• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chomsky: The Iranian Threat

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Noam Chomsky at his sarcastic best. Bush seemed determined to antagonize Iran and ignore all opportunities for a peaceful resolution. Is Obama any different?

The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil’s president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once – recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran’s resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.

ZCommunications | The Iranian Threat by Noam Chomsky | ZSpace
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,898
Reaction score
35,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
he is spot on in his assessments
The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.
Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US must take major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not succeed. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Noam Chomsky at his sarcastic best. Bush seemed determined to antagonize Iran and ignore all opportunities for a peaceful resolution. Is Obama any different?

As usual, I found multiple lies and misstatements by the leftist idiot. Hilarious how often this idiot protects and coddles the worst regimes on earth, how come he was so quiet while iran was murdering and raping its own citizens last year? How come he never says anything about the suicide bombings by iran's terrorist proxies?

And the line about violating the UN charter was even funnier, given that iran has been committing gross War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, violated the Human Rights on Prisoners Protocols for decades, and is ignoring 4 UNSC resolutions right now against nuclearization.

I won't get into how it is violated other resolutions requiring it to cease arming terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah.

But when did a 3rd-rate intellect like chumpsky ever let facts interfere with his nonsense?
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As usual, I found multiple lies and misstatements by the leftist idiot.

And as usual with Chomsky's critics, you're not able to specify any of them. You only point out that Iran has a somewhat abusive regime, a fact that Chomsky acknowledges in his article several times.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yawn.

If you can't get him on the facts, play the anti-Semite card.
The 'card' is why he hold his 'Israel' opinions.

Nor do I know the purpose of your OP except to glorify/praise Chimpsky.. this person Would then become fair game for any attack.

If you want to discuss Iran/US Iran policy... what's your point? Your opinion. Why you cited the above.
Be glad to engage.
 
Last edited:

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The 'card' is why he hold his 'Israel' opinions.

Nor do I know the purpose of your OP except to glorify/praise Chimpsky.. this person Would then become fair game for any attack.

If you want to discuss Iran/US Iran policy... what's your point? Your opinion. Why you cited the above.
Be glad to engage.

My opinion is that Obama is pursuing the same policy with Iran that Bush did with Iraq--regime change above all else. The nuclear issue is just a pretext to that end. Therefore, the outcome will be the same regardless of what Iran does or doesn't do.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I wasn't aware Chomsky was still relevant. I thought his credibility shot a long time ago on global issues... though I'm sure his linguistic prowess is still in demand.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,898
Reaction score
35,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wasn't aware Chomsky was still relevant. I thought his credibility shot a long time ago on global issues... though I'm sure his linguistic prowess is still in demand.

then help us out
please point out the portions of Chomsky's article you find to be wrong - and what causes that to be wrong
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
then help us out
please point out the portions of Chomsky's article you find to be wrong - and what causes that to be wrong
Fallacious logic response.
He didn't say he was "wrong".

He said he found him no longer relevant.
And I'm sure, he, like I, doesn't want to read a Long Chimpsky unless there's some specific bone of contention pointed to.
Probably not as bad as the last 117 min Chimpy youtube OP posted here a few months ago.. but still a 'so what' "Bad USA/Israel".
 
Last edited:

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yawn. If you can't get him on the facts, play the anti-Semite card.

Quotes from Chimpsky listed below, with my responses:

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

This is false, as the threats of force are in support of the 4 UNSC resolutions Iran is violating, along with the other UNSC resolutions it is violating by transferring arms to terrorist groups. Israel has also sufficient cause to attack iran since iran has violated the UN core charter provisions by threatening it.

Though the Iranian threat is not military,

This is also false, since it has one of the largest armies in the region, and has procured thousands of offensive long-range rockets and missiles. It also uses terrorism against other nations, let alone its nuclear weapons program.

The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon’s latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the US and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election.

This idiot also promulgates half-truths by failing to mention relevent facts, like the context WHY israel is blockading Gaza. But then again, this was the douchebag who defended pol pot's regime in the early '70s - and is still hoping we forget that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Position_on_Cambodian_Atrocities_Criticized

"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."

and:

"In After the Cataclysm, when commenting on Francois Ponchaud's suggestion that the death toll in Cambodia might run into the millions, Chomsky and Herman suggest that "we wonder, frankly, whether Ponchaud really believes such figures."[22]"

Yeah, that's a REAL winner I want to emulate right there, fuc-ing idiot...

These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world.

Notice how also omits that while in GAZA alone hamas was elected - almost 5 years ago - and conducted an illegal coup by murder. The moron also omits the fact that no one in Hamas has planned for any new elections, despite being in power for how long - FIVE years? Or like all of Chimpsky's favored dictators, once elected, they're in power for life?

commemorating Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance –

Notice how the idiot fails to state WHY israel entered lebanon in the first place, maybe it was the years of mortar shelling and attacks coming from southern lebanon while under Arafat's mini-dictatorship there? I'll bet this turd also never mentioned how well the PLO was "treating" the southern lebanese...

Hamas resists Israel’s military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognize Israel (political parties do not recognize states).

Notice how the turd uses the language "resists" as the Far Left/mentally ill's euphemism for terrorism. And he call hamas a "political party", so i guess when the arab terror apologists claim that hamas is the "duly elected government of gaza," then they are wrong, since their master calls them merely a "political party."

Lastly the moron says that the mideast should be "nuclear weapons free", the typical far left canard to leave the 4 million jews of israel defenseless against 500 million arab muslims. Any more questions?
 
Last edited:

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I notice that the people who hate Chomsky are just afraid of the glaring truths he talks about, yet cannot really point out the ways in which he is "dead wrong".
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quotes from Chimpsky listed below, with my responses:



This is false, as the threats of force are in support of the 4 UNSC resolutions Iran is violating, along with the other UNSC resolutions it is violating by transferring arms to terrorist groups. Israel has also sufficient cause to attack iran since iran has violated the UN core charter provisions by threatening it.

It's quite correct. There's no resolution authorizing the use of force against Iran, so any attack at this time would be an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter.

joergan said:
This is also false, since it has one of the largest armies in the region, and has procured thousands of offensive long-range rockets and missiles. It also uses terrorism against other nations, let alone its nuclear weapons program.

Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons program that we know of. The US has a large army, too, so that doesn't prove much.

joergan said:
This idiot also promulgates half-truths by failing to mention relevent facts, like the context WHY israel is blockading Gaza. But then again, this was the douchebag who defended pol pot's regime in the early '70s - and is still hoping we forget that...

Criticism of Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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."

and:

"In After the Cataclysm, when commenting on Francois Ponchaud's suggestion that the death toll in Cambodia might run into the millions, Chomsky and Herman suggest that "we wonder, frankly, whether Ponchaud really believes such figures."[22]"

Yeah, that's a REAL winner I want to emulate right there, fuc-ing idiot...

He's pretty clear about why Israel attacked and blockaded Gaza. It was punishment for electing Hamas. As for Cambodia, this is more of the usual character assassination that substitutes for argument whenever Chomsky's name comes up. He has never defended Pol Pot. What he has done is promote accurate information, as opposed to American propaganda. I'll quote part of the Wikipedia article that you left out:

Noam Chomsky said:
What I wrote was, and I don't have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated.

joergan said:
Notice how also omits that while in GAZA alone hamas was elected - almost 5 years ago - and conducted an illegal coup by murder. The moron also omits the fact that no one in Hamas has planned for any new elections, despite being in power for how long - FIVE years? Or like all of Chimpsky's favored dictators, once elected, they're in power for life?

I'm not sure what the first sentence means, but the rest is a pretty insipid criticism. The Hamas regime has had more than enough to worry about trying to escape imprisonment and death at the hands of the Israelis.

joergan said:
Notice how the idiot fails to state WHY israel entered lebanon in the first place, maybe it was the years of mortar shelling and attacks coming from southern lebanon while under Arafat's mini-dictatorship there? I'll bet this turd also never mentioned how well the PLO was "treating" the southern lebanese...

