Noam Chomsky in HARDtalk (2009) 3/3

[nerd4yu]

Mr. Noam you own this interview! Thank God we have you

[homoeroticfood]

@Blunic Just because things have happened for thousands of years that does not make it more morally justifiable (de omnibus dubitandum). Most decent people would disagree with with slavery or child labour or money dominating the political system yet these things have gone on for thousands of years.

It does not mean that Chomsky has committed a logical error in trying to pursue the injustices which you do not necessarily feel are worth pursuing simply because of the primacy of those particular

[f4ust85]

emberrassingly stupid interview. I also noticed in the other "Hardtalks" that this journalist enjoys taking peoples worldview to a very persnal level. its almost insulting in the part where the journalist basically implies "you are a jewish immigrant, how dare you question the US policy?"

[bravo45]

I HATE BBC!! And this is another example of this. I can't stand these b@$#@rds!!

[Cabronosidad]

Awful interview, butchered in editing. Just look at the number of 'noddy' shots of the interviewer, done to allow them to cut Chomsky's answers. Disgraceful.

[BenNCM]

Steven Sackur: Balding ginger ferret or the ultimate provocateur?

[xvegansxex]

I actually liked that interviewer, cause it's in these difficult situations that intellectuals like Professor Chomsky give their best.

[gkkhan]

Noam Chomsky is amazing.

[SrQueque]

You know how good and unbiased an interviewer is when one of his questions contains a logical fallacy.

[tls2156]

The interviewer was like a school boy in class!

[TheForwardGaze]

The interviewer was excellent in presenting the arguments of Chomsky's detractors. It's essential that our heroes have their feet held to the fire. As usual, the old anarchist shot down every attack with facts, reason and dignified calm. Can anyone imagine how well Bush, Beck, Palin or Limbaugh would do in that chair?

[telboyy]

notice the pain that washes across the interviewers face has he realises, but is not allowed to agree, that chomsky is right, he himself has to scuttle off into the night knowing he amounts to nothing more than a brainwashed shill that will never have peace, when he is old and grey, in the night when the demons come where will he hide,he has to face that alone when the corporations no longer require the use of his miserable carcass

[ulyssenardin]

At least I should give this fake interviewer a little credit for having the guts to interview Chomsky. He was perhaps one of the last main stream media clowns to interview him since. I think the reason why mainstream media never interview him because they are so terrified of him. No one wins with him because the in the face of truth, lies are always exposed.

[Kalydosos]

LIke most biggots the interviewer ran out of strong arguments, so tried to upset Mr Chomsky by making it personal. In my small opinion the interviewer lost the entire argument when he did this, Chomsky then turns it round on the interviewer and demonstrates British Empire attrocities to create America in the first place the BBC is nothing. But a queen supporting imperialist proganda organization I am glad they are showing themselves for what they really are.;.

[Simeon747]

@Kalydosos you have a point about the interviewer losing the argument, though he had no argument to lose; rather Chomsky repelled the attacks on stance for the majority in the face of control by the minority self interest elites.

You discredit your point by that of which you accuse the Interviewer - bigotry and by misrepresenting Chomsky - It was the atrocities of those who settled America to which he referred, the point being the attitude of control at any human cost regardless of its root,

[rhett1583]

Lol!! I always wanted to ask Chomsky the same questions...

Its fun to c some Chomsky fan boys getting angry here though..

[Simeon747]

@rhett1583 yeh right LOL says it all! .............about your post :)

[telboyy]

@rhett1583 if thats the questions you always wanted to ask, then you also are as deep as a teaspoon like the corporate stooge that passes for an interviewer

[rhett1583]

@telboyy

well, whats wrong with those questions?

[EkajTheSwordsman]

To pretend that life there would be better if the Taliban were still in power is outrageous. The Taliban's rule, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and left millions at risk of death by disease and starvation, was unsustainable. It wasn't going to just go away. Only violence could remove it. Should we have just kept smuggling food packets into that concentration camp, or should we have broke its barriers down?

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

He's not lying. You're not talking about the same article. And you don't seem to know anything about Chomskys opinion on the Talibans. He never pretended taht life would be better with the Talibans. Please don't make up such stupid lies. He just said that it would have be a better idea to support internal democratic forces to owerthrow them.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 It doesn't really matter what article Chomsky might have (mis)read to reaffirm his preconceived notions. It is a matter of public record, easily available to all, that far more food aid reached Afghanistan as a result of the war than would have reached Afghanistan without the war (because of the Taliban's rejection of and attacks on NGOs for being "un-Islamic"). Thus, the idea that more Afghans would go hungry if the US attacked was simply false and dishonest.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 The subsequent occupation has been managed by the United States for the simple reason that if it let the motley coalition of native tribes "just take care of it," the country would simply have descended again into the chaos of civil war and massive bloodshed, with a good chance that Mullah Omar would end up returning to Kabul in triumph. If the Afghans were capable of and willing to fight for their own freedom we'd be happy to let them.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 There were (and are) no internal democratic forces in Afghanistan to resist them, but leaving that aside; the US did indeed rely primarily on native Afghan insurgents in the initial effort to oust the Taliban regime in 2001--the Northern Alliance rebels did most of the early fighting, with US backing. Only 300 US troops were used in the initial operation to overthrow the government.

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

That's bullshit. The Taliban were highly unpopular and there were many democratic forces which could have owerthrowned them in the long run. You don't owerthrow dictatorships with war. When teh Russians invaded Afghanistan womens rights improved a lot. Did that justify the invasion?

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 The Taliban was unpopular, but the notion that any of the internal forces capable of removing them were "democratic" is absurd. War is actually a great way to overthrow dictatorships, and violence is by definition necessary to oust any tyrant who would like to remain in power. The Russians invaded Afghanistan to prop up a genocidal dictatorship hated by its people, not to remove one; so your comparison is not apt to say the least.

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

You didn't answer on this one: Why don't the US government owerthrow the brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? Or in Egypt? Oh, sorry, I forgot that they are US nearest allies. I forgot that the US only cares about democracy when it's in its interest.

And anyway. CHomsky says that the fact that mass starvation didn't happen don't change the conditions for the choice (or something like that), as with the nuclear missiles in Cuba. Did you even see the interview?

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

You don't seem familiar with the history of imperialism. Why don't the US government owerthrow the brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? Or in Egypt? Oh, sorry, they are US allies. I forgot that the US only cares about democracy when it's in its interest.

And anyway. CHomsky says that the fact that mass starvation didn't happen don't change the conditions for the choice (or something like that), as with the nuclear missiles in Cuba. Did you even see the interview?

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 You’re missing the point. The point is that the increase in food aid to Afghanistan resulting from the war could not possibly have caused a famine. Of course it didn't happen--there was never any chance that it would. It was a figment of Chomsky's wild imagination, unlike the very real nuclear threat from the Soviet Union.

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

And one more thing: The US dodn't care abut democracy when they invaded Iraq for example. It was the democratci forces in Iraq that FORCED the US to start talking about democracy. The smae was true in the Shia uprisings of 1991 when the US didn't want a democratic shia governent, so the let Saddam stay in power. Please study the histroy of imperialism. The US never cared about democracy.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 The first Gulf War was not fought with any intention of regime-changing Iraq. Democracy means one man, one vote; it doesn't specify what the majority votes for (or gets). Democracy is a form of collectivism where a slim majority can vote away anyone's rights. It is antithetical to the intentions of our Founders. Adolf Hitler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hamas in Gaza, and numerous other tyrants were elected. Democracy is not a route to freedom and never has been.

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

But anyway you are moissing the point. The point is that the US don't have any right to invade other countries. But it does anyway, when it's in its interest.

Ii it's simply not true that war is a good way to create democracy (if this was whatn the US wanted, which is simply not true). There not many examples of it in history. There are some, but there are far more examples of creating democracy by supporting internal democratic forces.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 Nuking Japan brought about the most benevolent turnaround of an entire nation ever seen in history.

If it were truly in the interests of America to invade another country; then that would mean that country had threatened America. If that country had threatened America; then America would have the right to attack it (unless you dispute the right to self-defense). Dictatorships, regardless, have no rights at all, and can claim none against a free nation.

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

Please read a book. I have friends in Cuba. NOONE thinks that the US hard-line politics against Cuba has helped the democratic opposition in the country. Castro is still in power ONLY because of US politics. Everyone knows that.

WHy does the US support Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (some month ago Obama didn't want to call Mubarak a dictator when asked by a journalist) if it cares about democracy? Please answer. Do you really think that the US cares about democracy?

[DrCruel]

@endstation2 Castro is in power because he's not as passive as someone like Mubarak - he can, and has, killed thousands of people to pre-empt effective dissent. The US supports the Saudis because they are, in the context of Wahhabism, relative moderates. The US supported Mubarak because of the Camp David Accords.

Leftists chide the US about their concern for democracy. This is because democracy is a threat to the sort of despotic tyranny Leftists work towards. They want to derail the idea.

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

''Not as passive as Mubarak''. :) Egypt under Mubarak was a far worse and brutal dictatorship than Castros Cuba. Now you are just embarrasing yourself. There is plenty of room for democtratic opposition in Cuba. But US hard line politics has forced the paranoid stalinist dictatorship to put some opposition leaders into prison. Please, if you've ever been to Cuba and talked to opposition leaders you would know that. You don't have a clue what your'e talking about.

[DrCruel]

@endstation2 I never heard of the Mubarak regime killing Egyptians leaving the country. In fact, as the Left doesn't give a damn about human rights, the major crime of Mubarak seems to be that he upheld the Camp David accords.

Don't you think I've noticed that the only Mideastern countries untouched by the protests have been loyal allies of the Left? How gullible do you think I am?

Mind, you weasels are in for a shock. I was at the protests in DC. The Muslim fundamentalists hate you guys.

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

Are your serious? You don't know anything about Mubarak crimes? Do you know google? Google Mubarak + crimes and you'll see. My friend fled from Cuba. Nobody killed her. Anyway, the Cuban gov doesn't kill people who flee from Cuba. Please, be serious.

The CIA doesn't ''plant'' dictatorships. In general they support the regime that's good for US interest at the moment. That's why the owerthrew the social democratic gov of Arbenz in Guatemala in the 50s but supports Brazil today.

[DrCruel]

@endstation2 Are you serious? Are you really trying to convince me that Mubarak executed common people who simply wanted to leave his country, as Castro has?

Just Wiki "Human Rights in Cuba". The Castros are hereditary Leftist despots, just like the Assads of Syria and the Kims of North Korea. It's very easy to research. Just don't bother with any of Chomsky's stuff, as the man is a waste of time.

It's more like if a regime gets too friendly with the US, they gets harassed or deposed.

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

You didn't answer to anything of what I wrote. But anyway, I know Cuba is a terrible dictatorship. But you are an extremist and therefore do not read what I write. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Colombia have far worse record on human rights abuses than Cuba, according to sources such as Human Righst Watch. And the US supports them both. How do you explain that?

Anyway, Sweden is a social democracy. In the US you would call Sweden left winged. Is Sweden a despotic tyranny?

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

I'm a social democrat and also a supporter of worker owned companies susch as John Lewis Partenship in England an Modnragon in Spain. Does that mean I'm advocating tyranny? Your'e full of bullshit.

Anyway, even though the Castro regime is a terrible one, they don't kill people who flee from the country. Maybe it happened soem time, but itäs definitely not a policy. Maybe you are not awar that hundreds of thousands of people left the country,

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

And as I sadi, you didnät even mention what I wrote about for example Guatemala, which is a classic textbook example. The US owerthrew a explicitly pro capitalist social democrat because he imposed taxes on United Fruit company and installed a vicious military junta which kileld hundreds of thousands of people with US backing. And that's only one example. If that's promoting democracy then I'll eat my hat.

[DrCruel]

@endstation2 And now you simply dodge the issue of Egypt, with a bait-and-switch with Guatemala.

I'd rather not waste any more of my time. I'm familiar with the tactics of Noam Chomsky' fans and members of the ISO.

Chomsky is a hypocritical jerk. Marxists are at least as bad as Nazis, and not nearly as honest. Leftists are responsible for the Ba'athist regimes in the Middle East that you complain about. I have no tolerance for any of these people.

You have the floor. I'm outta here.

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

Did you read all my four messages (about Cuba. Colombia and Egypt etc?)? Apparrently not. Anyway, Chomsky is not and has never been a marxist. The social democracy of Sweden has a marxist background. Is Sweden the same as nazi germany?

[endstation2]

@DrCruel

Yes, one of the reasons why the US supported Egypt was because it was important for them to gain support for their poltitics towards Israel. No democratic arabic state would upport that policy so the US prefer dictatorships. Israel is breaking international law on a daily basis. The US government supports that.

Go and live in Saudis Arabia. It's one of the world most brutal dictatorships. Ypou've just admitted that the US donät care about democracy if it's not int its interest.

[DrCruel]

@endstation2 Are you telling me that the repressive socialist despots of the Middle East are in power "because no democratic Arab state would suffer Israel to exist"?

Gee. You'd think if the CIA were going to plant dictators in the Middle East, they wouldn't consistenly choose avowed socialists. I'd love to hear you explain the Assad dynasty of Syria by this model.

And as far as the Left is concerned, Israelis break international law every day they're breathing above ground.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 Why should the US attack Egypt or Saudi Arabia? I can think of no reason why we ought to. You mention they are our allies, as though that were a bad thing; tell me, why should we attack our friends? When you say "we don't care unless it’s in our interest," why would that be a bad thing if it were true? Why shouldn't nations pursue what is in their own interest (like self-defense)? How has sacrificing the lives of nearly 6,000 Americans for the good of savages been selfish?

[endstation2]

@EkajTheSwordsman

because Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutaö dictatorships in the world. Ok, so you admit that the US only supports democracy when it's in its interest?

Well, countries should follow international law. The Us don't give a da,mn about international law.

[EkajTheSwordsman]

@endstation2 The US cares too much about "international law," as if there was such a thing. The UN is an excellent example of the mob rule that is democracy, made worse by the inclusion of savage nations like Sudan, Congo, Cuba, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Syria-- each with a vote to cast against America so as to veto its inalienable right to life.

[Simeon747]

@EkajTheSwordsman - US cares nothing about International Law and refuses to sign up to anything not in US interests! Have any of your 'savage nations' ever invaded the US to maintain their internal security? Who might the indiginous peoples of Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq and, oh yes, North America justifiably regard as a 'savage nation'? The people that is! - not puppet governments or power elites using and abusing the indiginous homelands of human beings!

[EkajTheSwordsman]

Today, 10 million Afghans who would otherwise starve to death rely on US aid to survive.

I love how you uneducated leftist vandals view yourselves as intellectually or morally superior. You don't know anything about Afghanistan.

The American war has cost 30,000 lives and saved over one million lives. The NYT article actually says that there would be a risk of mass starvation if the Taliban was not overthrown. Chomsky is lying.

[JollyRoger183]

These videos should have 3 more zeros behind the counting number - more people should watch it.

[ohgoditsgavin]

I don't understand how everyone misunderstands HARDtalk.

The point is to play devils advocate in an attempt to get the guest to explain their views, lay the ground of debate and moving to multiple subjects to get the guests views in half an hour.

Everybody who loves the guest hates Stephen but the fact is Stephen has interviewed presidents and war criminals to artists and intellectuals. He's a top notch interviewer.

[BBOYMONI]

@ohgoditsgavin You make some excellent points that I agree with but towards the end of this interview he (Stephen) did seem like he was trying to get some petty digs in at Chomsky when he could have asked questions that are more constructive and interesting. Also he was way out of order quoting Chomsky out of context. Unlucky for him Chomsky doesn't seem to forget anything, put the quote back in the correct context which showed what he said is pretty uncontroversial.

[LilDylSam]

LISTEN. "ELEMENTARY MORAL PRINCIPLES."

[LilDylSam]

Sakur you are a sophisticated man and the good professor is talking to you about elementary moral values

[mardukk13]

Seems like the interviewer's black/white/good/evil worldview makes it difficult for him to understand Chomsky's complex grayscale assertions!

[gitu1]

Excellent. If I were to choose a role model for my intellectual up upliftment, moral courage and integrity, it would be none other than Noam Chomsky.

[Fatima74]

the interviewer should be ashamed... he made a total fool of himself lol

[theH0UNDSofD00M]

I don't want to get into too much detail, Sackur says at 1:59 Yeah right, I bet you don't, specially when "interviewing" someone of Professor Chomsky's calibre and after even mentioning his parents nationality of origin in an schoolboy attempt to induce one of the greatest intellectuals alive on a guilt trip.

Hilariously ambitious...

[gensisyan]

I'm simply in love with Chomsky. He is the pure definition of an intellectual genius. And i feel he's a great human beeing too.

[abikani]

Wow Chomsky is old but So Fantastic!

Yes i agree, this BBC guy tried hard to do his Job but was a kid in front of Chomsky!

