Earlier quoted context omitted.
equivalent example?
Genocide denial or downplaying? Yeah no idea why you would compare those.
Ok go ahead, show me where Chomsky directly denies a genocide.
Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
451–460 of 500 posts
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that says more about the military capabilities of the people that America fought vs that of the people Russia is fighting?
That tank column was defeated by mud and lack of supply, opposing forces were a distant third. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy
Would you say that this particular episode is representative of the entire Russian military during this conflict?
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing up cause and response, once again, and ignoring the timeline of events. > There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, let alone the intangible value of various forms of aid provided (things like intelligence are hard to assess). "Hehe, well we didn't file the proper paperwork" isn't exactly…
So if the justification is a lie (as it was in Kuwait) that makes it OK? Gotcha!
Which part was a lie?
Here's the UN Security Council resolution that authorised the invasion. It's quite clear on the reasoning, the justification, and the mechanisms.
https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=S%2FRES%2F678(199...
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh wow, its the same dead horse being beaten again and again and again. The whole thing is more semantical argument than ideological. Chomsky is not 100% right on everything and his world views are more black and white than the world they describe. But he is an excellent linchpin to validate your own views against. People who hate him always attack him based on few things from the past, while following/praising peopl…
There's a difference between being wrong on a few things, and being consistently wrong and so far up your own ass that you have Slavoj Žižek and Sam Harris calling you out and the only response you have is "He's just posturing", He is a coward, he is the spinless person in the situation 99% of the time, the only thing he does is provide FUD for far-left ideology, attacking him for things he's done in the past is well…
Calling a person who was arrested and put on Nixons enemies list, a spinless coward is... a likely statement of a spineless coward.
> being consistently wrong
So easy to throw grandiose statements like that substantiated by nothing and build your whole argument on it.
I was only aware of the Sam Harris clash, at the time that it actually happened. As I read both of them. Harris was a child with a chip on his shoulder, desperately trying to 'win'.
I had to read about this Zizek clash and again more of the smoke than fire. He accuses him of lack of empirical evidences, gives none in return, brings back Cambodia (a low blow, as he must be fully aware of the bigger picture) and then he tangents of to some power dynamics in academia for majority of it.
more of the smoke than fire
Again using Cambodia as only example is just boring. The whole thing of 'denial' is much more complicated as was going on at the time events were unfolding. At the time Chomsky convinced himself that this was a propaganda move to push war narrative. And he was wrong. Plain and simple. Even as more reports came in he convinced himself that he was right.
But still US was using the genocide as a drum-beat for war across SE Asia.
Analogously, if he was saying that Saddam didn't have weapon of mass destruction - that its a hoax of CIA to gain casus belli - and US Army did find some. And then be forever chastised for everything you say because of a misjudgement.
But its much easier and convenient for right wing hawks to just bash 'Chomsky denies KR genocides' a black and white narrative.
I don't fully agree with Chomsky worldviews, but he definitely shaped a lot of them. And help to create a counter narrative to US propaganda. He absolutely leans in too much into US imerialism bad angle.
But this in itself is a great tool to forge your own opinions against.
Nobody ever mention his takes on power affecting press and free speech and takes on neo-liberalism. Because I find it hard to argue with those, and never found any worthwhile critism of those.
But again all you hear is smug morons like you screeching 'Chomsky bad cuz Cambodia'
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That 1) is full of holes. It is 2024, only 2 years later, and Ukraine is awash with NATO gear and as mentioned the official position of the US State Department is saying they're going to be part of NATO. They were clearly on the verge of integrating with NATO if not already doing so and close to the point where Russia was out of options. If the Russian military had waited any longer there wouldn't have been anythin…
There has been order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of killing as many Russians as possible, let alone the intangible value of various forms of aid provided (things like intelligence are hard to assess). "Hehe, well we didn't file the proper paperwork" isn't exactly the sort of response that is going to get a good result. I doubt the Russians are worri…
Order-of-magnitude 100 billion dollars worth of NATO gear provided to Ukraine with the express purpose of ...
Getting invading troops out of Ukrainian territory.
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if Russia wants to get to play the top bully too, for a while -- well, we should just cut them some slack and let them have their way for a while? Because fair is fair, right? That seems to be the essence of your argument here. (None of those wars are directly analogous to what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now of course; but never mind that for now).
Who is "we"? I'm not American. Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?
You should treat then differently because they are altogether different. When is the last time USA annexed parts of another country?
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if the justification is a lie (as it was in Kuwait) that makes it OK? Gotcha!
Which part was a lie? Here's the UN Security Council resolution that authorised the invasion. It's quite clear on the reasoning, the justification, and the mechanisms. https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=S%2FRES%2F678(199...
The whole "babies thrown out of incubators" thing for one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
This was the basis for manufacturing consent for the invasion. What you are linking is simply the after-the-fact legalese.
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
That tank column was defeated by mud and lack of supply, opposing forces were a distant third. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy
Would you say that this particular episode is representative of the entire Russian military during this conflict?
Pretty much? They have logistics problems 20 miles from their borders, we had excellent logistics for 20 years in frickin Afghanistan. They built Taco Bell restaurants on the bases. These are entirely different leagues of capability.
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad someone said it. Hamas is not a terrorist because they terrorize. Hamas is a terrorist because they are a threat to western govt and world order. Similarly south africa post apartheid was a threat to western world order.
How is Hamas a threat to western governments? And S-A's apartheid government was actually boikotted by western governments. How do you explain that?
here is the voting record on the boycott of South Africa on apartheid:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/629398?ln=en
Western govts either abstained or voted no.
Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia is a nuclear-armed state. They have nothing to fear from NATO. They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Except from within. Disagree? Answer my questions below, and explain exactly how you would go about attacking Russia.
>They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this? Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border (523 miles from the center of Moscow) their plan goes out the window.
> Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border
Give me a break. You can throw a rock from Estonia and hit Saint Petersburg, look at a map of the area sometime. Estonia has been in NATO for over 15 years or something like that. Somehow Russia's been ok with that situation so far as to not start a shooting war over it.
This war with Ukraine is purely a war of aggression based on a Russian chauvinistic narrative of history. Putin explicitly says so in his writings, e.g. "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians".