom to any thinking person must have lost all credibility after his 9/11 statements.
He's a controlled puppet, a disinfo agent.
He's too devious 4 most people to get what he's ACTUALLY saying.
Real genius would be exposing the few that generate constant chaos an "terror".
But he can't cos they're his mentors.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
You really have to be stupid to find this guy intelligent, brilliant or a "genius" or perhaps so blinded by agreement on ideology with him that you can't see through his ridiculous arguments.
Chomsky is a compulsively dishonest Stalinist. Not intelligent, his word games are not clever, his rationales are stupid, and he's not above lying outright in defense of various Communist takeovers when necessary, as he has done on many occasions (China, Cambodia, Vietnam).
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords Chomsky is not a supporter of Stalin or any form of the Soviet system watch John Pilger interviews Noam Chomsky 25 Nov 1992 Part 1. It's easy to say things when you have no basis to back them up. The sound is low.
ludvan64 1 year ago
@ludvan64 his career speaks for itself. If someone spent a lifetime defending Nazi Germany, defending Mussolini's Italy, and lying in support of Fascist Spain, we would know them to be a fascist, whatever label they gave themselves. Chomsky's "clever" tactic is to, when necessary, throw overboard past Communist regimes that can no longer be defended, but claim current ones are kindhearted, not murderous etc; as he did with China, Cambodia and Vietnam during periods of mass murder.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords It's obvious that you are right wing , and anti socialist. So there is no point in discussing Chomsky with you. You insist he is a Stalinist, when in the video I suggested you watch you clearly states that any movement named after a person he decries. My wife spent several years in one of Stalin's Gulags. We hate Stalin, and I would not support anyone who did. You call those who regard Chomsky "stupid". Well I suggest you look in the mirror.
ludvan64 1 year ago
@ludvan64 if your wife really had spent years in the Gulag, you would loathe Chomsky 10 times more than I do, which is saying a lot. Chomsky praised and defended and lied in favor of several Communist regimes that were as bad as the Soviets. Gulag prisoners for Chomsky? That's like Holocaust survivors supporting Goebbels.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords Are you calling me a LIAR. My wife was born in a Gulag. You simply don't understand what Chomsky is saying. It's your mind set. Your of the right, and with that intellectual handicap are simply incapable of seeing through your own prejudices. In the final analysis, who are you, and look where Chomsky is. He changed the world of linguistics, has written many books on many subjects. Your not fit to lick his boots. I shan't respond, or read any more of your postings.
ludvan64 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuflessRecords It's obvious that you are right wing , and anti socialist. So there is no point in discussing Chomsky with you. You insist he is a Stalinist, when in the video I suggested you watch you clearly states that any movement named after a person he decries. My wife spent several years in one of Stalin's Gulags. We hate Stalin, and I would not support anyone who did. You call those who regard Chomsky stupid. Well I suggest you look in the mirror.
ludvan64 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords I would like to see some sort of basis to yor assertions here. I have read several of Chomsky's books and journals,and based on what I have read, I disagree with your judgements about the man and his work. Maybe if you are so inclined, you could back up your statements here with some evidence: quotations, interviews , journals , etc. Which directly relate to your criticisms. I am interested, you have my attention.......
knwitham 1 year ago
@knwitham Ok. Chomsky on China: "Also relevant is the history of collectivization in China, which, as compared with the Soviet Union, shows a much higher reliance on persuasion and mutual aid than on force and terror, and appears to have been more successful". American Power and the New Mandarins. In fact, millions were murdered in cold blood (and tens of millions starved during the Great Leap Forward). Chomsky doing his throw-overboard-past-Commie-faves-to-help-defend-current-killers routine
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@RuflessRecords Thanks for your quick reply! I will look into these carefully when I have more time, I am a wage-slave after all! It may take me some time to find the quotations, and put them into context, but I will try to be quick about it.
