PDA

View Full Version : Who agrees with Noam Chomsky?


Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 12:37 PM
This guy is probably the most quoted when it comes to politics, but I'm curious to know why a lot of people continue to draw so much from his work without realising there's limits to his arguments as well? :confused:

O.K., he backs his words with cold hard facts and it's credit to him he's done the research. But what good does that do if he's selective with what he researches on? He needs to support his arguments, yes, but his work becomes way too biased because of it.

I'm no fan of the U.S. government, but I can see he goes overboard when he takes them to task.

- He blames them for the lack of democracy because they keep dictators in power so the oil is much easier to obtain;

- He blames them for setting a chain reaction by not abiding to Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty;

- He blames them for pushing Israel to dig deep into Hezbollah heartland by invading Lebanon;

- He blames them for the lack of free-market models that makes modernisation so hard to achieve.

But why doesn't he look on the other side and realise that maybe the U.S. isn't to blame for all the troubles? :confused:

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Btw, I'm referring to Noam Chomsky's analysis of the ME situation.

"Sluggy"
Nov 9th, 2006, 12:47 PM
Im no expert but I dont like him at all - id have to check up cause i have poor memory of him - but what i do remember is left wingers love him for his angry stance against Israel, so i dont like him, but respect his opinions and his labours.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Im no expert but I dont like him at all - id have to check up cause i have poor memory of him - but what i do remember is left wingers love him for his angry stance against Israel, so i dont like him, but respect his opinions and his labours.

He calls Israel an "American pro-xy". Basically the Israelis won't do anything without America's blessing. No matter what Israel does, it's because America encourages it to do so.

There's no good grace for the U.S. in his book. He somehow finds a way to weave some complicated pattern that always ties back to the U.S. one way or another. He does not even account for Islamic fundamentalism being a major obstacle :rolleyes:

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 12:58 PM
erm, i'm sorry, but this is a very poor interpretation of noam chomsky's work.

Wigglytuff
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:07 PM
i find the person who reads his audiobooks to be gravely annoying. i cant get more than 10 minutes in. i only read print books if i know its going to be good, otherwise its audio or no go. if he gets a better reader i will check him out.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:07 PM
erm, i'm sorry, but this is a very poor interpretation of noam chomsky's work.

He explains the lack of "free" institutions in the Middle East in terms of U.S. exploitation in the Middle East.

He basically says that the U.S. isn't interested in promoting "democracy" in the Middle East because that would be counterproductive to its "economic strategy", which is it secure access to oil reserves by controlling the Persian Gulf.

He does not outright say Islamic fundamentalism is not a factor for what's going on in the Middle East, but he does give A LOT (almost all) weight to U.S. policy alone.

He also says that the situation should be looked at as a result of great power politics. It's not Islamic fundamentalism that's the problem; it's the threat that America poses to other countries that's the problem.

Is that not his argument?

"Sluggy"
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:15 PM
He calls Israel an "American pro-xy". Basically the Israelis won't do anything without America's blessing. No matter what Israel does, it's because America encourages it to do so.

There's no good grace for the U.S. in his book. He somehow finds a way to weave some complicated pattern that always ties back to the U.S. one way or another. He does not even account for Islamic fundamentalism being a major obstacle :rolleyes:

HANG THE TRAITOR!

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:24 PM
He explains the lack of "free" institutions in the Middle East in terms of U.S. exploitation in the Middle East.

He basically says that the U.S. isn't interested in promoting "democracy" in the Middle East because that would be counterproductive to its "economic strategy", which is it secure access to oil reserves by controlling the Persian Gulf.

He does not outright say Islamic fundamentalism is not a factor for what's going on in the Middle East, but he does give A LOT (almost all) weight to U.S. policy alone.

He also says that the situation should be looked at as a result of great power politics. It's not Islamic fundamentalism that's the problem; it's the threat that America poses to other countries that's the problem.

Is that not his argument?
not exactly. for example, he explicitly says that the goal of the us policy in the middle east is not to secure access to oil reserves there. it's not about the access and not really about the economy, but it is about control. he does say that the us is the major player in the power politics in the middle east having replaced britain after the ww2, but i think you will need to dig a little bit deeper to understand what exactly that means.

he is not the only one who sees the situation in this way and he is being given a bit too much credit imho, simply because he is a famous person. but these views are usually marginalised and therefore not very well understood and often presented in a simplified way in order to be ridiculed easily. at the same time this approach is widely used in history when talking about old european empires for example.

Kunal
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:34 PM
well when i took media relations....in my first year at university....i pretty much agreed with everything that was dished at me in his book.....his facts are really straight up and u cannot disagree with that.


but i dont know bout him being selective bout what he researches....that could well be true....but i think even after considering that i support his stuff...cuz they are liberalesque

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:45 PM
not exactly. for example, he explicitly says that the goal of the us policy in the middle east is not to secure access to oil reserves there. it's not about the access and not really about the economy, but it is about control.

Control = access; basically what I was getting at before.

he does say that the us is the major player in the power politics in the middle east having replaced britain after the ww2, but i think you will need to dig a little bit deeper to understand what exactly that means.

Britain manipulated the Middle East right after WWI so it could divide the area between itself and France. The Sykes-Picot Agreement being an example of a treaty born out of false promises.

I'm guessing he's trying to say that the U.S. is doing the same thing as Britain when it comes to securing its goals - lying through its teeth.

He makes this point in We must act now to prevent another Hiroshima (2005), saying that the U.S. invents the right to wage war by coming up with a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence". Basically "self-defence" = bombing the shit out of Iraq, not "defending" the U.S. heartland per se.

he is not the only one who sees the situation in this way and he is being given a bit too much credit imho, simply because he is a famous person. but these views are usually marginalised and therefore not very well understood and often presented in a simplified way in order to be ridiculed easily. at the same time this approach is widely used in history when talking about old european empires for example.

Of course not. There's plenty of left-wing authors who see the U.S. as the ultimate evil. Tariq Ali being one of them.

Chomsky's famous because he's written so much (tabloid) and again the amount of work he does should be recognised.

My beef with his work is that when he tries to explain WHY the Middle East is in such chaos, he points the finger squarely at the U.S. instead of accounting for other things that have just as much impact.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:59 PM
well when i took media relations....in my first year at university....i pretty much agreed with everything that was dished at me in his book.....his facts are really straight up and u cannot disagree with that.


but i dont know bout him being selective bout what he researches....that could well be true....but i think even after considering that i support his stuff...cuz they are liberalesque

I tend to see him along the same lines as Michael Moore: both of them are great at using stats and all to make their points, but their arguments fall short because they don't account much for culture being a big factor. It's just the bare essentials for them; not much scope for questioning or analysis.

For example, Samuel Huntington makes a very good point when he says that rather than just look at power politics and ideologies, culture should be decisive because it's been developed for centuries. Maybe it's not so much U.S. policy that's the root of the problem; it could be that Islam just isn't compatible with democracy.

Kunal
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:00 PM
I tend to see him along the same lines as Michael Moore: both of them are great at using stats and all to make their points, but their arguments fall short because they don't account much for the uniqueness of Islamic culture being a factor.

For example, Samuel Huntington makes a very good point when he says that rather than just look at power politics and ideologies, culture should be decisive because it's been developed for centuries. Maybe it's not so much U.S. policy that's the root of the problem; it could be that Islam just isn't compatible with democracy.

oh common.....id give him some more credibility than michael moore......

naom is a scholar

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:08 PM
Control = access; basically what I was getting at before.
hmm, again not really. well, if you really did understand what he means by this, tell me why has this policy been implemented primarily?


Britain manipulated the Middle East right after WWI so it could divide the area between itself and France. The Sykes-Picot Agreement being an example of a treaty born out of false promises.

I'm guessing he's trying to say that the U.S. is doing the same thing as Britain when it comes to securing its goals - lying through its teeth.
which is what every major power does. nothing spectacular in my opinion.

He makes this point in We must act now to prevent another Hiroshima (2005), saying that the U.S. invents the right to wage war by coming up with a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence". Basically "self-defence" = bombing the shit out of Iraq, not "defending" the U.S. heartland per se.
he is talking about the concept of "preventive" wars introduced by the bush administration a few years ago and subsequently adopted by russia as well. the purpose of the iraq war in this context would be to establish a legal precedent for future wars based on potential rather than real threat. and i think we all know there was no real threat. there was some discussion about this in "foreign affairs" if you happen to ever read stuff like that. i think this aspect of the war was neglected by most people. consequences could be serious, this is true.

