Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against U.S.
Iconoclast
becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans who have suffered
through the 5000 deaths of innocent civilians in
the WTC bombings and are now threatened by anthrax bioterrorism
also perpetrated no doubt by Muslim Fundamentalists.
Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
incendiary. He should not be permitted to
continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
mindset.
Advocating the violent overthrowing of the democratic
U.S. government is an abuse of freedom of speech and should not
be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
when the security of the nation is threatened. Thus the FBI, CIA
and Congress itself should be investigating this subversive nutcase.
Chomsky is akin to the deranged anarchist-terrorists who were so
prevalent in Tsarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th century.
More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
article:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=11/6/01&Cat=4&Num=018
Doug Bashford
In <3BE7EE81...@home.com>
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 14:24:35 GMT, Iconoclast <icono...@home.com>
wrote about:
Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against U.S.
>The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
[snip Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred]
.................that's all.
Doug Bashford
On Tue, 06 Nov Iconoclast squealed about:
>The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
Oh really? So you think we should somehow
hide all our dirty laundry?
Or are you under the impression we have none?
America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
chuckle
snip
>More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
>article:
>
>http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=11/6/01&Cat=4&Num=018
ok, let's see here.
* Chomsky Attacks U.S. Double Standards on
* Terrorism
* TEHRAN TIMES INTL. DESK
* TEHRAN U.S. Massachusetts Institute of
* Technology (MIT) professor Noam Chomsky
* launched a stunning attack on Washington double
* standards on terrorism.
* According to the statesman, an English daily
* published from New Delhi, Chomsky in his clearest
* voice of dissent in contemporary America
* described the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan as a
* "silent genocide", affecting millions of innocent
* civilians. "They are not the Taleban," he told an
* overflowing audience at the Fifth D.T. Lakdawala
* memorial lecture on 'peering into the abyss of the
* future' which included Indian ministers, diplomats,
* members of the academia in a 70-minute lecture at
* the Ficci Auditorium in New Delhi recently.
errr...."demented and deranged intolerable"???
"insane and hate-filled venom???
intolerable for Americans" ???
Do let us know when you see something that
isn't at least arguably true, won't you?
Why don't you quote him, rather than a newspaper
clipping? Is it because you are not up to the
task? Because all you can do is squeal unsupported
names at him? Or are you really just afraid of
his words?
* "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
* U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
* reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
* the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
* policies over the decades.
* "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
* its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
* of horrifying crimes. Europeans have spent
* centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
* been attacked by their traditional victims,"
* professor of linguistics said.
That is insane? Seems like a good summery to me.
* Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food
* will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
* population as the strikes have disrupted planting of
* crops. "But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
* about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
* quoted him as saying.
What venom!
* Chomsky, who kicked off his fortnight long lecture
* tour of the subcontinent, which will also take him to
* Pakistan, highlighted the use of brute military and
* economic might by the U.S. against indigenous
* people in various parts of the world, particularly
* Central America.
"brute military and economic might"...err
perhaps you think its coincedence that the
WTC and Pentagon were the targets?
Perhaps you think Chomsky is saying something
that is not already common knowlege in Europe?
Clue: Europieans have no US-lapdog press.
* "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
* terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
* thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
* millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
* countries in ruins, he said.
Do you deny this? Hell, didn't Ollie North
even have to go into snake-mode to get that
job done? Financed with cocain money.
You do know what Air America was all about, don't you?
* Also, two of Russia's top muftis criticised U.S.
* military action in Afghanistan on Monday, one of
* them describing Russia's support for the operation
* as a threat to the country's integrity.
John Robertson
Iconoclast on Chomsky:
>The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans who have suffered
>through the 5000 deaths of innocent civilians in
>the WTC bombings and are now threatened by anthrax bioterrorism
>also perpetrated no doubt by Muslim Fundamentalists.
>
>Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
>position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
>incendiary. He should not be permitted to
>continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
>mindset.
>
This is just libel.
>Advocating the violent overthrowing of the democratic
>U.S. government is an abuse of freedom of speech
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have
recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Iconoclast wants to disregard the first ammendment of the US.
>and should not
>be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
>when the security of the nation is threatened.
Iconoclast wants to rewrite the constitution for Chomsky.
>Thus the FBI, CIA
>and Congress itself should be investigating this subversive nutcase.
>Chomsky is akin to the deranged anarchist-terrorists who were so
>prevalent in Tsarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th century.
>
Iconoclast resembles those who initiated the Kent State University
riot in the sixties.
>More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
>article:
>
>http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=11/6/01&Cat=4&Num=018
Nothing said here shows Chomsky to be dangerous or crazy.
George of the Jungle
Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll fall off a donkey and break his neck.
--
"For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet
after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message
alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In
Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad
deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists
who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is
the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the
victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe
that befell them."
David Horowitz, "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky," 9/26/01,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/index.htm
"Iconoclast" <icono...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BE7EE81...@home.com...
philsaudio
"George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
news:3be826a7$0$3180$4c41...@reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
: What else can you expect from a traitor like Chomsky.
:
: Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll fall off a donkey and break his neck.
:
: --
:
: "For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book,
pamphlet
: after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one
message
: alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the
world. In
: Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its
own bad
: deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the
terrorists
: who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude
he is
: the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not
for the
: victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the
catastrophe
: that befell them."
Come on now, you are making old Noam sound just like Robertson and
Falwell
CyberBMcD
> >The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> >becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
> >hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
>
> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
> hide all our dirty laundry?
No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
about his perceived injustice.
> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> chuckle
>
We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
Nothing was said in that paragraph except to establish what Chomsky was
doing...
> Why don't you quote him, rather than a newspaper
> clipping? Is it because you are not up to the
> task? Because all you can do is squeal unsupported
> names at him? Or are you really just afraid of
> his words?
>
> * "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
> * U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
> * reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
> * the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
> * policies over the decades.
>
> * "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
> * its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
> * of horrifying crimes. Europeans have spent
> * centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
> * been attacked by their traditional victims,"
> * professor of linguistics said.
>
> That is insane? Seems like a good summery to me.
>
Sure if you like to see only one side of the story, Why not mention that
Europe and America spend trillions of dollars to ad the Muslim world
while most of the leaders of those countries live in luxury.
> * Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food
> * will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
> * population as the strikes have disrupted planting of
> * crops. "But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
> * about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
> * quoted him as saying.
>
Planting of crops? In November? not likely.
> What venom!
>
> * Chomsky, who kicked off his fortnight long lecture
> * tour of the subcontinent, which will also take him to
> * Pakistan, highlighted the use of brute military and
> * economic might by the U.S. against indigenous
> * people in various parts of the world, particularly
> * Central America.
>
> "brute military and economic might"...err
> perhaps you think its coincedence that the
> WTC and Pentagon were the targets?
> Perhaps you think Chomsky is saying something
> that is not already common knowlege in Europe?
> Clue: Europieans have no US-lapdog press.
>
blah blah blah, so what? like you are all so fond of saying: reacting to
violence with more violence ( US foreign policy mistakes with two planes
turned into bombs killing 6000 ) is not the answer.
> * "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
> * terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
> * thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
> * millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
> * countries in ruins, he said.
>
more Chomsky statistics, any facts to back them up?
> Do you deny this? Hell, didn't Ollie North
> even have to go into snake-mode to get that
> job done? Financed with cocain money.
> You do know what Air America was all about, don't you?
>
> * Also, two of Russia's top muftis criticised U.S.
> * military action in Afghanistan on Monday, one of
> * them describing Russia's support for the operation
> * as a threat to the country's integrity.
Yes that bastion of Integrity : Russia.
CyberBMcD
yep just from the opposite side of the aisle.
which proves the far right and far left are so distant from reality that
they mirror each other.
George of the Jungle
"philsaudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2PVF7.2651$Ly1.2...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
Oh no. Chomsky is in a class all by himself.
--
"For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet
after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message
alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In
Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad
deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists
who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is
the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the
victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe
that befell them."
David Horowitz, "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky," 9/26/01,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/index.htm
dot...@omnotdotnetdotcomit.net
>should not
>be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
But it is. I guess you're more like a raghead than you realize.
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> Doug Bashford wrote:
>
>>> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>>> becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>>> hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
>>
>> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
>> hide all our dirty laundry?
> No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
> about his perceived injustice.
Who are you to tell an American citizen where, to whom and on what subject
he can speak?
>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
>> chuckle
>>
> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
Why don't you get the book, look at his notes and figure it out for
yourself?
That's why Chomsky includes extensive notes and bibliographies.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to
think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
Lee
Bond
>becoming intolerable.
Chomsky is only intolerable to all the fascists who support genocide.
The US is a fascist state, much like Nazi Germany in their campaign to
rid the world of Muslim Fundamentalists. From what I've read about
history, no government has ever become as corrupt as the US government
without people trying to overthrow them, so the fact that so many
people oppose their policies isn't very suprising.
>Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane
So your arguement against Chomsky then is that the US is at war. Very
interesting.
>Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
>position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
>incendiary. He should not be permitted to
>continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
>mindset.
I'm sure the US government has considered it, but doing so would
undermine their efforts to convince the public that they have a
monopoly on goodness.
>Advocating the violent overthrowing of the democratic
>U.S. government is an abuse of freedom of speech and should not
>be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
>when the security of the nation is threatened. Thus the FBI, CIA
>and Congress itself should be investigating this subversive nutcase.
>Chomsky is akin to the deranged anarchist-terrorists who were so
>prevalent in Tsarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th century.
Spoken like a true fascist. Heil! Somebody disagrees with the state
so kill him, and don't stop there, kill all the muslim fundamentalists
too cause there is a possibility that a few of them may have been
involved in the terrorists attacks.
>More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
>article:
IMHO is the best source of Chomsky articles and audio presentations.
p@u.c
These right-wing schmucks are truly desperate to pick a fight with the
Left over Afghanistan. Pathetic. If it weren't for their incessant
attacks on him, I doubt most people would have even heard of Noam
Chomsky.
--
Patrick Crotty e-mail: prcrotty @ midway.uchicago.edu
"To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance.
The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the
record that is being played at the moment." -- George Orwell
Steven D. Litvintchouk
p@u.c wrote:
>
> These right-wing schmucks are truly desperate to pick a fight with the
> Left over Afghanistan. Pathetic. If it weren't for their incessant
> attacks on him, I doubt most people would have even heard of Noam
> Chomsky.
Lots of folks in my profession (computer engineering) have heard of Noam
Chomsky--due to his pioneering work in linguistics.
His work was required reading in my graduate seminar on artificial
intelligence, back in the 1970's.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
David Deilley
> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> Advocating the violent overthrowing of the democratic
> U.S. government is an abuse of freedom of speech and should
You are becoming more demented by the hour. I read the linked article
from Iran - and there is not one word from Chomsky advocating the
overthrow of the US government. You can't seem to open your
ridiculous mouth without telling a lie.
One of your biggest lies has been that you spent the past five years
pretending to argue for "smaller, less intrusive" government" and yet
here you are arguing for government to persecute people with
unpopular, minority views. You are a moral fraud,
The only explanation for your bizarrre inconsistencies is that you are
actually an enemy agent - a mole planted in North America many years
ago, programmed to rise up and attack basic freedoms at a time of
crisis. I expect that the only reason you have not been arrested for
sedition yet is because the authorities recognize that - with your
track record of poor judgement - it is only a matter of time before
you trip up and blow cover for other members of your cell.
(If anyone doubts my ananlsys, I only need to point out that just this
past weekend Mr. bin Lambourn claimed that the Sept 11 attacks were
"god's will." Where else have we recently heard similar
comments....??
David Deilley
> John "Iconoclast" bin Lambourn posted:
>
> >should not
> >be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
>
> But it is. I guess you're more like a raghead than you realize.
He isn't even an American, has never served in the American military.
Mr. bin Lambourn ("Iconoclast") is a professional blowhard who lives
off government handouts in the Canadian province of Ontario. He is a
Canadian citizen - although he deliberately uses language in these
messages to lead someone who does not know better to assume he is an
american.
He is a foreigner agitating for the subversion of the American
constitution. Who else fits that descritpion these days ...??? How
much uglier does he have to get to be classified (by his own
definition) as a "terrorist."
(P.S. For the record, I am 3/4 Canadian, and live in Canada.)
Doug Bashford
In <3BE7EE81...@home.com>
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 14:24, Iconoclast squealed about:
>The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
>becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
>hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans...now threatened
>by anthrax bioterrorism also perpetrated no doubt by
>Muslim Fundamentalists.
No doubt? Seems the FBI thinks it's right wingnuts.
>Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
>position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
>incendiary. He should not be permitted to
>continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
>mindset.
Diabolical? Totalitarian?
I see. American students should be taught only in mono-thought
like a zombie monoculture. And who decides what mono-thought
should be fed to them? The U.S. government you worship?
Perhaps they should be forced to chant the Pledge of Allegiance
too?
Seems you pine over the black and white 1950's reality
as portrayed in the movie; Pleasantville. Bummer.
>Advocating the violent overthrowing of the democratic
>U.S. government
What kind of LSD have you swallowed? Put out
a safety alert, please!
>is an abuse of freedom of speech and should not
>be permitted by the Constitution particularly in a time of war
>when the security of the nation is threatened. Thus the FBI, CIA
>and Congress itself should be investigating this subversive nutcase.
>Chomsky is akin to the deranged anarchist-terrorists who were so
>prevalent in Tsarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th century.
>
>More on the crazy but dangerous Chomsky can be read in the following
>article:
Here's one for you below. He speaks to fanatics like you
squealing in Internet forums. Get the Mp3 and listen
to this "demented, deranged, intolerable, insane and
hate-filled venom." OH! Below, Chomsky calls your type:
cultists. I would just call you "the little constipated people."
As you know, Chomsky's main "thing" is about how the
US Media gets it wrong. For example, Media's recent love
fest with government newsfeeds on terrorism. More a
marriage, than love-fest, since all other sources of
information were dutifully excluded or put on page 26.
End result: the busy American now believes in fairytales.
"The War of Good V. Evil," complete with fairytale demons
and fairy-tale heros. All fine and dandy, except now we
are fighting a war against fairies, not reality.
"Know thy enemy, it's easier to kill him."
NYC-IMC interviews Noam Chomsky; Nov. 16
2000 @ Columbia University
http://www.nyc.indymedia.org:8081/audio/
Role of editorial control and objectivity in
democratic media--Tarikh
(sound: mp3 @ 1.1 megs, 10 mins) (Transcript)
Mainstream media support of massacres in Israel
and Colombia--Andrew
(sound: mp3 @ 2.8 megs, 25mins) (Transcript)
snip
------------------
Interview with Noam Chomsky
@ Columbia University @ Professor Manning Marable's
Office on November 16th, 2000
http://www.nyc.indymedia.org:8081/audio/
-------------------------------------------------|
FIRST QUESTION
Tarikh Korula:
[snip]
And a couple of issues have come up for us around
that idea. The idea of the
editorial and what it means to have editorial
control in a democratic media. And then also, what
the role of the individual is as a journalist.
If we were professional journalists, we'd be
committed to objectivity. But what does
objectivity mean? Is it actually used to serve the
interests of a newspaper that's trying to sell
advertising? Should we be objective or should we
be passionate and how do we report when we have
not been trained as [objective] journalists?
Noam Chomsky:
snip
correspondent for ABC News, who has since quit.
So I asked him what he thought about her
going to journalism school and so he laughed
and said that she'd learn how to say nothing in 700
words. In fact, she lasted about two months and
that's what she was learning and she quit. I
mean, you could sit in on journalism classes
and see what you're missing, but I don't
think you're missing much.
As far as objectivity is concerned, I think
it's a wonderful thing. And I don't think
journalists are
trained for objectivity, they are trained
to keep to the surface of events. So they
are trained to
see what's in front of them and then sort of try
to give an accurate description of that. But that's
just not objectivity. If chemists did that you'd
know nothing about chemistry. You'd know that if
you mixed something together that you would get
funny colors and that sort of thing. If you want
to be objective you have to try and find out what
the truth is and you don't find out what the truth
is by looking at the surface of events. And even
that's exaggeration because typically journalists
don't even look at the surface of events. If you
take a look at some of the major journals, say the
New York Times, you'll notice that they don't
keep their correspondents in a particular place.
And the reason is, if you keep them in a particular
place, they start to understand what's going
on. And that's called a violation of objectivity,
because you're supposed to keep just to the
surface of events. Well, if you just go to some place,
say Beiruit, and you start to report and you
sort of figure out what's going on, most of
your information comes from agents of one or another
intelligence service who are masquerading as
stringers or assistants. If you want to understand
what's going on in a certain place, you have to be
like Bob Fisk. You have to live there for 25
years, get into the culture, and really figure
out what's going on. And by the standards of
corporate journalism, that's not called objectivity,
because it's true. So, don't confuse objectivity
with what they call objectivity, with what's
really meant by objectivity, say like in the natural
sciences. It's not the same thing.
The real sense of objectivity, you should be following.
Though, if you want to have a passionate
declaration of how you feel, it's ok, but it's
a poem. If you want to enlighten people and enlighten
yourself, you should be searching for objectivity - that
is, the truth. That doesn't mean you don't
have to be passionate about it, you should be very
passionate about it. But that [searching for the
truth] should be an ideal.
