The Last Word: Noam Chomsky

englishmajor wrote:

This is absolutely correct. That "virus" is called communism and should rightly be fought against. It has destroyed every country it has touched.

Quote:

This is horsesh!t. Which is it?? Was it to stop the spread of communism or to destroy vietnam??? Make up your mind Noam. But like I said, it was to combat communism. The idea that we simply wanted to destroy the country of Vietnam is nonsense.

Englishmajor, your self-righteous phony outrage is a joke.

BTW, you seem to be adamant about getting America to "wake up". Have you ever stopped to think that ridicule is probably the least effective way to get people to see your point? My guess is that you just enjoy the feeling of superiority you get from indiscriminately bashing all Americans. Have a nice day.

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, if America is so hated then I would imagine the influx of immigrants here will soon become non-existent? I mean, why come here if you hate America, right? :wink:

A thoughtless argument. Presently, many Pakistanis are moving down from higher elevations in the mountains. Not because they desire to do so but because they may die where they presently live. Over the last few centuries, folks have moved from the small villages and farms where their families had lived for centuries not because they thought the cities a preferable place to live but because they hoped they might lessen poverty and starvation working in dismal factories seven days a week. Populations in Africa shift from some horrid region to another horrid region out of dire necessity and hope. Certainly, most of the inhabitants of Algiers in 1934 would have moved to Germany if they knew of the place and could get there. Emmigration hardly tells us much about peoples' destinations.

But in fact, America is a pretty great place, with a high level of freedom and safety and with the liklihood that folks coming in will be able to lead a better life than previously.

Unfortunately for the nationalist sorts about, that doesn't help you out much unless you want to head straight for a principle of moral relativism (we are better than nazi germany, so there).

By polls, the US is now considered strongly negative by most of the western world's populations. Wallow in your juvenile pridefulness if that feels all warm and nice but at least have the fukking prudence to fathom how this decline has consequences.

blatham wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, if America is so hated then I would imagine the influx of immigrants here will soon become non-existent? I mean, why come here if you hate America, right? :wink:

A thoughtless argument. Presently, many Pakistanis are moving down from higher elevations in the mountains. Not because they desire to do so but because they may die where they presently live. Over the last few centuries, folks have moved from the small villages and farms where their families had lived for centuries not because they thought the cities a preferable place to live but because they hoped they might lessen poverty and starvation working in dismal factories seven days a week. Populations in Africa shift from some horrid region to another horrid region out of dire necessity and hope. Certainly, most of the inhabitants of Algiers in 1934 would have moved to Germany if they knew of the place and could get there. Emmigration hardly tells us much about peoples' destinations.

But in fact, America is a pretty great place, with a high level of freedom and safety and with the liklihood that folks coming in will be able to lead a better life than previously.

Unfortunately for the nationalist sorts about, that doesn't help you out much unless you want to head straight for a principle of moral relativism (we are better than nazi germany, so there).

By polls, the US is now considered strongly negative by most of the western world's populations. Wallow in your juvenile pridefulness if that feels all warm and nice but at least have the fukking prudence to fathom how this decline has consequences.

Looks like you will have to read this post again, MoAn. You didn't 'get' it. BTW do you have boarders over for dinner every night? Or do people want to come to America's borders? Hope you and Ralpleb enjoy each other's intelligent company Can I rename you Bevis and Butthead?

Mama Angel wrote:

If people hate America so very much why do they fight so hard to enter her boarders

Maybe because the boarders are really hot.

Yes, the American way is to discredit or marginalize certain people, like Noam, Vidal, M. Moore.

Well, if America is so hated then I would imagine the influx of immigrants here will soon become non-existent? I mean, why come here if you hate America, right? :wink:

englishmajor wrote:

This is absolutely correct. That "virus" is called communism and should rightly be fought against. It has destroyed every country it has touched.

Quote:

This is horsesh!t. Which is it?? Was it to stop the spread of communism or to destroy vietnam??? Make up your mind Noam. But like I said, it was to combat communism. The idea that we simply wanted to destroy the country of Vietnam is nonsense.

but given the fact that Chomsky also wrote the introduction to a holocaust denial book, i think skepticism is justified.

Noam rules.

it's from an Alan Dershowitz column. i'll save you the trouble of hunting it down in the original form: it was taken from a private letter Chomsky wrote according to a wikipedia discussion, which also claims that Chomsky meant a hypothetical individual with no knowledge of 20th century history could doubt the historicity of the holocaust without being a racist. while that sounds plausible, without having the full text of the letter it's difficult to say one way or the other, but given the fact that Chomsky also wrote the introduction to a holocaust denial book, i think skepticism is justified.

the way they planned to destroy it was by turning Vietnam into a fetid shitpile, thus preventing it from serving as a role model for other nations who were contemplating taking up communism.

edgarblythe wrote:

Noam rules.

Yep!

yitwail wrote:

it's from an Alan Dershowitz column. i'll save you the trouble of hunting it down in the original form: it was taken from a private letter Chomsky wrote according to a wikipedia discussion, which also claims that Chomsky meant a hypothetical individual with no knowledge of 20th century history could doubt the historicity of the holocaust without being a racist. while that sounds plausible, without having the full text of the letter it's difficult to say one way or the other, but given the fact that Chomsky also wrote the introduction to a holocaust denial book, i think skepticism is justified.

Oh for gods sakes. The introduction was on the topic of full free speech. As it happens, that is a point on which I disagree with Chomsky. I believe 'hate speech' (narrowly defined) ought to be restricted. Your Supreme Court and Chomsky both differ from my view. Chomsky is himself Jewish and his writings/speeches do not attack Jewish people but do attack Israeli government policy. They also defend, in specific and limited ways, the Palestinians, but in no manner differently from peace groups within Israel.

Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson's "freedom of speech and expression." The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to "do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson's] safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." I signed it without hesitation.

Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.