The "crimes for which * I * share responsibility?!?"
I'm a REPUBLICAN, BITCH!
I FOUGHT against the CRIMES * YOU PROGRESSIVES * have perpetrated against humanity=> aka YOUR 'manifest destiny'; YOUR central bank (W Wilson 1913), YOUR "Negro Project" aka "planned parenthood", YOUR KKK, YOUR lynching, YOUR filibuster of Civil Rights, YOUR Japanese Interment, YOUR dropping of 2 atom bombs, YOUR 18 of 24 Wars, YOUR 1964 Great Plantation Society, YOUR 1960's drugs, YOUR illegitimacy, & YOUR debt
In return for YOUR CRIMES u think u will take a share in MY party's victory over YOUR Klansmen in the Civil War. You will take a share in MY party's destruction of YOUR party's Fugitive Slave Act, YOUR poll tax, & YOUR party's Jim Crow. You want a share in MY party's destruction of YOUR party (1950-1964) in passg Civ Rights - in exchange for "MY" share in YOUR Securitization&Mortgage Backed Securities (US Dept of Housing - Feb 1970), YOUR Fed, & YOUR Fannie Mae, & YOUR DE-regulatn
Just LOOK at what YOU bring to the table you evil lying deceiving son of a bitch. And now u claim * I * must take a "share" of everything YOU have done?
Where is YOUR share in YOUR Gulf of Tonkin & YOUR attack of Vietnam u treasonous bitch? Where is YOUR share in Iraq??
Isn't this what YOU said?
Democrats "Iraq has WMD's"
w w w -DOT- youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
Democrats "George Bush IGNORED Iraq's ties to terrorism"
I share "crimes for which * I * share responsibility?!?"
I'm a REPUBLICAN, BITCH!
I FIGHT against the CRIMES * YOU PROGRESSIVES * have perpetrated against humanity=> aka YOUR 'manifest destiny'; YOUR central bank (W Wilson 1913), YOUR "Negro Project" aka "planned parenthood", YOUR KKK, YOUR lynching, YOUR filibuster of Civil Rights, YOUR Japanese Interment, YOUR dropping of 2 atom bombs, YOUR 18 (of 24) Wars, YOUR 1964 Great Plantation Society, YOUR 1960's drugs, YOUR illegitimacy, & YOUR debt
How it can be retaliation and blowback by common sense when other countries didnt do it?
I am from Czech republic and we have been occupy by Nazi Germany. And I dont know any czechs who was killing citizens in terrorist attacks in Berlin. That can be also said about Soviet army invasion in 1968. I dont see any czechoslovaks there who killed innocent people in Stalingrad or Leningrad.
And it can be said about many other countries in many other occupations...
@BigLebowsk It has happened in other cases of occupation though. For example the IRA repeatedly bombed targets throughout the United Kingdom for several decades.
@BigLebowsk Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly the first instances of Western intervention in the Muslim world. Of course occupation is only one potential factor leading to terrorist attacks.
@TheHarlequin13 Really? When did Canada occupy the Mid East? Why is Canada at the top of Al Qaeda's hit list, then. Bin Laden said, like other Islamists, that he is at war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. They are fighting wars around the world. Also, he targeted the US as moral builder to prove that well armed countries can be attacked. I don't mind Chomsky on domestic issues, but he's horrendously inept on geopolitics.
@shirehorse91 Canada deployed some of their military both in Afghanistan and Iraq, so there's that. The fanatical declarations of the likes of bin Laden is hardly refutes Chomsky's analysis of geopolitics as his declarations say nothing about why groups like "al Qaeda" gain support amongst Muslims, nor do they prove that US foreign policy isn't imperialist.
@TheHarlequin13 Yesh, this is why I hate talking to you big mouth idiots. You know nothing about history of geopolitics and yet you pontificate everywhere. Canada was not involved in a war with Afghanistan in the 1980's it was only after attacks that Canada and other countries got involved. Chomsky spew Islamist propaganda and does not view them in a negative light.
@TheHarlequin13 They were guarding a port with one or two ships from terrorist attacks. That is not the same as attacking Iraq and having troops on the ground.
Yes, I agree. Chomsky is right and Hitchens was wrong. However, Hitchens is operating in the physical world. Chomsky is operating in the theoretical world. In other words, Chomsky is like John Lennon and his song Imagine. Imagine no country, no religion, no this, no that. It is all a beautiful thought, but not real. It is a dream of Utopia. There is no Utopia. All we can hope for is a Type One Civilization (see Michio Kaku) This Type One will come from the west not the third world.
@JayGatsbyOdysseus you.....you can see the future??? If any advance is made as civilization it will be done by all of humanity. Not by any single or small group of state(s),organisation(s) or individual(s) or whatever.
Totally agree. I read some of Hitchen's work including a debate with Chomsky after 9/11 and the chapter by Hitchens in 'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man.' Hitchens is aggressively trying to keep himself in his own bubble of unreality. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you're full of shit.
As I said in my previous post, your ignorance is almost laughable, if it weren't so dangerous to freedom and democracy. True, it is unlikely that we as American citizens were ever under much serious danger from Saddam Hussein, but how about the 50,000+ people he slaughtered? His OWN people. You declaim Hitch as a supporter of crimes; look what you support. Hitch was the guy who believed in our moral responsibility to free this world of tyranny, you must be the other guy. Fuck you.
Before judging other people of their levels of knowledge, you should take a good look at yourself. "Our moral responsibility to free this world of tyranny"? through the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Is there any other mean to emancipate people rather than a military invasion? Don't you see what is happening in Egypt?
Interested in how you define 'freedom and democracy'?
The war of Iraq caused between 80000 to 100000 deaths, it is this calamity he refers to when he says about hitchens crimes, crimes that coincide with this political allegiance, predominately with blair
It would be good to keep in mind that saddam could not have committed with out the backing he received from the US
hitchcens choose tyranny over democratic theocracy, with use of ideology, which is not so far from religion anyway
You're ignorance is almost laughable. You try to argue that Hitch supported anything Bill Clinton's Administration did? Are you kidding me? Hitch had an abnormally deep-seated hatred for anything related to Bill Clinton, but you, of course, wouldn't know that, because that would require you to step out of your little "radical" bubble and read something that wasn't written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Or anything in general.
Kropotkin, you childishly pout "You're not allowed to say Chomsky says." You're in no position to say dictate what I'm allowed or not allowed to say. This isn't a "Libertarian Socialist" country, so you live by my rules.
Chomsky's "A Review of NATO’s War over Kosovo." He claims Serb war crimes happened AFTER the NATO bombing. No mention of Srebrenica, the Siege of Sarajevo, the mass rapes in Bosnia and Croatia and so on years before; only the historically ignorant could believe him.
@CrocodilusPontifex Saying that you're now allowed to say Chomsky says is in no way, shape, or form childish. You know nothing of his work, and therefore really have nothing to offer. As I said, you can say he's over 80, or male, or Jewish of you wish. Nothing else. You know nothing, so simply have nothing to say. Chomsky mentions everything you've babbled about. You just haven't looked. When one doesn't look, and therefore doesn't see anything, it hardly means it's not there. Tea bagger?
Chomsky constantly bitches and moans about the US corporate media only serving "corporate" and "imperialist" interests.
Bitch! Who supplies you with all his quotes? Read all the quotes and citations in Manufacturing Constent; Chomsky complains that the US media was ignoring massacres and atrocities in El Salvador and Guatemala, but all his evidence for those were FROM US CORPORATE NEWS SOURCES?
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhh...How would you know what Chomsky discusses regarding the media? You know nothing about him. Why are you talking about him at all? WHich of his books did you say ou had read, drooler? And his works on the media are as of yet uncontested and have not been demonstrated to be incorrect. The best critic of his and Herman's work so far is by themselves. Your statements about Chomsky's sources further proves his poisition, but you're too dumb to realize it because you are...
@CrocodilusPontifex ...unfamiliar with his work. See, here's how the big boys play, or even the small ones for that matter. Maybe you'll reach small before I'm finished with you, boy-. You read his work FIRST. THEN, AFTER you have read it and understood it, THEN you make your arguments. You have yet to take the first step. You're trying to skip to the last step, but in the process are simply farting out a bunch of nonsense which makes you look like a moron. And, most of us think you are "tards".
@CrocodilusPontifex What utter nonsense. Chomsky mostly cites reports by human rights groups and compares them with coverage by mainstream US news sources. It's clear that, if you even picked up Manufacturing Consent, you skim read the notes and saw him citing the New York Times. It's pretty fucking stupid to think a book about the mainstream US media citing mainstream US media is proof of Chomsky's reliance on it.
You are correct, Harlequin. Loud mouth anti-Chomsky droolers have VERY rarely ever read a single book. Crocodilepenis is lying out his arse and it will take a matter of only about 2 or 3 exchanges to prove it. Here are the ONLY two possible courses of action I believe we will see. He will continue to come here as his ego will get the better of him regardless of the fact he knows nothing of the subject and will thereby dig the hole deeper. I prefer this one. Or he will disappear will his tail...
(Part 2) And even IF in some parallel universe, Milosevic didn't start killing people until he was attacked by NATO first, SO FUCKING WHAT?
Guess what? The Holocaust didn't really start kicking into high gear until AFTER the allies started bombing and advancing on Germany. Where the allies responsible for the Holocaust?
@CrocodilusPontifex Why are you here? Shouldn't you be on a knitting blog or something? You have nothing to offer here. If we wanted to hear people just making up crap and talking out their butts we'd go to a tea-bagger drooling banjo fest, the GOP "debates", or RNC or something. Let's get this straight. YOU know nothing about Chomsky, other than perhaps that he's male, Jewish (well, no, you probably didn't know that either), and over 20. Which of his books did you say you had read?
@kropotkinbeard1 "Which of his books did you say you had read?" Manufacturing Consent. I read it off the shelf in Borders without buy because I didn't want a cent going to this propagandist and I've read his articles online.
That you say "See, here's how the big boys play, or even the small ones for that matter" is laughable. Like I said, anarchists, communists, "libertarian socialists" and other extremists are in no position to dictate the terms of political discourse in American society.
@CrocodilusPontifex Great! Then you'll have no problem trying to point out where all of the mistakes were. Or do you mean you read the title in the bookstore? I'm sure that's probably a little more accurate. And since you brought it up, he's a "propagandist" for who? The evil communist threat which never existed?
Regarding the part which you find laughable is laughable. Given you know nothing about any of the groups you've mentioned, I'd say that you are in no position to know who can dictate.
@CrocodilusPontifex You're funny. Go back to the knitting section at Borders. You may find something there of which are know something. "Like I said"...means squat. You have no game and are doing nothing here but shooting blanks. If you have an argument, even a little boy argument, please just make it and quit wasting our time. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have read a paragraph or two from a single article, so, which one? Where are your arguments from Manufacturing?
Chomsky says most Serbian atrocities in the Kosovo War happened AFTER NATO started bombing.
