• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noam Chomsky on Israel and Paletine

Mr. Chomsky, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

{lifted from an Adam Sandler movie, may the god who doesnt exist have mercy on my soul for using an Adam Sandler quote to make light of the work of an academic like chomsky}
 
a_unique_person said:
what actual part of it doesn't make any sense? It all seemed pretty sensible to me. Was it the fact that he can't come up with a solution to the problem when no-one else in the world can either?
Click to expand...

I don't have a solution. Of course, I doubt a linguistics professor at MIT does either. I find the whole treatment of such a person as having the golden key as pretentious and insulting.

I mean come on, look at the answer to question 14. He answered it with a conspiracy theory. You also have to love how he slipped an East Timor reference into question 12's answer. You could make a drinking game based on his responses.

What I do think is that if there is a two-state solution to the problem, Israel will have to do all the work itself since the palestinians are currently incapable at this point. I think this is the direction Israel is going apparently and I think it will be the only way you wind up with two states.

Now, I'm just a computer guy in Tennessee but I think its perfectly obvious that the palestinian leadership does not control the terror groups and cannot reign them in long enough for any bilateral peace accord to work at this point (regardless of whoever's fault that is). Peace must be sought unilaterally by Israel and it appears they are doing so.
 
corplinx said:


I don't have a solution. Of course, I doubt a linguistics professor at MIT does either. I find the whole treatment of such a person as having the golden key as pretentious and insulting.
Click to expand...

I think he is just a clever guy who has done a lot of research into this area and is not blinded by patriotism, etc.



I mean come on, look at the answer to question 14. He answered it with a conspiracy theory. You also have to love how he slipped an East Timor reference into question 12's answer. You could make a drinking game based on his responses.
Click to expand...

The conspiracy is no secret. Sharon has proudly stated his aim of destroying Palestine has succeeded. Did you read the interview with him I posted earlier? It was roundly ignored, but it was never denied.

East Timor was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ disgrace. Australian intelligence predicted a massacre, and that was what the East Timorese got. The US could have used it's influence to achieve some sort of reduction in the brutality that led up to independence. For about 30 years, East Timor was the personal treasure chest of Suharto and his cronies. The East Timorese were treated like irrelevant ◊◊◊◊.

Now the guy who led the massacre looks like he could be the next president of Indonesia.



What I do think is that if there is a two-state solution to the problem, Israel will have to do all the work itself since the palestinians are currently incapable at this point. I think this is the direction Israel is going apparently and I think it will be the only way you wind up with two states.

Click to expand...

Israel, or rather, Likud, has ensured that it can call the shots. It has just done so. It will be a one-state solution. The Palestinians don't actually have a country at the moment. They are not recognised as a country. They never will be a country if Likud has it's way.

What they will be is a permanent reminder of why Israel will deserve the gain, and deserve, the status of pariah. Sharon doesn't care, but then he is a sociopath. The rest of Israel just doesn't seem to realise what he is condemning them to.l



Now, I'm just a computer guy in Tennessee but I think its perfectly obvious that the palestinian leadership does not control the terror groups and cannot reign them in long enough for any bilateral peace accord to work at this point (regardless of whoever's fault that is). Peace must be sought unilaterally by Israel and it appears they are doing so.
Click to expand...
 
What I found amazing was his reply to #5. He rightly points out that a call for a sinlge-state solution amounts to the destruction of Israel and likely oppression (or worse) of Jews. But then he actually claims that "The most extreme and violent elements in Israel and the US could hope for no greater gift than this [single-state] proposal." He's buying into the conspiracy-theory thinking that Israel/US need excuses for their actions, essentially ignoring the fact that many Palestinians call for a single-state solution precisely because this would be the result What a maroon.
 
Ziggurat said:
What I found amazing was his reply to #5. He rightly points out that a call for a sinlge-state solution amounts to the destruction of Israel and likely oppression (or worse) of Jews. But then he actually claims that "The most extreme and violent elements in Israel and the US could hope for no greater gift than this [single-state] proposal." He's buying into the conspiracy-theory thinking that Israel/US need excuses for their actions, essentially ignoring the fact that many Palestinians call for a single-state solution precisely because this would be the result What a maroon.
Click to expand...

Why would Palestinians want it and then not Israelis. Note he says it is not going to happen, because the much more reasonable proposal is not going to happen with popular support, and the alternative has no international popular support.

Sharon has been boasting that he has achieved the destruction of Palestine. He has proclaimed that he does want conflict, because with conflict reasonableness goes out the window, and any unreasonable solution he can engineer becomes possible, which it has. He has created a non-state for non-people, whom he hopes will die out in a short time.
 
Noam Chomsky has no answers. Most of Chomskys "facts" are totaly made up or partial truths, he is a self-lothing jew who is employed as linguist. He is skilled at crafting words into meaningless propoganda and button-pushing ad hominems. If he was such an authority on the Middle East how come not one government or think tank in the world has ever hired him? Most intellectuals shun him like the plague. Instead, Chomsky just tours the university circut giving lectures about "Western Terrorism" and "the evil jooooooze"......he feeds on weak-minded guys like a_u_p who are sucked up into his vortex of lies and hate like a moth to the flame. That is how Chomsky pays his bills.

(now watch a_u_p, Demon and the Fool use everything in the book to defend Noam Chomsky and attack me... ;) )
 
ZN, thanks for letting me know that he is one more person who is not a Real Jew (TM). Maybe you could make a list for me, so I know who to believe and who not to believe. (It may take a while to compile, so you had better get cracking).
 
zenith-nadir said:
Noam Chomsky has no answers. Most of Chomskys "facts" are totaly made up or partial truths, he is a self-lothing jew who is employed as linguist.

Please cite one instance when he has forged facts, or made partial truths.

He is skilled at crafting words into meaningless propoganda and button-pushing ad hominems.

He really doesn't write Propaganda. He does give critique of USA policy though. That, and he has NEVER used ad hominems to justify a point

If he was such an authority on the Middle East how come not one government or think tank in the world has ever hired him?

Here is a hint, he is loathed by Europe. Many Political Scientists, like Howard Zinn have met with him, and have cited him.

Most intellectuals shun him like the plague. Instead, Chomsky just tours the university circut giving lectures about "Western Terrorism" and "the evil jooooooze"......he feeds on weak-minded guys like a_u_p who are sucked up into his vortex of lies and hate like a moth to the flame. That is how Chomsky pays his bills.

Please give evidence for this. There are plenty of intellectuals that actually agree with Chomsky's positions on many things. That, and you might want to look into how much he ties is Linguistics Theories into his Political work.

(now watch a_u_p, Demon and the Fool use everything in the book to defend Noam Chomsky and attack me... ;) )

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
zenith-nadir said:
Theodore Kurita, Go ahead and believe chomsky, I do not care, for I know what he is about and what he represents. It is guys like you and a_u_p who buy into his garbage, not me.

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky.
Click to expand...

What skeptic could argue with this logic?
 
I'm truly surpirsed anybody takes Chomsky's politics seriously. In every single case where he expressed his political views, his "sage advice" had turned out to be 100% wrong.

Chomsky praised the North Vietnamese to the sky, claiming that all they want is "liberation from imperialism". When they killed 200,000 of their own people, imprisoned another 300,000 or so, and established Pol Pot to kill 2,000,000 more, Chomsky first claimed that all those photos of piles of dead are, in fact, victims of American bombings; then that the photos are American propaganda; then that the atrocities are so bad just because of the "chaos" caused by American interference; and then he simply shut up about it and didn't want to discuss it any more.

This is Chomsky at his worst, but, similarly, he praised Cuban "freedom" and "revolution" to the skies. To this day, he had not owned up to the fact that Cuba is simply another communist dictatorship; he had repeatedly said that the USSR is an "equivalent" system to the USA, not in any way worse or morally blameable, and that all the claims about the horrors and sheer impoverishment and want of life in the "paraside of the workers" is (you guessed it) "capitalist propaganda". Of course, he also claimed--a few years before the Soviet system collapsed utterly--that the Soviet system is in fact prospering and will continue to succeed for a long time.

Needless to say, Mr. "blame America for everything" had not, in fact, bothered to leave the evil, imperilistic USA; he lives in Cambridge, MA, and never in his life so much as visited most of the places he claims to "know" so much about and to tell us what the "real" situation there is. As a sage, sitting in his office in MIT is quite enough to figure out, by force of reasoning alone, what "the truth" behind the "American propaganda" is. (This "fail safe" method of figuring out "the truth" expalins quite a bit about his dismal batting average, come to think of it.)

When Chomsky praises some group or movement, his records shows that it is almost 100% certain that they will turn out to be mass murderers or at the very least fascists of some sort (whether marxist, islamist, or some other type of fascism). Long ago, Parkinson of "Parkinson's law" fame said that there is no such thing as a man who is always right, but there IS such a thing as a man who is always wrong; Chomsky, his record shows, is as close as humanely possible to Parkinson's ideal, at least in the field of politics.

Chomsky is a great linguist, indeed. But when it comes to politics, he's nothing but an "A Unique Person"-type run amok.
 
