burt - 06 September 2011 07:55 AM

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 07:38 AM

If you want to understand terrorism, (and most don’t),  then listen to an intellectual who actually explains the problems involved

here is Noam Chomsky ... on Terrorism ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA

On the other hand, you also need to know that Chomsky is a rabid anti-American far left egotist.

Nice to see well thought out rebuttal that is pure ad hominem. The old Bush standard of If you are not for us then you are against us, is still in full play.
If you want to understand terrorism, and most don’t, not even on a web page dedicated to thinking.

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 01:21 PM

burt - 06 September 2011 07:55 AM

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 07:38 AM

If you want to understand terrorism, (and most don’t),  then listen to an intellectual who actually explains the problems involved

here is Noam Chomsky ... on Terrorism ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA

On the other hand, you also need to know that Chomsky is a rabid anti-American far left egotist.

Nice to see well thought out rebuttal that is pure ad hominem. The old Bush standard of If you are not for us then you are against us, is still in full play.
If you want to understand terrorism, and most don’t, not even on a web page dedicated to thinking.

Muslims quote Noam Chomsky most frequently to support their chants about death to America and how evil America is.

It is hard to understand the concept of Prof Chomsky’s good and bad.  Even after New York Times acknowledged the atrocities, years later, he continued to defend Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. He claimed the number of a deaths were in the few thousands and refused to accept the reality of nearly 1.7 Million Cambodians murdered, estimated to be 1/4 of the total population. Chomsky praised Pol Pot’s “constructive achievements for much of the population”. 

If you studied the Vietnam War history, seen the documentary Hearts and Minds which won the best feature documentary at the Oscars in 1975, you will better understand there is a great deal of difference in what we call “good” and “bad” between different groups. At the ceremony, the American producers read the letter from the Vietcong which received a standing ovation.  With the support of the Hollywood Liberals and others like Noam Chomsky, and by end of 1975, wanton slaughter had begun. In the next two years, communists killed about 2.7 Million Vietnamese and Cambodians, far more than had died in the 15 years prior.

Some may think that is a bad thing. Prof Chomsky does not necessarily think so.  Then again, compared to others whom the left revered such as Mao and Stalin who are responsible for much more deaths, perhaps Pol Pot’s crimes were arguably small POTatos, stills provides just another data point on left’s fascination of leaders who murdered his own people by the millions.

Celal - 06 September 2011 02:35 PM

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 01:21 PM

burt - 06 September 2011 07:55 AM

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 07:38 AM

If you want to understand terrorism, (and most don’t),  then listen to an intellectual who actually explains the problems involved

here is Noam Chomsky ... on Terrorism ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA

On the other hand, you also need to know that Chomsky is a rabid anti-American far left egotist.

Nice to see well thought out rebuttal that is pure ad hominem. The old Bush standard of If you are not for us then you are against us, is still in full play.
If you want to understand terrorism, and most don’t, not even on a web page dedicated to thinking.

Muslims quote Noam Chomsky most frequently to support their chants about death to America and how evil America is.

It is hard to understand the concept of Prof Chomsky’s good and bad.  Even after New York Times acknowledged the atrocities, years later, he continued to defend Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. He claimed the number of a deaths were in the few thousands and refused to accept the reality of nearly 1.7 Million Cambodians murdered, estimated to be 1/4 of the total population. Chomsky praised Pol Pot’s “constructive achievements for much of the population”. 

If you studied the Vietnam War history, seen the documentary Hearts and Minds which won the best feature documentary at the Oscars in 1975, you will better understand there is a great deal of difference in what we call “good” and “bad” between different groups. At the ceremony, the American producers read the letter from the Vietcong which received a standing ovation.  With the support of the Hollywood Liberals and others like Noam Chomsky, and by end of 1975, wanton slaughter had begun. In the next two years, communists killed about 2.7 Million Vietnamese and Cambodians, far more than had died in the 15 years prior.

Some may think that is a bad thing. Prof Chomsky does not necessarily think so.  Then again, compared to others whom the left revered such as Mao and Stalin who are responsible for much more deaths, perhaps Pol Pot’s crimes were arguably small POTatos, stills provides just another data point on left’s fascination of leaders who murdered his own people by the millions.

My recommendation is to read the essay The Lure of Syracuse by Mark Lilla.  It’s available on the internet.  It applies to Chomsky in full, at least in my opinion.  He’s a brilliant linguist but outside that his ideology is radical far left nonsense.  Not that there are not reasonable points there but you’ve got to dig through lots of junk and ego inflation to get them out and when you do you find that other more sensible people have said them in far less inflamatory ways.  Basically, I see him as believing that he is so smart that he knows exactly how everything ought to be, and that it ought to be in the way that supports his own ego.

nice rebuttal
Noam Chomsky was wrong on an issue that had nothing to do with the item under discussion, so he is therefore wrong.
... incidentally, I can find no evidence of Noam Chomsky praising Pol Pot, George Hildebrand & Gareth Porter wrote a book on Cambodia. He did give a very accurate description of a books content, but never mentioned it was a fully fabricated bit of disinformation (we are not sure if he knew). However, he did not praise the Pol Pot command.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Lilla2.htm

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 09:42 PM

nice rebuttal
Noam Chomsky was wrong on an issue that had nothing to do with the item under discussion, so he is therefore wrong.
... incidentally, I can find no evidence of Noam Chomsky praising Pol Pot, George Hildebrand & Gareth Porter wrote a book on Cambodia. He did give a very accurate description of a books content, but never mentioned it was a fully fabricated bit of disinformation (we are not sure if he knew). However, he did not praise the Pol Pot command.

http://www.amazon.com/After-Cataclysm-Political-Economy-Rights/dp/0896081001

After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume II by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
You may be able to read it on pages XII -XXIII

Amazon lets you peek online.

Celal - 06 September 2011 10:36 PM

JohnTaylor=PlayTOE - 06 September 2011 09:42 PM

nice rebuttal
Noam Chomsky was wrong on an issue that had nothing to do with the item under discussion, so he is therefore wrong.
... incidentally, I can find no evidence of Noam Chomsky praising Pol Pot, George Hildebrand & Gareth Porter wrote a book on Cambodia. He did give a very accurate description of a books content, but never mentioned it was a fully fabricated bit of disinformation (we are not sure if he knew). However, he did not praise the Pol Pot command.

http://www.amazon.com/After-Cataclysm-Political-Economy-Rights/dp/0896081001

After the Cataclysm: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume II by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman
You may be able to read it on pages XII -XXIII

Amazon lets you peek online.

Finally a rebuttal with a bit of evidence.
This particular book is one I missed, possibly because it is an embarrassment to any who are the owners of a copy.

However, being quite wrong on this unrelated issue does not make Chomsky wrong on the original item presented.