Bitch! What do you call the Croatian and Bosnian Civil Wars? The Siege of Sarajevo? The Srebenica Massacre? Milosevic killed tens of thousands of innocent people YEARS BEFORE the first NATO bomb landed in Belgrade, so don't tell me the atrocities happened after. Only someone who's completely gullible or completely ignorant of Balkan history (which is, unfortunately, most of his fans) would believe this.
@CrocodilusPontifex You are not allowed to say "Chomsky says..." any more until you have shown us where he says these things. Get it? And I'm not interested in some tenth-hand sources from just another long line of droolers. You give the page number from now on, or shut up. You're wasting our time. If you really wish for us to spoon-feed you we will check our schedules and see if we can fit you in between the other illiterate anti-Chomsky babblers. Which of his books did you say you had read?
@CrocodilusPontifex Chomsky doesn't appeal to who you've just said. Wrong yet again. Can you really be this wrong so often? Jesus! What are you doing? Reading FrontPageMagazine or something? I've not seen anyone be incorrect on as many thing in my life, outside of Bush. You said "Chomsky asks...." You are not allowed to even use his name again until you provide where he said any of this in how work. And, no, the "communists" did not. Do you anything about history at all, like, before yesterday?
"Not ONCE has anyone succeeded in arguing your position,"
Not ONCE? Chomsky is an obscure nobody in this country; he's not a figure at all in American public life; his opinions have had ZERO affect on American foreign, domestic or economic policy.
I think that's proof enough that Chomsky has been thoroughly defeated.
@InvincibleNumanist "so hes been defeated because the government and the elites dont do what he says?" Because the US electorate won't elect people who do what he says.
Chomsky's US/Stalinist Russia comparisons (which are many) are total non-sequiters. If you were a dissident in the USSR and no one listened to you, it's because you/they were jailed/killed. If you're a dissident the US and no one listens to you, it's because they think you're a fool or don't care.
so why are you sitting comfortable freely speaking these things on american internet, go somewere..the reason is the only one - if not the 'imperialistic US', wich supports at least some kind of balance in the world, such 'wiseguys' as yourself wouldn't be able to do it, in China for example internet already restricted, the same wants to do Russia. Taliban would put you to the jail the same day if you won't agree wth something. And i think Chomsky doesn't need defenders
@getsensus Chomsky most definitely doesn't need defenders. However, it's not bad to help someone who is being slandered by illiterate goofballs. Were I to hear someone talking about this great white blind piano player named Ray Charles, I'd also to him a favor and point out his mistakes. This isn't defending Charles as much as it is helping the poor guy who thought he was white. He may simply have made a mistake, and appreciate the correction, or he could be like the arrogant anti-Chomsky...
@getsensus ...inbreds who pretend to know his work when they don't, lie, carry on with the lies regardless of whatever evidence demonstrates their lies to be so, and on and on...Unlike the guy who had made a mistake about Charles, perhaps based on his having not studied, but appreciated the correction, these guys are too indoctrinated to even know that a thanks is in order. Not only do they not recognize that the should be thanking those who straighten out their dumb asses, they attack them. ばか
@pwnz0rz0r This is the same phenomena with Chomsky as demonstrated by the anti-Chomsky drooler cult. I've been studying these folks for more than 20 years, and if there is one constant, it's that 99.9999% of them have never read a single book of his. This accounts for their getting his ideas wrong 99.9999% of the time, too. After all, if they haven't read a word, what should we expect? Then there are the .0001% who have read a little and either didn't understand anything, or are outright liars.
@pwnz0rz0r THEN, there are the .0001% of the .0001% who actually have read something, even several things in rare cases, demonstrate that they've understood the words, and then offer something resembling a reasonable argument. These are VERY few and far between. Folks like Kamm, Horowitz, and a few others fall into the second group of outright liars and illiterates. It's better to simply never engage anyone with regards to Chomsky unless they've read at least one book of his. VERY rare.
Yes in Chomsky's defense he does not support the conspiracy theories emanating from 911. However his suggestion that Western policy resulted in 911 - at least in practical terms, puts him firmly in the camp of those who find justification in the appeasment of fascist elements, in this case those following an Islamic fundamentalist agenda.
It's a simple argument and I can see why most of his critics find his thoughts childish on political issues. His argument about 9/11 would make sense if it was the play ground and I spit in your face and so you hit me back. But it doesn't make sense with a fanatical sect uses the same poverty and desperation they formed on their own as a permit to murder and barbaism. That's when their is a dynamic layer to the argument that begs one question; which way of living is better?
@moovershaker "his suggestion that Western policy resulted in 911 - at least in practical terms, puts him firmly in the camp of those who find justification in the appeasment of fascist elements, in this case those following an Islamic fundamentalist agenda" I was wrong. Your point is simply irrelevant, not really illogical. Because his "suggestion," is true.
@meeg2005 Ah ok, so now my comment IS logical - well I guess that's progress of a sort! Hmm, but now it's not 'relevant'. Yeah I don't think using terms like 'logical' and 'relevant' in this context is the best way of expressing your disagreement. You then say you agree that western policy was to blame for 911. If that's your opinion that's fine. I would say that puts you in the same camp as Chomsky.
So - Is that it? Or should I expect some more copying and pasting..
@moovershaker You are correct that Chomsky is not a conspiracy theorist, nor ever has been. Quite the opposite, in fact. Regarding that western policy resulted in 9/11 is not only uncontroversial, it's virtually impossible NOT to know. He is not now, nor has ever been even remotely in the camp of fascist anything. Again, quite the opposite. In fact, not recognizing the U.S.'s own role in such blowback is itself a sign of fascistic thinking, or at a minimum outright denial.
@kropotkinbeard1 Well we are agreed on Chomsky's anti-conspiracy credentials so that's a good start! But then things go awry. The 'outright denial' you speak of actually comes from the inability of Chomsky and his ilk to recognize that the world has changed since 1969. Now I never suggested that Chomsky was 'in the camp of fascist anything'. You are missing the point. To be 'well read' requires that you understand the points being made, preferably on both sides of the discussion.Further cont...
@moovershaker I've seen no evidence that "Chomsky and his ilk" have failed to recognize anything. Chomsky is usually about as up to date with his data as anyone I'm aware of. Chomsky and "his ilk" would agree that things have changed. He talks about it all the time. He says that in many ways things have gotten much better, and gives countless examples. Also, regarding being well read, I am. I've read all of his works, many others, and all critics. Been doing this for 20+ years. There is nothing
@moovershaker ..from the "other side" that I'm aware of unless it's come out in the past few days. Nothing. Perhaps a college report or something. As a matter of fact, I became familiar with Chomsky LONG ago precisely by listening to and looking for critics first. As a well read person usually does, I read ALL of his materials from the start. THEN I looked for as many critics as I could find. Now it's over 20 years later and I've found virtually none. Not serious ones anyway. Most have read...
@moovershaker ...little to nothing. Actually, most have read nothing at all. Probably a percent or two have read a little. And then a small percent of a percent have actually demonstrated an understanding of his work, and have then been able to make anything resembling an argument. It's VERY easy to spot someone who hasn't as they all make the same nonsensical claims, mostly having referred to the same pathetic sources (Horowitz, Kamm, DeLong, etc...) I'd love to meet one who made an argument.
@kropotkinbeard1 cont.. it is generally wise to steer clear of name calling, though sometimes tempting, still it is cheap and to be avoided when wishing to be taken seriously. But I digress. The US, though not blameless, can not be held accountable for the actions of radical Islamists - or rise of political Islam. To do so, as I pointed out is to play into the hands of those with a fascist ideology. 911 was not 'blowback', it was a premeditated act of war by those with a very clear set of goals.
@moovershaker ...Yeah and it's generally wise to worry about the content of an argument more tha whether or not someone has ascribed a label to someone, especially when they're accurate. So, when I say that folks like Horowitz and Kamm are liar or illiterate, this is simply a statement of fact, and easy to prove. They can change, maybe. Yes, the U.S. held responsible for the blowback of their actions, as MANY ex-CIA employees have said. You're refusing to look at simple cause and effect if...
@moovershaker ...you believe there is no connection. It was most definitely pre-meditated, but it didn't just come from nowhere. As anyone familiar with Chomsky's work, or most any other serious analyst for that matter, is well aware of, the goals have been being discussed for years. I recommend that you start reading Chomsky as far back as at least the Reagan era, actually years earlier, when Chomsky was already writing about "terrorism". And, as usual, 30 years later, Chomsky was correct.
@moovershaker Why do you think Chomsky demand such a following all over the world? His hairstyle? His lively and engaging speaking style? Hardly. They appreciate his work because of the quality. Do you think they like him simply because he's saying what they want to hear? Again, not one iota. I think these folks are slightly more intelligent than that, and they include LOTS of highly educated folks from MANY disciplines. They simply listen to his arguments, read his work, and compare. And..
@kropotkinbeard1 "Why do you think Chomsky demand such a following all over the world?" People want a seemingly "rational" voice to justify their ignorant hatred of the United States, the Western democratic powers, capitalism and globalization. They want a kindly, softspoken face and voice to cover their frothing ignorance and hatred.
I'll give you some examples of why Chomsky is a tool...
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhhh...This wasn't, like, an opinion or something. He has been demanding a following all over the world for years. His speaking engagements are usually booked two years in advance, and on and on...Non-issue. Question is, why on earth would anyone think he wasn't given all the evidence to the contrary? Uhhh...Chomsky has never uttered a word of "hatred for the US". Again, it's dumbass comments like these which qualifies one for the anti-Chomsky drooler Hall of Farts.
@CrocodilusPontifex Also, not a single person I know who appreciates Chomsky dislikes "the US". How could anyone possibly get so many things incorrect? Have you EVER read even a single sentence of his? The only ignorance being expressed here is your weak ass attempt at smearing someone who you've already demonstrated you know nothing about. I've already given you some examples of why you are a tool. Want some more? Now, which of Chomsky's books did you say you had read? I don't remember.
@CrocodilusPontifex Oh, and just to try and help you not make an even bigger fool of yourself, you probably shouldn't say that you haven't read any because you don't read crap like he spews. This would be admitting that you haven't read anything, remember? ANd do you REALLY wish to go down the path of trying to criticize someone whom you've never read? Oh, wait, you're an anti-Chomsky drooler and this is a prerequisite. You're funny. Keep making comments, please. But whatever you do, DON'T READ!
@moovershaker ...the VAST majority of his critics simply don't know his work. They mistakenly 'think' they do, but they don't, and it's easy to prove. The most common mistake they make is to read a few sentences or maye even an entire paragraph, think they know what he's saying, and get it wrong. It's called 'taking things out of context'. Perhaps you've heard of it? May favorite line was "I don't need to eat an entire piece of shit to know that it tastes bad after a few bites." Talk about a..
@moovershaker ..confession of ignorance right off the bat. Anyway, I really have nothing more to discuss with you or anyone else here unless or until they've actually studied his work enough to know even the basics, which your comments about the Islamists demonstrate that you haven't. AFTER you tell which of his books you've read, AND demonstrated that you have understood the words, THEN you can make your arguments. Untill then I'm just not interested. Pointing out mistakes based on laziness...
@kropotkinbeard1 Thank you, makes things a little clearer. Clear that your 'opinions' are derived from an arrogant and unwarranted dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you. Worse, you spend an entire paragraph essentially explaining why i should give Chomsky more respect as a lot of intelligent people think he's great. Do I really need to spend time explaining the childishness of such a suggestion? Your's i'm afraid, represent little more than the juvenile ramblings of the simpleton CONT..
@moovershaker Wrong. I'm not arrogant. And I'm not dismissal if anyone who disagrees. I'm dismissal of idiots who don't know what they're talking about, but arrogantly pretend to. But this is irrelevant. Either present arguments or go whine somewhere else. I'm not interested in speaking to folks pretending to know about the subject. And, of course I gave you an entire paragraph trying to help you. Could have spent several pages had I thought it would do any good. I may still. If you know nothing
@moovershaker ...about him, and I do, and I believe that it would behoove you to know something about him, especially if you're even thinking about discussing him, to know something about him. You should be thanking me instead of being a dork. Likewise, I may recommend that someone who knew nothing about Einstein actually study him a little were he to have his head in his butt, knew nothing about him, and still had the nerve to try and criticize him. Your response is what's childish. If you...
@moovershaker ...actually need someone to explain to you that it's probably not a bad idea to study the subject a little before trying to talk about it, well, this says enough. And your junior high level projections are tedious and boring. Hey, I could really care less if you're not interested in Chomsky. Just shut up and don't try and discuss him then. Not a problem. And if you're not interested in politics, economics, media, cognitive science, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and other...
@moovershaker ...disciplines, it's fine. You shouldn't bother with Chomsky. If you are interested in any of these topics, then it probably really is good to know his thought at least a little, given his standing in these fields. I guess it's possible to study physics without ever studying Einstein, but not too wise. But only a "simpleton" would need to be told such basics. Did you have an argument, or just wanting to waste time talking about me?
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. I think it is you who needs to supply a reading list for consideration as, judging by what I've read thus far - you are in no position to be calling the shots. You say you have read all Chomsky's work, well then all the more alarming considering your inability to formulate an argument worth a damn. About time you put your money where your mouth is. Give me a specific example where I have misrepresented Chomsky regarding 911 - and try to stay on topic. To clarify CONT..
@moovershaker Uhhh...Yes, I'm more than capable of supplying you with a reading list if you so desire. I actually know something about the subject. I will call the shots and am more than capable. You can continue shooting blanks though if you wish. It's not like it's difficult to point them out. Who don't you go get 20 of your friends and come back. Perhaps the bunch of you together might get a single point eventually. And, yes, I have read all of Chomsky's works, and some of them several times.
@moovershaker And you REALLY need to get your projection in check. I'm not the one who needs to formulate any arguments at this point. You are the one who must make the arguments as you're the one pulling ideas from your butt. That being said, I have already formulated an argument and repeated it several times. I've said that if you know nothing about this topic, then you have nothing to say about him. This IS my argument. Now, if you wish to try and explain how you magically know Chomsky...
@moovershaker ...without knowing about him, well, I'm quite interested. Just about as interested as when people say they were kidnapped and inseminated by aliens. Are you actually trying to challenge me little boy? Be careful. If you wish to try and make an argument, then you're going to have to demonstrate that you know what his position is first, and then why you think its wrong. You have yet to take step one. I'm not interested in spoon^feeding you, and for obvious reasons. After I've ...
@moovershaker ...demonstraed that you were talking out your butt, you'll just do what all anti-Chomsky droolers do next i.e.claim that I'm making apologetics, that this isn't what he said, that this is just my opinion, etc...Therefore, rather than wasting my time doing your work for you, and depriving you of the opportunity of educating yourself, possibly for once, I will wait for you to present an argument 1)By showing where he has said something 2)that you have understood the words 3)make argu
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. Of course 911 didn't 'come out of the blue'. It was the logical next step, as they saw it, for an Islamist death cult with clear objectives which were, and are to be pursued regardless of particular US policy. The notion of Blowback is just useful propaganda eagerly swallowed up by Chomsky and the traditional 'left'. US actions may indeed help with recruitment but the 'Islamofascists' will pursue their aims regardless.That aim, in simple terms, Cont..
@moovershaker You REALLY need to shut up and read a few books. I'm as embarrassed reading your comments as I used to be every time Bush opened his mouth. The notion of blowback is a term used internally by the CIA. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with propaganda. Here's another spoon-feed for you (See 'Blowback on wiki) You know nothing of Chomsky. You know nothing of the "traditional left". You ARE a good example of how propaganda indoctrinates one though, as I can easily prove, and am now.
@kropotkinbeard1 I know plenty of the traditional left; bitter, dying old hippies desperate for an audience. You hate that the American/Western proletariat never joined your revolution, so now you look to Third World terrorists as your last hope. Pathetic.
Kropotkin is spinning in his grave; go suck his rotten, maggotty cock.
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhhh...So, why are you telling me? Chomsky is not now, nor has ever been a hippie. Yet anothr piece of evidence demonstrating that you know not what you're trying to talk about. You're doing pretty well. Almost every sentence so far has been factually inaccurate. And don't use the word "proletariat" if you don't know what this means either. What "revolution"? Chomsky has never said a revolution would be good. In fact, the exact opposite. Again you are wrong. Batting 100%.
@CrocodilusPontifex "Look to third world terrorists as your last hope"? Not a single word of Chomsky's has ever even hinted at such, no anyone else that I've ever referred to. You're funny. Are you getting paid by the mistake? And I'll assume you know as much about Kropotkin as you do Chomsky i.e.nothing. As you have nothing to offer here regarding this subject, the only question is; Why are you here? There must be at least one thread where you knowat least a little about the topic, MonkeySpank.
@moovershaker Here, I'll spoon-feed you a little more as I feel a little sorry for you. Go look up as many of these folks and their lectures on youtube as possible and then come back a better, perhaps slightly more smart boy. (See John Stockwell (6 million killed), Ralph Mcgehee, Philip Agee, Robert Baer, Chalmers Johnson, John Perkins. That'll do for now. And don't tell me you know them, don't try and discuss them unless you've reviewed something, don't seek out 2nd hand critics or I will know.
@moovershaker And just why is it do you think these "islamofascists" hate the U.S. Just woke up one day with itchy diapers? I mean, I know exactly why as they've been telling us from a WAAAAAY back. But you have to actually listen to what they say themselves. Otherwise you're likely to get 2nd hand sources talking out their butts, sort of like you have with Chomsky. So, please tell me why they themselves say they hate the U.S. I know. Have for 20+ years. LONG before the "new terror threats".
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. is to visit upon the rest of the world that which they have inflicted upon the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - by varying degrees.
When top UK government officials like David Blunkett could openly, boldly and remorselessly say it's okay to bomb civilian targets such as television stations that broadcast anti-western propaganda in Iraq; that for me is enough moral equivalence. The evidence is there and Chomsky's analysis is straightforwardly simple - when it's us, it's not terrorism, when it's them it's terrorism.
@sooperfukker Disclaimer: I am a fan of Hitchen in the sense of his debate against theocracy! I seem to think that Hitchens, when it comes to politics just tends to accept whatever the government comes out saying is true. It seems he then changes his mind as the general liberal news media does when it justifies almost everything Obama or Clinton has or has not done for the sake of political lines. It seems like he will be a supporter of whatever Barack Obama does, which seems delusional
@CrossCreed4800 I can't help but think these opinions come from the lack of knowledge about his views.
(1) Check "Hitchs about Clinton", he says MANY things about him, e.g. that Clinton is a "solipsist, completely without scruples". He tears down Clinton and his politics completely.
(2) Hitch said about Obama, that he (former) is "more teachable", moving more and more to his own reasonable positions.
Hitchens is old enough to know that a single man cannot change the world. THAT is delusional.
@CrossCreed4800 The video above really pisses me off. 0:38 - According to the "speaker", we all share responsibility for the "crimes" commited by a government, as we are "members of the country".
Not only that this is a shameless smear, because no citizen can PREVENT ANY government from committing a crime, it also makes you wonder what he thinks of other regimes ???
All iranians guilty, all palestinians, all israelis guilty because of the crimes their govs commited?
@sooperfukker the point is that since we elect our government officials, what they do is done in our name. its called republican democracy. if we know of the crimes being committed, and we choose not to protest our government, we consciously choose to let these crimes continue. of course its the government's fault, but we have the power to stop them, if we let our presence be known. its a simple ethical point.
This is only what YOU say, it's not what he says and if you think he somehow "missed" that crucial point by accident, I urge you to remember the slow and smacking babble that dude exercises. He was in no hurry and he meant what he said.
The consequences of this ill view is what you might call typical left wing apologetics: Because the US gov has, somewhere back in time, commited crimes, terror attacks like 9/11 are totally alright, because it only hit "guilty" people.
@sooperfukker no, you obviously are not understanding what chomsky means, which is exactly what i said. he does not nor ever say 9/11 is justified. he says if you want to understand why 9/11 happened, you have to look at history. understanding why it happened doesnt mean you think the victims deserved it. the blame on the people responsible: al-qaeda, and the u.s. government for putting its people in danger, because of terrorist activities the U.S. supports.
@ThePatcam This is correct. Good to see that at least one other person here actually knows Chomsky's work. Get's tiring fighting off people with regards to Chomsky's positions when they've never read a single book. I've been on threads for literally years before, never mentioning once what Chomsky's position actually is, but simply pointing out that the assertions being made were not his positions at all. You know what that makes me, yes? A Chomsky lover! Worshipper! blah, blah..It's funny.
Besides that: Why exactly am I co-responsible aka co-guilty if I don't protest my government when I didn't vote for it in the first place?
Is there some kind of invisible pseudo-moral obligation to foulmouth a government at all cost which you couldn't give a shit about if it even existed or not ?
You're getting into dark deep waters of left wing masochistics here.
@sooperfukker whether or not you voted for them (which i dont blame you for) the government derives its power from your consent. that's the principle of self-rule. you allow them to represent and rule for you. you may not have put it in place, but you can help eliminate it, or at least change it for the better. its not masochistic. its just taking democracy seriously. its what the moral motivation is supposed to be to inspire civic duty. what can you affect? what can you do?
@sooperfukker and again, the point is, that that is NOT a question. that you CAN'T be morally involved in what other people do that you can't affect. if you want to be serious about values, or the state of affairs, or however you look at it, you consider what you CAN affect.
@sooperfukker True, governments are always going to be worse than the people under them and Chomsky makes that very clear whenever he speaks about how people are constantly dissatisfied with their government not just in the US but around the world. As far as Hitchens and Harris showing dislike for Chomsky's disapproval of religion being the sole cause of 9/11, I myself would say that it was most likely because of both foreign policy as well as religion
@CrossCreed4800 You know why I don't buy into this left wing apologetics ? Because of this:
Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, Egyptian Cleric
If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said:
The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are. It is Allah who said that they are infidels.
---
And that's there Chomsky and his alikes fail; they completely (!) ignore what these extremists actually say and replace it with their own masochism. It's rather easy to see and it's repulsive.
If someone tells you why he wants to see you dead, and another man jumps in and says "oh wait wait, actually he doesn't mean that, here's what that dude really thinks..."
Do you find that to be a trustworthy source of information ?
Do you build your future strategies on what your enemy said or on what your enemy's apologetic said?
These are crucial questions and I don't think there is any place for politicial correctness.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
btw i see the irony in the fact i just morally equivelated ----but if you morally equivolate two sides without taking one.....then its a beautiful tool to use (in part) to instill proper comprehension and understanding of a topic....and really to bring a wider understanding of human patterns whether its political social personal etc
george bush is the head of an organization that actually has been the culpirt of murdering children....the bombings of cambodia for instance (not his doing but its an attrocity Hitchens has loudly critisized---not too mention the hundreds of other attrocities perpetrated by state organizations ive read hitchens write about with extreme contempt) but islam has no moral superiority to that--- not only is honour killing supported but holding childrens beliefs for eternal ransom is filthy
..the repression of sexuality leading to stark perversion...not too mention the repression of women.....their hand in the slave trade (though a lot of groups fall under that category) their Ottoman conquest of much of the East before being effectively stopped in Venice (ottomans to me atleast are synonomous with islam--sorry for the presumption) the horrible child abuse of eternal blackmail that george Bush COULDNT achieve if he spent a life time----i DONT like Bush...but really....
im down with this type of forum.....i love when people post their opinions it give so much more substance to Youtube....but i cant find myself agreeing with a lot of this....first of all you say the crimes of G Bush far outweigh Binladens.....i could agree with this however Bin laden represents ISLAM...now i have no beef with islamic people holding their beliefs (so long as it doesnt effect my safety) but i rely on empiracism...and islam holds more crimes than america could ever achieve
It is extremely disturbing to me. Hitchens is a very useful intellectual in other areas, but he lets his hatred of Islam cloud his judgment. Though I often fear it is more than that...
Given george bush was a bad leader or incompetent, but he is no homicidal maniac intent on throwing a whole civilization back to stone age with antediluvian beliefs.Hitchens in his article clearly refers to the 9/11 commissions and its finding plus the many chest thumping videos of Al kaida out there taking credits for these murders. Yes america has done its share of mistakes and wrong doing but to equate a democracy with an elected official with a religious fanatic who is intent on killing!!
@sameerwaditwar "Given george bush was a bad leader or incompetent, but he is no homicidal maniac intent on throwing a whole civilization back to stone age with antediluvian beliefs."
A million dead Iraqis might disagree (go read the ORB report).
Hmm lol you sir seem to have not read a single argument against your view points. 1/3 rd of the american believe its(9/11) a inside job where do you get these statistics and how big was your test case ( 1 including yourself). Now with George Bush's crimes, whats wrong with getting rid of a dictator who was killing his own people. I would chagrin on the mis-management and misconduct of war, state sponsored torture and water boarding.
Hitchens is not an imperialist, and certainly not an lover of authoritarianism. He supported the war in Iraq, yes, but to claim those things is disingenuous.
Chomsky guillotined the vile Neocon that is Hitchens who spreads his bottom cheeks for Dick Cheney and Bush. This warmongering obscenity was dismembered by Galloway and Tariq Ali and should stick with debating religious kooks because whenever he meets a heavyweight leftwinger he is destroyed.
(part 2) Hitchens also has a tendency that once he's screwed up, will refuse to admit it, and just dig the hole deeper, as he did with Chomsky just after 9/11 when he made some laughable interpretations of something Chomsky had said, Chomsky responded by basically saying that Hitchens couldn't have meant what he said, and even sort of made an apology for Hitchens obvious mistake, as a father Chomsky in this case, and correct) would a child. Hitchens, rather than conceding, dug his hole deeper.
@kropotkinbeard1 That's a pretty laughable theory, considering Hitchen's popularity exploded in the years following while the Chomsky cult has shrunk to the margins of political discourse.
@CrocodilusPontifex Hahaha...That's funny. Hitchen's isn't even remotely in the same ball park with Chomsky. To even compare the two is embarrassing. And while I like Hitchen's sometimes, like, when he's not bending over backwards trying to make sure everyone knows he's beyond any simple category of left or right, it's like trying to compare Michael Jordan to Jack Black in basketball. There is no "Chomsky cult" nor has there ever been. There are people who know his work, and those you don't, you
@kropotkinbeard1 I've read plenty of Chomsky; I've read his denials, apologetics and rationalizations of Serbian warcrimes in the Balkans, his whitewashing of brutal and corrupt Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, his complete misrepresentation of the rise of the events leading to the rise Suharto, his propaganda broadcasts on Vietnamese and Cuban radio.
Chomsky is a violent extremist who exploits the ignorance of vapid hipsters to sell books; plain and simple.
@CrocodilusPontifex You have read nothing. You're gathering your disinformation in the same places where anti-Chomsky droolers always do. I'm familiar with all of their works as well e.g.Horowitz, Kamm, etc...They're idiots and liars, and it takes all of 30 seconds to demonstrate this. Your comment is embarrassing. But which of his books did you say you had read, and which lectures listened to. We can shut you down quite fast once this is shared. Answer the question, or go to a knitting blog.
@CrocodilusPontifex Perhaps you'd like to try and make an argument? I've heard all of the drooler charges that you've made for years. Not ONCE has anyone succeeded in arguing your position, but you could be the first. Go for it. But remember, you are NOT going to be able to depend on sources as those which I've already mentioned. They've been eliminated hundreds of times already and have nothing to say. You must look for yourself, which, I'm sorry to say will mean reading i.e.for the first time
Good analysis. Correct on Chomsky's positions, and the nonsense and ignorance often directed at him. Dershowitz and Horowitz aren't worth talking about. Hitchens, while I like quite a lot at times, seems to have gone into the silly zone which I think he believes makes him a "real radical" because he will criticize the left just as much as the right, not that this is inherently bad, but he seems to overdue it, and even try and conjure up crap for this very purpose. (part 1)
all well said; u read right books and understood it correctly, which is actually simple to understand just if u want to read it....excellent and clear video; keep it up!
You're angry at your dad. We get it. Please don't take that anger out on the rest of us in the form of retarded, uninformed political rants posted to youtube.
@TheOtherView At the very most, bin Laden would have killed 10,000 people across his entire life, and many of them politicians and embassy officials. Bombing mostly US government buildings.
At the very least, Bush has killed 2,000,000 people, most of them innocent people. Sending three countries into barbaric poverty via war and embargo, lowers standard of living, disease more common, drone strikes on villages, heavy artillery during urban warfare.
@TheOtherView As Legal Studies 101 will tell you, the number one priority is to know what crimes were factually committed, and then the second priority is to know what crimes were intended to be committed.
Actus reus comes first, and then mens rea comes second.
Therefore, by the principles of law and the legal system, our number one issue is with counting the dead bodies, figuring out the factual evidence that exists on the ground, and then locating the perpetrator.
@TheOtherView But that's just the core flaw in your argument: looking at intentions alone, and ignoring the facts, leads people down foolish directions. When in reality, the moral attitudes probably are the reverse of what you claim.
There are those people who kill for pragmatic reasons, ie because they want to make more money and become more powerful. Eg Bush, Nixon, Clinton.
And then there are those who kill and have delusions, believing that what they are doing is morally good. Eg bin Laden
Comment removed
mredstriumph 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "crimes for which * I * share responsibility?!?"
I'm a REPUBLICAN, BITCH!
I FOUGHT against the CRIMES * YOU PROGRESSIVES * have perpetrated against humanity=> aka YOUR 'manifest destiny'; YOUR central bank (W Wilson 1913), YOUR "Negro Project" aka "planned parenthood", YOUR KKK, YOUR lynching, YOUR filibuster of Civil Rights, YOUR Japanese Interment, YOUR dropping of 2 atom bombs, YOUR 18 of 24 Wars, YOUR 1964 Great Plantation Society, YOUR 1960's drugs, YOUR illegitimacy, & YOUR debt
mredstriumph 2 weeks ago
@mredstriumph
In return for YOUR CRIMES u think u will take a share in MY party's victory over YOUR Klansmen in the Civil War. You will take a share in MY party's destruction of YOUR party's Fugitive Slave Act, YOUR poll tax, & YOUR party's Jim Crow. You want a share in MY party's destruction of YOUR party (1950-1964) in passg Civ Rights - in exchange for "MY" share in YOUR Securitization&Mortgage Backed Securities (US Dept of Housing - Feb 1970), YOUR Fed, & YOUR Fannie Mae, & YOUR DE-regulatn
mredstriumph 2 weeks ago
@mredstriumph
Just LOOK at what YOU bring to the table you evil lying deceiving son of a bitch. And now u claim * I * must take a "share" of everything YOU have done?
Where is YOUR share in YOUR Gulf of Tonkin & YOUR attack of Vietnam u treasonous bitch? Where is YOUR share in Iraq??
Isn't this what YOU said?
Democrats "Iraq has WMD's"
w w w -DOT- youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
Democrats "George Bush IGNORED Iraq's ties to terrorism"
w w w -DOT- youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
mredstriumph 2 weeks ago
I share "crimes for which * I * share responsibility?!?"
I'm a REPUBLICAN, BITCH!
I FIGHT against the CRIMES * YOU PROGRESSIVES * have perpetrated against humanity=> aka YOUR 'manifest destiny'; YOUR central bank (W Wilson 1913), YOUR "Negro Project" aka "planned parenthood", YOUR KKK, YOUR lynching, YOUR filibuster of Civil Rights, YOUR Japanese Interment, YOUR dropping of 2 atom bombs, YOUR 18 (of 24) Wars, YOUR 1964 Great Plantation Society, YOUR 1960's drugs, YOUR illegitimacy, & YOUR debt
mredstriumph 2 weeks ago
Defense of Liberalism (smack, smack)
nyomythus 2 weeks ago
Christopher Hitchen's death is the silver lining of cancer.
brokennarcissist 4 weeks ago
How it can be retaliation and blowback by common sense when other countries didnt do it?
I am from Czech republic and we have been occupy by Nazi Germany. And I dont know any czechs who was killing citizens in terrorist attacks in Berlin. That can be also said about Soviet army invasion in 1968. I dont see any czechoslovaks there who killed innocent people in Stalingrad or Leningrad.
And it can be said about many other countries in many other occupations...
BigLebowsk 1 month ago
@BigLebowsk It has happened in other cases of occupation though. For example the IRA repeatedly bombed targets throughout the United Kingdom for several decades.
