I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism the Chomsky and the like are so fond of. Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a "cleric they did not like." Despite what Chomsky would like 18 year olds to believe, the CIA does not like going around and planting car bombs. I personally don't think the troops should have been in Beirut in the first place, but Chomsky selects facts and turns them into a dangerous fiction that has no grounding. In this way it can justify acts of terrorism upon America and its allies. For a man so concerned with 'the truth', he often pays little attention to it. But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad and periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his claims. Well how can anyone not like Gandhi, therefore Chomsky's got to be right. Manipulating quotes from the likes of Gandhi fuels moron supporters of Chomsky who fail to see that blindly supporting peace can have just as disastrous effects and blindly supporting war. He goes on to say that "there's probably majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing plenty of innocent people." GEE, no Noam I'm actually for that, of course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls, not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the war. I could go on like this for hours (his comparison with the IRA and not bombing Belfast another beauty) but I won't. He does at times make some good points that are not as stupid as most, for example showing the differences between this and the Vietnam war and the pure stupidity of the bombing of Sudan in 1998. However many sensible commentators have made these points before, and in a more factual and less emotive manner. This book is one written by a hack of the highest order. No doubt it will fuel the reservoirs of stupidity at Universities such as mine around the world. It is about an insightful as People Magazine or a Little Golden Book, and will shortly be available at supermarkets alongside these publications. Unfortunately it will be taken more seriously. Leo Canberra, Australia
> I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it > a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The > fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up > Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, > and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half > truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism > the Chomsky and the like are so fond of. > Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the > likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA > car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American > foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. > However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some > weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the > bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a > "cleric they did not like." Despite what Chomsky would like 18 year > olds to believe, the CIA does not like going around and planting car > bombs. I personally don't think the troops should have been in Beirut > in the first place, but Chomsky selects facts and turns them into a > dangerous fiction that has no grounding. In this way it can justify > acts of terrorism upon America and its allies. For a man so concerned > with 'the truth', he often pays little attention to it. > But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad and > periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his claims. Well how can anyone > not like Gandhi, therefore Chomsky's got to be right. Manipulating > quotes from the likes of Gandhi fuels moron supporters of Chomsky who > fail to see that blindly supporting peace can have just as disastrous > effects and blindly supporting war. He goes on to say that "there's > probably majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing > plenty of innocent people." GEE, no Noam I'm actually for that, of > course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent > people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into > majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls, > not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the > war. I could go on like this for hours (his comparison with the IRA > and not bombing Belfast another beauty) but I won't. > He does at times make some good points that are not as stupid as most, > for example showing the differences between this and the Vietnam war > and the pure stupidity of the bombing of Sudan in 1998. However many > sensible commentators have made these points before, and in a more > factual and less emotive manner. > This book is one written by a hack of the highest order. No doubt it > will fuel the reservoirs of stupidity at Universities such as mine > around the world. It is about an insightful as People Magazine or a > Little Golden Book, and will shortly be available at supermarkets > alongside these publications. Unfortunately it will be taken more > seriously. > Leo > Canberra, > Australia
very well written. The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry - no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
> very well written. > The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry - > no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
You only say it is "very well written" because it blindly bashes Chomsky. You pay little attention to whether or not the author's claims are true.
Take the following sentence, for example: "But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad and periodically quotes Gandhi to back up his claims." Clearly, anyone familiar with the work of Chomsky knows this statement to be false. Chomsky is not a pacifist, and this fact is so well-documented that anyone that denies it is either engaging in a smear campaign or just plain ignorant. In either case, a piece with such a characterization cannot be "very well written."
When various members of this newsgroup criticized Chomsky a couple of months back for comparing 9-11 to the bombing of Sudan, they made a good case. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but it was a valid criticism, and several contributors -- if not most -- criticized Chomsky's comparision without smearing him. In many instances, the posts were "very well written."
If somebody wants to critique or criticize Chomsky, that's fine. I actually encourage them to do so. But tell the truth. People like you lose credibility when they go around posting that any old anti-Chomsky tirade is "very well written" when anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with Chomsky can see the naked distortion of Chomsky's positions.
Below, you'll find segments of a critique of Chomsky's new book. (I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written a new book and the author of the post doesn't provide a title or publication information). I've deleted all the text that doesn't pertain to a specific critique of the book. For example, if the poster says that Chomsky's ideas are stupid, I've deleted that sentence. However, if he cites a particular idea which he feels is stupid and explains why it is is stupid, i've that left in
The reasoning behind this approach is pretty straightfoward. Simply put, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion unless assertions are backed up with arguments and facts. So if a critic doesn't deal with specifics - if he just makes blanket statements such as "this is all lies" or "no one believes this" - then there's no substance to the critique and it can be disregarded.
One exception to the rule: While it's very vague and pretty much devoid of substance, I've left the first paragraph entirely intact. I reasoned that it constitutes a sort of indtroductury paragrah and thesis sentence and as such, isn't obligated to justify itself in any way. It's a statement of opinion The remainder of the post is assigned the task of supporting that opinion.
On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloody...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
>I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of. >The 1985 CIA >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a >"cleric they did not like."
I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or more specifically, American troops)?. Suppose the FBI identified a suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in a car outside of the church?
Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright. Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe it would be okay in Mexico?
>But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.* If a US soldier kills an enemy in combat, the soldier will, I'm sure, tell you that it was necessary and that soldiers should continue to do such things when necessary. But if you ask him whether he'd like to go do it again - say, this weekend, in Afghanistan - for fun, he'll probably decline the offer.
Except for a few rare, supremely fucked up individuals - the sort we keep locked up or under heavy sedation - no one regards killing other human beings as good. Or, at least, I sure hope that's the case. If it's not, we're all in trouble.
>He goes on to say that "there's >probably majority sentiment against lashing out blindly and killing >plenty of innocent people." GEE, no Noam I'm actually for that,
I think it's safe to say that this was sarcasm on Noam's part. He's rather fond of this sort of smart alecery.
of
>course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent >people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into >majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls, >not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the >war.
I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had been published), but I think there's another very logical interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're ignoring.
He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be against the war.
Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country. However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
>He does at times make some good points that are not as stupid as most, >for example showing the differences between this and the Vietnam war >and the pure stupidity of the bombing of Sudan in 1998. >Leo >Canberra, >Australia
bloody...@hotmail.com (Leo) writes: >Claiming that American acts of terrorism are on the same par with the >likes of al-Qa'ida is not only laughable but dangerous. The 1985 CIA >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a >"cleric they did not like."
An attack that kills innocents incidentally rather than as the main focus still kills innocents, and is still indiscriminate violence. It really doesn't matter what the point was supposed to be.
>Despite what Chomsky would like 18 year >olds to believe, the CIA does not like going around and planting car >bombs.
That's hardly relevant. I'm sure there were plenty of concentration camp guards who found their duties unpleasant, or even distasteful. It doesn't change the outcome of their actions.
>I personally don't think the troops should have been in Beirut >in the first place, but Chomsky selects facts and turns them into a >dangerous fiction that has no grounding.
Again, this seems to be implying that attacks on innocents are justified by the larger context, if they're being done by people with the right intentions ("responsible men"?).
Anyway.
-- Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay Icy colon barge Cancer Biology Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University "Your legs are too short to kickbox with the Buddha" - Thai saying
zztop8970 wrote: > very well written. > The only part I disagree with is your final sentence. You needn't worry - > no one but his close circle of groupies takes Chomsky seriously.
It sort of begs the question "Why do you bother with this NG"?
> When various members of this newsgroup criticized Chomsky a couple of months > back for comparing 9-11 to the bombing of Sudan, they made a good case. I > didn't necessarily agree with them,
I missed that one. How are the two comparable? In reference to said topic, Noam himself, in the Hitchens exchange - to be linked below - said the following;
[Hitchens condemns the claim of "facile 'moral equivalence' between the two crimes." Fair enough, but since he fabricated the claim out of thin air, I feel no need to comment. ]
While Chomsky almost NEVER says anything concrete that lays out exactly what he is talking about -- it's usually very vague and implied -- I am going to assume that because he claimed that Hitchens "fabricated the claim (Chomsky morally equating Sudan and 9-11) out of thin air", that he does not agree with that claim. Am I making a safe assumption? Since he felt no need to comment, base on the preceding words; would you say that he disagrees with this 'fabrication'?
Sorry, all of that for this:
So, do you agree with Chomsky that the bombing of Sudan is not morally equivalent to the terrible attack on the WTC?
> but it was a valid criticism, and several > contributors -- if not most -- criticized Chomsky's comparision without > smearing him. In many instances, the posts were "very well written."
> If somebody wants to critique or criticize Chomsky, that's fine. I actually > encourage them to do so. But tell the truth. People like you lose > credibility when they go around posting that any old anti-Chomsky tirade is > "very well written" when anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with Chomsky > can see the naked distortion of Chomsky's positions.
How's this for starters? BTW, this is not yet a criticism...
What do you think about this?:
Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people.
Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
> > On 2 Dec 2001 23:03:26 -0800, bloody...@hotmail.com (Leo) wrote:
> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it > >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The > >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up > >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, > >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half > >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism > >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
> >The 1985 CIA > >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American > >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. > >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some > >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the > >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a > >"cleric they did not like."
> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA > to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if > they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or > more specifically, American troops)?.
Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic? There is a difference.
> Suppose the FBI identified a > suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a > mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a > rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in > a car outside of the church?
If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could > come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be > necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright. > Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to > church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of > the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe > it would be okay in Mexico?
France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
> of > >course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent > >people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into > >majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls, > >not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the > >war.
> I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had > been published), but I think there's another very logical > interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're > ignoring.
> He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is > causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If > people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be > against the war.
The question is; Is his argument valid?
Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
"I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people."
Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country. > However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it > ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that > the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
>> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA >> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if >> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or >> more specifically, American troops)?.
Nark:
>Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that >Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different >than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic? >There is a difference.
I am not sure what you mean here. Maybe you mistyped your sentence. I don't know what to make of your distinction between "Americans" and "civilians"
Clay Smith:
>> Suppose the FBI identified a >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in >> a car outside of the church?
Nark:
>If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even marginal degree of mental health.
Clay Smith:
>> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright. >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe >> it would be okay in Mexico?
Nark:
>France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace like Beirut.
It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general is irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
