I urge all to read Chomsky's lecture, delivered in Dublin on January 18th, 2006, and reflect.

And for those who hold the position that Chomsky's thoughts and ideas should be shunned because he eats babies, or is guilty of committing the original sin, or transmits an infecting 'anti-american' virus of the intellect, with which he hopes to initiate a pandemic - chill....

Its only words...and interesting even for those who will not agree.

http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/5051/

"There are ways to deal constructively with the threat of terror, though not those preferred by "bin Laden's indispensable ally," or those who try to avoid the real world by striking heroic poses about Islamo-fascism, or who simply claim that no proposals are made when there are quite strightforward proposals that they do not like. The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one."

Plodding old fool...all 'thoughts 'n ideas 'n logic 'n reason 'n sh*t...'

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

I've always liked Chomsky. I think it's because he's so extreme while being intellectually valid for the most part. Most liberal commentators are too reserved and tend to focus on little micro-level emotional ploys. Chomsky is cool for the left the way Limbaugh is cool for the right- and just as despised by opponents. But unfortunately liberals are quick to disown their most blunt, while the cons glorify theirs and place them as a beacon for the public. Not that the public would like our beacons. Limbaugh tells people what they want to know. Chomsky tells us what we'd rather write off. I guess that's why liberalism is an uphill ski trip.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

never liked chomsky,and i won't get to details ......just going to say i never liked him.

__________________
To be free people,in our own land,the land of Zion and Jeruaslem

I guess that excludes me. As you know, I hold the position that he's a twit.

ChomskySpeak-to-English translation of the entire 12-page lecture: Any terrorist action against the U.S. is more than justified because the U.S. is oh so very naughty.

Take out the "logic n' reason" part and you'll have an accurate description of Chomsky.

I accept (I must) that that is your position (as stated earlier - he is 'a twit'), but I beg to differ. No matter.

But 'Chomskyspeak' as you call it does not require your translation; as one of the world's leading linguists he is habitually very precise in his use of language. Try this:

"'Terror' is a term that rightly arouses strong emotions and deep concerns. The primary concern should, naturally, be to take measures to alleviate the threat, which has been severe in the past, and will be even more so in the future." A concern at the use of 'terror' in our world - hardly revolutionary?

"To proceed in a serious way, we have to establish some guidelines...
1) Facts matter, even if we do not like them.
2) Elementary moral principles matter even if they have consequences that we would prefer not to face.
3) Relative clarity matters..." - nothing unreasonable in this, that I can see.

But its when he would seek to apply the principle of universality to these 'elementary moral principles', I would suggest, that he begins to lose the doctrinally 'faithful'. Doctrine is embarassed when confronted with passages like the following:

"This most elementary of truisms is sometimes upheld, at least in words. One example, of critical importance today, is the Nuremberg Tribunal. In sentencing Nazi war criminals to death, Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, spoke eloquently, and memorably, on the principle of universality. 'If certain acts of violations of treaties are crimes,' he said, 'they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us..We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.'

That is a clear and honest statement of the principle of universality."

tsk tsk...Justice Jackson obviously hated the US as well...traitors all?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

As much as the idea that US policy has an effect on the way others view us and greatly increases the chance that we will be attacked by psychopaths is unappealing, it has truth to it. No one is justifying terrorism. Such theories are simply pointing out the cause-effect relationship, independent of morality or emotion. Similarly I don't blame the person who walks in a bad neighborhood at midnight for getting mugged and killed, but I do think that it was not wise. Blame is not part of the equation.
What is important is that we look at these things from all angles to see what can be done wiser on our part. We can't do their part for them. While Chomsky's view has flaws, so do all others. But somebody has to give that view or we're missing part of the whole view.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

That is hilarious coming from Chomsky. This is a man who can defend the Khmer Rouge by saying reports of their atrocities were greatly exaggerated, but will attack the U.S. at the drop of a hat. Universality? Chomksy is drinking from his own poisoned chalice of hypocrisy...

Interesting. From what I've read and heard in interviews, placing blame seems to be Chomsky's central theme.

Well, I like Chomsky.. He is very smart guy and he usually offer rather important knowledge, good insight and understandment..

The problem with Chomsky is the fact that he provides only the critic.. Like he said, people have heard the official story and he provides what the official story leaves missing.. He is honest about it, but the fact still remains, that he does not provide too good or balanced overview of the situations..

Also the fact that he quite systematically refuses to say anything positive about the America, has likely been a source of single-eyed anti-Americanism within many young angry man.. I wouldn't consider this as a good thing..

To conclude, he's worth reading because he provides an insightful point of view.. Still - certainly - his views are rather narrow and he should not be used as the only source...

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

does it have anything to do with his opposition to Israel or his controversial support for the actions of a neo-nazi?

Chomsky does what is very easy to do: he criticizes the actions of the most powerful nation on earth. Intellectuals did the same thing to the Roman Empire, British empire, and every other great world power that made obvious errors. But, to me, that doesn't account for too much. His views are one-sided and extreme. He certainly is a smart man, no doubt about it. But anyone can see that he is not open minded at all. To me, that is the worst intellectual sin you can commit.