TheHarlequin13 1 month ago
@TheHarlequin13 Ok, but then occupation isnt only source of this terrorism. And if its not only source, how we can know that it is a main source?
There have been terrorist attacks by radical sort of Islam before Iraq and Afghanistan...
BigLebowsk 1 month ago
@BigLebowsk Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly the first instances of Western intervention in the Muslim world. Of course occupation is only one potential factor leading to terrorist attacks.
TheHarlequin13 1 month ago
@TheHarlequin13 Really? When did Canada occupy the Mid East? Why is Canada at the top of Al Qaeda's hit list, then. Bin Laden said, like other Islamists, that he is at war with non-Muslims and moderate Muslims. They are fighting wars around the world. Also, he targeted the US as moral builder to prove that well armed countries can be attacked. I don't mind Chomsky on domestic issues, but he's horrendously inept on geopolitics.
shirehorse91 4 weeks ago
@shirehorse91 Canada deployed some of their military both in Afghanistan and Iraq, so there's that. The fanatical declarations of the likes of bin Laden is hardly refutes Chomsky's analysis of geopolitics as his declarations say nothing about why groups like "al Qaeda" gain support amongst Muslims, nor do they prove that US foreign policy isn't imperialist.
TheHarlequin13 4 weeks ago
@TheHarlequin13 Yesh, this is why I hate talking to you big mouth idiots. You know nothing about history of geopolitics and yet you pontificate everywhere. Canada was not involved in a war with Afghanistan in the 1980's it was only after attacks that Canada and other countries got involved. Chomsky spew Islamist propaganda and does not view them in a negative light.
shirehorse91 4 weeks ago
@TheHarlequin13 Canada wasn't in Iraq, idiot.
shirehorse91 4 weeks ago
@shirehorse91 Google Canada’s secret war in Iraq.
TheHarlequin13 3 weeks ago
@TheHarlequin13 They were guarding a port with one or two ships from terrorist attacks. That is not the same as attacking Iraq and having troops on the ground.
shirehorse91 3 weeks ago
Yes, I agree. Chomsky is right and Hitchens was wrong. However, Hitchens is operating in the physical world. Chomsky is operating in the theoretical world. In other words, Chomsky is like John Lennon and his song Imagine. Imagine no country, no religion, no this, no that. It is all a beautiful thought, but not real. It is a dream of Utopia. There is no Utopia. All we can hope for is a Type One Civilization (see Michio Kaku) This Type One will come from the west not the third world.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 1 month ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus you.....you can see the future??? If any advance is made as civilization it will be done by all of humanity. Not by any single or small group of state(s),organisation(s) or individual(s) or whatever.
ISMEY 1 month ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus One doesn't have to live in a utopia to not support bombing people.
It's pretty arrogant to assume that only "the west" is capable of achieving a society without boarders or religions.
TheHarlequin13 1 month ago
Totally agree. I read some of Hitchen's work including a debate with Chomsky after 9/11 and the chapter by Hitchens in 'Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man.' Hitchens is aggressively trying to keep himself in his own bubble of unreality. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you're full of shit.
zzzzzz2408 1 month ago
brillantly put
mogem 1 month ago
very thoughtful piece :)
OliveSpider 2 months ago
As I said in my previous post, your ignorance is almost laughable, if it weren't so dangerous to freedom and democracy. True, it is unlikely that we as American citizens were ever under much serious danger from Saddam Hussein, but how about the 50,000+ people he slaughtered? His OWN people. You declaim Hitch as a supporter of crimes; look what you support. Hitch was the guy who believed in our moral responsibility to free this world of tyranny, you must be the other guy. Fuck you.
SethGMurray22 2 months ago
@SethGMurray22
Before judging other people of their levels of knowledge, you should take a good look at yourself. "Our moral responsibility to free this world of tyranny"? through the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Is there any other mean to emancipate people rather than a military invasion? Don't you see what is happening in Egypt?
NaegFowleri 2 months ago
@SethGMurray22
Interested in how you define 'freedom and democracy'?
The war of Iraq caused between 80000 to 100000 deaths, it is this calamity he refers to when he says about hitchens crimes, crimes that coincide with this political allegiance, predominately with blair
It would be good to keep in mind that saddam could not have committed with out the backing he received from the US
hitchcens choose tyranny over democratic theocracy, with use of ideology, which is not so far from religion anyway
radroatch 2 months ago
You're ignorance is almost laughable. You try to argue that Hitch supported anything Bill Clinton's Administration did? Are you kidding me? Hitch had an abnormally deep-seated hatred for anything related to Bill Clinton, but you, of course, wouldn't know that, because that would require you to step out of your little "radical" bubble and read something that wasn't written by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Or anything in general.
SethGMurray22 2 months ago 2
@SethGMurray22
Hitchens said he supported clintons foreign policies more than any of this others, for the most part
radroatch 2 months ago
You make a good point
jccarbunkle 2 months ago
Kropotkin, you childishly pout "You're not allowed to say Chomsky says." You're in no position to say dictate what I'm allowed or not allowed to say. This isn't a "Libertarian Socialist" country, so you live by my rules.
Chomsky's "A Review of NATO’s War over Kosovo." He claims Serb war crimes happened AFTER the NATO bombing. No mention of Srebrenica, the Siege of Sarajevo, the mass rapes in Bosnia and Croatia and so on years before; only the historically ignorant could believe him.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Saying that you're now allowed to say Chomsky says is in no way, shape, or form childish. You know nothing of his work, and therefore really have nothing to offer. As I said, you can say he's over 80, or male, or Jewish of you wish. Nothing else. You know nothing, so simply have nothing to say. Chomsky mentions everything you've babbled about. You just haven't looked. When one doesn't look, and therefore doesn't see anything, it hardly means it's not there. Tea bagger?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Chomsky constantly bitches and moans about the US corporate media only serving "corporate" and "imperialist" interests.
Bitch! Who supplies you with all his quotes? Read all the quotes and citations in Manufacturing Constent; Chomsky complains that the US media was ignoring massacres and atrocities in El Salvador and Guatemala, but all his evidence for those were FROM US CORPORATE NEWS SOURCES?
Does he think we're 'tards? NEXT!!!
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhh...How would you know what Chomsky discusses regarding the media? You know nothing about him. Why are you talking about him at all? WHich of his books did you say ou had read, drooler? And his works on the media are as of yet uncontested and have not been demonstrated to be incorrect. The best critic of his and Herman's work so far is by themselves. Your statements about Chomsky's sources further proves his poisition, but you're too dumb to realize it because you are...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex ...unfamiliar with his work. See, here's how the big boys play, or even the small ones for that matter. Maybe you'll reach small before I'm finished with you, boy-. You read his work FIRST. THEN, AFTER you have read it and understood it, THEN you make your arguments. You have yet to take the first step. You're trying to skip to the last step, but in the process are simply farting out a bunch of nonsense which makes you look like a moron. And, most of us think you are "tards".
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex What utter nonsense. Chomsky mostly cites reports by human rights groups and compares them with coverage by mainstream US news sources. It's clear that, if you even picked up Manufacturing Consent, you skim read the notes and saw him citing the New York Times. It's pretty fucking stupid to think a book about the mainstream US media citing mainstream US media is proof of Chomsky's reliance on it.
TheHarlequin13 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex You probably haven't read a single word though, so I'm content to call you disingenuous rather than borderline retarded.
TheHarlequin13 2 months ago
Comment removed
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are correct, Harlequin. Loud mouth anti-Chomsky droolers have VERY rarely ever read a single book. Crocodilepenis is lying out his arse and it will take a matter of only about 2 or 3 exchanges to prove it. Here are the ONLY two possible courses of action I believe we will see. He will continue to come here as his ego will get the better of him regardless of the fact he knows nothing of the subject and will thereby dig the hole deeper. I prefer this one. Or he will disappear will his tail...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
(Part 2) And even IF in some parallel universe, Milosevic didn't start killing people until he was attacked by NATO first, SO FUCKING WHAT?
Guess what? The Holocaust didn't really start kicking into high gear until AFTER the allies started bombing and advancing on Germany. Where the allies responsible for the Holocaust?
NEXT SUBJECT!
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Why are you here? Shouldn't you be on a knitting blog or something? You have nothing to offer here. If we wanted to hear people just making up crap and talking out their butts we'd go to a tea-bagger drooling banjo fest, the GOP "debates", or RNC or something. Let's get this straight. YOU know nothing about Chomsky, other than perhaps that he's male, Jewish (well, no, you probably didn't know that either), and over 20. Which of his books did you say you had read?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Which of his books did you say you had read?" Manufacturing Consent. I read it off the shelf in Borders without buy because I didn't want a cent going to this propagandist and I've read his articles online.
That you say "See, here's how the big boys play, or even the small ones for that matter" is laughable. Like I said, anarchists, communists, "libertarian socialists" and other extremists are in no position to dictate the terms of political discourse in American society.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Great! Then you'll have no problem trying to point out where all of the mistakes were. Or do you mean you read the title in the bookstore? I'm sure that's probably a little more accurate. And since you brought it up, he's a "propagandist" for who? The evil communist threat which never existed?
Regarding the part which you find laughable is laughable. Given you know nothing about any of the groups you've mentioned, I'd say that you are in no position to know who can dictate.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex You're funny. Go back to the knitting section at Borders. You may find something there of which are know something. "Like I said"...means squat. You have no game and are doing nothing here but shooting blanks. If you have an argument, even a little boy argument, please just make it and quit wasting our time. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have read a paragraph or two from a single article, so, which one? Where are your arguments from Manufacturing?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Chomsky says most Serbian atrocities in the Kosovo War happened AFTER NATO started bombing.
Bitch! What do you call the Croatian and Bosnian Civil Wars? The Siege of Sarajevo? The Srebenica Massacre? Milosevic killed tens of thousands of innocent people YEARS BEFORE the first NATO bomb landed in Belgrade, so don't tell me the atrocities happened after. Only someone who's completely gullible or completely ignorant of Balkan history (which is, unfortunately, most of his fans) would believe this.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex You are not allowed to say "Chomsky says..." any more until you have shown us where he says these things. Get it? And I'm not interested in some tenth-hand sources from just another long line of droolers. You give the page number from now on, or shut up. You're wasting our time. If you really wish for us to spoon-feed you we will check our schedules and see if we can fit you in between the other illiterate anti-Chomsky babblers. Which of his books did you say you had read?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Reasons why Chomsky's a fool who only appeals to historically ignorant hipsters.
Chomsky asks why the the US media focused more on the Cambodian Genocide rather than the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.
Bitch! Because the Communists killed 10-30 times more people in Indonesia than the Indonesians did in East Timor. NEXT SUBJECT
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Chomsky doesn't appeal to who you've just said. Wrong yet again. Can you really be this wrong so often? Jesus! What are you doing? Reading FrontPageMagazine or something? I've not seen anyone be incorrect on as many thing in my life, outside of Bush. You said "Chomsky asks...." You are not allowed to even use his name again until you provide where he said any of this in how work. And, no, the "communists" did not. Do you anything about history at all, like, before yesterday?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
World is better off with out this sell out!
brownie1982ad 2 months ago
ok i read articles on dailyhitchens. NOTHING!
i'm still waiting for the proof.
i think like 99% of the comments here, including the videos are just a bunch of crap
pwnz0rz0r 2 months ago
"Not ONCE has anyone succeeded in arguing your position,"
Not ONCE? Chomsky is an obscure nobody in this country; he's not a figure at all in American public life; his opinions have had ZERO affect on American foreign, domestic or economic policy.
I think that's proof enough that Chomsky has been thoroughly defeated.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex
Right... so hes been defeated because the government and the elites dont do what he says?
I guess the dissidents in Stalinist russia were also "thoroughly defeated" because their opinions had no influence on state action..
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist "so hes been defeated because the government and the elites dont do what he says?" Because the US electorate won't elect people who do what he says.
Chomsky's US/Stalinist Russia comparisons (which are many) are total non-sequiters. If you were a dissident in the USSR and no one listened to you, it's because you/they were jailed/killed. If you're a dissident the US and no one listens to you, it's because they think you're a fool or don't care.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex
>Implying voting voting makes a difference.
>Implying elected representatives arent bought out by special interest groups.
>Implying the masses are a good standard for truth.
InvincibleNumanist 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Or they are brainwashed idiots.
brownie1982ad 2 months ago
so why are you sitting comfortable freely speaking these things on american internet, go somewere..the reason is the only one - if not the 'imperialistic US', wich supports at least some kind of balance in the world, such 'wiseguys' as yourself wouldn't be able to do it, in China for example internet already restricted, the same wants to do Russia. Taliban would put you to the jail the same day if you won't agree wth something. And i think Chomsky doesn't need defenders
getsensus 2 months ago
@getsensus Chomsky most definitely doesn't need defenders. However, it's not bad to help someone who is being slandered by illiterate goofballs. Were I to hear someone talking about this great white blind piano player named Ray Charles, I'd also to him a favor and point out his mistakes. This isn't defending Charles as much as it is helping the poor guy who thought he was white. He may simply have made a mistake, and appreciate the correction, or he could be like the arrogant anti-Chomsky...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@getsensus ...inbreds who pretend to know his work when they don't, lie, carry on with the lies regardless of whatever evidence demonstrates their lies to be so, and on and on...Unlike the guy who had made a mistake about Charles, perhaps based on his having not studied, but appreciated the correction, these guys are too indoctrinated to even know that a thanks is in order. Not only do they not recognize that the should be thanking those who straighten out their dumb asses, they attack them. ばか
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
i always see people write "hitchens said that"/"hitchens beliefes this"
but i've never seen any proof even though i watched a lot of his videos
pwnz0rz0r 3 months ago
@pwnz0rz0r This is the same phenomena with Chomsky as demonstrated by the anti-Chomsky drooler cult. I've been studying these folks for more than 20 years, and if there is one constant, it's that 99.9999% of them have never read a single book of his. This accounts for their getting his ideas wrong 99.9999% of the time, too. After all, if they haven't read a word, what should we expect? Then there are the .0001% who have read a little and either didn't understand anything, or are outright liars.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@pwnz0rz0r THEN, there are the .0001% of the .0001% who actually have read something, even several things in rare cases, demonstrate that they've understood the words, and then offer something resembling a reasonable argument. These are VERY few and far between. Folks like Kamm, Horowitz, and a few others fall into the second group of outright liars and illiterates. It's better to simply never engage anyone with regards to Chomsky unless they've read at least one book of his. VERY rare.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Thank you for this. That is all sir.
jrmwigga5555 4 months ago
Yes in Chomsky's defense he does not support the conspiracy theories emanating from 911. However his suggestion that Western policy resulted in 911 - at least in practical terms, puts him firmly in the camp of those who find justification in the appeasment of fascist elements, in this case those following an Islamic fundamentalist agenda.
moovershaker 4 months ago
@moovershaker not logical
meeg2005 3 months ago
@meeg2005 Thank you for your reply, would you care to expand??
moovershaker 3 months ago
@moovershaker
It's a simple argument and I can see why most of his critics find his thoughts childish on political issues. His argument about 9/11 would make sense if it was the play ground and I spit in your face and so you hit me back. But it doesn't make sense with a fanatical sect uses the same poverty and desperation they formed on their own as a permit to murder and barbaism. That's when their is a dynamic layer to the argument that begs one question; which way of living is better?
dibaterman 3 months ago
@moovershaker "his suggestion that Western policy resulted in 911 - at least in practical terms, puts him firmly in the camp of those who find justification in the appeasment of fascist elements, in this case those following an Islamic fundamentalist agenda" I was wrong. Your point is simply irrelevant, not really illogical. Because his "suggestion," is true.
meeg2005 3 months ago
@meeg2005 Ah ok, so now my comment IS logical - well I guess that's progress of a sort! Hmm, but now it's not 'relevant'. Yeah I don't think using terms like 'logical' and 'relevant' in this context is the best way of expressing your disagreement. You then say you agree that western policy was to blame for 911. If that's your opinion that's fine. I would say that puts you in the same camp as Chomsky.
So - Is that it? Or should I expect some more copying and pasting..
moovershaker 3 months ago
@moovershaker I have moustache. Hitler has a moustache. This puts me in the same camp as Hitler. Logical statement, but irrelevant. Yes, irrelevant.
meeg2005 3 months ago
@moovershaker You are correct that Chomsky is not a conspiracy theorist, nor ever has been. Quite the opposite, in fact. Regarding that western policy resulted in 9/11 is not only uncontroversial, it's virtually impossible NOT to know. He is not now, nor has ever been even remotely in the camp of fascist anything. Again, quite the opposite. In fact, not recognizing the U.S.'s own role in such blowback is itself a sign of fascistic thinking, or at a minimum outright denial.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Well we are agreed on Chomsky's anti-conspiracy credentials so that's a good start! But then things go awry. The 'outright denial' you speak of actually comes from the inability of Chomsky and his ilk to recognize that the world has changed since 1969. Now I never suggested that Chomsky was 'in the camp of fascist anything'. You are missing the point. To be 'well read' requires that you understand the points being made, preferably on both sides of the discussion.Further cont...
moovershaker 2 months ago
@moovershaker I've seen no evidence that "Chomsky and his ilk" have failed to recognize anything. Chomsky is usually about as up to date with his data as anyone I'm aware of. Chomsky and "his ilk" would agree that things have changed. He talks about it all the time. He says that in many ways things have gotten much better, and gives countless examples. Also, regarding being well read, I am. I've read all of his works, many others, and all critics. Been doing this for 20+ years. There is nothing
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ..from the "other side" that I'm aware of unless it's come out in the past few days. Nothing. Perhaps a college report or something. As a matter of fact, I became familiar with Chomsky LONG ago precisely by listening to and looking for critics first. As a well read person usually does, I read ALL of his materials from the start. THEN I looked for as many critics as I could find. Now it's over 20 years later and I've found virtually none. Not serious ones anyway. Most have read...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...little to nothing. Actually, most have read nothing at all. Probably a percent or two have read a little. And then a small percent of a percent have actually demonstrated an understanding of his work, and have then been able to make anything resembling an argument. It's VERY easy to spot someone who hasn't as they all make the same nonsensical claims, mostly having referred to the same pathetic sources (Horowitz, Kamm, DeLong, etc...) I'd love to meet one who made an argument.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 cont.. it is generally wise to steer clear of name calling, though sometimes tempting, still it is cheap and to be avoided when wishing to be taken seriously. But I digress. The US, though not blameless, can not be held accountable for the actions of radical Islamists - or rise of political Islam. To do so, as I pointed out is to play into the hands of those with a fascist ideology. 911 was not 'blowback', it was a premeditated act of war by those with a very clear set of goals.
moovershaker 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...Yeah and it's generally wise to worry about the content of an argument more tha whether or not someone has ascribed a label to someone, especially when they're accurate. So, when I say that folks like Horowitz and Kamm are liar or illiterate, this is simply a statement of fact, and easy to prove. They can change, maybe. Yes, the U.S. held responsible for the blowback of their actions, as MANY ex-CIA employees have said. You're refusing to look at simple cause and effect if...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...you believe there is no connection. It was most definitely pre-meditated, but it didn't just come from nowhere. As anyone familiar with Chomsky's work, or most any other serious analyst for that matter, is well aware of, the goals have been being discussed for years. I recommend that you start reading Chomsky as far back as at least the Reagan era, actually years earlier, when Chomsky was already writing about "terrorism". And, as usual, 30 years later, Chomsky was correct.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker Why do you think Chomsky demand such a following all over the world? His hairstyle? His lively and engaging speaking style? Hardly. They appreciate his work because of the quality. Do you think they like him simply because he's saying what they want to hear? Again, not one iota. I think these folks are slightly more intelligent than that, and they include LOTS of highly educated folks from MANY disciplines. They simply listen to his arguments, read his work, and compare. And..
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Why do you think Chomsky demand such a following all over the world?" People want a seemingly "rational" voice to justify their ignorant hatred of the United States, the Western democratic powers, capitalism and globalization. They want a kindly, softspoken face and voice to cover their frothing ignorance and hatred.
I'll give you some examples of why Chomsky is a tool...
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhhh...This wasn't, like, an opinion or something. He has been demanding a following all over the world for years. His speaking engagements are usually booked two years in advance, and on and on...Non-issue. Question is, why on earth would anyone think he wasn't given all the evidence to the contrary? Uhhh...Chomsky has never uttered a word of "hatred for the US". Again, it's dumbass comments like these which qualifies one for the anti-Chomsky drooler Hall of Farts.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Also, not a single person I know who appreciates Chomsky dislikes "the US". How could anyone possibly get so many things incorrect? Have you EVER read even a single sentence of his? The only ignorance being expressed here is your weak ass attempt at smearing someone who you've already demonstrated you know nothing about. I've already given you some examples of why you are a tool. Want some more? Now, which of Chomsky's books did you say you had read? I don't remember.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Oh, and just to try and help you not make an even bigger fool of yourself, you probably shouldn't say that you haven't read any because you don't read crap like he spews. This would be admitting that you haven't read anything, remember? ANd do you REALLY wish to go down the path of trying to criticize someone whom you've never read? Oh, wait, you're an anti-Chomsky drooler and this is a prerequisite. You're funny. Keep making comments, please. But whatever you do, DON'T READ!
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...the VAST majority of his critics simply don't know his work. They mistakenly 'think' they do, but they don't, and it's easy to prove. The most common mistake they make is to read a few sentences or maye even an entire paragraph, think they know what he's saying, and get it wrong. It's called 'taking things out of context'. Perhaps you've heard of it? May favorite line was "I don't need to eat an entire piece of shit to know that it tastes bad after a few bites." Talk about a..