Again, thanks.
knwitham 1 year ago
@knwitham on the brutal postwar killings of at least 50,000 people following the Communist enslavement of S. Vietnam, Chomsky said: "In a phenomenon that has few parallels in Western experience, there appear to have been close to zero retribution deaths in postwar Vietnam. This miracle of reconciliation and restraint...has been almost totally ignored". The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, 1979. This "miracle" was putting hundreds of thousands not killed in camps.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
"support for bombing Afghanistan" as if it's just in general, immediate lying from the beginning, a constant Chomsky trait, the bombing is select Taliban and Alqaeda targets, & most civilians killed are at the hands of the Taliban. The US didn't deliberately kill civilians in Nicarauga so there's no comparison, we were trying to stop Communists that Stalinist Chomsky supported from taking over a country--with Soviet military aid by the way--.
Genius? Impossibly stupid.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
@existentialnihilist
nau·seous/ˈnôSHəs/Adjective
1. with nausea; inclined to vomit.
2. Causing nausea; offensive to the taste or smell.
howdyalikethemapples?
ggfrancis 1 year ago
real talk
FiswaT 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of millions who hang his every word. He simply babbles on in academic no-speak that is meaningless in the real world. He is nothing more than a self-hating Jew who has found a way of getting attention and this ultraliberal, soft-speaking nonsense is no more than schtick that even he doesn't believe. When all the kids in his neighborhood were Yankee fans, he was a Dodger fan, just to be contrary. He is the diseased spawn of red diaper babies.
ExistentialNihilist 1 year ago
@ExistentialNihilist He describes being in opposition of norms a nuissance. The truths Chomsky has devoted his life (and risked his freedom) to expose would require effort from all of us to remedy. No one wants to be implored to reason. It's far easier to bash him as an individual and refuse to pull the elitist bullshit from your own eyes. He has a boring tone of voice. So? You would be wise to hear his message despite that, and RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF. I have not be able to prove him wrong
briitard 1 year ago
@ExistentialNihilist Your perspective on Chomsky just made me a nauseous. So tell me about this real world...
omusialo 1 year ago 2
@omusialo Okay, for one, in the Real World intelligent people know the difference between saying that someone made them "nauseous" and someone made them "nauseated." If you are "nauseous" then you are so disgusting that a a person would get "nauseated" looking at you. I may have nauseated you, but I didn't make you nauseous. (It must be difficult understanding a blowhard like Chomsky when your ability to speak English is flawed.)
ExistentialNihilist 1 year ago
@ExistentialNihilist You are clearly a very stupid sorry person.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
I can't comprehend why a SANE linguist would try to convince ANY small part of the world that he really knows ANYTHING about real world economics. cHOMSKY = Good intellectual ACTOR. Fortunately only half as dumb as David Harvey, a Marxist Anthropologist with the same fantasy.
forwardmover 1 year ago
(thanks.)
taken from Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times (2002) IMDb tt0338357
wda013 1 year ago
*THANKS* for uploading this valuable content !
--
recorded (aired?) WHEN? and (taken from) WHERE?
please provide more info (in vid.description) !
wda013 1 year ago
Bombing Taliban in Aphganistan is a based on an extremely complex theory. Self defense. Using preemptive strike. Of course, for Chomsky, enemies of USA are NOT enemies. So, he cannot understand this. Some wars, including bombing caves, are justified. Even Catholic church admits this. Quite a sill Ivory Tower type.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover whats the point of having enemies, spending billions on self - defense, losing lives, loved ones, when you can live in a worldwide community that helps and benefits from each other? I think Chomsky is a just smarter than you and he sees past nationalism, where as you are trapped by it.
omusialo 1 year ago
@omusialo Actually, I want to be connected on an interplanetary basis. Someone told me that they should soon have a SUPER GIANT spaceship ready, I believe, called UTOPIA. Have you heard that story?I have friends who need help and I am overwheLmed helping them. Could please post your phone number or email, so I can have them contact you? Thanks.
forwardmover 1 year ago
@forwardmover Im not one, for stories.
omusialo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@omusialo Its NOT about YOU! Are you a LIBERAL?
forwardmover 1 year ago
The intellectual standard is hypocrisy. Just don't uncritically accept anyone who claims to have expertise on domestic politics or international relations.
AphexXtal 1 year ago
hitting the nail on the head !
JeroenUyttendaele 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man is just!
mnzz1234 1 year ago
Air Force General Chennault in 1940 commented in a letter made public about Japan and how the US-held Philippines and Hawaii and bases in China could be used to launch B-17s "to burn out the industrial heart of the Empire with fire-bombing attacks on the teeming bamboo ant heaps." Therefore, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a pretty acceptable action. It falls very strictly within official U.S. doctrine and it's even less contentious than the invasion of Iraq.