Skeptic said:
I'm truly surpirsed anybody takes Chomsky's politics seriously. In every single case where he expressed his political views, his "sage advice" had turned out to be 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a big call there, Skeptic, and I am calling ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I don't know who sees him as offering "sage advice", I see him as a clever person who I can learn a lot from, but I certainly don't seen him as being the Pope of the Left.

I also don't see him to be wrong in every single case.
 
I would just like to say this. As an american, I am very apathetic about Israel/Palestine. The conflict there is just another one of many around the world.

The thing that strikes me is that non-Israelis and non-palestinians who care deeply about this conflict seem to fall into two categories. Zionists (of the jewish and fundamentalist christian variety) and anti-semites.

Personally, I find it funny that australians on this forum care so deeply about this conflict and it makes me wonder why they do so.
 
That's a big call there, Skeptic, and I am calling bulls**t.

Typical AUP-ian "argument": I said that Chomsky is 100% wrong in his politics, when careful research shows he is only 97% wrong on all his big political claims--you know, those about the nature of the North Vietnamese, Marxism, Islamism, globalisation, Pol Pot, and the USSR. How dare I be so unfair.

I don't know who sees him as offering "sage advice"

You and him are two, for starters.

I see him as a clever person who I can learn a lot from

Indeed so. However, to accept your praise of Chomsky, and Chomsky's recipocal praise for his "brave" and "anti-imperialist" readers who are SO much morally superior to the rest of us, is not unlike accepting mutual character testimonials from Uriah Heep and Seth Pecksniff.
 
I stopped even reading anything Chomsky had to say after he accused the U.S. of committing "savage silent genocide" in Afghanistan. According to him there should be millions of corpses of inocent people killed by U.S. policy, facillitated by Pakistan right now. That kind of garbage, which he had no evidence whatsoever to claim or even suggest is apparently what he's famous for. Chomskyites seem to me to be just about the same as John Edwards fans. He piles on the BS and they look for anything that might be a hit and forget about all of his misses.
 
The Palestinians could've had their own land years ago if they actually -wanted- a homeland.

The trick? Civil disobedience. Borrow a page from MLK and Gandhi. Nonviolent protest would've yanked the moral ground out from under the Israelis.

The problem is that it's not what the PLO and various terrorist organizations based in the Palestinian-held areas want. They want blood -- Israeli blood. There is simply no other explanation for sending in men, women, and children with explosives strapped on into Israeli territory, to detonate in civilian areas.

I remember reading an op-ed, complaining about how Bush and Sharon were ignoring the Palestinians in the Mideast peace process. No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock; Arafat signs some papers, and then they go right back to strapping on the explosives.

Do I think Israel has clean hands in this? No, not really. They're stuck in a siege mentality that dates back to the Holocaust. But it's hard to sympathize with the Palestinians when they venerate suicide bombers and cheer the deaths of Israeli civilians.

Enjoy your bed, Palestinians; you made it.

--Toasty
 
I stopped even reading anything Chomsky had to say after he accused the U.S. of committing "savage silent genocide" in Afghanistan. According to him there should be millions of corpses of inocent people killed by U.S. policy, facillitated by Pakistan right now.

You forgot the "millions" of Iraqis that should have starved to death by now, since the imperialistic and evil US would surely deliberately bombed food supplies, hospitals, etc.

Or the numerous terrorist attacks on US soil that should have happened since 9/11 because as Chomsky knows so well, hitting back at the Mullahs will just "enrage" them and cause them to continue the attacks, will be "ineffective", etc., etc., etc., you know the drill.

If you look at Chomsky's production in the last two years, and you'll see--how shall I put it?--that his accuracy is not quite up to his usual standards.

Chomskyites seem to me to be just about the same as John Edwards fans. He piles on the BS and they look for anything that might be a hit and forget about all of his misses.

Indeed so. Chomsky wrote literally hundreds of pages about Iraq and Afghanitan, and 98% is either unreadable post-modernist jargon that doesn't mean a damn thing, or simply wrong.

Perhaps there should be a show called "Crossing over with Noam Chomsky". I can see it now: "I see dead... somebody dies... more than 10 of them... and a war, somewhere, involving the imperialistic US... the rest is sort of hazy, but it's clear it's the US fault...I see 'the people' winning... I don't know which people, however... they might have brown skin... or yellow... somewhere in the middle east or Asia, maybe... some people angry with US, too... the rest is not so clear..."
 
I have converted into a chomskyite, let me copy and paste my reply.

You are just not smart enough to understand what Chomsky writes. Your opposition to his teachings validates his views. Y
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom