Noam Chomsky, Hero or Zero?

[The Analog Kid]

I was curious as to how the membership at large views Noam Chomsky, MIT professor and outspoken political commentator.

In my opinion, there aren't many things I detest more than someone who takes full advantage of the opportunities afforded to him by the nation he lives in and spends the bulk of his time attacking that nation and the very system that has enriched him so much.

What are your thoughts on him?

[moustache]

Noam Chomsky-Zero

Anybody who claims that the real terrorist's are major powers such as the U.S, has to be insane. Also I cant believe how Anti-American this guy really is... This is what qualifies him as a zero in my book.

thats my two-cents.

[Nono]

I think he's neither hero nor zero (being neither is possible you know).

A lot of what he says is unpleasant to your ears because you're in the habit of viewing your country in that good-old rosy-feel-good glow. And Chomsky's words feel like a cold shower. (You'd prefer a cheerleader, right?) But in terms of nut-cutting analysis he's often bang on in my view.

Care to give specific examples of where he was out to lunch?

[Nono]

moustache's reply sort of proves my point. Won't even entertain the possibility that more terror is generated across the world by behemoths like the US. And Chomsky is, well, anti-American (though I don't think so). And anyone who would dare criticize the US of A ... I mean, it's just outrageous.
End of discussion, eh?

[moustache]

Quote by: Nono Care to give specific examples of where he was out to lunch?

Sudan
On 20 August 1998, following the al-Qaeda bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was destroyed in cruise missile strikes launched by the United States, with the stated justification that there was evidence the factory had been used to manufacture chemical weapons for al-Qaeda. In Summer 2001, Werner Daum, the former German ambassador, wrote an article [49] (http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/inde...?id=909&page=1) in which he stated that the attack may have caused "several tens of thousands" of deaths of Sudanese civilians. The regional director of the Near East Foundation, who has direct field experience in the Sudan, published in the Boston Globe another article with the same estimate. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the attack would worsen the "terrible crisis" gripping Sudan [50] (http://www.hrw.org/press98/sept/sudan915.htm). Noam Chomsky has quoted these sources more than once when making comparisons between these attacks and the attacks on New York on 11th September 2001, arguing (in a reductio ad absurdum) that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.

On 16 January 2002, Suzy Hansen of Salon.com telephoned Chomsky and conducted an interview [51] (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020116.htm) in which he said, "That one bombing, according to the estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths", thus implying that Human Rights Watch had put a number on it. This led to Carroll Bogert, communications director of Human Rights Watch, writing to Salon.com to deny they had made such an estimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

theres one example of why I think hes a zero. but then again, thats just my opinion.

[moustache]

Quote by: Nono moustache's reply sort of proves my point. Won't even entertain the possibility that more terror is generated across the world by behemoths like the US. And Chomsky is, well, anti-American (though I don't think so). And anyone who would dare criticize the US of A ... I mean, it's just outrageous. End of discussion, eh?

Im not saying that anyone who dares criticize the U.S of being a terrorist is necessarily a horrible person...but the thing is, the U.S is my country, as well as his country... I think he should just show a little bit of respect for the ground he stands on.

you can make fun of me for having a sense of nationalism, and for loving my country, and for defending its name, but i wont think any less of you :) .

[Nono]

Yes, that's an example of Chomsky proceeding on assumption (US gets mad, fires missiles, too bad for anyone in way) before all the facts are in. He also gave me a pain in the ass with some of his idle speculation in the immediate aftermath of 911.

So he's human. I did say I'd count him neither as a zero nor a hero.

But when there are facts to marshall (and maybe nobody in the media would dare marshall them) he's capable of great insight, as he was over Vietnam all those years ago.

As for respecting the ground you stand on, I think that's misplaced respect anywhere (unless you're an environmentalist, of course :) ).

[moustache]

Quote by: Nono As for respecting the ground you stand on, I think that's misplaced respect anywhere (unless you're an environmentalist, of course ).

When I said that he should have some respect for the ground he stands on I meant the ground of the U.S...or the U.S as a country... but I think you probably already know this yourself .

[Gorgo]

Chomsky's response:
To the editor:

I understand that questions have been raised about my reference, in a telephone interview with Susan Hansen (Salon Jan. 16), to estimates of the casualties resulting from the US bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 1998. Several observations:

1. Hansen opens by quoting my statement, in an earlier interview, that the bombing is responsible for "killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows because...no one cares to pursue it)." That is, there have been no serious studies, by Human Rights Watch or anyone else, as I made explicit.

2. A phrase in a telephone interview does not have quotes, details, or footnotes; that is self-evident. As everyone understands, to determine the accuracy of such informal comments one turns to what is in print, which in this case is particularly clear: the collection of interviews that Hansen cites at the outset as the basis for this interview, "9-11" (Seven Stories press), easily available in print and electronically for two months prior to the Salon interview.

3. In "9-11," the facts are stated accurately and precisely. With regard to HRW, the relevant paragraph reads:

Human Rights Watch immediately reported that as an immediate consequence of the bombing, "all UN agencies based in Khartoum have evacuated their American staff, as have many other relief organizations," so that "many relief efforts have been postponed indefinitely, including a crucial one run by the U.S.-based International Rescue Committee [in a government town] where more than fifty southerners are dying daily"; these are regions in "southern Sudan, where the UN estimates that 2.4 million people are at risk of starvation," and the "disruption in assistance" for the "devastated population" may produce a "terrible crisis."

