Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 500 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#221

Post by Anthony-G »

pydry wrote: post #164
vasco wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you believe this would work? Specifically any form of anarchism? Have you seen groups of people operate for large periods of time successfully like this? Anything I've looked into shows me human nature would make any anarcho-anything system fail due to infighting.

Spain, the Paris Commune... The problem with anarchism is never infighting it just wasnt good at defending itself from external military threats. Stalinism on the other hand, was a perfectly crafted machine for dealing with external military threats, but wasn't very nice to live under.

Historically, there have been a few examples of radical egalitarianism in revolutionary movements but like the Paris Commune they generally are short-lived – or never even become the dominant force, e.g., the Levellers during the English Civil Wars. It was the accomplishments of the CNT/FAI in organising one million members in 1930’s Spain that inspired me to become a libertarian socialist. However, since then I’ve come to the conclusion that the more egalitarian and democratic a society is, the more vulnerable it is to external and other threats.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#223

Post by _djo_ »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #217
_djo_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned. W…

NATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited. That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive". Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.

Agreed, Kosovo is the only actual NATO intervention of that sort. And agreed that it was neither unjustified nor ‘aggressive’.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#224

Post by jasonvorhe »

hdbenne wrote: post #204
alecco wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just Russia? Noam Chomsky had some financial money transfers and a series of meetings arranged by Jeffrey Epstein. At least one meeting with Ehud Barak (former PM of Israel). And he refused to explain himself. This got quickly swept under the rug. But it's there even on mainstream media if you bother to search for it.

If I recall, he did explain himself… it boiled down to it being none of your or my business. I despise Epstein, but as he was heavily involved in finance, I am sure many people had dealings with him that were not sexual in nature. You can find many things that Noam missed the mark on. To err is human. But this is conspiratorial and not fair. If you were judged by all the people you had financial or social dealings wi…

Jeffrey Epstein was sus ever since he appeared because of the way he suddenly rose up in ranks, got handed billions of dollars without having done any significant deals himself. His connections to Mossad and US elites should've raised red flags for someone like Chomsky. I see no reason to give anyone dealing with Epstein the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#225

Post by _djo_ »

jcranmer wrote: post #218
_djo_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned. W…

The other NATO interventions: * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there. * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).

> * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.

Indeed. So not an aggressive invasion but a humanitarian intervention.

> * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).

Not quite. Technically speaking, neither of the official NATO missions in Afghanistan, ISAF and Resolute Support, were Article 5 missions.

When the US triggered Article 5 in October 2001 it explicitly did not request a full NATO response, but initially only for support such as NATO AWACS aircraft in US airspace. When it invaded Afghanistan, which was entirely justified in international law as an act of self defence, a handful of NATO countries opted to send support contingents, like SOF, as a way of showing solidarity. But it was not a NATO mission under NATO command: Operation Enduring Freedom was American-led and commanded from the beginning. At best you can say several NATO allies invaded. Later, NATO launched ISAF and Resolute Support and became more involved as an organisation deploying forces, but that was post-invasion.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#226

Post by ignoramous »

emptysongglass wrote: post #32
ignoramous wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I couldn't tell if you meant Minsky or Chomsky. Chomsky has doubled down on some pretty terrible positions into his old age, including "Ukraine asked for it" when it came to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or a continuous stream of apologies and whataboutisms for regimes who resemble his ideal politics in name only

I mean OP who edited their original comment to remove a snide remark on Chomsky just because he's been critical of the occupation.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#227

Post by ein0p »

vasco wrote: post #117
ein0p wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers. Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined

I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans. It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something…

But Wikipedia is also full of lies and omissions, though. You're going to have to work to synthesize some plausible version of the past from the politically motivated sources either way.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#228

Post by chipotle_coyote »

collyw wrote: post #215
_aaed wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

If you believe that "vaccinations protect us against disease" is propaganda, I have very bad news about whatever information sources you've been following.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#229

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

foobarqux wrote: post #158
hughesjj wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too. Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character development. I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and his name carried a lot of hate like Hillary/Clinton did, but i didn't know why. Later, I saw some of his writings on American interventionism, and I found myself nodding my head in agreement over the mistake…

[flagged]

There is unfortunately a staggering amount of evidence of genocide in Ukraine committed by russia. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that russia is "acting with restraint and moderation" as Chomsky said, is tantamount to Holocaust denial.

https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/n...

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#230

Post by racional »

nailer wrote: post #48
pydry wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And even verbally supported Hamas best I can remember. Did he say something controversial like "Gaza has a right to defend itself?"

[flagged]

Israel gave Gazans a 250-300M flower export business.

Which promptly failed due to Israeli-imposed border closures.

You can confirm this from any source you like.

Post reply on HN