This thread has nothing to do with Noam Chomsky the linguist and father of the cognitive revolution in psychology. His place as a scientist is secure. But as a foreign policy expert I find him misleading and glaringly disingenuous in his skewed assessment of world crises.
In the wake of 911, the rubble still smoldering, this moralist, in a slim monograph urged readers to be mindful that the US itself was the world’s leading terrorist state. To support his claim he lists what he invites us to view as atrocities exceeding 911, including the bombing of what turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, pointing out that this led to indeterminate deaths of children who were deprived of medicine.
But as outraged as Chomsky may justly be at this and other American blunders, how can one not but recognize Chomsky’s failure to distinguish the two types of tragedy. He’s either purposely disingenuous or morally blind. According to Chomsky, 911 pales in comparison with the Clinton administration’s bombing of the chemical plant. But he fails to address the question whose answer distinguishes terror from a military act.
What did the US think it was doing when it sent missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al qaeda. It is absurb to impute a motive of wishing to cause the death of sick children . In fact, causing death was not any part of the motive, b ut Chomsky only draws attention to the consequences and would have his readers believe that 911 was pay back for American atrocities of which the bombing is just one of a huge list.
What drives Chomsky to put such an ugly face on a nation that has enough image problems overseas, and many of them deserved, without imputing war guilt where there is only negligence? I’m sick of this man.
And even further still, to call America the number one terrorist state given the fact that he lives there is of course disingenuous.
But Chomsky, and I honestly don’t know if he believes this or not, is showing the strength of the very country he condemns by criticizing it – even if that criticism is overblown and wrong in this case.
Oh, and Aspacia, I never see Chomsky on the MSM.
His politics or the fact that he is simply not a particularly riveting speaker?
Chomsky’s knowledge is vast, and quite impressive – that’s how I know that he’s lying when people ask him if 9/11 is an inside job. The Zionists have threatened him, obviously. I don’t blame him… a sheltered academic, he’s probably scared shitless of THEM.
Well, he knows that they could ruin him, easily. Chomsky’s not a sheltered academic, he’s a media whore. Like Dawkins. Though Chomsky’s marginally smarter and more informed. I dunno where you get ‘his knowledge is vast’ from - outside of the two topics he’s established in (linguistics and American foreign policy) he’s, quite frankly, dull and ignorant.
He’s extremely dull in a certain face to face regard, yes.
I dunno, I think that his contribution to linguistics was significant and coupled with the sheer amount of data he’s consumed concerning political relations and America’s Foreign Policy I would say his knowledge is at least extensive.
That is, I don’t know how ‘wise’/ignorant he is but he could certainly provide someone with a fair amount of data of a certain standard on at least those two topics (if not a couple more – I bet Chomsky knows all about the underground phone sex hotline industry).
I guess I’m trying to say that despite the fact that it’s only two topics, it’s still quite an extensive knowledge, at least from what I’ve seen.
Killing people is killing people.
Regardless of who did it or how or why,
those innocent people are all dead.
And nothing justifies causing thier death.
Nothing.
You make a distinction that does not exist except in the minds of psychopaths.
Bad logic. Killing a person or people for financial gain is certainly different from killing a person or people in self defense. Sadly your error – speaking despite possessing an inability to distinguish between a justified killing and one that is incomprehensible to most rational individuals – is one that is frequently encountered.
indicating that you will not distinguish self defense from an unprovoked murder. If you believe that all killing is not the same, then back off your statement. If you continue to believe that “killing people is killing people”, then you are irrational.
OK, let me try this another way…are you familiar with the concept of imperfect self defense?
I’ll assume you are.
Disregarding the absoluteness of your “killing people is killing people” statement, let’s apply something resembling an imperfect-self-defense analysis to the specific case you have referenced.
Osama cannot successfully claim that he had a good faith belief that the twin towers were about to attack him or any member of whichever nation he chooses to claim. Your non-distinction fails.
So now that we have legally distinguished at least two types of virtually indistinguishable killings --there are many more distinctions should you choose to press the issue – are you still sticking with the “killing people is killing people” stance?
You may ask: why would yopele be so set upon making me retract my statement?
Please remember that you claimed: “You make a distinction that does not exist except in the minds of psychopaths.”
And since I, the common law legal system, and the poster you attacked with this claim all make the distinction that you assert is only made by psychopaths, I believe you need to back off it a bit. Since it’s probably more accurate to say that only a psychopath would view killing as a singularly defined act without justification (or need thereof).
This is not a matter of law.
It is a matter of morality and ethics.
Subjective. Mine.
Osama was wrong, Clinton was wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The claim of imperfect self-defense is the claim of a psychopath caught in the act of killing innocents. Or a reasonable person caught up in the reasoning of psychopaths.
Either way it is insanity, either temporary or permanent, but still insanity.
Unreasonable in any case.
There is self defense but killing people is wrong. If I killed someone who was trying to kill me, I would feel unjustified in taking their life. Regardless of thier views on killing me I would feel remorse and guilt for the rest of my life because taking life is wrong.
To justify any killing would make me one of them and that is someplace I will not let them drag me to. I will not become a psychopath.
Chomsky, as a critic of American foreign policy, is one-sided and bent on portraying the US as equally if not more depraved as a terrorist organization, whose goals are to inflict carnage for the sheer theatrical impact. America’s sins are often heinous, but they are instrumental, and not acts of terror for its own sake. That’s the distinction he hides or conveniently omits. None of this bears on his genius as the founder of the cognitive revolution.
I listened to a recording of a lecture Chomsky gave on the universal declaration of human rights the other day. Sounded like a load of pink-o leftist horseshit to me.
Nope, almost never as he continually denigrades MSM as a capitalistic controlled entity ruled by advertisers and $$$, which they are. They will do anything to have high ratings and avoid losing $.
Chomsky should stick to linguistics and stop playing politician. A total buffoon who even supports De Paul’s Finklestein’s sloppy, academic publishings.
Then you have no concept of justification, only a concept of what makes you feel OK with yourself. Your inability to comprehend the more abstract and complex concepts and feelings should not be “justification” for your labeling others as psychopaths.
Remorse is completely separate from justification. Grab a dictionary, if nothing else, and then try to make an informed & cogent response to my criticism of your psychopath comments.