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ..confession of ignorance right off the bat. Anyway, I really have nothing more to discuss with you or anyone else here unless or until they've actually studied his work enough to know even the basics, which your comments about the Islamists demonstrate that you haven't. AFTER you tell which of his books you've read, AND demonstrated that you have understood the words, THEN you can make your arguments. Untill then I'm just not interested. Pointing out mistakes based on laziness...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Thank you, makes things a little clearer. Clear that your 'opinions' are derived from an arrogant and unwarranted dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you. Worse, you spend an entire paragraph essentially explaining why i should give Chomsky more respect as a lot of intelligent people think he's great. Do I really need to spend time explaining the childishness of such a suggestion? Your's i'm afraid, represent little more than the juvenile ramblings of the simpleton CONT..
moovershaker 2 months ago
@moovershaker Wrong. I'm not arrogant. And I'm not dismissal if anyone who disagrees. I'm dismissal of idiots who don't know what they're talking about, but arrogantly pretend to. But this is irrelevant. Either present arguments or go whine somewhere else. I'm not interested in speaking to folks pretending to know about the subject. And, of course I gave you an entire paragraph trying to help you. Could have spent several pages had I thought it would do any good. I may still. If you know nothing
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...about him, and I do, and I believe that it would behoove you to know something about him, especially if you're even thinking about discussing him, to know something about him. You should be thanking me instead of being a dork. Likewise, I may recommend that someone who knew nothing about Einstein actually study him a little were he to have his head in his butt, knew nothing about him, and still had the nerve to try and criticize him. Your response is what's childish. If you...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...actually need someone to explain to you that it's probably not a bad idea to study the subject a little before trying to talk about it, well, this says enough. And your junior high level projections are tedious and boring. Hey, I could really care less if you're not interested in Chomsky. Just shut up and don't try and discuss him then. Not a problem. And if you're not interested in politics, economics, media, cognitive science, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and other...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...disciplines, it's fine. You shouldn't bother with Chomsky. If you are interested in any of these topics, then it probably really is good to know his thought at least a little, given his standing in these fields. I guess it's possible to study physics without ever studying Einstein, but not too wise. But only a "simpleton" would need to be told such basics. Did you have an argument, or just wanting to waste time talking about me?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. I think it is you who needs to supply a reading list for consideration as, judging by what I've read thus far - you are in no position to be calling the shots. You say you have read all Chomsky's work, well then all the more alarming considering your inability to formulate an argument worth a damn. About time you put your money where your mouth is. Give me a specific example where I have misrepresented Chomsky regarding 911 - and try to stay on topic. To clarify CONT..
moovershaker 2 months ago
@moovershaker Uhhh...Yes, I'm more than capable of supplying you with a reading list if you so desire. I actually know something about the subject. I will call the shots and am more than capable. You can continue shooting blanks though if you wish. It's not like it's difficult to point them out. Who don't you go get 20 of your friends and come back. Perhaps the bunch of you together might get a single point eventually. And, yes, I have read all of Chomsky's works, and some of them several times.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker And you REALLY need to get your projection in check. I'm not the one who needs to formulate any arguments at this point. You are the one who must make the arguments as you're the one pulling ideas from your butt. That being said, I have already formulated an argument and repeated it several times. I've said that if you know nothing about this topic, then you have nothing to say about him. This IS my argument. Now, if you wish to try and explain how you magically know Chomsky...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...without knowing about him, well, I'm quite interested. Just about as interested as when people say they were kidnapped and inseminated by aliens. Are you actually trying to challenge me little boy? Be careful. If you wish to try and make an argument, then you're going to have to demonstrate that you know what his position is first, and then why you think its wrong. You have yet to take step one. I'm not interested in spoon^feeding you, and for obvious reasons. After I've ...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker ...demonstraed that you were talking out your butt, you'll just do what all anti-Chomsky droolers do next i.e.claim that I'm making apologetics, that this isn't what he said, that this is just my opinion, etc...Therefore, rather than wasting my time doing your work for you, and depriving you of the opportunity of educating yourself, possibly for once, I will wait for you to present an argument 1)By showing where he has said something 2)that you have understood the words 3)make argu
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. Of course 911 didn't 'come out of the blue'. It was the logical next step, as they saw it, for an Islamist death cult with clear objectives which were, and are to be pursued regardless of particular US policy. The notion of Blowback is just useful propaganda eagerly swallowed up by Chomsky and the traditional 'left'. US actions may indeed help with recruitment but the 'Islamofascists' will pursue their aims regardless.That aim, in simple terms, Cont..
moovershaker 2 months ago
@moovershaker You REALLY need to shut up and read a few books. I'm as embarrassed reading your comments as I used to be every time Bush opened his mouth. The notion of blowback is a term used internally by the CIA. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with propaganda. Here's another spoon-feed for you (See 'Blowback on wiki) You know nothing of Chomsky. You know nothing of the "traditional left". You ARE a good example of how propaganda indoctrinates one though, as I can easily prove, and am now.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I know plenty of the traditional left; bitter, dying old hippies desperate for an audience. You hate that the American/Western proletariat never joined your revolution, so now you look to Third World terrorists as your last hope. Pathetic.
Kropotkin is spinning in his grave; go suck his rotten, maggotty cock.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Uhhh...So, why are you telling me? Chomsky is not now, nor has ever been a hippie. Yet anothr piece of evidence demonstrating that you know not what you're trying to talk about. You're doing pretty well. Almost every sentence so far has been factually inaccurate. And don't use the word "proletariat" if you don't know what this means either. What "revolution"? Chomsky has never said a revolution would be good. In fact, the exact opposite. Again you are wrong. Batting 100%.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex "Look to third world terrorists as your last hope"? Not a single word of Chomsky's has ever even hinted at such, no anyone else that I've ever referred to. You're funny. Are you getting paid by the mistake? And I'll assume you know as much about Kropotkin as you do Chomsky i.e.nothing. As you have nothing to offer here regarding this subject, the only question is; Why are you here? There must be at least one thread where you knowat least a little about the topic, MonkeySpank.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker Here, I'll spoon-feed you a little more as I feel a little sorry for you. Go look up as many of these folks and their lectures on youtube as possible and then come back a better, perhaps slightly more smart boy. (See John Stockwell (6 million killed), Ralph Mcgehee, Philip Agee, Robert Baer, Chalmers Johnson, John Perkins. That'll do for now. And don't tell me you know them, don't try and discuss them unless you've reviewed something, don't seek out 2nd hand critics or I will know.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@moovershaker And just why is it do you think these "islamofascists" hate the U.S. Just woke up one day with itchy diapers? I mean, I know exactly why as they've been telling us from a WAAAAAY back. But you have to actually listen to what they say themselves. Otherwise you're likely to get 2nd hand sources talking out their butts, sort of like you have with Chomsky. So, please tell me why they themselves say they hate the U.S. I know. Have for 20+ years. LONG before the "new terror threats".
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Cont.. is to visit upon the rest of the world that which they have inflicted upon the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - by varying degrees.
moovershaker 2 months ago
When top UK government officials like David Blunkett could openly, boldly and remorselessly say it's okay to bomb civilian targets such as television stations that broadcast anti-western propaganda in Iraq; that for me is enough moral equivalence. The evidence is there and Chomsky's analysis is straightforwardly simple - when it's us, it's not terrorism, when it's them it's terrorism.
stephenblackman2003a 4 months ago
7:39 of pure bullshit.
The core of this spastic blabber: 1:42 , accusing hitchens of diverting attention away from US crimes.
That's the opposite of true. Hitchens has publised a a lot about american (war) crimes and has no reason to hide.
However, seeing Bin Laden as some form of "freedom fighter" against injustices of the US is a fucking joke.
He and his crime gang told us why they want to see ALL OF US dead, mainly of because of beeing intrusive into "muslim affairs", a joke all by itself.
sooperfukker 5 months ago 2
@sooperfukker Disclaimer: I am a fan of Hitchen in the sense of his debate against theocracy! I seem to think that Hitchens, when it comes to politics just tends to accept whatever the government comes out saying is true. It seems he then changes his mind as the general liberal news media does when it justifies almost everything Obama or Clinton has or has not done for the sake of political lines. It seems like he will be a supporter of whatever Barack Obama does, which seems delusional
CrossCreed4800 4 months ago
@CrossCreed4800 I can't help but think these opinions come from the lack of knowledge about his views.
(1) Check "Hitchs about Clinton", he says MANY things about him, e.g. that Clinton is a "solipsist, completely without scruples". He tears down Clinton and his politics completely.
(2) Hitch said about Obama, that he (former) is "more teachable", moving more and more to his own reasonable positions.
Hitchens is old enough to know that a single man cannot change the world. THAT is delusional.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@CrossCreed4800 The video above really pisses me off. 0:38 - According to the "speaker", we all share responsibility for the "crimes" commited by a government, as we are "members of the country".
Not only that this is a shameless smear, because no citizen can PREVENT ANY government from committing a crime, it also makes you wonder what he thinks of other regimes ???
All iranians guilty, all palestinians, all israelis guilty because of the crimes their govs commited?
ALRIGHTY, let's kill them!
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@sooperfukker the point is that since we elect our government officials, what they do is done in our name. its called republican democracy. if we know of the crimes being committed, and we choose not to protest our government, we consciously choose to let these crimes continue. of course its the government's fault, but we have the power to stop them, if we let our presence be known. its a simple ethical point.
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam
This is only what YOU say, it's not what he says and if you think he somehow "missed" that crucial point by accident, I urge you to remember the slow and smacking babble that dude exercises. He was in no hurry and he meant what he said.
The consequences of this ill view is what you might call typical left wing apologetics: Because the US gov has, somewhere back in time, commited crimes, terror attacks like 9/11 are totally alright, because it only hit "guilty" people.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@sooperfukker no, you obviously are not understanding what chomsky means, which is exactly what i said. he does not nor ever say 9/11 is justified. he says if you want to understand why 9/11 happened, you have to look at history. understanding why it happened doesnt mean you think the victims deserved it. the blame on the people responsible: al-qaeda, and the u.s. government for putting its people in danger, because of terrorist activities the U.S. supports.
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam This is correct. Good to see that at least one other person here actually knows Chomsky's work. Get's tiring fighting off people with regards to Chomsky's positions when they've never read a single book. I've been on threads for literally years before, never mentioning once what Chomsky's position actually is, but simply pointing out that the assertions being made were not his positions at all. You know what that makes me, yes? A Chomsky lover! Worshipper! blah, blah..It's funny.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@ThePatcam
Besides that: Why exactly am I co-responsible aka co-guilty if I don't protest my government when I didn't vote for it in the first place?
Is there some kind of invisible pseudo-moral obligation to foulmouth a government at all cost which you couldn't give a shit about if it even existed or not ?
You're getting into dark deep waters of left wing masochistics here.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@sooperfukker whether or not you voted for them (which i dont blame you for) the government derives its power from your consent. that's the principle of self-rule. you allow them to represent and rule for you. you may not have put it in place, but you can help eliminate it, or at least change it for the better. its not masochistic. its just taking democracy seriously. its what the moral motivation is supposed to be to inspire civic duty. what can you affect? what can you do?
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@ThePatcam And the las question still stands !
What about the iranians that have elected Ahmadinedjad
What about the Palestinians who votes for Hamas ?
Shall we hold them responsible ? I mean : SHALL WE ???
sooperfukker 4 months ago
@sooperfukker and again, the point is, that that is NOT a question. that you CAN'T be morally involved in what other people do that you can't affect. if you want to be serious about values, or the state of affairs, or however you look at it, you consider what you CAN affect.
ThePatcam 4 months ago
@sooperfukker True, governments are always going to be worse than the people under them and Chomsky makes that very clear whenever he speaks about how people are constantly dissatisfied with their government not just in the US but around the world. As far as Hitchens and Harris showing dislike for Chomsky's disapproval of religion being the sole cause of 9/11, I myself would say that it was most likely because of both foreign policy as well as religion
CrossCreed4800 4 months ago
@CrossCreed4800 You know why I don't buy into this left wing apologetics ? Because of this:
Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, Egyptian Cleric
If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said:
[continued]
sooperfukker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[continued]
The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are. It is Allah who said that they are infidels.
---
And that's there Chomsky and his alikes fail; they completely (!) ignore what these extremists actually say and replace it with their own masochism. It's rather easy to see and it's repulsive.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
I mean: You be the judge.
If someone tells you why he wants to see you dead, and another man jumps in and says "oh wait wait, actually he doesn't mean that, here's what that dude really thinks..."
Do you find that to be a trustworthy source of information ?
Do you build your future strategies on what your enemy said or on what your enemy's apologetic said?
These are crucial questions and I don't think there is any place for politicial correctness.
sooperfukker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
How come we live in a world where neither Bush nor Bin Laden are tried in a court of law?
GL12878 5 months ago
btw, what a nasty little morally bankrupt, pseudo-intellectual leftist crackpot
wowbaggerwannabe 5 months ago
Comment removed
wowbaggerwannabe 5 months ago
You wanna know how I got theses scars?!?
wowbaggerwannabe 5 months ago
btw i see the irony in the fact i just morally equivelated ----but if you morally equivolate two sides without taking one.....then its a beautiful tool to use (in part) to instill proper comprehension and understanding of a topic....and really to bring a wider understanding of human patterns whether its political social personal etc
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
george bush is the head of an organization that actually has been the culpirt of murdering children....the bombings of cambodia for instance (not his doing but its an attrocity Hitchens has loudly critisized---not too mention the hundreds of other attrocities perpetrated by state organizations ive read hitchens write about with extreme contempt) but islam has no moral superiority to that--- not only is honour killing supported but holding childrens beliefs for eternal ransom is filthy
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
..the repression of sexuality leading to stark perversion...not too mention the repression of women.....their hand in the slave trade (though a lot of groups fall under that category) their Ottoman conquest of much of the East before being effectively stopped in Venice (ottomans to me atleast are synonomous with islam--sorry for the presumption) the horrible child abuse of eternal blackmail that george Bush COULDNT achieve if he spent a life time----i DONT like Bush...but really....
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
im down with this type of forum.....i love when people post their opinions it give so much more substance to Youtube....but i cant find myself agreeing with a lot of this....first of all you say the crimes of G Bush far outweigh Binladens.....i could agree with this however Bin laden represents ISLAM...now i have no beef with islamic people holding their beliefs (so long as it doesnt effect my safety) but i rely on empiracism...and islam holds more crimes than america could ever achieve
TheGreatDeciever55 5 months ago
It is extremely disturbing to me. Hitchens is a very useful intellectual in other areas, but he lets his hatred of Islam cloud his judgment. Though I often fear it is more than that...
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago
Hithens a racist with no regard for human life ? Hithens for crimes , such as water boarding ? Really ?
Morclaw 6 months ago
Your post on Slate was retarded.
DorianGrayism 6 months ago
Given george bush was a bad leader or incompetent, but he is no homicidal maniac intent on throwing a whole civilization back to stone age with antediluvian beliefs.Hitchens in his article clearly refers to the 9/11 commissions and its finding plus the many chest thumping videos of Al kaida out there taking credits for these murders. Yes america has done its share of mistakes and wrong doing but to equate a democracy with an elected official with a religious fanatic who is intent on killing!!
sameerwaditwar 6 months ago
@sameerwaditwar "Given george bush was a bad leader or incompetent, but he is no homicidal maniac intent on throwing a whole civilization back to stone age with antediluvian beliefs."
A million dead Iraqis might disagree (go read the ORB report).
dsmelsergmailcom 5 months ago
Hmm lol you sir seem to have not read a single argument against your view points. 1/3 rd of the american believe its(9/11) a inside job where do you get these statistics and how big was your test case ( 1 including yourself). Now with George Bush's crimes, whats wrong with getting rid of a dictator who was killing his own people. I would chagrin on the mis-management and misconduct of war, state sponsored torture and water boarding.
sameerwaditwar 6 months ago
Hitchens is not an imperialist, and certainly not an lover of authoritarianism. He supported the war in Iraq, yes, but to claim those things is disingenuous.
SPK482 6 months ago
Chomsky guillotined the vile Neocon that is Hitchens who spreads his bottom cheeks for Dick Cheney and Bush. This warmongering obscenity was dismembered by Galloway and Tariq Ali and should stick with debating religious kooks because whenever he meets a heavyweight leftwinger he is destroyed.
MenOfLetters 6 months ago
(part 2) Hitchens also has a tendency that once he's screwed up, will refuse to admit it, and just dig the hole deeper, as he did with Chomsky just after 9/11 when he made some laughable interpretations of something Chomsky had said, Chomsky responded by basically saying that Hitchens couldn't have meant what he said, and even sort of made an apology for Hitchens obvious mistake, as a father Chomsky in this case, and correct) would a child. Hitchens, rather than conceding, dug his hole deeper.
kropotkinbeard1 6 months ago 2
@kropotkinbeard1 That's a pretty laughable theory, considering Hitchen's popularity exploded in the years following while the Chomsky cult has shrunk to the margins of political discourse.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Hahaha...That's funny. Hitchen's isn't even remotely in the same ball park with Chomsky. To even compare the two is embarrassing. And while I like Hitchen's sometimes, like, when he's not bending over backwards trying to make sure everyone knows he's beyond any simple category of left or right, it's like trying to compare Michael Jordan to Jack Black in basketball. There is no "Chomsky cult" nor has there ever been. There are people who know his work, and those you don't, you
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I've read plenty of Chomsky; I've read his denials, apologetics and rationalizations of Serbian warcrimes in the Balkans, his whitewashing of brutal and corrupt Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, his complete misrepresentation of the rise of the events leading to the rise Suharto, his propaganda broadcasts on Vietnamese and Cuban radio.
Chomsky is a violent extremist who exploits the ignorance of vapid hipsters to sell books; plain and simple.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex You have read nothing. You're gathering your disinformation in the same places where anti-Chomsky droolers always do. I'm familiar with all of their works as well e.g.Horowitz, Kamm, etc...They're idiots and liars, and it takes all of 30 seconds to demonstrate this. Your comment is embarrassing. But which of his books did you say you had read, and which lectures listened to. We can shut you down quite fast once this is shared. Answer the question, or go to a knitting blog.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex Perhaps you'd like to try and make an argument? I've heard all of the drooler charges that you've made for years. Not ONCE has anyone succeeded in arguing your position, but you could be the first. Go for it. But remember, you are NOT going to be able to depend on sources as those which I've already mentioned. They've been eliminated hundreds of times already and have nothing to say. You must look for yourself, which, I'm sorry to say will mean reading i.e.for the first time
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Good analysis. Correct on Chomsky's positions, and the nonsense and ignorance often directed at him. Dershowitz and Horowitz aren't worth talking about. Hitchens, while I like quite a lot at times, seems to have gone into the silly zone which I think he believes makes him a "real radical" because he will criticize the left just as much as the right, not that this is inherently bad, but he seems to overdue it, and even try and conjure up crap for this very purpose. (part 1)
kropotkinbeard1 6 months ago 2
all well said; u read right books and understood it correctly, which is actually simple to understand just if u want to read it....excellent and clear video; keep it up!
CanUWriteLikeOe 7 months ago
Comment removed
CanUWriteLikeOe 7 months ago
thanks for the post- I agree.
saxengee2 7 months ago
You're angry at your dad. We get it. Please don't take that anger out on the rest of us in the form of retarded, uninformed political rants posted to youtube.
cotchery 7 months ago
@cotchery Who's uninformed here? Start reading. And turn off Fox.
CriticalEye21 6 months ago
The "four horsemen" shares the same argument. The "bombing pharmaceutical facilities" one is on "The End Of Faith" (Sam Harris).
TurpentineRec 7 months ago
Dershowitz' article is so hilarious. He seems to be very desperate .
dihydrohydroxycodein 7 months ago
Dude, the eyeliner makes your argument so much more convincing.
longislandtapwater 7 months ago
smart, educated guy!
niles541 8 months ago 2
How are Bush's crimes greater than Bin Laden?
TheOtherView 8 months ago
@TheOtherView At the very most, bin Laden would have killed 10,000 people across his entire life, and many of them politicians and embassy officials. Bombing mostly US government buildings.
At the very least, Bush has killed 2,000,000 people, most of them innocent people. Sending three countries into barbaric poverty via war and embargo, lowers standard of living, disease more common, drone strikes on villages, heavy artillery during urban warfare.
MikhailSilverwood 8 months ago
@MikhailSilverwood
Hmmm so intent doesn't enter your equation???? Interesting.
TheOtherView 8 months ago
@TheOtherView As Legal Studies 101 will tell you, the number one priority is to know what crimes were factually committed, and then the second priority is to know what crimes were intended to be committed.
Actus reus comes first, and then mens rea comes second.
Therefore, by the principles of law and the legal system, our number one issue is with counting the dead bodies, figuring out the factual evidence that exists on the ground, and then locating the perpetrator.
MikhailSilverwood 8 months ago
@MikhailSilverwood
This is not a legal issue it's a moral one. I don't think that Bush was interested in murdering innocent people Bin Laden was.
TheOtherView 8 months ago
@TheOtherView But that's just the core flaw in your argument: looking at intentions alone, and ignoring the facts, leads people down foolish directions. When in reality, the moral attitudes probably are the reverse of what you claim.
There are those people who kill for pragmatic reasons, ie because they want to make more money and become more powerful. Eg Bush, Nixon, Clinton.
And then there are those who kill and have delusions, believing that what they are doing is morally good. Eg bin Laden
MikhailSilverwood