|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2001 : 05:55:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, SJ's right about one thing. Who can take this kind of post seriously?
Well, now I understand Rubysue. She had me fooled for a while. All along she's been one of Saddam's goons. Imagine quoting the Teheran Times in the middle of a war against terrorism. Cheese and Rice!
You need to pull your head out of the tripe that you read, Gorgo, and take remedial geography. Tehran is in IRAN, not Iraq. The Iranians are primarily Shi'ite Muslims and do not support the Taliban, who are Wahhabi/Sunni fundamentalists. In fact, they have been supplying arms and support to the Northern Alliance. According to another source (see link), Chomsky's tour is being backed by the Eqbal Ahmed foundation. His primary claim to fame was his involvement in an attempt to kidnap Henry Kissinger.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top18.htm
I think I've figured it out, by the way...
Chomskyites are cultists in the most profound and classic sense (you hit the nail on the head, Trish, when you compared them to geocentrists or hoaxers). You could cite hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of references and articles that completely refute the statements and lies of the great Noam ranging across the academic and political spectrum, but they would naturally be instantly dismissed because they are tainted with the "propagandistic media" that is in servitude to and partnership with the evil American government and corporations.
Off to my job as a slave to the corporate goons who "make" me obey their every whim.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Edited by - rubysue on 11/06/2001 06:02:53 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 06:21:21 [Permalink]
|
So, you admit to being a spy for the Ayatollah?
quote:
You need to pull your head out of the tripe that you read, Gorgo, and take remedial geography. Tehran is in IRAN, not Iraq. The Iranians are primarily Shi'ite Muslims and do not support the Taliban, who are Wahhabi/Sunni fundamentalists. In fact, they have been supplying arms and support to the Northern Alliance. According to another source (see link), Chomsky's tour is being backed by the Eqbal Ahmed foundation. His primary claim to fame was his involvement in an attempt to kidnap Henry Kissinger.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top18.htm
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 07:27:18 [Permalink]
|
Which Ayatollah? Ayatollah Katami is a moderate. The US has been able to start diplomatic relations of a more normal timber.
Ayatollah Khomeni, the charismatic fundamentalist who siezed power during the Carter administration, was a extremist who whiped up hatred for the US and the west in general. Khomeni is worm food.
quote:
So, you admit to being a spy for the Ayatollah?
quote:
You need to pull your head out of the tripe that you read, Gorgo, and take remedial geography. Tehran is in IRAN, not Iraq. The Iranians are primarily Shi'ite Muslims and do not support the Taliban, who are Wahhabi/Sunni fundamentalists. In fact, they have been supplying arms and support to the Northern Alliance. According to another source (see link), Chomsky's tour is being backed by the Eqbal Ahmed foundation. His primary claim to fame was his involvement in an attempt to kidnap Henry Kissinger.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top18.htm
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 07:34:41 [Permalink]
|
Ayatollah Ali Khameni is the head honcho. Yes, Khomeini is dead. What difference does it make, I'm playing with her head the way she's playing with yours, not giving a history lesson? (0:
quote:
Which Ayatollah? Ayatollah Katami is a moderate. The US has been able to start diplomatic relations of a more normal timber.
Ayatollah Khomeni, the charismatic fundamentalist who siezed power during the Carter administration, was a extremist who whiped up hatred for the US and the west in general. Khomeni is worm food.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 07:47:12 [Permalink]
|
An interview with Eqbal Ahmed, a person about whom I know nothing, although because he disagrees with Rubysue, must sit at the Devil's Right Hand. I haven't read the interview yet.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/interview5.html
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
SJ
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 13:58:18 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
According to another source (see link), Chomsky's tour is being backed by the Eqbal Ahmed foundation.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top18.htm
rubysue
Thank you rubysue for providing the link. Very helpful.
Thanks also to Gorgo for the link to MM's interview. Excellent reading.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 14:19:08 [Permalink]
|
You know I've had it with this "coprorate media" label. Many extreme liberals use that the same way extremist conservatives label the media as "too liberal." Both sides should just face the fact that they are extreme and their message is probably not in the mainstream media because frankly the mainstream doesn't give a rats ass. Why? Because people with mainstream views recognize the exteme viewpoints for what they are and simply don't agree. Chomsky doesn't sell a lot of books? It's not because most people could care less about him, it's a conspiracy by the corporate media! Why do you think Chomsky goes to Pakistan to preach to the choir? Could it be that he could hold a lecture in the US inside a phone booth once you've factored in attendees?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 14:26:42 [Permalink]
|
Wow. Gone for a few days and this is what I miss. I've only gotten to skim this thread, but I'll chip in a slightly uninformed opinion.
Rubysue's assessment of Chomsky is in complete agreement with mine, though I admit I have not read as much on or by him as some posting here. At first glance, Gorgo and lpetrich (I think) have a valid point, too.
Here's my assessment of the opposing sides:
Rubysue et al:
1. Chomsky intentionally obfuscates.
2. Chomsky offers little in the way of supporting evidence for his political criticisms of the US or Israel.
3. Chomsky defends some people with demonstrably reprehensible positions.
4. Chomsky supports those same reprehensible positions.
Gorgo and lpetrich:
1. Chomsky is a skilled linguist.
2. Chomsky does offer support that is at least as valid if not more so than the support offered by the anti-Chomsky crowd.
3. Chomsky is only defending the rights of people to voice their opinions.
4. Chomsky is not supporting the opinions themselves.
5. Chomsky's main point is that it is always worthwhile to self-reflect as a nation.
Garrette:
1. Chomsky is a skilled obfuscator, even if unintentionally so. Dense prose is fine when necessary, but he seems to delight in it and rely on it to overwhelm his audience. Frankly, I determined the quotes posted by Rubysue to mean much the same that Valiant Dancer said, but I could have--as Val did--written it much more clearly.
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
3. It is good to defend unpopular opinions.
4. Chomsky does not say outright that he supports the reprehensible positions themselves, but it is not difficult nor erroneous to infer it. Much the same, Gorgo, as I said you 'demonized' the US though you never used the word; tacit support and implied support are still support.
5. A good point, and one with which I agree, but it is only the sheep's clothing Chomsky wears. The claim of objectivity does not equal the fact of objectivity. Chomsky claims it (Gorgo claims it for him, I suppose) but does not demonstrate it. Me? I don't even claim it, but I do claim more professional integrity and honesty than Chomsky.
A quick example of the misuse of sources:
Chomsky cites this quotation from Makota Oda's work "The Meaning of 'Meaningless Death'". He uses it to indicate the criminality of the US's use of the atomic bomb.
quote:
In the afternoon of August 14, 1945, thousands of people died during a protracted and intensive aerial bombardment of an arsenal in Osaka. I was a witness to the tragedy. I saw dozens of corpses -- loyal subjects literally consumed by service to a government which had already decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration's demand for unconditional surrender. The only reason these people died was because they happened to have been in the arsenal or environs at the time of the air raid. After what seemed an eternity of terror and anguish, we who were fortunate enough to survive emerged from our shelters. We found the corpses -- and the leaflets which American bombers had dropped over the destruction. The leaflets proclaimed in Japanese, "Your Government has surrendered. The war is over!"
But Oda was using this horror to condemn the Japanese government, not the US. Here's the following paragraph:
quote:
Those thousands of dead subjects had surrendered their lives to the State. Their service was over. But the corpses I witnessed that afternoon had died an utterly meaningless death. Their immolation made no contribution to the Empire's goal of establishing a 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,' nor did it constitute a meaningful sacrifice for the public good (i.e., the Emperor and his State). As a matter of fact, there was nothing whatsoever in the death of those people in Osaka which resembled the heroic, glorious deaths of kamikaze pilots, or the romantic, even aesthetic, suicides of the young ultrarightists who committed harakiri in front of the Imperial Palace immediately after they had learned of Japan's surrender. The air-raid victims in my neighborhood died more like bugs. They existed only to be killed, only to perish in agony. As mere bugs, they had no recourse to kamikaze heroics or disembowelment. They possessed no ideas by which to rationalize their fate, no romantic notions by which to glorify their 'last full measure of devotion.' In fact, theirs was the ugliest, the most meaningless and immoral kind of death imaginable.
All of this is in Chomsky's essay praising the pacifist A.J. Muste (don't get me wrong here; there's nothing necessarily wrong with honest pacifism itself; some of the bravest people of whom I know were pacifists). Chomsky's own views are obvious here:
quote:
The prediction that the United States would emerge as the world-dominant power was political realism; to forecast that it would act accordingly, having achieved this status by force, was no less realistic. This tragedy might be averted, Muste urged, by a serious attempt at peaceful reconciliation with no attempt to fasten sole war-guilt on any nation, assurance to all peoples of equitable access to markets and essential materials, armament reduction, massive economic rehabilitation, and moves towards international federation. To the American ideologist of 1941 such a recommendation seemed as senseless as the proposal, today, that we support popular revolution. And at that moment, events and policy were taking a very different direction.
Since nothing of the sort was ever attempted, one can only speculate as to the possible outcome of such a course. The accuracy of Muste's forecast unfortunately requires little comment. Furthermore, a plausible case can be made for his analysis of the then existing situation, a matter of more than academic interest in view of developments in Asia since that time.
Only rarely has the question been raised whether there was any justification for American victory in the Pacific war;
Oh, please. A tragedy that the US emerged the dominant nation? Chomsky is just miffed that the US won. He'd rather it had been Germany or Japan. The 'attempt at peacful reconciliation' is ivory tower hogwash, especially since Chomsky talks about it in reference to 1941 which is precisely when Germany would have had no peace whatsoever except as the European Master and when Japan would have no peace except in the form of a promise by the US to let them run rampant in southeast asia, indonesia, china, etc.
And 'justification for American victory in the Pacific'? Ludicrous and doesn't need to be addressed, as cavalierly as Chomsky throws aside comment on the 'accuracy of Muste's prediction'. Chomsky is trying to imply that the American victory resulted in horrible things when in reality he is avoiding comment because he knows any comment will be either an obvious lie or favorable to the US.
Sheesh. I'm not even Chomsky expert, but this is transparent.
One final thing from the Tehran Times:
|
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 14:39:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think I've figured it out, by the way...Chomskyites are cultists in the most profound and classic sense
These kinds of blanket generalizations don't really help anyone. Reading through your posts, it's obvious you're quick to brand him with the usual baseless labels emanating from the indoctrinated elite, and yet you really do little to analyze the content of his work. Have you truly read any of his books, or have you gotten everything you've read from David Horowitz's web site? Which books have you read?
I assume you understand what an ad hominem attack is? When you continue to lump anyone who agrees with Chomsky as a "Chomskyite," instead of trying to refute the actual assertions, you've accomplished nothing. I don't always agree with the man, it's true, but I will say he has done more to advance the causes of truth, justice, and fairness than the Bush family has ever done.
To go to Pakistan and offer honest criticism of the situation rather than the same simple jingoisms and platitudes we're getting from the corporate media takes real courage, and Chomsky proves once again that he has it in abundance. Agree with him or not, the man is a hero, and all of his armchair detractors are really the ones who can't be convinced by the facts. If you had actually read Chomsky in depth, you would know how tirelessly he researches to back up his claims. It's what has made him so infuriating to the staunch defenders of the status quo, because try as they might, they just can't get over the fact that reality backs up his assertions.
quote:
You need to pull your head out of the tripe that you read, Gorgo, and take remedial geography. Tehran is in IRAN, not Iraq. The Iranians are primarily Shi'ite Muslims and do not support the Taliban, who are Wahhabi/Sunni fundamentalists. In fact, they have been supplying arms and support to the Northern Alliance. According to another source (see link), Chomsky's tour is being backed by the Eqbal Ahmed foundation. His primary claim to fame was his involvement in an attempt to kidnap Henry Kissinger.
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top18.htm
I think I've figured it out, by the way...
Chomskyites are cultists in the most profound and classic sense (you hit the nail on the head, Trish, when you compared them to geocentrists or hoaxers). You could cite hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of references and articles that completely refute the statements and lies of the great Noam ranging across the academic and political spectrum, but they would naturally be instantly dismissed because they are tainted with the "propagandistic media" that is in servitude to and partnership with the evil American government and corporations.