As to the matter of editorial control, that's a
really hard one. I don't think there's a general
answer. I suspect, and I'm sure you know better
than I, what you have to do is to try and find
many differentiated kinds of media. I don't know
if you came to the talk the other night, but if we
[completely] opened up discussion without any control,
it would have been taken over by the
Spartacists League - because that's their job - to
try and disrupt meetings, to scream and shout
everyone else down, and then people get bored and
they take over. In fact, anyone who has been
involved with movement organizations knows that
that's a constant problem.
Very typically there's some cult - actually it
often turns up to be some FBI informant who shows
up in court later, who is very loud, aggressive,
shows up all the time, is always willing to be
there, talks so much that you say "alright, you
do it," and they may ultimately run the thing. That
same kind of problem will show up when you just
open it up. I mean, take a look at any forum on
the internet, and pretty soon they get filled with
cultists, ya know, people who have nothing to do
except push their particular form of fanaticism
whatever it may be - may be right, may be wrong
- but they take it over and other people who would
like to participate, but can't compete with
that kind of intense fanaticism or people who
are just not that confident, are pushed out from
participating Any serious person just isn't that
confident. That's even true when you're doing
quantum physics. But if you are in a forum when
you are an ordinary rational person, then you
kind of have your opinions but you're not very
confident about them because they're complex -
and somebody over there is screaming the truth at
you all day, you often just leave. And the thing
can end up being in the hands of fanatic cultists.
Now, you have to allow for that, but you don;'t
want to allow for nothing else. And doing something
else means having a degree of editorial
control and this is not just your problem, it's
the problem of any activist group and it's the
problem of any public meeting. This is just the
world and you got to be ready to deal with it.
[huge snip]
Doug Bashford
In <3BE7EE81...@home.com>
>the WTC bombings and are now threatened by anthrax bioterrorism
>also perpetrated no doubt by Muslim Fundamentalists.
>
>Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
>position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
>incendiary. He should not be permitted to
>continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
>mindset.
With minds of mush?
See my full reply at Subject:
...NOAM CHOMSKY really said this ...
Chomsky calls you a cultist.
Read what he actually says, if you are not too
frightened of him. In fact, get the mp3, and listen,
it will be easier on you, to have it read to you.
Honest John
Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
Mike Warren
> Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
> earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
Telling that you think some man expressing his opinion is equivalent
to an alleged terrorist.
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Doug Bashford
In <3be87862...@news.eagle.ca>
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 23:56:15 GMT, h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote
about:
Re: Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against
U.S.
>> [snip Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred]
>
>Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
>earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
Nobody is interested in your empty, unsupported opinions.
Well, dittoheads perhaps. You can have them.
SteveL
Bashford ) wrote:
>
>As you know, Chomsky's main "thing" is about how the
>US Media gets it wrong. For example, Media's recent love
>fest with government newsfeeds on terrorism. More a
>marriage, than love-fest, since all other sources of
>information were dutifully excluded or put on page 26.
>End result: the busy American now believes in fairytales.
>"The War of Good V. Evil," complete with fairytale demons
>and fairy-tale heros. All fine and dandy, except now we
>are fighting a war against fairies, not reality.
> "Know thy enemy, it's easier to kill him."
>
So the anti-Chomsky groupies are at it again eh? They scream to fire
him from his job and then brag about the US being the home of free
speech. The paradox never even crosses their brainwashed little minds.
Honest John
wrote:
>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) writes:
>
>> Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
>> earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
>
>Telling that you think some man expressing his opinion is equivalent
>to an alleged terrorist.
Like the man who shouts fire in a crowded movie house and causes a
riot, there is limit to free spech. By supporting the terrorists
Chomsky has crossed that limit and put himself in their in their camp.
Honest John
Bashford ) wrote:
>>> [snip Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred]
>>
>>Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
>>earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
>
>Nobody is interested in your empty, unsupported opinions.
>Well, dittoheads perhaps. You can have them.
>
So why did a dittohead like yourself bother to reply?
EricĐ
> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> becoming intolerable.
So stop reading him. Go out and get a job. This is what most normal
folk do.
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
_________________________________________________________________________
"I'm a fiscal conservative."
- former BC Finance Minister and Premier Glen Clark (BC Report, 22 Jan
96)
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
>
> > Doug Bashford wrote:
> >
> >>> The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> >>> becoming intolerable. Because the U.S. is at war Chomsky's insane and
> >>> hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans
> >>
> >> Oh really? So you think we should somehow
> >> hide all our dirty laundry?
>
> > No, but we don't need an American Citizen speaking to foreign Nations
> > about his perceived injustice.
>
> Who are you to tell an American citizen where, to whom and on what subject
> he can speak?
>
An American citizen who doesn't appreciate the traitorous ramblings of
Noam Chomsky.
I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
> >> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> >> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> >> chuckle
> >>
> > We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> > about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
>
> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
>
Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
terrorist act.
AW, what's the matter? don't you have them on hand? I searched for an
hour and couldn't find any reference to :
U.S.-sponsored state "terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses, millions on maimed and
orphaned, and four countries in ruins
Glenn Cooper
> >As you know, Chomsky's main "thing" is about how the
> >US Media gets it wrong.
That's not what he says at all. The US media gets it exactly *right* -- but
from *their* point of view, that is, the point of view of the ruling class.
That's a crucial difference.
Glenn C.
Kevin Waterson
> So the anti-Chomsky groupies are at it again eh? They scream to fire
> him from his job and then brag about the US being the home of free
> speech.
sure you can speak freely about anything they let you..
Bond
<s...@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>
>p@u.c wrote:
>>
>> These right-wing schmucks are truly desperate to pick a fight with the
>> Left over Afghanistan. Pathetic. If it weren't for their incessant
>> attacks on him, I doubt most people would have even heard of Noam
>> Chomsky.
>
>Lots of folks in my profession (computer engineering) have heard of Noam
>Chomsky--due to his pioneering work in linguistics.
There are lots of computer engineers interested in linguistics, myself
included, but I've often wondered why? Programming, I guess, is kind
of like linquistics, but the human forms of language are all not as
structured and often unpredictable.
For example, to ask the computer "what time is it?" I use an API
function like 'GetSystemTime' and I know it is going to tell me what
time it is. But if I ask a human what time it is I have to say
something like "hey, have you got the time bud?" and I'm not always
sure what he says in return is correct. Humans have a natural form of
linguistics that is not natural to computers.
So why, then are computer programmers generally interested in
linguistics? I don't know, I can confirm the observation personally,
but I can't explain why it is.
As for Chomsky, he is very good at what he does!
Angelo Delamuerte
Chomsky, and in a glimmer of openmindedness, what he heard got in too
deep...
basically, he realized that if he were to have the courage to face up
to this view, he'd have to change too many things about his view of
society, policy and reality in general...and it scares the hell out of
him...
so its "KILL the INFIDEL!...Chomsky must be stopped...this man is a
threat to my sanity and will turn our children agaist us!!" Poor guy.
Adolf bin Laden von Kali Hitler (Death to Israel, Separate the Races, Exterminate Christ, Kill the Stupid)
> >Chomsky should immediately be dismissed from his teaching
> >position at MIT as he is a pernicious, seditious
> >incendiary. He should not be permitted to
> >continue corrupting students with his totalitarian and diabolical
> >mindset.
Judaism and Christianity are both totalitarian and diabolical in addition to
being immature, idiotic and superstitious.
Let's get these religious people out of power first, maybe?
Humanity has run out of direction:
- Fighting between ourselves over superstitions.
- Lack of respect for nature or each other.
- Desire for revenge against the society we've created.
The solution is better design. We have created forums for
those who wish to discuss the removal of Judeo-Christianity
and the possibility of finding better social systems.
- No superstition.
- No rejection of nature/evolution.
- No embrace of comforting but illogical social convention.
If you have the ability to move beyond the intellectual
training pants of humanity, please join us at the following
forums:
* http://www.amerika.org/ is home to the Osama bin Laden home-
page and the "Death to Israel" mailing list
* http://www.hessian.org/ has forums and activism resources for
headbangers or anyone else who dislikes Judeo-Christianity.
* http://www.fuckchrist.com/ explains why Judeo-Christianity is
insane, what it is and how you can change it.
If you have any questions about these forums or this posting, please
email tempe...@lycos.com.
Copyright (c) 2001 hessian.org and al-Qaeda Vinland
Jez
"Angelo Delamuerte" <kama...@earthlick.net> wrote in message
news:9ruhutkucend7g1la...@4ax.com...
> I think what this guy is trying to say is that he was listening to
> Chomsky, and in a glimmer of openmindedness, what he heard got in too
> deep...
Yeah...That happens a lot......
Ho hum
Jez
Jez
"CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
> Lee Harrison wrote:
> >
> > in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
cybe...@hotmail.com
> > wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> >
> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> terrorist act.
WOW!
United States of Amnesia at it's best !
Ho hum
Jez
Brain Death
wrote:
Perhaps because there is no paradox. Chomsky is free to speak; nobody
is seriously suggesting putting him in jail. However, we are free to
speak as well, including suggesting that he be fired from his job.
Free speech does not mean that all speech is without consequence, as
you'd know if Chomsky had (say) called for killing all Muslims.
BD
CyberBMcD
not amnesia, just a different point of view.
Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
Shouse
everyone yell "NOAM!"?
And what's the deal? Couldn't his parents find an "R"?
Brian Damage
>
> "philsaudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:2PVF7.2651$Ly1.2...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
> >
> > "George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3be826a7$0$3180$4c41...@reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
> > : What else can you expect from a traitor like Chomsky.
> > :
> > : Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll fall off a donkey and break his neck.
> > :
> > : --
> > :
> > : "For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book,
> > pamphlet
> > : after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one
> > message
> > : alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the
> > world. In
> > : Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its
> > own bad
> > : deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the
> > terrorists
> > : who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude
> > he is
> > : the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not
> > for the
> > : victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the
> > catastrophe
> > : that befell them."
> >
> > Come on now, you are making old Noam sound just like Robertson and
> > Falwell
>
> Oh no. Chomsky is in a class all by himself.
>
> --
>
> "For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet
> after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message
> alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In
> Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad
> deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists
> who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is
> the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the
> victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe
> that befell them."
>
> David Horowitz, "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky," 9/26/01,
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/index.htm
Quoting Horowitz on Chomsky?!? Puleeze. The only reason Horowitz is
spouting that right wing drivel is because he gets more attention (and
money) from right wing retards than from left wing retards (bigger
audience, more right wingers are retarded I guess ;). He used to be a
damned communist for cry eye. He'll say *anything* for attetion. He
obviously got yours.
Jez
Nope sorry you've got things the wrong way around.
Go read up on your history during the past 50 years....
Ho hum
Jez
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/6/01 10:32 PM:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
> I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
Nobody cares about your ignorant "suggestions."
>>>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
>>>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
>>>> chuckle
>>>>
>>> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
>>> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
>>
>> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
>>
>
> Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
> people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
>
> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism.
But longer than 30 years and we'd be terrorists, right?
Funny how you chop up history to suit yourself, and not history.
> There may
> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> terrorist act.
Remember Iran/Contra, ignoramus?
Lee Harrison
wrote on 11/7/01 9:12 AM:
> Jez wrote:
>>
>> "CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
>>> Lee Harrison wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
>> cybe...@hotmail.com
>>>> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
>>>>
>> <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
>>> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
>>> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
>>> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
>>> terrorist act.
>>
>> WOW!
>> United States of Amnesia at it's best !
>> Ho hum
>> Jez
>
> not amnesia, just a different point of view.
Ignorance is a point of view?
Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
> Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
Since you obviously don't know anything about the bad stuff we do because
the mainstream media doesn't tell you about it, what's your argument? That
you're too ignorant to learn about it?
CyberBMcD
get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
World Aid.
go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
lover boy Chomsky.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE94F53...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/7/01 9:12 AM:
>
> > Jez wrote:
> >>
> >> "CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com...
> >>> Lee Harrison wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> in article 3BE826D7...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at
> >> cybe...@hotmail.com
> >>>> wrote on 11/6/01 12:18 PM:
> >>>>
> >> <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
> >>> To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> >>> actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There may
> >>> have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> >>> terrorist act.
> >>
> >> WOW!
> >> United States of Amnesia at it's best !
> >> Ho hum
> >> Jez
> >
> > not amnesia, just a different point of view.
>
> Ignorance is a point of view?
>
Oh I disagree with you and Chimsky so I'm ignorant yeah that's the
ticket.
> Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
From the CIA, no shit, that doesn't make us exclusively responsible for
his taking the training we gave him and bastardizing it, it just means
we picked a dumbass to give the knowledge to.
Why did we train him in the first place?
I'm sure you'll say it was to further our terrorist agenda, while those
of us devoid of paranoia will say it was part of Reagan's plan to
bankrupt the USSR
see different point of view.
>
> > Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> > America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
>
> Since you obviously don't know anything about the bad stuff we do because
> the mainstream media doesn't tell you about it, what's your argument? That
> you're too ignorant to learn about it?
blah blah blah, because I disagree with you I'm just another pathetic
soul who can't think for himself right? Try again Chumpsky lover I
always think for myself I don't need Nim Chimsky to tell me all about
the mistakes y country has made, and I 'm not stupid enough to believe
that is the reason assholes like Bin Laden blow up American buildings.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BE8B6C1...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/6/01 10:32 PM:
>
> > Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> > I didn't tell anyone anything, I just suggested that it was improper.
>
> Nobody cares about your ignorant "suggestions."
or your ignorant replies for that matter.
>
> >>>> Or are you under the impression we have none?
> >>>> America is the good guys in a Cowboy movie?
> >>>> chuckle
> >>>>
> >>> We have 'em, but having a prominent ( God knows WHY) Professor speaking
> >>> about them and essentially trashing America abroad is not productive.
> >>
> >> Anything in particular you'd like to dispute, Cyberboy?
> >>
> >
> > Why do liberals always feel the need to ridicule the screen names of
> > people who disagree with them? It's really very childish.
> >
> > To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the US
> > actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism.
>
> But longer than 30 years and we'd be terrorists, right?
No dumbass I picked an arbitrary number, sort of like Chomsky's
"statistics"
>
> Funny how you chop up history to suit yourself, and not history.
>
The fact is, we are not the Evil empire you and your groupthink Chumpsky
lovers think we are. We are one of the Driving forces in the world for
Good as well as bad. It happens when you're the most powerful nation on
the planet.
> > There may
> > have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> > terrorist act.
>
> Remember Iran/Contra, ignoramus?
>
yeah, so?
you guys can claim it was terrorism all you want. At the time those
people did what they thought was right for the country and the world at
that time.
> >>>> snip
Jez
> > > > <<<<<<Snip>>>>>>>
> > > > > To directly answer your question: yes, I don't believe any of the
US
> > > > > actions of the past 30 years can be classified as terrorism. There
may
> > > > > have been some stupid things we did but we have never committed a
> > > > > terrorist act.
> > > >
> > > > WOW!
> > > > United States of Amnesia at it's best !
> > > > Ho hum
> > > > Jez
> > >
> > > not amnesia, just a different point of view.
> > >
> > > Amnesia is what Chomsky practices when he speaks of all the evils
> > > America does while omitting all the good which FAR outweighs it.
> >
> > Nope sorry you've got things the wrong way around.
> > Go read up on your history during the past 50 years....
> >
> > Ho hum
> > Jez
>
> get off the crack pipe, we are the SINGLE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR to Third
> World Aid.
>
> go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
> lover boy Chomsky.
What an erudite and informative reply !
Thanks
Ho hum
Jez
Small Business
>On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:07:43 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>wrote:
>
>>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) writes:
>>
>>> Chomsky deserves the bile, he is one of the most evil creatures on
>>> earth, well up there with Bin Ladin.
>>
>>Telling that you think some man expressing his opinion is equivalent
>>to an alleged terrorist.
>
>Like the man who shouts fire in a crowded movie house and causes a
>riot, there is limit to free spech.
There is a big difference between obvious and blatant destructive
behaviour, and Chomsky's well thought out, and articulate writings on
the faults of America.
>By supporting the terrorists
>Chomsky has crossed that limit and put himself in their in their camp.
>
I have not seen any writing by Chomsky that supports terrorism.
Shel Scott
You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
dirty laundry?
>* Chomsky in his clearest
>* voice of dissent in contemporary America
>* described the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan as a
>* "silent genocide", affecting millions of innocent civilians.
>
The attacks on Afghanistan are not silent, nor are they genocidal.
The civilian population of Afghanistan has been victimized for
decades, by the Soviets, by civil war, and by the Taliban. This war is
the beginning of the end of that victimization. Note that now the
focus of the bombing is the front lines, civilian casualties have
dropped off to nothing. This should serve as an indication that the
attacks are in no way genocidal
>* "They are not the Taleban," he told an
>* overflowing audience at the Fifth D.T. Lakdawala
>* memorial lecture on 'peering into the abyss of the
>* future' which included Indian ministers, diplomats,
>* members of the academia in a 70-minute lecture at
>* the Ficci Auditorium in New Delhi recently.
>
I wonder if there was even one person there who thought the entire
population of Afghanistan are "the Taleban".
>* "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
>* U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
>* reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
>* the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
>* policies over the decades.
