Chomsky on Hypocrisy of Bombing Afghanistan

(nb! video starts at 0:11)

"-We should apply to ourselves the standards we apply to others."

Excerpt from the documentary "Power and Terror - Noam Chomsky In Our Times." http://bit.ly/bu1lrb



tags: bush's favourite philosopher gospel afghanistan incomprehensible nicaragua bomb washington cuba insane why right wrong talk question elementary moral principle definiton hypocrite barack obama nobel peace prize war taliban nato

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• hypocrisy
• chomsky
• noam
• war
• on
• terror
• interview
• intellectuals
• us
• U.S.
• germany
• france
• ugly
• gospel
• bush
• cute
• kittens
• president
• barack
• obama
• nobel
• peace
• prize
• taliban
• nato
• afghanistan
• 9/11
• asia
• iraq
• iran
• yemen
• oil
• pentagon
• robert
• frost
• galloway

[toseeornot2see]

Chomsky is a very interesting person; I fully agree that we get caught up in our self-righteousness so much that we forget to look at out own follies and point fingers at others. I mean, some people argue that a dictator is suppressing his own people; something must be done. But going by their argument, an outside party should bomb India because the govt. is waging a war against the people in central India or at least intervene. I am an Indian, by the way.

[athabascka]

@claudelebel55: we can agree that America should get its own house in order, although I'm not very optimistic that will happen when we have so much resistance from right wingers who want to protect and support the rich, and make it politically impossible to raise taxes on them.

[CrocodilusPontifex]

@BelfastAtheist Also, the US supported and armed Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh during the Second World War. Why isn't the left upset by this?

[CrocodilusPontifex]

@BelfastAtheist Crying "Hypocricy" because the US once supported OBL is absurd; first off, who's STILL in power in Washington who can be held responsible for supporting him 30 years ago? Second, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was genocidal in scale; over 1 million dead over the course of 10 years. The communist puppet gov't executed tens of thousands of prisoners as well. With the communists killing so many people, who would have thought OBL would turn out to be evil as well?

[CrocodilusPontifex]

And the fact that the Chomsky brings up the issue of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is absurd. If he believes that the democracies and dictatorships should have the same standards applied to them, then he must believe that the Nuremburg Trials were a sham and that Allied Commanders should have been indicted as well, which would be absurd.

No one but fringe extremists and 3rd world jingoists believe this. It's too bad Chomsky Inc. believes it.

[CrocodilusPontifex]

"Why is one right and not the other?" Because the United States and it's Western allies are democracies, the Taliban was not. Second of all, the United States and it's allies are actual legally constituted and recognized; the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had no international recognition, bar Saudi Arabia and the UAE, so any arguments about the "illegality" of invading other "countries" is moot. The "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" was NOT A COUNTRY.

[CrocodilusPontifex]

@theawesomemanman People who think the US committed "terrorism" in Nicaragua should read "The Civil War in Nicaragua" by Roger Miranda and "Adios Muchachos" by Sergio Ramirez. They were the SANDINISTA DEFENCE MINISTER and VICE PRESIDENT, and even they admit that the Contras were mostly poor, desperate peasants and that Sandinista corruption, brutality and repression was the reason for the rebellion.

I trust the former Nicaraguan leaders to speak on the issue more than Chomsky.

[BelfastAtheist]

@athabascka

Fatuous argument, considering Al-Qaeda exists *because* of U.S Imperialism, they don't have the resources to really threaten a single State; let alone the Entire Middle-East/Central Asia - they can't become World actors and they never could.

Also, U.S Hegemony has caused many thousands (I use that phrase correctly) of times more Deaths than Al-Qaeda has ever dreamt of, so from a simple Utilitarian position - your argument falls apart.

[athabascka]

@BelfastAtheist: You implied Bin Laden was a valuable member of the resistance to U.S. hegemony. Suppose victory for al Qaeda were possible, they wouldn't replace U.S. hegemony with anything better. In fact, it would be much worse. Al Qaeda's official goal is to create a united middle eastern state governed by Salafist ideals. In other words, the most extreme and dictatorial theocracy as a world actor. I must say I prefer U.S. hegemony.

[BelfastAtheist]

@athabascka

Uh... kinda dishonest of you to change the Subject. Do you intend to answer my last question or not? I'm no more a fan of Al-Qauda than you, but Al-Quada don't form the bulk of resistance to U.S/Israeli hegemony; other sources do.

Anyways, mind answering my last question?

[athabascka]

@BelfastAtheist: Don't you have any standards for the resistence to Israeli/U.S hegemony? Al Qaeda aren't humanists, or socialists. They're right wing fanatics and mass murderers. The point commonly made is that there is no difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. That means that at best, al Qaeda is no less evil than the U.S. government.

[BelfastAtheist]

@RonnieJamesable

Also, for all your talk of Iran wanting to bully Saudi.. why aren't you bringing up the fact that Saudi *directly* asked the U.S to stage an Invasion of Iran and knock out their Government? I mean, that was requested in order that Saudi could maintain it's Religio-Political domination over the Region - a perfect example of Imperialism - which I find it conspicious you're not bringing up.