The source for the other allusion in the Salon phone interview is also given accurately and precisely:



Germany's Ambassador to Sudan writes that "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor African country died as a consequence of the destruction of the Al-Shifa factory, but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess" (Harvard International Review, Summer 2001).

4. Conclusion: the few words about the matter in the telephone interview published by Salon were quite appropriate in that format, as easily determined.

5. There has been much controversy over a matter that I did not discuss in "9-11," or anywhere: namely, whether al-Shifa also produced chemical weapons. However one evaluates that charge, the crucial fact is that that its production of pharmaceutical supplies and veterinary medicines was known, hence also the likely toll of the bombing, as discussed at once by HRW, and later estimated by others. Accordingly, the opening comment in "9-11" about this topic is perhaps also relevant. To quote:



Though it is merely a footnote, the Sudan case is nonetheless highly instructive. One interesting aspect is the reaction when someone dares to mention it. I have in the past, and did so again in response to queries from journalists shortly after the 9-11 atrocities. I mentioned that the toll of the "horrendous crime" of 9/11, committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty" (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998. That plausible conclusion elicited an extraordinary reaction, filling many web sites and journals with feverish and fanciful condemnations, which I'll ignore. The only important aspect is that that single sentence -- which, on a closer look, appears to be an understatement -- was regarded by some commentators as utterly scandalous. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at some deep level, however they may deny it to themselves, they regard our crimes against the weak to be as normal as the air we breathe. Our crimes, for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk deep in the memory hole. All of this is of great significance, as it has been in the past.

So it is.

On a separate matter, an editor's note interpolated in the Salon telephone interview states:



[Note: After the attacks, NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which states, "An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."]

Putting aside questions of editorial practice, the interpolation is correct, and its evident irrelevance underscores the accuracy of the statement of mine in the phone interview to which it is appended: that no one claimed that after Sept. 11 the US was under ongoing armed attack in the sense of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The US could, doubtless, have obtained clear and unambiguous Security Council authorization for its retaliatory attacks; none of those with veto power would have exercised it. But Washington deliberately chose not to receive authorization, just as it deliberately chose not to request extradition of the suspects, and just as at the very same time, it once again rejected a request for extradition of a condemned Haitian mass murderer (not the only case). One can speculate about the motives, but the facts are clear enough, as is the consistent pattern they illustrate.

Noam Chomsky

[Gorgo]

Analog, had you cared what the population of Volconvo thought, you would have done a search to see what we thought, and would have mentioned your search.

I think what you'll find, is that while Chomsky is definitely human, and capable of error, his loudest critics are generally people like David Horowitz, whose career is based on lies and extreme right-wing nonsense.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache I think he should just show a little bit of respect for the ground he stands on.

A "bit of respect" means that he should never speak the truth, right?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.

And, your problem with that was?

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo A "bit of respect" means that he should never speak the truth, right?

The truth? maybe in your mind...

Quote by: Gorgo And, your problem with that was?

What do you think my problem with that is?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache What do you think my problem with that is?

Well, I don't know. That's why I asked. You know, that's why some people are here. To learn from others. One asks questions and sometimes gets answers. What do you see wrong with making the statement that the United States does not want others to live by the same rules that it lives by.

[moustache]

Im sorry I thought that it was obvious what I think is wrong with his statement. Heres the thing:

Chomsky says:

that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.


Moustache says:

The U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking afghanistan correct?
Also the U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking Khartoum.

If Sudan were to attack the U.S they would not have a justifiable reason. They would be in the wrong.

What Chomsky is saying can be related to this scenario:

If a policeman attacked a criminal, then the criminal would by all means have the right to attack that same police officer who attacked him.

Gorgo, would you approve of the criminal attacking the policeman? because Chomsky approves.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache The U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking afghanistan correct?

No. It is illegal, under international law, to attack other countries. Remember that Iraq attacked Kuwait, and the international furor that that caused? Remember? That is illegal.

Quote by: moustache Also the U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking Khartoum.

None. See above.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Actually, the Pharmecutical Plant attack was BS, but it doesn't justify as Mr. Chomsky claims, retaliation as he claims.

There is plenty of evidence that attack was purely a political ploy by Clinton and was of no military value. That being said, it was a military strike against a "suspected" military target carried out in accordance with the rule of war. Terrorist attacks are outside of the rule of war and thus are not in anyway justifiable.

[Gorgo]

No. It is illegal to attack other countries. Again, the United States is part of the UN. The Constitution of the United States says that treaties made by the United States are the "law of the land." The United Nations Charter says that countries have to follow some rules. They just can't attack one another.

I can't find any reasonable refutation of the idea that this was not a pharmaceutical plant, necessary to the lives of millions of people, including people suffering under the sanctions in Iraq, and if it wasn't a pharmaceutical plant, that the U.S. was stopping some imminent attack necessary to make it legal under international law.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache If a policeman attacked a criminal, then the criminal would by all means have the right to attack that same police officer who attacked him.

Which was which again?

[PatrickHenry]

I like Chomsky and any other American analyst who is capable of seeing past the bloated lies we are fed by mass communications. Chalmers Johnson comes to mind as well as Michael Parenti.

Do they always get their facts straight? Heh, does Coulter? But you guys lap up her vomit...