PDA

View Full Version : chomsky vs buckley



luka
03-01-2009, 08:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-GUAxmxdk

buckley is admirably pretentious/
craner would say chomsky gets eaten alive here, make up yr own minds...

craner
03-01-2009, 11:27 AM
Funnily enough, I just finished reading this (http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/buckleys200901) article. I don't know about WFB - he was obviously a very smart and energetic and talented individual, but his ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholicism made him sound a bit mad. His wife was great, though.

I don't know why people don't prevail against Chomsky more often and more effectively, as he always strikes me as being rather easy to take down. So many of his statements in public debate are so utterely and flagrantly decontextualised and distorted that thay are worthless. There's a debate with Richard Perle on youtube, in which Perle attempts, quite consisely, to explain that a State Department policy paper produced by staffers from one of the many Foggy Bottom departments in the mid-80s is not the same thing as Reagan Administration policy. Obviously true, but Chomsky's retort is, well, people involved in the Administration always claim to know more than those her weren't. Hardly high-calibre stuff. (Even more silly, as Perle spent most of his time at Defense in bureaucratic civil war with State.)

After this little exchange, you can see Perle's eyes glaze over and he simply sinks into morose boredom, allowing Chomsky to ramble on and on and throw his accusations and mild tantrums. This leaves the impression that he eviscerates Perle, even though he doesn't. But I think this is how he does it: by boring his opponents into submission.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:21 PM
i wish merely to draw attention to the starkly terrifying teeth-baring of buckley. its truly deepy sinister. watch and quail. that is no ordinary smile.

craner
03-01-2009, 12:34 PM
Apparently Nancy Reagan had the hots for him.

Also David Niven was his big buddy.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:46 PM
he reminds me of kenneth willaims a lot. is that the right name? the carry on camping one....

craner
03-01-2009, 03:03 PM
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/monicaacbarros/calvin_hobbes1.jpg

vimothy
06-01-2009, 11:30 AM
Listened to Perle vs Chomsky last night. Very funny, at least for a bit. Chomsky droning on spuriously about a few random documents that apparently prove everything from America's imperial ambition to Regan's mass murder (he killed more people than Pol Pot)! Perle, dignified but weary, annihilates him. Got bored after that.

luka
06-01-2009, 11:40 AM
Chomsky is crushingly dull and his books are unreadable. However I suspect he is one of the Great Men of Our Time, such as they are. Perle probably isn't.

vimothy
06-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Perle's still the 'prince of darkness' though, isn't he -- he needs to rehabilitate his rep via some kind of public humiliation on Celebrity Big Brother.

luka
06-01-2009, 11:53 AM
not sure he'd ever take a leaf out of galloways book.

swears
06-01-2009, 11:55 AM
"I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way. I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is... people are interested in the issues, and they're interested in the issues because they are important."

vimothy
06-01-2009, 12:00 PM
But Richard Perle in a cat suit would pull in the viewers, and establish his humanity. (I should do PR). Got to be better telly than that execrable tit Sherridan.

vimothy
06-01-2009, 12:01 PM
"I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way."

Worked for Ginsberg. I bet he got laid all the time.

luka
06-01-2009, 12:14 PM
perle has a nice way of speaking. sticks to generalities though. i do think he comes off a fair bit worse.

crackerjack
06-01-2009, 12:19 PM
But Richard Perle in a cat suit would pull in the viewers, and establish his humanity.

Or establish his lack of it.


Got to be better telly than that execrable tit Sherridan.

Tommy S is going on CBB? Christ, he really is Gallowlite. Why isn't he in jail yet?

luka
06-01-2009, 12:33 PM
just listened to the whole of the perele one.
not sure what craner was on about. he's a bit of a dick when it comes to politics.
i've never heard anyone get demolished in debate like that before. perle is utterly helpless/

vimothy
06-01-2009, 12:34 PM
perle has a nice way of speaking

That's true -- a rich, smoky baritone, like an American Richard Burton. Perhaps, seeing as CBB is up and running already, Perle could do Jackanory instead.

vimothy
06-01-2009, 12:36 PM
just listened to the whole of the perele one.
not sure what craner was on about. he's a bit of a dick when it comes to politics.
i've never heard anyone get demolished in debate like that before.

I listened up to the end of part four, and I don't think that Chomsky had landed any punches by that point. Guess it all happens in the last two rounds.

luka
06-01-2009, 12:37 PM
gets going at part 6. chomsky is actually genuinely stunning. a real performance. perle flounders painfully. it becomes humiliating. perle starts yelling marxist like thingy did, the guy that obama was comepteting against.

scottdisco
06-01-2009, 05:39 PM
thanks for the summary Luka.

i hear Lucy Pinder and Terry Christian are on CBB.

i believe Mutya Buena is too, and i must be frank: i have the hots for her, big time.

(sorry, this has nothing to do with Chomsky vs Perle.)

http://worldwarfour.blogspot.com/2004/04/roll-back-syria-in-april-last-year-us.html

Craner mentions Perle here and i remember Luke and i being enthused with his cataloguing of his fellow rabidly crypto-fascist neo-con ideologues at the time.

i'd like Ledeen to go toe-to-toe with Chomsky.

droid
17-01-2009, 04:19 PM
I don't know why people don't prevail against Chomsky more often and more effectively, as he always strikes me as being rather easy to take down. So many of his statements in public debate are so utterely and flagrantly decontextualised and distorted that thay are worthless.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh Oliver. I look forward to seeing your effortless demolition job.

In these debates, both Perle and Buckley offer little more than sneering affectations (and in Buckleys case - mild threats) in the face of Chomsky's relentless evidence based arguments.

'Decontextualised'? Sure, but theres only so much you can fit into this format. A criticism I would also agree with when it comes to many of his short articles and interviews. If you want to see the context you have to read his books and examine the reams of source material he draws his conclusions from.



Chomsky is crushingly dull and his books are unreadable. However I suspect he is one of the Great Men of Our Time, such as they are. Perle probably isn't.

I guess Perle could be one of the great men of our time, but unfortunately he doesnt fulfill the basic qualifications of humanity...

Since Chomsky became 'trendy', i think people have the expectation that his work will be somehow entertaining. Its not, and neither is it meant to be. Its dry academic political analyisis which requires work to get through.

luka
17-01-2009, 04:22 PM
yeah its true droid, its very very boring.

swears
23-02-2009, 12:16 AM
This is better anyway...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kawGakdNoT0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kawGakdNoT0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

nomadthethird
23-02-2009, 01:43 AM
Until I saw that video, I could never decide if I thought Foucault was probably a dom or a sub.

Now it's all very clear.

nomadthethird
23-02-2009, 01:52 AM
I also want to tell Chomsky, we don't play the game, the game plays us!

swears
23-02-2009, 01:50 PM
I really want to believe that Chomsky in that clip is right about human nature being inherently creative and good, but shackled and distorted by the machinations of power. But I think I end up siding with Foucault's caution and pessimism. Who knows what an entirely new society would be like?

nomadthethird
23-02-2009, 07:40 PM
Ha didn't you love how Foucault gets all concern trolly when he starts to talk "I don't know if I can go as far as Mr. Chomsky"... The look in his eyes, he obviously thinks Chomsky is an idiot.

I wish they'd put the whole thing up.

craner
23-02-2009, 09:07 PM
Foucault's disdain beats Perle's boredom.

nomadthethird
23-02-2009, 09:32 PM
Yeah I can't really get down to Chomsky's essentialist humanism.

Slothrop
24-02-2009, 12:19 AM
Chomsky vs Alex Jones ftw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXFX8bM6s8

Goes on a bit, but it basically ends with Jones calling Chomsky an imbecile and a NWO shill for supporting gun control.

craner
08-04-2009, 11:46 PM
Here we go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwziTJfMbg). These are the kind of conversations Luke and I used to have.

vimothy
09-04-2009, 09:40 AM
And were you Hitchens or Mos Def?

scottdisco
09-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Oliver's jewel-like prose clearly marks him out as Rushdie. (although he drinks like Hitch.*)

*pot - kettle.

luka
09-04-2009, 10:31 AM
my dad looks exactly like salman rushdie, except really skinny.

crackerjack
09-04-2009, 01:06 PM
Here we go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwziTJfMbg). These are the kind of conversations Luke and I used to have.

Oh dear. Mos Don't.

hucks
09-04-2009, 01:08 PM
Oh dear. Mos Don't.

I've seen him on this program before - is he some sort of spokesman now? Can't he just get back to doing Universal Magnetic?

crackerjack
09-04-2009, 01:16 PM
I've seen him on this program before - is he some sort of spokesman now? Can't he just get back to doing Universal Magnetic?

Hopefully he's realised the limits of bravado since then.

Is this Bill Mayer's show? When/where's it on in the UK?

Hear he's just done one on religion, which was great, say they.

droid
09-04-2009, 01:54 PM
Yeah Religulous. Entertaining, but pretty weak really.

That obsequious slug Hitchens actually manages to make Mos def look good there...

josef k.
09-04-2009, 03:11 PM
In America, everybody listens to 19th Century Fox TV News. In which a bunch of loons just scream and scream and scream. And with each scream they tell another lie. How are we ever going to have an informed citizenry? Which means then how can we have an informed election?" - Gore Vidal

droid
09-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Here's another good one; Chomsky vs. Silber:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKa63HJg88Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKa63HJg88Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nauLUrHnKck&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nauLUrHnKck&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

josef k.
09-04-2009, 04:19 PM
Chomsky's tenacity and focus under extreme provocation is impressive.

craner
09-04-2009, 04:41 PM
Fox Facts!

Fox news is phenomenal.

There was a report once from a French strike, where the Fox correspondant turned to to camera and whispered, "a lot of these people are Communists!"

Fox fact.

padraig (u.s.)
09-04-2009, 05:38 PM
That obsequious slug Hitchens actually manages to make Mos def look good there...

that's my problem with Hitchens, even when I agree with him (which isn't that often) I'm repulsed by how much of an odious jerk he is...did anyone see that video of him being waterboarded? here we go...I love that they're playing some kind of adult contemporary coffeeshap jam the background & I rather doubt real interrogators are as gentle & courteous...still I guess fair play to him for doing it & changing his views on waterboarding...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LPubUCJv58&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LPubUCJv58&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

also I hate to say it but Mos Def embarassed himself there quite badly. and it's not as if rappers can't be articulate, I've seen KRS-One hold his own against Sean Hannity (speaking of nutty Fox News)...

josef k.
09-04-2009, 06:19 PM
I just watched the KRS-One, Hannity video.

I want to live in a world in which Hannity isn't on television...

EDIT: Except perhaps in the kind of scene which Padraig posts above.

craner
09-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Holding your own against Hannity is surely not that difficult.

padraig (u.s.)
09-04-2009, 06:38 PM
Holding your own against Hannity is surely not that difficult.

intellectually, no, but it was on Hannity's own show on Fox - not usually the fairest of forums to ppl who disagree with Hannity - & I thought KRS still came off pretty well...

also on the topic of articulate rappers I think the "intelligent but gangsta" guys (to speak) frequently come off much better than the Mos Def/Kweli overtly "conscious" types...I'm thinking of Bun B, Scarface, Killer Mike, etc...

josef k.
09-04-2009, 06:50 PM
It is hard to win on Fox News - the hosts monopolize the mics and shout-down their guests. Two people who did very well were Charles Grodin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTGjN1yX-EM

Total control.

And also Phil Donahue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c&feature=PlayList&p=E5B9E295C69C76FB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12

"You can't intimidate me Billy. I'm not Jeremy Glick."

scottdisco
09-04-2009, 08:07 PM
Mos Def, Rushdie, and Hitchens were quite pally (eventually), i thought, it was quite cool. the last two men could have been rather more robust on the Maher show than they were with the rapper, so fair play, i read it as fostering lines of communication; who knows if, in the future, we won't see more of the same?

the Three Stooges.

re Hitchens and the water-boarding article he did, i take my hat off to him.

there was quite an amusing piece on LENIN'S TOMB about it, if i remember, in which amongst Seymour's insults was the elephant in the room that Hitchens had agreed to undergo this (in a friendly, controlled environment, yes) for the sake of it, which, frankly, says a lot.