Well Said Chomsky!

[TheQuest786]

BBC needs to get a better journalist to conduct an interview with a personality like Noam Chomsky. This guy should call his show hardASS or something

[tigershark50]

@TheQuest786 hahhahaha Quest that may be the funniest comment i have ever read on youtube. Made my day.

[Tiny22Smiles]

I have enormous respect for Dr. Chomsky. If all the world where in that memorable scene in the Wizard of Oz, standing before the great Oz awaiting out wishes to be granted, Noam would be the one individual who would bring our attentions to the actual reality that there is someone behind the curtain. And whether we liked it or not, we'd be the better for it.

[fifteenthwarrior]

Looking at some of the comments made related to this video , I was to surprised to see how many show intellectual dishonesty , Chomsky followers who are blind to the fact that Chomsky is not without flaws. I read a lot of Chomsky's work but it does not mean that I wont notice parts where Chomsky's statements have holes in them.

[fifteenthwarrior]

Chomsky has demonstrated himself to be a shrewd ideologue but I never quite understood what keeps feeding Chomskys vitriolic criticism of the US, but his negativity is often over the top. There is certain hypocrisy in a man who criticizes continually bbe is never part of solutions , and an arrogance that is visible in Chomsky, a man who has the nerve to say that there is not a single possibility that he might be wrong..

[leggs33]

5:19

"you maintain in the back of your mind the recognition you may be off on completely the wrong track ,and you have to backtrack"

[Tiny22Smiles]

This is what it means to be human and he recogonizes that reaility. He realizes that he can be wrong and in some cases has admitted, when looking back that we was or has been.

[hamidious]

That's where you are wrong. Chomsky is part of the solution, calling him hypocrite is unjust. First of all, he holds no seat of power, he's an acadmeic and educator. His work changes the minds of people and educates them about the truth, which I assume why you are upset.

He actually said he could be wrong, but never proven wrong. If you can prove him wrong go for it. The reason why he can't be proven wrong is because he does a lot of work before he says something and he nails it.

[rring88]

Did you even listen to him? He went over his "vitriolic criticism." Killing 1/3rd of the people in Vietnam is a crime. The terrorist war against Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran etc are crimes.

[dancingforrain2012]

@fifteenthwarrior , in his own words he said that he gets dozens of emails every day and analyzes them for any indication that he might have had the wrong view or approach to something.

Chomsky simply takes a completely neutral position and views the facts for what they are.

[fifteenthwarrior]

The main logical flaw of Chomskys approach is the continual use of generalizations, he mentions in the interview how his statements have at times been stripped of context, yet he does the same thing to others in his criticism of the usual list of bad groups in his speeches.. He also hides his arguments behind quotes that have been made by other journalists so that he can always resort to saying, that hey I did not say this, it was some newspaper who stated it

[RPFS2008]

@fifteenthwarrior

quoting journalists etc. is a good practice when airing your views. It's called citing sources. Very important.

Not once have you even bothered to cite an example of your claims. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As for "US Hating" Sure there may be some like that but that isn't an argument. Chomsky mentions himself at around the 2min mark that it is important to 1st look at your own actions/crimes. Everyone, of sound mind, should agree

[hamidious]

Umm, no he doesn't.

[fifteenthwarrior]

Chomsky is used to preaching to the America hating crowd who eat up any of his views with great appetite but in this interview with someone who is not part of that crowd , he was on the defensive and has to resort to not answering the questions directly and changing the subject, rather subtly I might add.

[MajNorberg]

Interviewer out of his League.....not even the same sport.

[hls1991]

What a patronising, smug interviewer everything he said was trite and facile. Chomsky is just brilliant.

[Muhammad265]

@hls1991

You are really right. The interviewer did even want to give Chomsky a room to explain or disagree with him, apart from just repeating what we are fed up with in the mass media.

[itrod123]

Once again Chomsky kicking ass in the morning and taking name in the evening....... Hit him with your best shot...............

[doublestrokeroll]

Rational Logical arguments. They make under prepared interviewers look foolish. And I've never seen one person more prepared than Chomsky.

[theH0UNDSofD00M]

Sackur doesn't want to go into too much detail, he says at 1:55 No wonder, if I was interviewing Prof. Chomsky I wouldn't either. The man is constantly right no matter what subject or how much the media and their courtiers try to personalize the arguments. A living legend