chomsky vs buckley

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
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...
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
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

Let's Talk About Ceps
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

Well-known member
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

Let's Talk About Ceps
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

Well-known member
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.
 

droid

Well-known member
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

Let's Talk About Ceps
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

Well-known member
Sorry - I was unclear - I meant the general 'whatabout' response to the criticisms of Chomsky et al, not your responses to my criticisms.
 

version

Well-known member
Jeffrey Epstein paid $150,000 to Leon Botstein and transferred $270,000 between accounts for Noam Chomsky, the two academics have confirmed, giving another glimpse into how the late disgraced financier provided favors for those who associated with him.

Botstein and Chomsky met multiple times with Epstein after he was a registered sex offender, The Wall Street Journal recently reported. Chomsky, a political activist and professor, told the Journal that they met occasionally to discuss political and academic topics. Botstein, the longtime leader of Bard College in New York, said he met with Epstein in an attempt to raise funds for the school.

WSJ
 

version

Well-known member
In response to questions from the Journal, Chomsky confirmed that he received a March 2018 transfer of roughly $270,000 from an Epstein-linked account. He said it was “restricted to rearrangement of my own funds, and did not involve one penny from Epstein.”

Chomsky explained that he asked Epstein for help with a “technical matter” that he said involved the disbursement of common funds related to his first marriage.

“My late wife died 15 years ago after a long illness. We paid no attention to financial issues,” he said in an email that cc’d his current wife. “We asked Epstein for advice. The simplest way seemed to be to transfer funds from one account in my name to another, by way of his office.”

Chomsky said he didn’t hire Epstein. “It was a simple, quick, transfer of funds,” he said.

When initially asked about his relationship with Epstein, Chomsky had told the Journal, “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally.”
 
Top