Of course not. There's plenty of left-wing authors who see the U.S. as the ultimate evil. Tariq Ali being one of them.
neither of them sees the us as the ultimate evil. that's just a vulgar insult being thrown at them.

Chomsky's famous because he's written so much (tabloid) and again the amount of work he does should be recognised.

My beef with his work is that when he tries to explain WHY the Middle East is in such chaos, he points the finger squarely at the U.S. instead of accounting for other things that have just as much impact.
he does account for other things. it should be also noted that he believes that as an american his own country should be his primary concern. this is his "moral truism" - we are responsible for predictable consequences of our own actions. he does occasionally mention "evil" deeds of other countries, but he feels as an american he should clean his own backyard first. for that he deserves respect, not abuse.

of course there are limits to his arguments, but i seldom see honest criticism of his work. and i still don't have the impression you understood him correctly.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:12 PM
oh common.....id give him some more credibility than michael moore......

naom is a scholar

Yeah, Michael Moore is a media whore, but the gist of his work is along the same lines as Chomsky. The basic difference between the two is that one uses the camera to make a point whereas the other writes books and articles to do the same thing.

But if we're talking about prestige and all, then yes I'd pick Chomsky any time of the day. That still doesn't mean I agree with most of what he has to say though :help:

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:16 PM
oh common.....id give him some more credibility than michael moore......

naom is a scholar
yep, moore sucks actually. chomsky should be taken seriously even if you disagree with him - if only to be able to make meaningful arguments against him.

Xanadu11
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:17 PM
I tend to see him along the same lines as Michael Moore: both of them are great at using stats and all to make their points, but their arguments fall short because they don't account much for culture being a big factor. It's just the bare essentials for them; not much scope for questioning or analysis.

For example, Samuel Huntington makes a very good point when he says that rather than just look at power politics and ideologies, culture should be decisive because it's been developed for centuries. Maybe it's not so much U.S. policy that's the root of the problem; it could be that Islam just isn't compatible with democracy.

It is so stupid to compare Micheal Moore with Noam Chomsky. Micheal Moore is a stupid filmaker. Noam Chomsky is one of the foremost linguists in the world. He is the uber intellectual. And you will find any academic uses evidence to back up their claims, it would be stupid if t hey didn't.

Huntington on the other hand, yes he doesn't selectively distill facts at all. Because promoting a binary clash of civilisations doesn't do that at all.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:29 PM
hmm, again not really. well, if you really did understand what he means by this, tell me why has this policy been implemented primarily?

I'll be referring to It's Imperialism, Stupid (2005) for this one.

What he says is that the motive for the Iraq war was NOT part of this "War on Terror". This is because the reality was that the war on Iraq increased the threat of terror. And the bombing and fired up emotion from the Iraqi public which gave the radicals a free ride to recruit more members for their operations.

He straight out argues that the purpose of U.S. presence was to get control of oil. Controlling Iraq = controlling the world's second largest source of oil reserves and this is important because it gives the U.S. a HUGE edge over European and Asian rivals.

he is talking about the concept of "preventive" wars introduced by the bush administration a few years ago and subsequently adopted by russia as well. the purpose of the iraq war in this context would be to establish a legal precedent for future wars based on potential rather than real threat. and i think we all know there was no real threat. there was some discussion about this in "foreign affairs" if you happen to ever read stuff like that. i think this aspect of the war was neglected by most people. consequences could be serious, this is true.

In that piece, he also implies - strongly - that the U.S. is responsible for stimulating nuclear proliferation.

I agree this sets off a chain reaction because other countries don't want to be left behind when it comes to stacking up their nuclear arsenals.

neither of them sees the us as the ultimate evil. that's just a vulgar insult being thrown at them.

Maybe not so much Ali because he sees radical Islam as the product of Western interference in Middle Eastern politics.

But Chomsky is extremely critical of the U.S. - to a point that he doesn't analyse culture being an important factor.

he does account for other things. it should be noted also that he believes that as an american his own country should be his primary concern. this is his "moral truism" - we are responsible for predictable consequences of our own actions. he does occasionally mention "evil" deeds of other countries, but he feels as an american he should clean his own backyard first. for that he deserves respect, not abuse.

He does account for "other things" but he does not give them as much focus.

of course there are limits to his arguments, but i seldom see an honest criticism if his work. and i still don't have the impression you understood him correctly.

