Chomsky: You are being lied to about Iran

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Chomsky accused the administration of treating intelligence assessments in a political manner, saying that the administration's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program contradicted the United States' National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007.

"We don't have any new evidence; we don't like it -- so reject it," Chomsky said, characterizing the administration's actions toward the 2007 estimate.

Chomsky also accused Israel of, since the 1960s, pursuing an expansionist foreign policy, which he claimed the United States has supported.

He furthered his argument by saying Israel's policies concerning Israeli settlements in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions and that the call by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to freeze the growth of settlements endorsed illegal activity on the part of Israel.

"When Kerry says, 'Freeze the settlements,' he means continue the criminal activity," Chomsky said.

Chomsky also criticized U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and opposed the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it was a tool for America and Europe to control world energy supplies.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/chomsky-has-hars...house-1.1634230

At least he is a consistent loon. If you are left of Kerry, then you are definitely on the lunatic fringe.

To be honest I think the terms "left" and "right" aren't particularly useful descriptors nowadays. Surely the only thing that would define someone as "lunatic" would be if they subscribe to some form of totalitarianism.

Chomsky is definitely left-wing, but he's not a fascist or a communist.

So facism, and communism are the only two options for a lunatic? How about anarchism and despotism, flipsides of another coin?

Anyone who advocates totalitarianism basically.

Anarchism is its own thing - there are actually quite a few theories under that particular umbrella. It does not refer to Nihilism - which it is commonly mistaken for.

Despotism is totalitarianism - it doesn't matter what the political slant is. Its all the same.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Chomsky accused the administration of treating intelligence assessments in a political manner, saying that the administration's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program contradicted the United States' National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007.

"We don't have any new evidence; we don't like it -- so reject it," Chomsky said, characterizing the administration's actions toward the 2007 estimate.

Chomsky also accused Israel of, since the 1960s, pursuing an expansionist foreign policy, which he claimed the United States has supported.

He furthered his argument by saying Israel's policies concerning Israeli settlements in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions and that the call by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to freeze the growth of settlements endorsed illegal activity on the part of Israel.

"When Kerry says, 'Freeze the settlements,' he means continue the criminal activity," Chomsky said.

Chomsky also criticized U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and opposed the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it was a tool for America and Europe to control world energy supplies.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/chomsky-has-hars...house-1.1634230

At least he is a consistent loon. If you are left of Kerry, then you are definitely on the lunatic fringe.

To be honest I think the terms "left" and "right" aren't particularly useful descriptors nowadays. Surely the only thing that would define someone as "lunatic" would be if they subscribe to some form of totalitarianism.

Chomsky is definitely left-wing, but he's not a fascist or a communist.

So facism, and communism are the only two options for a lunatic? How about anarchism and despotism, flipsides of another coin?

Anyone who advocates totalitarianism basically.

Anarchism is its own thing - there are actually quite a few theories under that particular umbrella. It does not refer to Nihilism - which it is commonly mistaken for.

Despotism is totalitarianism - it doesn't matter what the political slant is. Its all the same.

So that would include caliphatism, of which Noam is an advocate?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

News to me.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if those people you dismissed as "Israel haters and other loons" actually comprised most of the world?

Then, of course, Chomsky would be correct.

Fortunately, most of the world doesn't matter.

So really, it's not that Chomsky is incorrect, it's just that he's speaking for people who don't matter.

Perhaps, though I doubt it.

[almaty 19]

I puffy heart Prof. Chomsky - he is the man (after almaty and Randomizer )

excellent judge of character ..hermana len

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

News to me.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

http://www.caliphate.eu/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

News to me.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

http://www.caliphate.eu/

What does that prove?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

News to me.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

http://www.caliphate.eu/

What does that prove?

Nothing. Just means that he is well read in non-US circles.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seriously - what was the point of that quote and link - that Chomsky somehow doesn't believe in free speech?

If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

It's extremely important to preserve freedom of speech, and not to grant the state the right to determine what is or isn't said. A sometimes conflicting right is privacy and protection against verbal or other forms of violence. Once the state is granted the right to prevent speech (writing, songs, etc.) that it claims might precipitate harm, we're on a very dangerous slope. That's why the Supreme Court, in 1969, finally reached the standard of protection of speech that was proposed during the Enlightenment (and I believe may be unique to the US): speech is protected until the point where it is part of imminent criminal acts. So if you and I go into a store to rob it, you have a gun, and I say "shoot," that's not protected speech. How far should it go? Very delicate questions, and my personal feeling is that one should err on the side of restricting state power, as a general rule.

Demonstrations against such talks are legitimate. Shouting down is not, in my opinion.

There's one aspect of the right-wing fury about cutting off Imus that I agree with. They argue, I suppose rightly, that Imus was pulled off because of pressure from advertisers. Correct me if I missed something, but in the coverage and debate over this matter I failed to notice the observation that it is indeed wrong for advertisers to have any influence whatsoever on media content, one of the aspects in which the media depart very far from any ideal of freedom of press.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just means that he is well read in non-US circles.

In itself that means nothing.

Friedrich Nietzche's work was influential with among the Nazi leadership. They deliberately misinterpreted and misquoted his views - using the weight of his name to push their own ideology.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy

True. But that's not what they are solely doing.

If they wanted nuclear energy they could buy fuel and store the spent fuel in easily inventoried spent fuel pools. They are enriching uranium for nuclear weapons production.

Once again technologic ignorance drives liberal emotions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Just means that he is well read in non-US circles.

In itself that means nothing.

Friedrich Nietzche's work was influential with among the Nazi leadership. They deliberately misinterpreted and misquoted his views - using the weight of his name to push their own ideology.

So, you are saying Noam Chomsky is just a tool?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just means that he is well read in non-US circles.

In itself that means nothing.

Friedrich Nietzche's work was influential with among the Nazi leadership. They deliberately misinterpreted and misquoted his views - using the weight of his name to push their own ideology.

So, you are saying Noam Chomsky is just a tool?

I think that's what you want me to say.

Of course - if the only requirement to being a "tool" is to be misquoted, then the list will be rather long.

[alienlovechild 75]

If they wanted nuclear energy they could buy fuel and store the spent fuel in easily inventoried spent fuel pools. They are enriching uranium for nuclear weapons production.

Don't let the facts stop the Noam Chomsky azzkiss fest. Only nutjobs want more unstable nations to have nukes. There are nations that have nuclear power and aren't threatening to wipe other countries off the map: S. Korea, Japan, Canada, Germany, Sweden Spain, Belgium, Taiwan, the Czech Republic. . .

Now I know why idiots believe Chomsky- thet just don't know any better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People seem to get strangely angry when you question their world view.

Odd.