[untitled]
12 comments
You definitely need references for your claims there. As far as I know, and I'm not a Noam Chomsky expert, he has compared the media attention given to massacres in some parts of the world with massacres in others. From what I've read of him he didn't say that they didn't happen or that they weren't awful.
But like I said, I'm not expert. And from the bits of Chomsky's writings and interviews that I have read I certainly don't agree with all of his opinions although I do find him an interesting man. But you certainly need to provide evidence when you make claims like that against anyone, it's just not acceptable to make the statements on their own.
But like I said, I'm not expert. And from the bits of Chomsky's writings and interviews that I have read I certainly don't agree with all of his opinions although I do find him an interesting man. But you certainly need to provide evidence when you make claims like that against anyone, it's just not acceptable to make the statements on their own.
References are already given below.
[deleted]
Do you have sources for these statements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/thirdworldfascism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/thirdworldfascism.html
Thanks, but I see no mention of Hue in either of those pages?
"On the massacre at Hue, Chomsky and Herman quote from a captured document in which the Viet Cong boast of having 'eliminated' thousands of people, but they dismiss the evidence because 'nowhere in the document is it claimed or even suggested that any civilians had been executed'."
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/thirdworldfascism.html
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/thirdworldfascism.html
It's been discussed before on HN, here's last time -
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775881
"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing." - Noah Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Posit...
And:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775946
> I think you're exaggerating the point to some degree by saying "there's no concentration camps in Cambodia", but I think you're generally right.
"...that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing"
He says they were:
1. In areas not under the control of the Khmer Rouge (false)
2. Manages to somehow blame the United States for the few killings he does admit happened.
A lot of people don't realize that if the United States and South Vietnamese had won the war, the massacres in Cambodia don't happen. Cambodia would've been next.
American Withdrawl: 15 May 1975
Fall of Saigon: 30 April 1975
Khmer Rouge Genocide: 1975 to 1979
Wikipedia: "The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge regime, during its rule of the country from 1975 to 1979, immediately after the end of the Vietnam War." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields (emphasis mine)
That wouldn't have happened with a stable joint American/South Vietnamese presence next door. Couldn't have happened, the USA wouldn't have allowed massacre on that scale the way the communist powers did. At the risk of getting into political territory, I think people like Noah Chomsky and Jane Fonda have a lot more blood on their hands than any of the military commanders they like to criticize.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775881
"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing." - Noah Chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Posit...
And:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775946
> I think you're exaggerating the point to some degree by saying "there's no concentration camps in Cambodia", but I think you're generally right.
"...that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing"
He says they were:
1. In areas not under the control of the Khmer Rouge (false)
2. Manages to somehow blame the United States for the few killings he does admit happened.
A lot of people don't realize that if the United States and South Vietnamese had won the war, the massacres in Cambodia don't happen. Cambodia would've been next.
American Withdrawl: 15 May 1975
Fall of Saigon: 30 April 1975
Khmer Rouge Genocide: 1975 to 1979
Wikipedia: "The Killing Fields were a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge regime, during its rule of the country from 1975 to 1979, immediately after the end of the Vietnam War." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields (emphasis mine)
That wouldn't have happened with a stable joint American/South Vietnamese presence next door. Couldn't have happened, the USA wouldn't have allowed massacre on that scale the way the communist powers did. At the risk of getting into political territory, I think people like Noah Chomsky and Jane Fonda have a lot more blood on their hands than any of the military commanders they like to criticize.
I think there's a solid perspective here which merits anyone to look at and judge against their own beliefs.
However, it's easy to argue that there's no evidence, when you simply sidestep a damning piece of evidence that doesn't mold itself to your views. This is highly selective, and it throws the whole piece into question for me. Specifically, I'm talking about the confession, which to Chomsky, we should simply ignore because Chomsky knows he was just boasting.
Chomsky presents a lot of things as facts, which are opinions, while condemning others of doing the same thing.
It doesn't make him less wrong that others are doing it. But it certainly doesn't make him right.
However, it's easy to argue that there's no evidence, when you simply sidestep a damning piece of evidence that doesn't mold itself to your views. This is highly selective, and it throws the whole piece into question for me. Specifically, I'm talking about the confession, which to Chomsky, we should simply ignore because Chomsky knows he was just boasting.
Chomsky presents a lot of things as facts, which are opinions, while condemning others of doing the same thing.
It doesn't make him less wrong that others are doing it. But it certainly doesn't make him right.
I read Chomsky's comment about Bin Laden's "boasting" as a reasonable explanation of Bin Laden's actions. He is simply saying that just because he said he has done it does not necessarily means he actually did it, since Bin Laden stood to gain from such a statement.
Furthermore, Chomsky might be representing opinions as facts, but he does not go invade countries and assassinate people based on his ideas. I think your comparison is unfair in this regard.
Furthermore, Chomsky might be representing opinions as facts, but he does not go invade countries and assassinate people based on his ideas. I think your comparison is unfair in this regard.
Does it really matter who's done "it"? The whole "hunt for Osama" was not about punishment or rehabilitation of the guilty. It was a symbolic act. In the eyes of the world the ones who did it are the ones who took responsibility for doing it — al-Quaeda. Shooting the face of al-Qaueda in the face sends the unambiguous message — "If you try to terrorize us and kill innocent people, we'll not rest until we find you and kill you."
If someone confesses because they are forcibly coerced, the confession has no merit.
If someone confesses to something they didn't do to profit from it, well then they're an idiot and deserve the punishment.
For the record my money is on his involvement and the boasting was a legit confession.
If someone confesses to something they didn't do to profit from it, well then they're an idiot and deserve the punishment.
For the record my money is on his involvement and the boasting was a legit confession.
It feels strange that bin Laden actually denied it first (or was reported to have), or how the Taliban were willing to release him to the Americans if they provided some proof first. In any event, going to war over one person should ring alarm bells of suspicion.
> If someone confesses to something they didn't do to profit from it, well then they're an idiot and deserve the punishment
I call this total crap... You'd prefer if someone confessed and be punished, instead of have the __right__ perpetrator be punished?
I do think that justice requires us to punish the guilty only, not the innocent, regardless if they themselves want to be punished or not.
I call this total crap... You'd prefer if someone confessed and be punished, instead of have the __right__ perpetrator be punished?
I do think that justice requires us to punish the guilty only, not the innocent, regardless if they themselves want to be punished or not.
"invade countries"
I'm sorry, but we're in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government. They can expel us at anytime. They want us there. Implying that we're "invading" a country is factually incorrect, absurd, and just shows complete ignorance about our foreign policy.
I'm sorry, but we're in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government. They can expel us at anytime. They want us there. Implying that we're "invading" a country is factually incorrect, absurd, and just shows complete ignorance about our foreign policy.
the problem with that on both sides of the debate is there is independent facts that support Bin Laden;s truthful boasting but there is not independent facts supporting the alternative.
And we have to examine in this context that the Middle East political orgs such as governments have used terrorist groups to put forth their political aims and ambitions. As of yet there are no independent facts pointing to another terrorist-middle-east-government pairing for the 911 attacks although Iraq was slightly implied by several fundamental US groups.
And we have to examine in this context that the Middle East political orgs such as governments have used terrorist groups to put forth their political aims and ambitions. As of yet there are no independent facts pointing to another terrorist-middle-east-government pairing for the 911 attacks although Iraq was slightly implied by several fundamental US groups.
> Specifically, I'm talking about the confession
The "confession video" would never be accepted in any serious court as a proof, simply because it can be fabricated and you wouldn't be able to prove if it was. See also:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_ta...
Finally, it's quite certain that had been Bin Laden caught alive, there wouldn't be enough evidence to trial him. That's the major reason why the order was obviously to "kill him."
The "confession video" would never be accepted in any serious court as a proof, simply because it can be fabricated and you wouldn't be able to prove if it was. See also:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_ta...
Finally, it's quite certain that had been Bin Laden caught alive, there wouldn't be enough evidence to trial him. That's the major reason why the order was obviously to "kill him."
Why does Chomsky ignore the 2001 Jalalabad video, the 2004 taped statement, multiple video interviews with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the September 2006 which shows Osama bin Laden with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Hamza al-Ghamdi and Wail al-Shehri...
I agree that in a fair and impartial trial, what we've been given may not have been enough to secure a prosecution. And there may or may not be enough evidence to actually implicate Osama in 9/11. But why does Chomsky act like there was nothing but the October 2001 video where he praises the attack? If he wants to argue that there isn't enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11 he should at least present all the evidence. As it is he comes off as disingenuous by not mentioning all the other videos and evidence (which I'm sure he is aware of).
There is a lot more I disagree with in his reaction but that stands out the most.
I agree that in a fair and impartial trial, what we've been given may not have been enough to secure a prosecution. And there may or may not be enough evidence to actually implicate Osama in 9/11. But why does Chomsky act like there was nothing but the October 2001 video where he praises the attack? If he wants to argue that there isn't enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11 he should at least present all the evidence. As it is he comes off as disingenuous by not mentioning all the other videos and evidence (which I'm sure he is aware of).
There is a lot more I disagree with in his reaction but that stands out the most.
Chomsky asks a bunch of rhetorical questions the answers of which he himself has answered many times in many books. Why can America do X while if any other country doing X would result in outrage and catastrophe? Blah blah hypocrisy.
The three word answer is "might makes right" and many books and many articles don't really expand much upon that. The USA is a modern empire and we can put contracts out on people and hit them, end of story. Don't like it, then go eff yourself. End of story. He knows this.
It's no different than a small town mayor bitching about a county authority bitching about a governor bitching about a federal bureaucrat bitching about an executive. One power trumps another, and that doesn't end at the lines of nation states. The million-tentacled montster exceeds the explanatory powers of the 1000 word op-ed.
The three word answer is "might makes right" and many books and many articles don't really expand much upon that. The USA is a modern empire and we can put contracts out on people and hit them, end of story. Don't like it, then go eff yourself. End of story. He knows this.
It's no different than a small town mayor bitching about a county authority bitching about a governor bitching about a federal bureaucrat bitching about an executive. One power trumps another, and that doesn't end at the lines of nation states. The million-tentacled montster exceeds the explanatory powers of the 1000 word op-ed.
I guess this is as good a place as any to say it: Why isn't it possible to hold trials without the accused present, at least in certain situations? The verdict of such a trial against Bin Laden could have been spoken years ago, making the whole situation a lot less complicated.
I know that this shouldn't be the usual case and there should probably be ample time for the accused to show up (three, four, five years) and then there is the question how someone who doesn't even show up should be defended but I don't see any huge problems with that, especially if it's only used in very rare cases.
I know that this shouldn't be the usual case and there should probably be ample time for the accused to show up (three, four, five years) and then there is the question how someone who doesn't even show up should be defended but I don't see any huge problems with that, especially if it's only used in very rare cases.
Because in common law there is a principle of 'natural justice' that is designed to make sure that all parties have equal and uninhibited access to the legal system. A conviction in absentia would be considered by most lawyers to be as bad as a trial that proceeded where the defendant was assumed guilty to be proven innocent.
If the accused is afraid of unfair treatment, like Julian Assange after the treatment of Bradley Manning, then it would be reasonable for them to want to stay away from that country until they received certain assurances or have the charges dropped (Gary McKinnon is another case to think about). If you set the process going then trying them in their absence would be convenient for the state but not fair to them.
I suspect that much of the trouble with this is twofold; a) 'very rare cases' has this habit of becoming commonplace in practice, and b) who other than the accused could reasonably determine whether he is being defended to his satisfaction? You could posit "defense" attorneys whose interests lie in subverting the process.
In short, you say you don't see any huge problems, but that sounds a little like Fermat saying he can't fit a proof in the margin. I suspect that if you look further you'll start seeing problems :p
In short, you say you don't see any huge problems, but that sounds a little like Fermat saying he can't fit a proof in the margin. I suspect that if you look further you'll start seeing problems :p
The problem is in defining the "certain situations". Those suspected of terrorism? Hmm.
The Confrontation Clause, as embodied in the sixth amendment to the US constitution, is generally regarded as a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
The Confrontation Clause, as embodied in the sixth amendment to the US constitution, is generally regarded as a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
Chomsky makes an interesting point about how the U.S. military names weaponry after vanquished foes and their artifacts (e.g., Apache helicopter, Tomahawk missile).
So I make this call first:
So I make this call first:
- in 20 years when the U.S. military
can deploy networked/armed decentralized
P2P microweapons with explosive, chemical,
and nano agents, such a network will be
named the "Al Qaeda Swarm"
- to introduce new programming/objectives to
this decentralized network will be termed
"upgrading its bin Laden"
Say what you like about Chomsky, but this fact remains:
Whether there is a Republican or Democrat in office, America ignores international law when it suits its own interests to do so.
Whether there is a Republican or Democrat in office, America ignores international law when it suits its own interests to do so.
Uncontroversially, [George W. Bush's] crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s,
If he hadn't already lost me, he would have here.
If he hadn't already lost me, he would have here.
Yes, I enjoyed 'uncontroversially'. Now, what he should have said was: "It turns out that George Bush's crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's". Everything works better with "It turns out"!
Are you implying that George Bush's crimes exceed bin Laden's? You can't be serious, can you?
Why?
On the issue of the first line, assassination, I don't hold overly black and white views; however, I would ask when is this going to end for America? With drone strikes and whatever else going on seemingly unchecked I wonder if America is straying too far from the line.
Where's the line? Do I have to kill you in person to be on the right side of it? What if I use a gun instead of a knife? Is that still okay? How about if I have all kinds of armor and a bunch of buddies behind me, and I blow you up with a grenade, how about then?
Interesting article. Not appropriate for HN. Reddit exists.
apologists for atrocities should be spit on in the street, not have their opinion widely discussed.
Chomsky reminds me of the college student with a Che shirt. Inexcusably ignorant.
Chomsky reminds me of the college student with a Che shirt. Inexcusably ignorant.
justice was done upon osama bin laden prof. No need spinning it
...denied the Hue massacres in Vietnam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF
...denied the Khmer Rogue Holocaust in Cambodia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Genocide
...advocated actions that were eventually followed, which lead to the death and enslavement of millions of people...
....and he's never apologized for that, or taken culpability for those actions. The fact that he's a hero of some intellectual movements show the bankruptcy of those movements. There's real champions in the world, but he's not one of them. Noah Chomsky is an apologist for tyranny, and someone who has advocated extraordinarily bad policy. Even if you slant left - and I've been gradually moving more leftwards - this man should be treated as a pariah and an embarrassment for the horror his actions have helped perpetuate.
Edit: Whoever is downvoting this, and especially the facts and citations following it... I don't know what to tell you. Chomsky got the policies he was advocating for, and Communist Southeast Asia was horror, bloodbath, and concentration camps afterwards. It was very bad. You might not have heard this side of the story, but it's what actually happened. The Khmer Rouge atrocities don't happen if the South Vietnam/USA coalition wins against the North Vietnam/USSR coalition, or at least winds up demilitarized like North Korea/South Korea.