DeePhlat 1 year ago
Could it be that even people who are intellectual just get caught up with what is going on around them just as everybody else does thus resulting in them becoming partial to what the natives are calling for.
I find it concerning that so called intellectualls show such hypocrisy when considering the actions of the country they reside in.
iziahlights 1 year ago
then what was 9/11? It appears somebody did comprehend.
arjjin 1 year ago
what a loser
this man has shit for brains
drydust999 1 year ago
Chomsky is brilliant
PapGripDezi 1 year ago
wow Chomsky is fucking dumb on so many levels.
I dont even know where to start....
longamud 1 year ago
@longamud
wow that's a pretty convincing argument you make, longamud :-)
maybe you should write a thesis.
KennyEverettsFinger 1 year ago
@longamud Go back to Glenn Beck.
MinGophers 1 year ago
Wait a minute. Are you saying if another country attacks you and you attack them back then you are being a hypocrite unless you attack your self? LMAO you guys think this man is a genius.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
he is not questioning the action, you fool. He is questioning the education of the people, you prime example.
ThePointlessAtheist 1 year ago
He is saying that America it self is a terrorist nation and it is hypocritical for America to defend it self against other nations for the reasons of terrorism. Yes I will admit not all of American foreign policy has been a success, but when you take a look at history it easily becomes understandable.
It is far easier to criticize foreign policy than to provide solutions. I think it is hypocritical to complain about something you don't even understand and then offer no solution.
thebestsumoeva 1 year ago
America was defending itself from Vietnam was it? Please.
America was defending itself from the Palestinians was it? Please.
Against Panama was it? Please.
Get an education you brain-washed fool. America is the aggressor, far more often than not and then when something like 911 happens you all stand around and act like it's a major historical event because it happened to us. Try living in half the countries that America has illegally devastated.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago 20
Then you'll know what terrorism really is.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
Was North Vietnam Defending itself from South Vietnam?
America sends Aid to Palestine. What are you talking about?
Panama? Cold War era. Yes, the whole invasion was a set-up, but it's hard to undo a Jimmy Carterism without something drastic.
quabot 1 year ago
@quabot
1. Wtf? How is that relevant?
2.The aid the US sends to Palestine is to appear somewhat diplomatic but it's considered a joke by anyone in the know. It doesn't begin to make up for 35 years of unilateral support given to the Israeli's to massacre and commit atrocities. It's to imply that it does is disgusting.
3.I don't even know wtf number 3 means.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
QwidgyboMan
Actually, I'm not surprised you don't see the relevance.
Basically, this responds to the flawed assumptions behinds the questions posed in the comment that starts with 'America was defending itself from Vietnam was it? Please.'
The reality is that there wasn't a single Vietnam. There was a Communist North invading the South. The US was defending the South from the North.
quabot 1 year ago
@quabot
Then how do you explain the bombing of South Vietnam, three times as intense as the more publicized bombing of the North? You are ignorant of history.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan
re: bombing of South Vietnam --->
Ho Chi Minh Trail, Rat Tunnels, etc.
(Personal feelings: bombing North universities and South hamlets was completely unjustified. There was no excuse or military purpose for that. These tactics, as one commentator noted, made more commies than it killed. I wish I could change it, save My Lai, pull the napalm back, etc. But these are real issues, not ignoble ranting.)
quabot 1 year ago
@quabot
Ignoble ranting? Those words came to mind when you stated the US was defending the South and thus had a right to intervene and annihilate millions of people and their country.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan
Millions of people? You must be referring to the Communist consolidation of power over North and South together. The most extravagant figure for Vietnamese civilians killed during the war, regardless of who killed them, is 2 million.
Nevertheless, did you read that I didn't support the killing of civilians?
quabot 1 year ago
@quabot,
The US-supported puppet in Vietnam refused to hold elections and Truman said that if we allowed elections in united Vietnam Ho Chi Minh would certainly had won. So US had the right to deny the people of Vietnam an election and then the US had the right to bomb 4 million Vietnamese and Cambodians for no reason?
optimistsRUS 1 year ago