Off to my job as a slave to the corporate goons who "make" me obey their every whim.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Edited by - rubysue on 11/06/2001 06:02:53
|
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Interesting points. Here are my reactions to your comments:
quote:
Garrette:
1. Chomsky is a skilled obfuscator, even if unintentionally so. Dense prose is fine when necessary, but he seems to delight in it and rely on it to overwhelm his audience. Frankly, I determined the quotes posted by Rubysue to mean much the same that Valiant Dancer said, but I could have--as Val did--written it much more clearly.
Agreed, he's not the easiest writer in the world to read. I've been frustrated with himself at times.
quote:
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
This statement is most assuredly false, and proves you have read little of Chomsky. Pick up any of his works - those written by him, not those that are interviews with him - and you'll see this fact.
quote:
3. It is good to defend unpopular opinions.
Sure, it goes without saying.
quote:
4. Chomsky does not say outright that he supports the reprehensible positions themselves, but it is not difficult nor erroneous to infer it. Much the same, Gorgo, as I said you 'demonized' the US though you never used the word; tacit support and implied support are still support.
This is nonsense. If I'm a tennis coach, and I criticize the technique of a tennis player I'm working with, does that mean I hate that player? These types of false corollaries should be guarded against. If you read all of Chomsky, rather than snippets taken out of context, you would of course know this.
quote:
5. A good point, and one with which I agree, but it is only the sheep's clothing Chomsky wears. The claim of objectivity does not equal the fact of objectivity. Chomsky claims it (Gorgo claims it for him, I suppose) but does not demonstrate it. Me? I don't even claim it, but I do claim more professional integrity and honesty than Chomsky.
When does Chomsky claim objectivity?
quote:
A quick example of the misuse of sources:
Chomsky cites this quotation from Makota Oda's work "The Meaning of 'Meaningless Death'". He uses it to indicate the criminality of the US's use of the atomic bomb.
quote:
In the afternoon of August 14, 1945, thousands of people died during a protracted and intensive aerial bombardment of an arsenal in Osaka. I was a witness to the tragedy. I saw dozens of corpses -- loyal subjects literally consumed by service to a government which had already decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration's demand for unconditional surrender. The only reason these people died was because they happened to have been in the arsenal or environs at the time of the air raid. After what seemed an eternity of terror and anguish, we who were fortunate enough to survive emerged from our shelters. We found the corpses -- and the leaflets which American bombers had dropped over the destruction. The leaflets proclaimed in Japanese, "Your Government has surrendered. The war is over!"
But Oda was using this horror to condemn the Japanese government, not the US. Here's the following paragraph
So Chomsky can't use Oda's eyewitness account as evidence unless he agrees with Oda's interpretation of that evidence? If a firefighter describes a particular fire in lurid detail, and then goes on to say he thinks it was the work of Nazi fascists, can I not use his eyewitness account as evidence even if I disagree with his conclusion? You see the speciousness of your argument? Besides, you missed Chomsky's point, which was the fact that Oda cited that the leaflets themselves contained the lines, "Your Government has surrendered. The war is over!" That was what he was concerned with - the fact that we were bombing when we knew the war was over.
quote:
Chomsky is trying to imply that the American victory resulted in horrible things when in reality he is avoiding comment because he knows any comment will be either an obvious lie or favorable to the US.
I assume you know that Chomsky is an anarchist, and distrustful of all concentrations of power? The more powerful a state, the more atrocities that usually result from it. Just take a look at our record in Central America, for heaven's sake. That's all the evidence you need.
quote:
Wow. Gone for a few days and this is what I miss. I've only gotten to skim this thread, but I'll chip in a slightly uninformed opinion.
Rubysue's assessment of Chomsky is in complete agreement with mine, though I admit I have not read as much on or by him as some posting here. At first glance, Gorgo and lpetrich (I think) have a valid point, too.
Here's my assessment of the opposing sides:
Rubysue et al:
1. Chomsky intentionally obfuscates.
2. Chomsky offers little in the way of supporting evidence for his political criticisms of the US or Israel.
3. Chomsky defends some people with demonstrably reprehensible positions.
4. Chomsky supports those same reprehensible positions.
Gorgo and lpetrich:
1. Chomsky is a skilled linguist.
2. Chomsky does offer support that is at least as valid if not more so than the support offered by the anti-Chomsky crowd.
3. Chomsky is only defending the rights of people to voice their opinions.
4. Chomsky is not supporting the opinions themselves.
5. Chomsky's main point is that it is always worthwhile to self-reflect as a nation.
Garrette:
1. Chomsky is a skilled obfuscator, even if unintentionally so. Dense prose is fine when necessary, but he seems to delight in it and rely on it to overwhelm his audience. Frankly, I determined the quotes posted by Rubysue to mean much the same that Valiant Dancer said, but I could have--as Val did--written it much more clearly.
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
3. It is good to |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:27:34 [Permalink]
|
There is no timeline in that quote that is used to attempt to show that the US bombed Japan after the war had ended. What I get from that is that there were bodies covered with leaflets proclaiming the wars end. What is quite possible, and I saw nothing to indicate otherwise, is that the bombing occurred and the bodies lay around and then the leaflets were dropped. So what if we bombed the Japanese the day before. There was a war on. Yes there's bitter irony in dropping leaflets the next day but as the French like to say: c'est la vie.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:35:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You know I've had it with this "coprorate media" label. Many extreme liberals use that the same way extremist conservatives label the media as "too liberal."
The vast majority of the media is owned by a select few corporations - Rupert Murdoch, Gannet, etc. It is not extremem to point this out. It is fact.
Saying the media is too liberal is subjective, and depends on the way you define liberal. If you think Al Gore is a liberal, well then yes, the media is liberal. But if you define liberal as the platform of say, the Green Party, then the media is actually far more conservative, in general, than it is liberal.
quote:
Chomsky doesn't sell a lot of books? It's not because most people could care less about him, it's a conspiracy by the corporate media! Why do you think Chomsky goes to Pakistan to preach to the choir? Could it be that he could hold a lecture in the US inside a phone booth once you've factored in attendees?
First of all, Chomsky's recent lecture at MIT on the events of 911 just two weeks ago is reported to have been attended by over 2000 people. Can you fit 2000 people in a phone booth? I'd like to see you do it, and I'll be the one to call Guiness.
Danielle Steele sells millions of copies of her books today, and yet Melville's Moby Dick sold only a few hundred in his lifetime. Are you going to argue that Danielle Steele is a superior writer? It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 15:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Danielle Steele sells millions of copies of her books today, and yet Melville's Moby Dick sold only a few hundred in his lifetime. Are you going to argue that Danielle Steele is a superior writer? It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
I'm glad to see we agree on something at least.
One other thing about WWII atrocities: Why does Chomsky dwell so much on this assumed atrocity of bombing after the wars end despite a lack of any real evidence of this when Japan committed so many atrocities that it's hard to find the time to go into them? I doubt many Koreans will lend a sympathetic ear to this "poor innocent Japanese victim" story.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 18:40:01 [Permalink]
|
What is extreme? Wanting the U.S. to conform to the same standards that they expect others to conform to?
We've gone so far to the right that reasonable behavior seems extreme.
quote:
You know I've had it with this "coprorate media" label. Many extreme liberals use that the same way extremist conservatives label the media as "too liberal." Both sides should just face the fact that they are extreme and their message is probably not in the mainstream media because frankly the mainstream doesn't give a rats ass. Why? Because people with mainstream views recognize the exteme viewpoints for what they are and simply don't agree. Chomsky doesn't sell a lot of books? It's not because most people could care less about him, it's a conspiracy by the corporate media! Why do you think Chomsky goes to Pakistan to preach to the choir? Could it be that he could hold a lecture in the US inside a phone booth once you've factored in attendees?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 18:50:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is extreme? Wanting the U.S. to conform to the same standards that they expect others to conform to?
We've gone so far to the right that reasonable behavior seems extreme.
I agree that the US should lead by example instead of "do as I say, not as I do" but Chomsky ignores bigger issues and singles the US out for criticism whether he has a legitimate point or not and that's a big part of his credibility problem. Chomsky is himself as inconsistent as the policies he criticizes. It's hard to take a hypocrite seriously.
Maybe we have gone too far to the right and maybe we haven't. Such things are relative and mere opinion.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