Padraig, you say he changed his mind?
i happily admit to being in complete ignorance of any Hitchens views on water-boarding prior to that article.

nochexxx
10-04-2009, 10:04 AM
great thread!

there was a time when i was addicted to watching o'reilly's rants. i just love the super ridiculousness of it

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2009, 06:48 PM
re Hitchens and the water-boarding article he did, i take my hat off to him.

there was quite an amusing piece on LENIN'S TOMB about it, if i remember, in which amongst Seymour's insults was the elephant in the room that Hitchens had agreed to undergo this (in a friendly, controlled environment, yes) for the sake of it, which, frankly, says a lot.

Padraig, you say he changed his mind?

yeah he wrote an article for Slate suggesting that water-boarding isn't actually torture (which I've never actually read & rather irritatingly can't find), which is what kicked the whole thing off - the editor of Vanity Fair then challenged him to undergo it himself...certainly he's not the only commentator to make that claim, unsurprisingly Limbaugh has done so much more overtly & callously...

& I dunno about "hat off", some credit certainly - tho whatever else you can accuse of him I don't think you can call Hitchens a coward (also as per that recent incident with defacing the SSNP poster) & after all he's what, almost 60? on the other hand it really does come off like a rather grotesque carnival stunt & moreover, & more importantly, I think "is waterboarding torture?" is the wrong question...addressing a specific tactic rather than an overall attitude/doctrine...

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2009, 06:58 PM
there was a time when i was addicted to watching o'reilly's rants. i just love the super ridiculousness of it

back when I was working construction in the East Bay my boss was (in addition to being a speed freak) a hippie/desert raver type gone right wing nut & he'd blast Limbaugh & Hannity & Michael Savage every day, all day...well that or the most shite banging psytrance you could possibly imagine...me & him & a crew of Latin dudes listening to these jerks lay into illegal immigration all day, thankfully none of the Mexican guys knew enough English to pick up all the hate speech...anyway I eventually got to this strange point where right-wing talk radio became like a mantra of relaxation for me, I would just totally zone out & listen to the flow of speech & not even hear any individual words...good times...I guess...

scottdisco
10-04-2009, 08:20 PM
& I dunno about "hat off", some credit certainly - tho whatever else you can accuse of him I don't think you can call Hitchens a coward (also as per that recent incident with defacing the SSNP poster) & after all he's what, almost 60? on the other hand it really does come off like a rather grotesque carnival stunt & moreover, & more importantly, I think "is waterboarding torture?" is the wrong question...addressing a specific tactic rather than an overall attitude/doctrine...

hat off, some credit certainly, same thing really, just semantics eh :)

Hitchens wrote

At a time when Congress and the courts are conducting important hearings on the critical question of extreme interrogation, and at a time when accusations of outright torture are helping to besmirch and discredit the United States all around the world, a senior official of the CIA takes the unilateral decision to destroy the crucial evidence.

for this (http://www.slate.com/id/2179593/pagenum/all/#p2) Slate piece

torture's torture, eh.

the overall attitude/doctrine, you are quite right, is (or should be) the main issue, and i am sure the guy must be aware of the wider implications of his actions; tbf, a clear eye of his on the water-boarding thing can be read as emblematic of his take on that wider attitude/doctrine, and at least - if you will - his constant media appearances denouncing such practices and discussing this VF piece are helping act as a sort of mea culpa for earlier ethical illiteracy.

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2009, 09:10 PM
I think you're stretching it out a bit there man, as far as reading into a more general critique.

really, it's like this - it's mixed really - OK so here he is willing to put his $ where his mouth is (literally) & then say "look, I made a mistake, this is in fact wrong". I think both of those things are quite laudable. on the other hand, if you're such a jackass that you have to actually be waterboarded to understand that it's torture then I have a hard time commending you for it.

also I will admit that I simply find Hitchens to be quite repulsive, much moreso than even the Limbaughs & Hannitys, who are at least up front about it. hell for that matter I prefer Paul Wolfowitz to Hitchens. really what is more pathetic than an ex-Trotyskist neocon who can't even bring himself to admit he's a neocon? also he is the epitomy of a person who actually damages every cause he argues for by making both himself & it seem vastly unappealing...as an atheist watching him bloviate on atheism always makes me cringe...

scottdisco
10-04-2009, 09:16 PM
i admire your honesty ;)


you might conclude that Hitchens represents many of the most destructive currents in that 68er radical tradition: the illiberal contempt for ordinary politics and incremental reform, the intellectual absolutism, the attraction to power (once to the international working-class movement, now to the US) and even to violence.

here (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10141)

Craner had quite a cool piece on Wolfowitz once on one of his blogs.

padraig (u.s.)
10-04-2009, 09:34 PM
nice one - I think this hits the nail on the head as well...


He clearly aspires to be the modern Orwell, but will he leave a coherent body of thought? And in the end, should we take him seriously?

no & for the most part, no. George Orwell went to fight in the Spanish Civil War. Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be waterboarded. Which is fine (there's not always a clearcut anti-fascist cause to go fight for after all...) but I suspect that Hitchens probably equates the latter with the former...

it's quite true that he reps the worst of both ends of the Boomers...

scottdisco
10-04-2009, 10:20 PM
the Cyprus book is one of his few titles i would be bothered to pick up.

some of his columns at Slate are good, i must say, and some excellent.

Goodhart nails him on the absolutism.

droid
21-04-2009, 10:23 AM
Edward Stourton presents a series celebrating great debates, combining archive of rare discussions between key figures with analysis by a panel of experts.

The panel discusses the 1969 debate between left-wing philosopher Noam Chomsky and conservative commentator William F Buckley about United States foreign policy and how it justifies its objective of spreading 'freedom' around the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00js7tl

...

swears
21-04-2009, 11:55 AM
Yeah, I listened to this on the bus to work this morning. Not very enlightening, you'd get more from just watching the whole thing on youtube. One of the historians on it said that Chomsky just writes the same book over and over again and you know what he's going to say before you even pick it up... even though I agree with a lot of what he says I'd be inclined to say she was otm.

droid
21-04-2009, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I listened to this on the bus to work this morning. Not very enlightening, you'd get more from just watching the whole thing on youtube. One of the historians on it said that Chomsky just writes the same book over and over again and you know what he's going to say before you even pick it up... even though I agree with a lot of what he says I'd be inclined to say she was otm.

Nah, its nonsense, a fatuous shallow criticism. Manufacturing consent is nothing like Deterring Democracy, Deterring Democracy is nothing like Fateful Triangle, Fateful Triangle is nothing like At war with Asia etc...

I thought it was interesting that Buckley apparently agreed that he had lost the debate.

swears
21-04-2009, 12:14 PM
I think Chomsky is on the side of the angels, here but he is very predictable and often overstates his case.

Yeah, Buckley did admit that Vietnam might have been a "tactical error" in thr end, lol.

droid
21-04-2009, 12:25 PM
I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but nonetheless, claiming 'he writes the same book everytime' is a puzzling accusation - you could level that charge at almost any historian or political commentator...


Yeah, Buckley did admit that Vietnam might have been a "tactical error" in thr end, lol.

Yeah. Classic. A perfect illustration of Chomsky's observations re American intellectuals.

baboon2004
27-10-2009, 02:26 PM
Chomsky at SOAS tonight...

four_five_one
27-10-2009, 07:10 PM
Chomsky at SOAS tonight...

Actually totally forgot about it, but heard someone in the supermarket an hour ago talking about it - that was about fifteen mins before it was due to start, meaning no chance of getting in presumably. Met a few friends that were going down just after that though. I'm more excited about Zizek(!) at Birkbeck next month really...

droid
04-11-2009, 04:54 PM
Met the man, shook his hand and had a very brief chat on Monday at a linguistic talk I was filming for work.

Nice fella. Very unassuming but quite frail and Yoda like in person.

craner
24-12-2015, 10:49 AM
This is brilliant.

Buckley is withering, Kerouac plastered.

https://youtu.be/oaBnIzY3R00

Corpsey
24-12-2015, 01:13 PM
There's a good documentary on Netflix ATM about Buckley vs Vidal. "best of enemies" I believe it's called.

I read a bit of Chomsky a few years ago and it all seemed terrifically persuasive to me so I'd like to see these disparaging remarks about him elaborated upon. It seems the main accusations are that 1. He has a na´ve view of human nature (in which case, how does this square with his criticism of man-made institutions?) 2. He uses pieces of evidence which are actually not credible and/or important.

Corpsey
01-02-2017, 01:19 PM
Watched another film about Chomsky last night on Netflix. Seemed pretty convincing to me, especially in the light of recent events.

Still intrigued to know what the beef is re: Chomsky. I'm a very credulous person and I tend to believe whatever I'm told, even if it's something apparently subversive such as 'Western democracy is a sham designed to hold power and money in the hands of the few'.

droid
01-02-2017, 01:36 PM
The beef is that he criticises power and is almost always right.

luka
01-02-2017, 01:41 PM
isnt there something about srebrenica and the khmer rouge or something? craner despises him more than almost any other commentator

luka
01-02-2017, 01:51 PM
buckley was so sinister. imagine the baroquely perverse sexual practices he would have been into. covering his victim with a layer of translucent slime he secretes from his anal gland, secreting tanning oil from a duct in the anus as a sex lubricant.

Corpsey
01-02-2017, 03:14 PM
Re Srebrenica, I wonder if this is it:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections

The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian, on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky on three significant complaints.

Principal among these was a statement by Ms Brockes that in referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war he had placed the word "massacre" in quotation marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other comments by Ms Brockes, that Prof Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been a massacre. Prof Chomsky has been obliged to point out that he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian has no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the statement with an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky.

droid
01-02-2017, 03:25 PM
Srebrenica thing has some tiny legs, but the main offender there is Herman.

Cambodia is an oft repeated slur, only mud to stick concerns the treatment of a particular French source.

Faurisson is the other one. Complete nonsense.

After acres of text over about 50 years, its amazing that there are so few substantive or defensible criticisms and the main source of much of these comes from his legendary prickliness built up after decades of constant attacks from liberal (and not so liberal) morons.

Mr. Tea
01-02-2017, 03:55 PM
He's one of many who let their anti-Americanism bleed over into borderline pro-Russianism, I think. I mean, claiming that Russian bombardment of cities in Syria somehow isn't imperialism? Jog on, mate.

droid
01-02-2017, 04:25 PM
What are you on about?

luka
01-02-2017, 04:27 PM
hes been spending a lot of time on danny ls facebook loool

Corpsey
01-02-2017, 04:29 PM
Source?

Mr. Tea
01-02-2017, 04:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs3dzDs9Gik

droid
01-02-2017, 05:08 PM
Full segment here. Dont see anything hugely controversial there, but I too am an apologist for Russia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbkqk5WLbLs

Mr. Tea
01-02-2017, 06:41 PM
I knew it!

firefinga
01-02-2017, 09:15 PM
He's one of many who let their anti-Americanism bleed over into borderline pro-Russianism, I think. I mean, claiming that Russian bombardment of cities in Syria somehow isn't imperialism? Jog on, mate.

It's only imperialism if the US and/or Israel is being involved. Anything else is always about preserving peace or order or something.

Mr. Tea
01-02-2017, 10:23 PM
It's only imperialism if the US and/or Israel is being involved. Anything else is always about preserving peace or order or something.

The whole Crimea invasion thing is just Russia looking after its national security interests in its own back yard. Perfectly justified. Nothing to worry about.

craner
01-02-2017, 10:25 PM
My work here is done.

luka
01-02-2017, 10:34 PM
My work here is done.

What do you mean?

baboon2004
02-02-2017, 01:56 AM
A simple wikipedia search would show that Chomsky is on record many times as criticising Soviet imperialism, so the allegations of his only criticising America/UK/Israel are simply wrong, regardless of whatever else you think about what he says. Anyways, I don't remember many people criticising famous Russian dissidents for not having a pop at America too.

And he describes the annexing of Crimea as a 'criminal act', not as 'perfectly justified'.

I find some of what Chomsky says evasive, but let's at least deal with the basic facts...

droid
02-02-2017, 10:08 AM
The whole Crimea invasion thing is just Russia looking after its national security interests in its own back yard. Perfectly justified. Nothing to worry about.

:rolleyes: We've been through this before. First strike missile defense system in Poland. Attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO. Western backed coup involving neo-fascist elements.

Clearly Russia's acts in Ukraine are criminal, expansionist and deeply cynical, and you could quibble with Chomsky over terminology but its not imperialism in the classic sense.

Obviously this is Russian propaganda, along the lines of every left critique of the West's role in conflict - which causes you great outrage for some reason.

Mr. Tea
02-02-2017, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't question that there are neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, but massively emphasizing their involvement, and the role of the USA, minimizes the role of Ukrainians who are neither Nazis nor Western stooges, but simply ethnic Ukrainians who don't want their country to be swallowed up by Russia (again). This is the line Putin has been pushing for years, and all too many Western leftists are only too happy to repeat it.

It's the same in Syria - which is actually what I was pulling Chomsky up on, not Crimea - where Russia is committing atrocities with the justification that any and all anti-Assad forces belong to one hardline Islamist group or another. Would Chomsky not be screaming himself hoarse if America, Britain or - god forbid - Israel were consistently and deliberately bombing civilian targets such as hospitals? - actions he blandly euphemizes as 'supporting Damascus'.

And even disregarding all that, there is still the fact that Russia is using military force in a non-defensive capacity to project power and influence outside its borders. That's the very definition of imperialism, is it not?

droid
02-02-2017, 10:58 AM
I think imperialism goes further than that.


Imperialism is an action where a country (usually an empire or kingdom) extends its power by acquisition of territories. It may also include the exploitation of those territories which is similar to colonialism which is generally regarded as an expression of imperialism.

And the point Chomsky is making is that Russian acts in the Ukraine are primarily a reaction to NATO expansionism since the fall of the Soviet Bloc, and specifically in reaction to direct European and US interference, and he has been at pains to say that does not absolve Russia of its crimes.

Once Ukraine began to escalate the West should have backed off, entered negotiations with Russia, withdrawn the invitation of NATO membership and declared Ukraine a neutral buffer, preferably under the aegis of the UN, OSCE or other international bodies, that would have been the sensible thing to do.

Without the push for Ukraine's entry into NATO, do you think Russia would have taken the action it did?

Chomsky has been extremely critical of Assad and Russia in Syria, but he is correct to say there haven't been 'moderate' rebels in Syria since the very early days of the uprising - something that has now been widely accepted. Also, as has been pointed out in other threads - he has advocated US bombing in support of the Kurds - how does that fit into your narrative?

Mr. Tea
02-02-2017, 12:08 PM
Chomsky has been extremely critical of Assad and Russia in Syria, but he is correct to say there haven't been 'moderate' rebels in Syria since the very early days of the uprising - something that has now been widely accepted.

The Russian airstrikes on Aleppo have mainly been aimed at civilians and civilian infrastructure, not 'rebels', whether moderate or otherwise.


Also, as has been pointed out in other threads - he has advocated US bombing in support of the Kurds - how does that fit into your narrative?

I don't have a 'narrative', my point is only that Chomsky makes himself look foolish when he exculpates Russia of imperialism.

droid
02-02-2017, 12:18 PM
lol, but you do have a narrative, clarified by repetition and repeated assertions with little evidence to support it.

Misguided leftist commentators exculpating official enemies of criticism in their frenzied rush to cast blame on the West - its as old as the ages, has been passed down through the generations and is based on the establishment origins of whataboutery.

Mr. Tea
02-02-2017, 12:23 PM
Or maybe, just occasionally, there's something to it.

droid
02-02-2017, 12:33 PM
Maybe, just occasionally, sure, but when I challenged you on this wrt to Milne, you linked to a Pilger article, ignored requests for examples from Milne, and then continued with the same spiel over numerous threads - the example you cite here is shaky as well.

Regardless, can you see how this reflexive response is an inadequate approach to dealing with these criticisms?

Mr. Tea
02-02-2017, 05:44 PM
OK, I went off on one about Pilger when you asked me about Milne, granted - but in this case, I said Chomsky had said Russia was not engaging in imperialism in Syria, Corpsey asked me for a source I posted a video of the guy saying literally those actual words.

droid
03-02-2017, 10:00 AM
Sorry - I was unclear - I meant the general 'whatabout' response to the criticisms of Chomsky et al, not your responses to my criticisms.