>
Apparently, Chomsky expects the US to be concerned with terrorism that
is not directed against the US or any of its allies. How odd. Should
any terrorist atrocity anywhere in the world make the US come running?
Up in the air! It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, it's Chomsky's inept and rather silly point of view.
BTW, note this "neo-imperialism". Is there no limit to the adjectives
these bozos will preface with "neo"?
>* "For the first time in modern history, Europe and
>* its offshoots are the targets, not the perpetrators
>* of horrifying crimes.
>
A total falsehood. Just why does the man go about putting forth such
retarded lies? Is he completely oblivious to criticism? Apparently
Chomsky missed the hostage incident at the Munich Olympics, various
acts of aircraft and cruise ship hijackings, bombings of US embassies
in which scores of non-Americans were killed... to name a few.
>* Europeans have spent
>* centuries slaughtering each other, but have not
>* been attacked by their traditional victims,"
>* professor of linguistics said.
>
Now he's on about the Europeans. That's hilarious; many Chomskyites
assure us that Europe is so different from the US, Europeans are so
much more aware of US shortcomings... implying that Europe has no such
shortcomings. Somebody should whisper to Chomsky just what Bin Laden
was referring when he spoke of "Andalusia". For those Chomskyites
taking the time to read this (gee, thanks loads, kids), Andalusia was
a fabled city near the Western edge of the Islamic empire in the 8th
century.
>* Seven million Afghans are facing starvation,
>
Chomsky _must_ know Afghans have been starving for years, just as he
most certainly knows about the Munich Olympics and the other points I
address above. I can only conclude that the man is having his very
supporters on! The Afghan situation has been so bad for so many
years, it's logical to accuse the Red Cross (Crescent) of actually
sustaining the Taliban by providing them with food, medicine, shelter,
blankets, etc.
>*food will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
>* population as the strikes have disrupted planting of crops.
>
I'm amazed at the advanced state of agriculture in Afghanistan, that
they can plant crops in the fall. Interesting technology.
Of course Chomsky is right out of it here.
>*"But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew
>* about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA
>* quoted him as saying.
>
Given the number of years Afghanistan has been a backwater, it seems a
bit silly to claim that most of the US has no idea about what a mess
the place is. Even Hollywood movies have shown Afghanistan as a
barren, war-ravaged land. Not that Rambo movies are a documentary,
but nevertheless, it's fairly ignorant to claim that Americans don't
know what a mess Afghanistan is.
>* "In the Reagan years alone, U.S.-sponsored state
>* terrorists in Central America left hundreds of
>* thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses,
>* millions on maimed and orphaned, and four
>* countries in ruins, he said.
>
Chomsky leaves out the rather important point that those "terrorists"
were proxy soldiers in the Cold War. In the Cold War, even though
there were two main combatants, it usually took more than two to
tango. Chomsky hopes folks won't realize how utterly irrelevant these
decades-old Cold War accusations are to current history.
-------
Let's say you're getting a jug of milk at the corner store; you are
attacked, knocked down, your wallet taken. Does the fact that you won
a fight 20 years ago mean that no offence has been committed and that
you have no recourse? That seems to be the essence of Chomsky's
nattering. The man is an asshole.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--
ab...@earthlink.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
Shel Scott
>If it weren't for their incessant
>attacks on him, I doubt most people would have even heard of Noam
>Chomsky.
>
air of the Academy, the more folks will know how full of shit he is.
Mike Warren
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:47:04 GMT, h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:07:43 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> >wrote:
> >>Telling that you think some man expressing his opinion is
> >>equivalent to an alleged terrorist.
> >Like the man who shouts fire in a crowded movie house and causes a
> >riot, there is limit to free spech.
Why would such an act cause a riot anyway?
> >By supporting the terrorists Chomsky has crossed that limit and put
> >himself in their in their camp.
> I have not seen any writing by Chomsky that supports terrorism.
Even if you had, this would still be free speech.
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Jez
"Shel Scott" <ssc...@unispam.com> wrote in message
news:3be99d77...@news.uniserve.com...
> see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
> >So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
> <snip>
> You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
> laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
> dirty laundry?
>
> Let's say you're getting a jug of milk at the corner store; you are
> attacked, knocked down, your wallet taken. Does the fact that you won
> a fight 20 years ago mean that no offence has been committed and that
> you have no recourse? That seems to be the essence of Chomsky's
> nattering. The man is an asshole.
> --
second-hand report....
A talk he gave on October 18 At M.I.T
Transcript : http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
Audio of his talk : http://web.mit.edu/tac/www/chomsky-18oct01-16k.ram
It's better to listen to him,
rather someones opinion of what he says, you can make
your own mind up then.
Ho hum
Jez
Goldhammer
> p@u.c wrote:
>>If it weren't for their incessant
>>attacks on him, I doubt most people would have even heard of Noam
>>Chomsky.
>>
> That's good; the more exposure Chomsky is given outside the rarefied
> air of the Academy, the more folks will know how full of shit he is.
More people should read Chomsky's article "Distortions
at Fourth Hand" and discover for themselves to what degree
he was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge:
http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
"We disagree with Lacouture's judgement on the importance of
precision on this question. It seems to us quite important,
at this point in our understanding, to distinguish between
official government texts and memories of slogans reported
by refugees, between the statement that the regime "boasts"
of having "killed" 2 million people and the claim by Western
sources that something like a million have died -- particularly,
when the bulk of these deaths are plausibly attributable to the
United States."
- Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, Distortions at Fourth Hand
Kevin Waterson
> go revise history somewhere else, we don't care about you and your
> lover boy Chomsky.
This is what passes for maturity in the US?
Ho Hum
kevin
Kevin Waterson
, and I 'm not stupid enough to believe
> that is the reason assholes like Bin Laden blow up American buildings.
>
Bin Laden blew up a building?
please present proof
Kevin
Kevin Waterson
>
> t happens when you're the most powerful nation on
> the planet.
That does not give you the right to interfere in the matters
of other countries or cultures.
WAKE UP!
kevin
CyberBMcD
why be deliberately obtuse?, not only did he do it but he did it twice,
in '93 and then 9/11.
CyberBMcD
right, only when they come with their hands out right?
> kevin
Zoo Life
> see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
> >So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
> <snip>
> You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
> laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
> dirty laundry?
Thus dirty laundry is ok? Great. At any rate a relatively very few on the scale of the
U.S. What's your problem with Chomsky's exposing it? Just so you can continue to reap
its benefits? That's something you should be real proud of.
Chomsky, tho not infallible, has been an indespensible, unique voice and volumous source
of facts for the world. We can expect lots of people of lesser conscience to attempt to
discredit him. You're no surprise. Have at it.
hth,
zl
P.s. who wrote that cliched subject header?
The Lone Weasel
cybe...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/7/01 11:24 AM:
You're ignorant because you don't know what Chomsky wrote, otherwise
you could take points Chomsky makes and try to refute them.
>> Where did bin Laden learn his terrorist tactics, ignoramus?
> From the CIA, no shit, that doesn't make us exclusively responsible for
> his taking the training we gave him and bastardizing it, it just means
> we picked a dumbass to give the knowledge to.
"Bastardizing?"
Laugh laugh laugh laugh. The training assumes the trainers and
trainees are all bastards to begin with. Their goal is to terrorize,
torture and murder civilians as a means to defeating enemies of the US.
Which is everybody who doesn't bow to our multinational corporations.
Why aren't you bowing, Cyberboy?
> Why did we train him in the first place?
Because we're a terrorist nation, that's why.
> I'm sure you'll say it was to further our terrorist agenda, while those
> of us devoid of paranoia will say it was part of Reagan's plan to
> bankrupt the USSR
The two are not mutually exclusive, dumbass.
> see different point of view.
When you're done kissing my ass, read something by Chomsky, find
something you disagree with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have
to think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
--
Yours truly,
Lee Harrison
The Lone Weasel
<cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Bush Administration has never provided the kind of evidence that
would serve to indict bin Laden that he was behind 9.11 - if you have
better information please post it.
Just saying "everbody knows he's guilty" is what Joe McCarthy used to
do. Now it's what Bush does.
How about you, Cyberboy?
Small Business
wrote:
>Small Business <bin...@home.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:47:04 GMT, h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) wrote:
>> >On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:07:43 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>> >wrote:
>
>> >>Telling that you think some man expressing his opinion is
>> >>equivalent to an alleged terrorist.
>
>> >Like the man who shouts fire in a crowded movie house and causes a
>> >riot, there is limit to free spech.
>
>Why would such an act cause a riot anyway?
In Canada there is law concerning the incitement of riot. Quite
frankly, I consider this a very grey area. However, I do see a reason
for having laws that penalize immoral behaviour concerning speech,
such as hate, libel and obscenity. I agree with you that free speech
should always be promoted, but only from within the framework of law.
The old saying about "sticks and stones breaking bones, and names
never hurting others" is false. Words start wars. Words do have great
power and should be treated with respect. People are responsible for
them.
>> >By supporting the terrorists Chomsky has crossed that limit and put
>> >himself in their in their camp.
>
>> I have not seen any writing by Chomsky that supports terrorism.
>
>Even if you had, this would still be free speech.
You seem to believe that speech should not be penalized under any
circumstances. Your belief is contrary to the laws of most nations.
Libel is condemned by the laws of many nations.
Mike Warren
> >Even if you had, this would still be free speech.
> You seem to believe that speech should not be penalized under any
> circumstances.
I didn't say that; there are perhaps some cases where the effects of
speech are the responsibility of the speaker. However, speech should
never be prevented in the first place.
> Your belief is contrary to the laws of most nations. Libel is
> condemned by the laws of many nations.
I think libel is something which shouldn't necessarily be illegal.
Don Wagner
"Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
news:3BE9D075...@oceania.net...
And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
Don Wagner>
Small Business
wrote:
>Small Business <bin...@home.com> writes:
>
>> >Even if you had, this would still be free speech.
>
>> You seem to believe that speech should not be penalized under any
>> circumstances.
>
>I didn't say that; there are perhaps some cases where the effects of
>speech are the responsibility of the speaker. However, speech should
>never be prevented in the first place.
>
Generally, nobody is prevented from speaking. However, nobody has gone
through life without regretting said something. Civil law doesn't
generally "prevent" people from saying things, but what you say could
possibly be in contravention of civil law. I suppose you could say
that somebody was "prevented" from speaking because they feared the
consequences of civil law, but this is generally not the case.
>> Your belief is contrary to the laws of most nations. Libel is
>> condemned by the laws of many nations.
>
>I think libel is something which shouldn't necessarily be illegal.
I disagree because people can be hurt by false statements about them.
If I purchased a full page newspaper advertisement, about the bad food
of a grocery store, I could easily destroy this business and the
owner's life could be ruined by it. Therefore, I should be penalized
for my hypothetical false advertisement.
George of the Jungle
"Brian Damage" <Brian...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:3BE95881...@acme.com...
[snip]
> Quoting Horowitz on Chomsky?!? Puleeze. The only reason Horowitz is
> spouting that right wing drivel is because he gets more attention (and
> money) from right wing retards than from left wing retards (bigger
> audience, more right wingers are retarded I guess ;). He used to be a
> damned communist for cry eye. He'll say *anything* for attetion. He
> obviously got yours.
The critics of Chomsky are legion. However, Horowitz more closely
approximates my personal opinion of Chomsky than others, and he's more
colorful about it. I have not read *all* of Chomsky's books and pamphlets,
only because my local library does not carry them, and I despise the
son-of-a-bitch enough to refuse to enrich him by purchasing his crap on my
dime.
But I have read enough to say that his hatred of America, his past defense
of communists, his excuse of genocide (and Pol Pot in the mid-70's), and his
attempt to blame America for the NYC and his justification of the attack,
place him on the side of bin Laden.
--
"If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too
tolerant toward the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans
had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called
things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness
of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were
well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our
tracks. I appeal to those of you who are attacking your country, full of
self-righteousness, who, like me, may live to regret what you have done."
David Horowitz, 9/28/2001, Los Angeles Times,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000077642sep28.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2
Dcomment%2Dopinions
This time, middle America will not remain silent.
George of the Jungle
"Goldhammer" <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9ujddc.k...@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com...
Yep. And this was after a period of denial on his part that it was even
happening.
Kevin Waterson
>
> And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
There is a difference between interference and aid.
John Caruso
>see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>>So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
><snip>
>You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
>laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
>dirty laundry?
Absolutely not. However, many (most) Americans act as though the US has
no dirty laundry--as though it's the first nation in all of history that
has selflessly tried to export democracy, human rights, and prosperity
to the rest of the world, rather than simply looking out for its own
interests. If you really do reject that ludicrous fairy tail and truly
understand what you've written, you're a long way toward understanding
why "they" hate "us".
It's apparent you don't, though--so I'll correct some of your more egregious
missteps:
>>* Chomsky in his clearest
>>* voice of dissent in contemporary America
>>* described the U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan as a
>>* "silent genocide", affecting millions of innocent civilians.
>>
>The attacks on Afghanistan are not silent, nor are they genocidal.
>The civilian population of Afghanistan has been victimized for
>decades, by the Soviets, by civil war, and by the Taliban. This war is
>the beginning of the end of that victimization. Note that now the
>focus of the bombing is the front lines, civilian casualties have
>dropped off to nothing. This should serve as an indication that the
>attacks are in no way genocidal
The genocide he's referring to (presumably; we don't have the context)
is the risk of starvation to 7.5 million Afghans, as documented by
the UN and aid agencies. Thanks to the bombing, aid agencies have been
unable to get sufficient supplies to those who need it. They're calling
for *at least* a bombing pause so they can get the aid in before winter,
but the US refuses to do even that little bit to stop this catastrophe
from occurring. If the death toll is anywhere near what's predicted,
the US attack on Afghanistan will go from being just a serious crime to
being a crime of truly massive proportions.
>>* "Terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the
>>* U.S. and its friends and allies," he said before
>>* reeling out a string of statistics on the misery of
>>* the Afghanistan people and U.S. neo-imperialist
>>* policies over the decades.
>>
>Apparently, Chomsky expects the US to be concerned with terrorism that
>is not directed against the US or any of its allies. How odd. Should
>any terrorist atrocity anywhere in the world make the US come running?
He's saying that the US defines "terrorism" to be only that violence that
is directed against the US and its friends and allies, regardless of the
circumstances. It has nothing to do with wanting the US to respond to
"terrorism" elsewhere. The hallmark of Chomsky-bashers is to attack
their own fevered imaginings of what he says, rather than the real thing,
and you're staying true to the usual behavior here.
>>*food will be available next year only to 20 percent of the
>>* population as the strikes have disrupted planting of crops.
>>
>I'm amazed at the advanced state of agriculture in Afghanistan, that
>they can plant crops in the fall. Interesting technology.
>Of course Chomsky is right out of it here.
Read this and educate yourself:
Similar in latitude and climate to India and Pakistan winter areas,
Afghanistan winter crops such as wheat and barley are generally
planted in October-December and harvested in April-July. The
summer crops such as rice and maize are planted during April-May
and harvested in August-September.
[ http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2001/06/afghanistan/the_report.htm ]
So just as Chomsky says, the US bombing has disrupted the winter planting
season. And as if that isn't bad enough, the US bombing of the Kajaki
Dam threatens to make it far worse:
The United Nations is warning of a "disaster of tremendous
proportions" after US planes bombed a hydro-electric power station
close to a vast dam in southern Afghanistan.
[...]
If this water supply is disrupted, there will be severe damage to the
harvest in a region already threatened by drought and food shortages.
Too little water would make it impossible to plant the winter
wheat. Too much water too soon would exhaust the reservoir, causing
the wheat crop to shrivel in the spring. "In addition, in the case
of the long-awaited rain arriving, the dam risks bursting without a
proper functioning control/regulatory mechanism in place," says the
UN report. "Needless to say, the regulatory mechanism is powered by
electricity."
[ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=103784 ]
This only deepens the US crime. Of course, destroying a power plant
is just yet more proof that the US attack does not discriminate between
the innocent Afghan people and their brutal leaders.
It's not worth responding to your other similar rantings. It's clear
that you're just Yet Another Internet Chomsky-Basher, unaware of what
Chomsky's actually said and written but infuriated that he refuses to
spout blind patriotic platitudes. I recommend that you try actually
reading something of his start to finish, with an open mind. Seriously--
it can't hurt. This is as good a starting point as any, since it's in
a conversational format and it deals directly with the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.zmag.org/chatwithchom.htm
- John
Don Wagner
> Don Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
>
> There is a difference between interference and aid.
Part of Bin Ladin's beef with the Americans is that they are in Saudi Arabia. They are
there because they were invited. Is it suddenly "interference" because you deem it so?
Don Wagner
>
Mike Warren
> Generally, nobody is prevented from speaking.
Court orders removing content are most certainly issued.
> >I think libel is something which shouldn't necessarily be illegal.
> I disagree because people can be hurt by false statements about them.
People can be hurt by true statements about them, too.
Clay Smith
wrote:
Ask the people - not the government, but the people - of Saudi Arabia
whether they want the US troops there.
Clay
David Deilley
> P.s. who wrote that cliched subject header?
That would be John "iconoclast" Lambourn
His headers always remind me of the banners carried by communists or
by Arab street-rioters. This probably reflects his early training in
Afghanistan before he was sent to Canada as a sleeper to try and stir
up dissension.
Robert Vienneau
philosophy of math. Why should Chomsky be allowed to teach about what
strings are accepted by finite state machines, context-free grammars,
and context-sensitive grammars?
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
r c .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
E. Barry Bruyea
And in the same poll of the Saudi people, ask them if they want Saddam
Hussein as their leader. Because without the presence of U.S. troops,
who were invited by the Saudi government, that's exactly what would
have happened.
Chris Morton
caSPAMr...@paradiso.umuc.edu says...
>
>In article <3be99d77...@news.uniserve.com>, Shel Scott wrote:
>>see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>>>So you think we should somehow hide all our dirty laundry?
>><snip>
>>You see Chomsky's act as a matter of exposing America's "dirty
>>laundry". Do you think any country in Earth's history has had no
>>dirty laundry?
>
>Absolutely not. However, many (most) Americans act as though the US has
>no dirty laundry--as though it's the first nation in all of history that
>has selflessly tried to export democracy, human rights, and prosperity
>to the rest of the world, rather than simply looking out for its own
>interests. If you really do reject that ludicrous fairy tail and truly
>understand what you've written, you're a long way toward understanding
>why "they" hate "us".
Al Qaeda hate us because we don't circumsize our females and put them in burqas.
If you don't want them to hate us, you'd better start with that.
As for Chomsky, he's the same sort of egomaniacal dilettante as Dr. Shockley.
SteveL
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>New York kept Bertrand Russell from teaching about relativity and the
>philosophy of math. Why should Chomsky be allowed to teach about what
>strings are accepted by finite state machines, context-free grammars,
>and context-sensitive grammars?
Why, because of his views on politics, of course. We must not allow
impressionable young minds to be corrupted with Un-American - nay,
Anti-American - beliefs. It's the only way to preserve our precious
freedoms. Surely all right-thinking people see this.
That's the level of irony appropriate to this group. You were being
way too subtle. :-)
CyberBMcD
Whatever his evidence is, it's good enough for Tony Blair, and
NATO.......
CyberBMcD
read something by Chomsky, find
> something you disagree with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>
I have, numerous times, and never got any replies either. hmmmmm.
CyberBMcD
Ask the people of Saudi Arabia if they want their own leaders there....
Brain Death
caSPAMr...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
>The genocide he's referring to (presumably; we don't have the context)
>is the risk of starvation to 7.5 million Afghans, as documented by
>the UN and aid agencies. Thanks to the bombing, aid agencies have been
>unable to get sufficient supplies to those who need it. They're calling
>for *at least* a bombing pause so they can get the aid in before winter,
>but the US refuses to do even that little bit to stop this catastrophe
>from occurring. If the death toll is anywhere near what's predicted,
>the US attack on Afghanistan will go from being just a serious crime to
>being a crime of truly massive proportions.
Hmmm, speaking of crimes of truly massive proportions, how about the
Killing Fields of Cambodia? Wasn't it Chomsky who insisted back then
that the reports of starvation and death were overblown and being
accepted by the credulous media simply because they hated the
communists?
Chomsky is a giant only among the intellectual pygmies of the left.
BD
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you disagree
>> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>> I have, numerous ti
> mes, and nev
> er got any replie
> s either. hmmmm
> m.
Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
his meaning, then critique his thought.
Or admit you're clueless. Nobody will blame you for telling the truth.
______________
"The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember
everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to
think them through for yourself."
- Noam Chomsky
Lee
The Lone Weasel
wrote on 11/8/01 9:50 AM:
Blair didn't really disclose any evidence that incriminated bin Laden, and
apparently you don't know any either?
Thanks for admitting it.
________________
"The enemy is fanaticism."
- Johannes Rau
Lee
Brain Death
What, you don't believe Tony Blair?
BD
Couder Jim
Chomsky's last ebook "9/11" http://www.sevenstories.com/ebooks (don't
go to Amazon!!!).
CyberBMcD <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEAAA1B...@hotmail.com>...
Couder Jim
mind but it's not the "usual" Chomsky. It's called "9/11", it cost 4
bucks and you'll get it in a couple of minutes
http://www.seventories.com/ebooks.
R4D20
> SteveL wrote:
>
> > So the anti-Chomsky groupies are at it again eh? They scream to fire
> > him from his job and then brag about the US being the home of free
> > speech.
>
> sure you can speak freely about anything they let you..
As well as anything they don't let you.
I always find it ironic that the very people who diss American Free
speech as "phony" don't seem to realise that if it actually were
"phony", you wouldn't be permitted to say it.
This country aint perfect, but don't atttack it online and then
claim that we only get to say what "they" let us. The very fact that
you are on here and talking belies that claim.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> The genocide he's referring to (presumably; we don't have the context)
> is the risk of starvation to 7.5 million Afghans, as documented by
> the UN and aid agencies.
If you check for yourself, you will find that Afghans have been going
hungry thru winter for at least the last TWO YEARS. Afghans have gone
hungry in the last TWO winters, due to Taliban oppression, not U.S.
bombing (which didn't start until a month ago). And many of these
relief agencies decried what was happening to the Afghan people back
then.
> Thanks to the bombing, aid agencies have been
> unable to get sufficient supplies to those who need it. They're calling
> for *at least* a bombing pause so they can get the aid in before winter,
> but the US refuses to do even that little bit to stop this catastrophe
> from occurring. If the death toll is anywhere near what's predicted,
> the US attack on Afghanistan will go from being just a serious crime to
> being a crime of truly massive proportions.
And if the number of Afghans going hungry this year doesn't
significantly exceed the number that went hungry last year or the year
before, I'm sure you will never admit you were wrong. Instead, I'm sure
that Chomsky and you will both try to come up with another ploy to
discourage the U.S. from continuing with the war.
There must be lots of Islamic holidays throughout the whole year, and
you will of course demand that we stop the bombing for each and every
one of them.
> He's saying that the US defines "terrorism" to be only that violence that
> is directed against the US and its friends and allies, regardless of the
> circumstances. It has nothing to do with wanting the US to respond to
> "terrorism" elsewhere.
And as I have said, when discussing "terrorism," you should start by
opening a DICTIONARY and reading what the definition of the word
"terrorism" is.
The definition, from Merriam-Webster, is the deliberate inflicting of
terror on a civilian population as a means of coercion. And that is
clearly not the U.S. strategy in this war.
See
www.m-w.com
> So just as Chomsky says, the US bombing has disrupted the winter planting
> season.
Oh, gee, what a shame.
Since when is INCONVENIENCE to civilians a horrible war crime?
War has always brought privations.
Name me one war in which the civilian population wasn't affected in the
slightest.
> This only deepens the US crime. Of course, destroying a power plant
> is just yet more proof that the US attack does not discriminate between
> the innocent Afghan people and their brutal leaders.
You are wrong.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fight a major war without targeting the civilian
infrastructure, since that infrastructure is what sustains an army in
the field. The army travels on civilian roads, uses civilian
electricity, and gets resupplied by civilian farms and factories. If
the U.S. left that infrastructure alone, the enemy army's ability to
fight would be tremendously enhanced.
You need to understand how modern wars are fought. A war is a matter of
logistics more than tactics.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Bond wrote:
>
> >The venom of this demented and deranged anarchist and nihilist is
> >becoming intolerable.
>
> Chomsky is only intolerable to all the fascists who support genocide.
> The US is a fascist state, much like Nazi Germany
Here's a test for you:
On your honor, DEFINE the words "fascism" and "fascist" without looking
them up in a dictionary first.
After you do, I'll open my Merriam-Webster and see how well you did.
CyberBMcD
do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
CyberBMcD
>
> in article 3BEAA9DD...@hotmail.com, CyberBMcD at cybe...@hotmail.com
> wrote on 11/8/01 9:51 AM:
>
> >> The Lone Weasel wrote: read something by Chomsky, find something you disagree
> >> with, and see if you can defend your opinion.
>
> >> I have, numerous ti
> > mes, and nev
> > er got any replie
> > s either. hmmmm
> > m.
>
> Post verbatim quotes from Chomsky's writings, not your vague hunches about
> his meaning, then critique his thought.
>
The Defoliator
<s...@mitre.org> ranted affectionately:
::On your honor, DEFINE the words "fascism" and "fascist" without looking
::them up in a dictionary first.
Fascism is based on the Roman notion of worship of authority.
John Caruso
No, that's just you proving what I wrote in my posting: that the hallmark
of Chomsky-bashers is to attack their own fevered imaginings of what he
says, rather than the real thing.
- John
Kevin Waterson
> do you have any that he wasn't involved? what a silly childish remark.
I dont have any evidence that Prince Charles or Operah was not involved either.
Should we bomb them?
Kevin
Kevin Waterson
John Caruso
>John Caruso wrote:
>>
>> The genocide he's referring to (presumably; we don't have the context)
>> is the risk of starvation to 7.5 million Afghans, as documented by
>> the UN and aid agencies.
>
>If you check for yourself, you will find that Afghans have been going
>hungry thru winter for at least the last TWO YEARS. Afghans have gone
>hungry in the last TWO winters, due to Taliban oppression, not U.S.
>bombing (which didn't start until a month ago).
No, due to drought, not due to either (unless you can explain how Taliban
oppression keeps plants from growing). Try actually reading the citations
made in the postings you're responding to, like the one I included from
the US Department of Agriculture:
Summary: While Afghanistan is undergoing a third consecutive year of
drought, conditions this year are by far the most severe and widespread.
The compound effect of dry weather and higher temperatures for three
consecutive years have severely reduced food production.
[ http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2001/06/afghanistan/the_report.htm ]
"Conditions this year are by far the most severe and widespread." Which
is what has led to the unprecedented risk of starvation among the population
now, just as aid agencies have been saying. Which is why the US bombing,
and the resulting reduction in food aid reaching Afghans who desperately
need it, is such a crime. Because of the bombing, aid agencies have been
unable to get sufficient supplies to those who need it, in this year when
the drought is at its worst and so many millions are at risk:
Millions of Afghan civilians will perish in the coming months unless
there is an immediate resumption of food convoys and a massive
increase in the volume of food they carry into the battered country,
aid agencies warned yesterday.
With 6m people threatened with starvation and winter no more than six
weeks away, aid agencies face a race against time to get sufficient
stockpiles of food into the country. It is a race they look almost
certain to lose as long as the bombing continues.
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,568189,00.html ]
The aid agencies begged the US to stop, warning of the catastrophic
results if it does not:
AID agencies have issued an urgent plea for the suspension of the air
strikes in Afghanistan in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster.
The UN has already warned that 100,000 children under five would die
from disease and malnutrition in the harsh Afghan winter if aid did
not reach them.
[...]
The nightly bombing of Afghanistan has severely curtailed the aid
effort. Local labourers and truckers, on whom they rely, are becoming
increasingly afraid to load or unload food, to drive deep into
Afghanistan, or to stay overnight.
[...]
"We are beyond the stage where we can sit down and talk about this
over tea. If they stop the bombing we can get the food aid in, it's as
simple as that. Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly said this
is a three-stringed offensive - diplomatic, military and humanitarian.
Well the diplomatic and military are there but where is the
humanitarian? A few planes throwing lunchboxes around over the
mountains is laughable."
[ http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=117102 ]
But of course the US has no concern for starving Afghans (beyond the
propaganda potential of dropping a few thousand airline meals every day),
and so it has refused. It won't be long before we can add hundreds of
thousands--possibly millions--to our death toll. Will that bring back
the 5000 people who died on September 11th? Will 100,000 dead Afghan
children somehow end the threat of terrorism? Will a ratio of 200:1 in
the number of dead be enough to satisfy the US need for revenge?
It may be too late already.
>> So just as Chomsky says, the US bombing has disrupted the winter planting
>> season.
>
>Oh, gee, what a shame.
>Since when is INCONVENIENCE to civilians a horrible war crime?
Starving to death is an "inconvenience"? "What a shame"?
I've seen repulsive displays before, but this is right at the top of the
list. You're truly a worthless human being.
- John
circe
caSPAMr...@paradiso.umuc.edu (John Caruso) wrote:
>In article <3BEAFED8...@mitre.org>, Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
>>John Caruso wrote:
You're right, John! How anyone can not be affected by the plight of
the Afghan people is a mystery to me.
BTW those paltry yellow food packages the US throw down on
Afghanistan are the same colour as the bomblets that drop from cluster
bombs. 5% to 10% of those bomblets do not detonate. Add to that the
fact that Afghanistan is the most densely mined country in the world
and you have a number of dead children /people, dying when reaching
out for US food packages.
The International Aid Agencies have asked the Americans a number of
times to stop dropping food packages for a number of reasons some of
which I've given, but I'll give them again:
- It blurs the line between politics and humanitarian relief . The
association of food with bombs is not a good one.
- Afghanistan is the most densely mined country in the world and it
would be so easy for a child or adult to lose an arm, leg, be killed,
while going after a food parcel.
- The money spent by the US on the food packages could be put to
better use by the International Aid Agencies who could buy many times
more food for the money, and would also by local food so that the
regular dietary meals of the people could continue. Peanut butter and
chocolate might be nice but not for people who are used to more basic
food.
-And the confusion in the yellow color of the cluster bomblets and the
food parcels which could lead to more deaths in trying to reach what
they think is the food.
The US hasn't listened to a word. And they don't consider the
displaced people as collateral damage. I do. Approximately 2 million
have been displaced by the American bombing.
With the cluster bombs they have been using they've destroyed roads,
bridges, airports, water purification systems, etc. If the
International Relief Agencies were able to get into Afghanistan how
would they get to the towns where relief is needed?
The refugee and DP crisis in Afghanistan could lead to the worst
humanitarian disaster of this century unless something is done...fast.
History will put this disaster at the feet of the Americans, and also
at the feet of Canada and other NATO countries if we don't put
pressure on the US to stop the bombing while Relief Agencies go into
Aghanistan....PRONTO!
It should not be allowed to happen!!
circe
Stupendous Man
>
> In <3BE7EE81...@home.com>
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 14:24, Iconoclast squealed about:
> Noam Chomsky Continues Venomous Attacks Spewing Hatred Against U.S.
>
>> hate-filled venom is intolerable for Americans...now threatened
>> by anthrax bioterrorism also perpetrated no doubt by
>> Muslim Fundamentalists.
>
> No doubt? Seems the FBI thinks it's right wingnuts.
Cite?
And don’t try to foist off AFOAF reference from a British socialist source, either.
Stupendous Man—Enemy of Totalitarianism
B-52 bomber with a special delivery for the Taliban:
http://www.af.mil/photos/images/011009_02.jpg
Don Wagner
"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:TUDqOweo34l6mv...@4ax.com...
> >> Don Wagner wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
> >>
> >> There is a difference between interference and aid.
> >
> >Part of Bin Ladin's beef with the Americans is that they are in Saudi Arabia. They are
> >there because they were invited. Is it suddenly "interference" because you deem it so?
> >
> >Don Wagner
> >>
> >
> Ask the people - not the government, but the people - of Saudi Arabia
> whether they want the US troops there.
However, since the Government Of Saudi Arabia is the Government of
Saudi Arabia until someone else comes along, You seal with them.
Who are you to judge wether the Saudi Government represents it's
citizens as they desire?
Don Wagner
Don Wagner
Sorry, that would be Imperialism. I wonder why you fans of Chomsky
have no objections to a bunch of Arabs, Pakistani's, and other assorted
foreigners interfering in the affairs of Afghanistan?
Don Wagner
Clay Smith
wrote:
>
>"Clay Smith" <Clay20...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:TUDqOweo34l6mv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 07:41:20 GMT, "Don Wagner" <don...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3BEA3788...@oceania.net...
>> >> Don Wagner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And if the other countries or cultures ask for your "interference"?
>> >>
>> >> There is a difference between interference and aid.
>> >
>> >Part of Bin Ladin's beef with the Americans is that they are in Saudi Arabia. They are
>> >there because they were invited. Is it suddenly "interference" because you deem it so?
>> >
>> >Don Wagner
>> >>
>> >
>> Ask the people - not the government, but the people - of Saudi Arabia
>> whether they want the US troops there.
>
>However, since the Government Of Saudi Arabia is the Government of
>Saudi Arabia until someone else comes along, You seal with them.
>Who are you to judge wether the Saudi Government represents it's
>citizens as they desire?
>
>Don Wagner
>
It's true, the Saud's have to make up their own minds about their
government. You're absolutely right. We shouldn't tell them which
government they should have and which one they shouldn't; it's just
not our decision to make. Therefore, we should remove our troops from
Saudi Arabia, as their prescence is certainly having a great deal of
influence on the situation. I mean, if the military of the world's
most powerful superpower set up bases in your country and became very
friendly with the current regime... a regime you detested... would you
oppose them? Not if you wanted to keep breathing.
So I guess we agree then.. in order to avoid influencing the internal
politics of Saudi Arabia, we should withdraw our troops.
Clay
Orestes
And while your at it, please prove the non-existence of God. ;-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: No part of this usenet post knowingly contains coded messages for
the operatives of any state or anti-state organization.
E. Barry Bruyea
Troops that are present at the request of a government the Saudi
people appear to be satisfied with and have been for a very long time.
Maybe they would prefer the tender mercies of a Saddam Hussein, which
certainly would have been the case if not for the presence of those
troops. Their removal at this time might encourage that maniac to
take another run at it; a fact not lost on the Saudi government or a
large % of their population.
>
>