And the mortar attacks in turn were in response to previous Israeli incursions.

joergan said:
Notice how the turd uses the language "resists" as the Far Left/mentally ill's euphemism for terrorism. And he call hamas a "political party", so i guess when the arab terror apologists claim that hamas is the "duly elected government of gaza," then they are wrong, since their master calls them merely a "political party."

Lastly the moron says that the mideast should be "nuclear weapons free", the typical far left canard to leave the 4 million jews of israel defenseless against 500 million arab muslims. Any more questions?

Resistance and terrorism are just two words for the same thing...unless you want to apply an objective definition, in which case the US and Israel are terrorists, too.

Far from being a canard, the idea of nuclear disarmament is the very basis of the NPT, the treaty we're now cynically using as an excuse to threaten Iran. While trying to deprive them of their right to enrich uranium under the NPT, we've all but renounced the commitment to disarmament that we made in exchange for Iran's adoption of the treaty.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Chomsky use to be great he has lost it these days though.He has started talking crap he has gone the same way as gore vidal.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Resistance and terrorism are just two words for the same thing...unless you want to apply an objective definition, in which case the US and Israel are terrorists, too.

Intelligent people, however, realize that resistance and terrorism are NOT the same thing, as they realize the difference between guerilla war (which involves targeting military and strategic sites) and terrorism (which targets civilians). In addition, intelligent people realize the big difference between killing people intentionally in order to terrorize the population at large, and incidences of civilian casualties during times of war.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Intelligent people, however, realize that resistance and terrorism are NOT the same thing, as they realize the difference between guerilla war (which involves targeting military and strategic sites) and terrorism (which targets civilians). In addition, intelligent people realize the big difference between killing people intentionally in order to terrorize the population at large, and incidences of civilian casualties during times of war.

I agree; those are the things that objectively define terrorism. But by that definition Israel and the US are terrorists, too, so there's still no point in belaboring the term.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree; those are the things that objectively define terrorism. But by that definition Israel and the US are terrorists, too, so there's still no point in belaboring the term.

No, by that definition neither country indulges in terrorism.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, by that definition neither country indulges in terrorism.

Well, that's where we disagree. To take two examples, the sanctions against Iraq and the Israeli blockade of Gaza were both designed to target and terrorize civilians, not to go after military and strategic sites.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, that's where we disagree. To take two examples, the sanctions against Iraq and the Israeli blockade of Gaza were both designed to target and terrorize civilians, not to go after military and strategic sites.

Complete bull.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder what Gnome Chompsky has to say about the woman in Iran convicted of adultery, without a single witness, who is going to be stoned to death.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
then help us out
please point out the portions of Chomsky's article you find to be wrong - and what causes that to be wrong

You misunderstand - I'm not talking about Chomsky's credibility in THIS particular article, I meant on all global, political and societal issues in general... I thought his credibility IN GENERAL no longer was relevant except in the field of linguistics.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
53,898
Reaction score
35,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You misunderstand - I'm not talking about Chomsky's credibility in THIS particular article, I meant on all global, political and societal issues in general... I thought his credibility IN GENERAL no longer was relevant except in the field of linguistics.

so, while you find him less than credible you do not find error within his article

then why should your perception of his crediblity in any way color our opinions about what he is saying within the subject article?
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
so, while you find him less than credible you do not find error within his article
I didn't read the article.

then why should your perception of his crediblity in any way color our opinions about what he is saying within the subject article?
I'm not sure my perception will color anything, or is that a bad attempt at a stawman? Chomsky is just another opinion in a sea of opinions. :shrug: His is no more credible than yours in my opinion.

Back to my original point, I'm surprised he's still relevant. I guess you count yourself among those still paying attention to what he says... so he at least has a few readers.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom