[quote]NOAM CHOMSKY ATTACKS ‘TERRORIST STATE’ U.S., ISRAEL WHILE VISITING HEZBOLLAH LEADER
THU May 11 2006 14:55:53 ET
Radical American thinker and MIT professor Noam Chomsky met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut today and branded the U.S. a terrorist state.
“I think that Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and a persuasive argument that they (the weapons) should be in the hands of Hizbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that. So, I think his position, if I am reporting it correctly, and it seems to be a reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region and the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent. The Lebanese army cannot be a deterrent.”
MORE:
“There is a meaning to the word terrorist, in fact you can read a definition of term terrorist is the U.S. code of laws. It gives a very clear, precise, adequate definition of the word terrorist. have been writing about terrorism for 25 years always using the official U.S. definition [of the word “terrorist”], but that definition is un-usable, and the reason is that when you use that definition it turns out, not surprisingly, that the U.S is one of the leading terrorist states, and the other states become terrorist or non-terrorist depending on how they are relating to U.S. goals.”
MORE:
“The regional superpower Israel is threatening to attack it [Iran], the U.S. is threatening to attack it. These threats alone are outright violations international law and of the U.N. charter. Iran is in difficulty. Iran has been trying for some years to negotiate settlement but the U.S. just refuses.”
Sad. Sad. Sad. And yet most of ill-educated America is walking around with his book “911” like it is the new Maoist Red Book. I am just glad to see though that as before “thought is being controlled” effectively. The irony of course is that Chomsky openly discusses how the media can be manipulated for political purposes, but his followers never seem to consider reversing the process to examine whether in fact Chomsky is manipulating the media. Another question? Why no interviews ever with hard-hitting journalists. Why all these hagiographic interviews with gushing reporters? Is he afraid of something? Surely, he could even manage a 10 minute chat with Oprah? haha
You should have seen him on Charlie Rose a few years back (2003?). They spent about an hour going at it. The most pointed disagreements were over Isreal/Palestine and different ways of reading history.
I’m sure he’d love the opportunity to talk to America on Oprah.
Yes, that was a good interview. Great thing about Charlie Rose: he’ll often devote an hour or more to an indepth exploration of an issue. Btw, fred, Chomsky makes the same criticism of many who read his stuff as though it were scripture. Of course, you’d have to read him to know that.
in case anyone is interested the Charlie Rose interview is here.
Here there is a list of all sorts of public appearences by Noam, I just scanned it quickly and saw a debate with Alan Dershowitz, an appearence on C-Span, and several interviews with the BBC. It doesn’t look to me like he’s avoiding engagement in battles of ideas. I wonder how many times Katie Couric and Oprah have asked Noam to appear on their shows? Any stats Fred?
Sorry off to a Champagne tasting haha. Anyway, check the past Noam thread and see if there is anything there. If not, let me know and I will attempt to dig up the requisite stats.
Again, “Don’t accept anything as scripture.” If you like a considered opinion on this, rather than a knee-jerk reaction, you’ll have to until I have a chance to read what he actually said. Haven’t had the time yet, sorry.
Damn this working for a living.
Edit: btw, weren’t you the one, yesterday, applauding people in Baghdad, for supporting and assisting insurgents in Baghdad, on the grounds that people have a right to defend themselves? Looking at the first quote you provide in the initial post, why aren’t you supporting Hezbollah?
It seems to me like he’s made some prima facie (sp?) arguments. According to traditional rules of debate, that would put the ball in the court of someone who disagrees with him.
Sure thing. People probably care about Noam Chompski as much as they listen to Fred Phelps.
Try conspiracy sites and fringe elements of society next time TC if you want more responses. Why you actually care about Chompski? Is Ophra about your level? Or is he the only “liberal” (yeah, as if) you feel sure about defeating in an argument?
My son could do that. If need be at Noam’s and Fred’s level with “lalala, I’m not listening”.
In my son’s defense - he is only 7. What are Noam’s and Fred’s excuses?