I'm not here to give you an "impression" of what you think I understand :wavey:

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:39 PM
It is so stupid to compare Micheal Moore with Noam Chomsky. Micheal Moore is a stupid filmaker. Noam Chomsky is one of the foremost linguists in the world. He is the uber intellectual. And you will find any academic uses evidence to back up their claims, it would be stupid if t hey didn't.

I never said there shouldn't be evidence to back claims up. What I did say is that if an argument is to be made, then a mixture of evidence and factors should be taken into consideration.

Huntington on the other hand, yes he doesn't selectively distill facts at all. Because promoting a binary clash of civilisations doesn't do that at all.

Oh right, yes. Because that's exactly what I said :tape:

What I did say is this: "rather than just look at power politics and ideologies, culture should be decisive because it's been developed for centuries."

Which means: Huntington's argument is useful because materialist explanations (i.e. Chomsky) fail to give weight to ideas and value systems. These are adequate because ideas themselves are basic and real. Different civilizations will have different different beliefs because they're the product of centuries - they won't disappear in a blink of eye and that's why imposing liberal democracy (which is historically a Western product) may be the problem because doing so sends messages that Islamic culture is somehow inferior to Western culture.

Again, I'm not saying Huntington's argument is perfect because I do believe there are differences within civilizations as between them, and like Chomsky he makes one single approach rather than a multi-dimensional one. But he does make a good POINT about culture being an important factor.

BTW, what did you mean by "binary"? :confused: Huntington doesn't mention it in his 1993 article, and I'm sure he listed more than TWO civilizations that are likely to clash with one another.

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 02:51 PM
I'll be referring to It's Imperialism, Stupid (2005) for this one.

What he says is that the motive for the Iraq war was NOT part of this "War on Terror". This is because the reality was that the war on Iraq increased the threat of terror. And the bombing and fired up emotion from the Iraqi public which gave the radicals a free ride to recruit more members for their operations.

He straight out argues that the purpose of U.S. presence was to get control of oil. Controlling Iraq = controlling the world's second largest source of oil reserves and this is important because it gives the U.S. a HUGE edge over European and Asian rivals.
this is correct. you can't really say that this is only chomsky, though. a lot of people see the situation this way.

In that piece, he also implies - strongly - that the U.S. is responsible for stimulating nuclear proliferation.

I agree this sets off a chain reaction because other countries don't want to be left behind when it comes to stacking up their nuclear arsenals.
so, here you agree with him. he does not blame the us alone here, though, but also other nuclear states, but he does give the us more share in responsibility.

Maybe not so much Ali because he sees radical Islam as the product of Western interference in Middle Eastern politics.

But Chomsky is extremely critical of the U.S. - to a point that he doesn't analyse culture being an important factor.
he does analyse "culture". "intellectual culture" is one of major topics of his work, for example. so, he does that when he thinks it's appropriate.


He does account for "other things" but he does not give them as much focus.
perhaps rightly so?


I'm not here to give you an "impression" of what you think I understand :wavey:
you have to make that impression if you want a serious discussion because a lot of stuff you wrote in your first post was incorrect and accordingly can't and shouldn't be argued. now that you made an effort rather than saying he believes the us is the ultimate source of evil a discussion can take place. and it should be about the following - you say that noam chomsky should give more weight to some other factors. why do you think he should? what exactly are these factors? etc.

but perhaps you don't want discussion at all and just an opinion on whether he can be taken seriously or not? :shrug: in that case i have already said what i think.

Veritas
Nov 9th, 2006, 03:13 PM
this is correct. you can't really say that this is only chomsky, though. a lot of people see the situation this way.

I never said it was "only" Chomsky :confused:

he does analyse "culture". "intellectual culture" is one of major topics of his work, for example. so, he does that when he thinks it's appropriate.

Culture as in more than "intellectual". Such as religion.

perhaps rightly so?

No, not really.

Although I agree with Edward Said when he said that Bernard Lewis "essentialises" the Middle East and therefore simplifies it into one bloc, Bernard Lewis makes a very good point about how history is extremely influential to how people think today.

Lewis says that it's important to realise Islam has had a rich past where it was once the most powerful and most creative civilization. Muslims are very aware of that past because it's reinforced strongly. That's why Muslims are angry not just because the U.S. is responsible for impeding their modernisation plans, they also cannot stand being dominated by the West because it's "unnatural". In other words, it's natural for the Dar al-Islam to rule over the Dar al-Harb, not the other way around. And it's this embarassment of Islam's fall from power that drives a lot of passion.

What I think Lewis is also getting at is that because history is replete with examples of rise and fall of civilizations, Muslim resentment can't just be accounted for by U.S. policy. Like other civilizations, the world of Islam is extremely proud and therefore thinks of itself as superior to all others. It's a constant struggle because Islam is trying to protect that pride by rejecting Western democracy and emphasising that its own value systems is superior and therefore right for Islam. That's why there's been a "la revanche de Dieu" (the return to God; revival of religion) because people want to show that they're proud of their culture and this breeds arrogance.

The West believes liberal democracy is the only system that all civilizations should use.

Asians are more inclined towards cultural paticularism.

Islam does not recognise the separation between Church and State.

etc., etc. It's these civilizational differences that are a major (not the only) factor because like Huntington says, they've been developed over centuries and cultures are out there to prove their systems are superior. These things are deeply ingrained into a populace.

IMO, Chomsky doesn't take these as seriously. I agree with a lot of his points, but what I don't agree with is his approach that it's U.S. policy that's been the biggest thorn. I tend to think of it as ONE of of the biggest THORNS.

samsung101
Nov 9th, 2006, 03:29 PM
You mean that Bill Clinton was a war criminal for his illegal
war in Kosovo?


You mean Chomsky that said Carter and every President is a
schill for the big corporate America and killed innocents abroad
for the Trilateral Commission and Bechtel and the other multi-national
secret groups he writes of?

That guy...

He's a socialist and a far left fanatic...and he has made a living
denouncing America, while making a living in America, abroad and
at home.


Poll Pot wasn't that bad afterall...not really.



Professors and students and Venezuelan tyrants love him.

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 03:36 PM
I never said it was "only" Chomsky :confused:
it's because of the title of the thread ;)


Culture as in more than "intellectual". Such as religion.
i remember reading his writing about the rise of islamic fundamentalism, so he does pay attention to this as well. but his approach is materialist. there is a lot of writing about ideas and culture from the materialist point of view and recently some steps have been made in analysing religion in general in this way. it looks very promising, but that's not really what you mean as you explained in the rest of your post. but to take just one example...

The West believes liberal democracy is the only system that all civilizations should use.
if this is supposed to be something that can be observed over longer periods of time like you suggested it is blatantly wrong :shrug: you know enough about history of the west and i don't have the impression that this can be observed. the positive trends in the west that most people have in mind when they say "democracy" are a fairly recent phenomenon historically speaking and have proven to be very fragile on several occasions, something that we should always keep in mind.

as for the rise of the political islam and islamic fundamentalism, a lot of stuff was written about the subject even by chomsky himself and it makes sense to me. nothing develops in a vaccuum and while history certainly matters so does the present. materialists pay attention to ideas, ideologies and cultures, but they still believe that these thing exist in a certain environment that can encourage or hinder their development and spread (to put it in the most simple possible form i can think of). how much they can shape their own environment is different question and it is precisely here that you may feel unsure. but you should not think that people who may give them less weight ignore them completely.

Apoleb
Nov 9th, 2006, 03:46 PM
He's an anarchist and he hates everything about capitalism, so there's nothing surprising about his views. We all know how the extreme left likes to blame everything on capitalism, and thus on the US.

I've read some of his arguments and articles, and I always roll my eyes at several of them. He said that the US is encouraging the attacks in Iraq to keep it unstable so they can gain more control over the oil resources (or something along the line). Ofcourse, that means he's assuming that the Republicans have no problems with losing elections to the Democrats, which also means that he thinks the Democrats and the Republicans are basically the same and agree on issues behind closed doors, which means it's some stupid conspiracy theory.

Chomsky is a very renowned linguist and philosopher, and that's how he was able to make a big splash into politics. But he himself said that he knew he was an anarchist since he was 4 years old or something along the lines, so I guess that would perfectly explain his views.

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Chomsky is a very renowned linguist and philosopher, and that's how he was able to make a big splash into politics.
no, he was able to make a big splash in both politics and linguistics because he is a very smart guy. in both linguistics and politics everything people who disagree with him can do is "roll their eyes" and attack him personally. he hasn't been challenged successfully by many people intellectually.

Apoleb
Nov 9th, 2006, 04:39 PM
in both linguistics and politics everything people who disagree with him can do is "roll their eyes" and attack him personally. he hasn't been challenged successfully by many people intellectually.


Really? I disagree with him and roll my eyes because I simply find his arguments unconvincing. And your point is pretty moot since in my post I specifically responded to one of his arguments. So obviously I don't just disagree with him and attack him personally.

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 04:52 PM
Really? I disagree with him and roll my eyes because I simply find his arguments unconvincing. I already provided an example. No one in his right mind would think that the Republicans would self-destroy by inciting violence in Iraq.
this is why i asked veritas if he really understood his work. a lot of people don't. when pressed, veritas was able to move away from gross simplifications and actually show that he does understand chomsky's arguments. with you i am less hopeful. you actually provided already more than 1 example for that. i know for a fact that chomsky isn't saying that democrats and republicans are the same and that there is no fight behind close doors and i also know that his argument about capitalism (and socialism) is different.

don't get me wrong, chomsky's work may appear confusing at first glance and if you tend to dismiss his writings out of hand like you do such misunderstandings are not surprising. but if you are curious and open-minded enough it's not really that difficult. whether or not you will agree with him then is another matter, but i find it strange that so many people interpret him correctly.

for the record, he is my hero mostly for his linguistic work. his work in politics is valueable, but overrated because people often tend to concentrate on the work of one man and ignore the contribution of others. each way, you need to invest a little effort to understand his contribution to both fields, with politics being far easier to understand than linguistics.

Apoleb
Nov 9th, 2006, 05:10 PM
i know for a fact that chomsky isn't saying that democrats and republicans are the same and that there is no fight behind close doors

I didn't say he said that. I said that his argument that the US is encouraging attacks in Iraq (against other Iraqis and even against US troops) logically implies that, unless you think the Reps would be happy to self-destruct back at home and lose power. (which I'm sure you don't). Now please respond to THIS argument, cause that's what I pointed out as unconvincing.

I can provide many of his arguments that simply don't make sense. For example, during the Gaza withdrawal, he said that Israel is removing the settlers just to make a show, and that if they only cared about the settlers, they can withdraw the troops and all of the settlers would just follow them. Now ANYONE with a bit of hindsight would know that there's no freakin way the government is doing this and abandoning its citizens, not only because they would lose a lot of support in Israel, but also clashes between the settlers and Palestinians would be likely to erupt, and probably many settlers would refuse to go which would make an even bigger show.

To me he comes up as biased and as dismissing on a wrong basis as much as the people you accuse of doing this. And I guess now you can spare me whatever you were saying about me judging him when I don't have a counter-argument.

azdaja
Nov 9th, 2006, 05:30 PM
I didn't say he said that. I said that his argument that the US is encouraging attacks in Iraq (against other Iraqis and even against US troops) logically implies that, unless you think the Reps would be happy to self-destruct back at home and lose power. (which I'm sure you don't). Now please respond to THIS argument, cause that's what I pointed out as unconvincing.
i can't comment on the article in question because i don't have it in front of me, but from other articles i know he's saying no such thing :shrug: here i can only recommend you to look for more of his articles. or find me one where he says something like that.


I can provide many of his arguments that simply don't make sense. For example, during the Gaza withdrawal, he said that Israel is removing the settlers just to make a show, and that if they only cared about the settlers, they can withdraw the troops and all of the settlers would just follow them. Now ANYONE with a bit of hindsight would know that there's no freakin way the government is doing this and abandoning its citizens, not only because they would lose a lot of support in Israel, but also clashes between the settlers and Palestinians would be likely to erupt, and probably many settlers would refuse to go which would make an even bigger show.
i can remember this. he said the way the settlers withdrew was conducted in a very dramatic way with soldiers dragging settlers away from the land they stole and stuff. he did not say that soldiers should withdraw first, he said that the government should have announced that the soldiers would withdraw at a certain date and the settlers would leave their colonies before that happens. i didn't follow the whole thing that closely, but the claim was that israeli government didn't make it clear that they will withdraw and that this wasn't debatable. in the end, the withdrawal looked like a tragedy, which is what "the show" consisted of. the main thrust of the argument was that the israeli government isn't serious about abandoning israeli colonies in occupied territories. not really :rolleyes: worthy if you ask me.


To me he comes up as biased and as dismissing on a wrong basis as much as the people you accuse of doing this. And I guess now you can spare me whatever you were saying about me judging him when I don't have a counter-argument.
i see this as an intellectual argument, there are no personal attacks directed at you or anyone else. if you don't like the guy, ok. but i can still say that what you said about him doesn't represent his views correctly,that's all.

kiwifan
Nov 9th, 2006, 10:03 PM
Slightly :topic: but Columbian Rebels seem to like Chomsky. :lol:

http://img.iht.com/images/mobile/mobile_logo.gif (http://www.iht.com/)
Colombian rebels want Denzel Washington, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore to help negotiate with government

The Associated Press


Colombia's largest rebel group is calling on actor Denzel Washington and filmmakers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore to help it reach a deal with the government on exchanging imprisoned guerrillas for rebel-held hostages, including three U.S. citizens.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as the FARC, issued a letter made public Thursday asking the celebrities to advocate the swap to the American people.
"To the people of the United States, we ask for your always generous solidarity to pressure President Bush and his government to support a prisoner exchange in Colombia," said Raul Reyes, the chief spokesman for the FARC.

The letter was also addressed to leftist academics Noam Chomsky, James Petras and Angela Davis, as well as Democratic activist Jesse Jackson.

Calls to representatives of those addressed in the letter were not immediately returned.
The three American defense contractors, Thomas Howes, Keith Stansell and Marc Gonsalves, were on an intelligence-collecting mission when their small aircraft went down in February 2003 in Southern Colombia. They were quickly captured by the rebels. In the letter, Latin America's largest rebel group confirmed the three were well.

"Howes, Stansell and Gonsalves are alive in our custody, treated with respect and dignity in the jungle," said Reyes. "They are the only North American prisoners alive in the world."
The FARC, listed by the U.S. government as a "foreign terrorist organization," is holding some 60 prominent hostages, including the three defense contractors, former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, politicians and military officers. It says it will only release them in exchange for nearly 600 imprisoned rebels.

President Alvaro Uribe recently broke off preliminary negotiations after blaming the rebel group for a car-bomb in a military installation that injured more than 20 people, insisting that the hostages would be freed by military operations. The families of the kidnapped are united in opposing such rescues, fearing their loved ones will be killed in the crossfire.

Uribe later relented and said that he would be open to potential talks if the rebels gave a sign of good faith.

The guerrilla group said the Colombian government's offensive in its strongholds was jeopardizing the lives of the three American hostages.

The rebel leader also promised that the group would soon send evidence the three were alive. Since being kidnapped nearly four years ago, the families have received one so-called proof of life.

The FARC's latest missive comes as one of the most famous rebels stands trial in a Washington D.C. courtroom for the kidnapping of the three.

Ricardo Palmera, better known by his nom de guerre Simon Trinidad, was captured in Ecuador in 2004 and later extradited to the United States. Another guerrilla, known as Sonia, is preparing to stand trial in Washington on charges of drug-trafficking.

The FARC insists that any exchange must include Trinidad and Sonia.
In the past six years, the U.S. government has provided $4 billion in mostly military aid to Colombia to fight the more than five-decades old insurgency and the country's enormous drugs trade.

samsung101
Nov 10th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Iran.
Iraq.
North Korea.
Saddam Hussein.
China.
Al Queda.
Taliban.
Sudan.
Somalia.
Darfur.
Venezuela.
Bolivia.
ANC.
EU.
Guardian.
George Galloway.
Hamas.
Hezbollah.


He's got a great fan base.

azdaja
Nov 10th, 2006, 04:07 PM
a lot of people who oppose american foreign policies like chomsky which is hardly surprising and this is often used by some people to attack him mostly because they otherwise have no good arguments against him. his work should be judged on its own merit, though.

it should be noted that it is not true that he blames the us for everything like even some people who like him believe. when noam chomsky writes that the us is responsible for something he is merely saying to his readers: "this is what your country is doing in your name, you can prevent it". this stems from his "moral truism" i mentioned - you are responsible for predictable consequences of your own actions. you can prevent your own government from doing harm. he doesn't say the us alone is responsible for all this.