War on Terror

  1. Amnesty International Annual Lecture
    Hosted by Trinty College
    by professor Noam Chomsky

    "War on Terror"

    Venue: Shelborne Hall, RDS, Dublin
    Date: 18th Jan 2006

    http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
    --

    im pretty sure this was debated before, nevertheless maybe someone will find the lecture interesting as its quite recent.

    let me quote Chomsky's last sentence from the lecture:

    The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky

    btw what can each of us do to help in these matters? ideas? coz obviously sitting in front of our computers babbling about it wont solve anything. then again, why should we try to help anything?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Interesting article tuco. Well worth a read for those with a genuine interest in understanding the motivations behind much of the world's current unrest. Although unashamedly biased concentrating almost exclusively on western transgressions I imagine the author can justify this on the basis that the pro-western view is already enunciated daily through almost every western media outlet.

    One of his central contentions that if the west is really interested in reducing world terror they should stop supporting and funding it is IMO a very valid point.

    btw on a lighter note I like Robert Ludlum's definition of the acronym CIA - Caught In the Act.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2006
  4. loseyourname

    loseyourname 3,632
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Is there any way we could talk about what was posted here instead of another locked thread? If you want to know why it was locked, the explanation given in the final post isn't enough for you, PM the person that locked it. Don't ruin a separate and perfectly good thread.
     
  5. Actualy this "perfectly good thread." was started becouse The other thread was locked, becouse both threads talk about the same thing, Cia Terrorist activities. (tuco sayd it himself but someone deleted that part from his post).

    But ok LYM, let's talk about what is posted in this "perfectly good thread.".
    --------------------------------------------------------

    when chomsky says:
    "The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky"

    he is refering to The Cia support of terrorist and to terrorist activities executed by the cia, some examples that chomsky cites in the link (and i previusly posted in the locked thread) are:

    Luis Posada Carriles
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

    Batista's Cuba
    http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...irkpatrick.htm

    edit:you're recreating the locked thread. Let's keep this thread about this lecture. I have deleted information that is not discussed in the link in the OP. Let's keep this on topic.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2006
  6. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well Chomsky here is not talking so much about the CIA adventures, which go back to the overthrow of Mossadegh, an operation with the unintended consequence that ordinary "western" middle class Iranians came to detest the US. I roomed with one such (where are you now, Mohammed Sharifzadeh?) in 1960. He was getting a postgrad education at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, as was I, and he loathed, absolutely loathed America. "Ingrate," you may say, but if we had used a little prudence he would have been on our side. As it was, his kind of people rallied to the Islamic Republic and the overthrow of the Shah.

    This is really Chomsky's point. Not just wallowing in US guilt, but perceiving that it is never productive. Always the people you mistreat with high sounding rhetoric will come to despise you, and since we've been busy visiting our blessings on so many other countries over the past 60 years, by now the whole world is our enemy, sometimes overtly and often in private.
     
  7. FROM Chomsky:http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf

    Sorry i keep going with this. but this topic is about EXACTLY the same of my locked thread. Sorry but i am a little bit angry.

    Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115264
     
  8. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    My first impression, and one that is typical of why I don't much like Chomsky, is that he's using the title of the speech to trick people into reading it. It doesn't much look like he wants to talk about Bush's war on terror at all, but to use the name as a segue into a discussion of events that happened under Reagan.

    Bush's foreign policy is most certainly not a continuation of Reagan's. As a result of this segue, Chomsky puts the reader (listener) on a suspicious posture right from the start and makes one not want to read further. An honest and thoughtful discussion cannot be started via a deception.

    I'll try to read more later, though...
     
  9. You didn't read the text, what chomsky says is that key the key players in Reagan's war on terror are now the key players in Bush's War on terror.
    For example: John Negroponte and Rumsfeld

    Edit: Second half of chomsky text is about bush's war on terror . wich you haven't read yet
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2006
  10. Burnsys I really wouldn't waste your time responding to posters who present a critique without actually bothering to read the article they are critiquing. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Something that Chomsky points out thats glossed over by those that 'don't like it' is the double standard. Another is the mindset of the US policy makers, ie:
    and, If Osama is really being sought after or being tracked down then why this:
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  12. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    A conversation with George Soros with his thoughts on the "War on Terror". Soros makes some very good points.

    August 11, 2006

    http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/wordforword/2006/08/11 real media required.

    from http://wordforword.publicradio.org/

    Archive programs
    http://wordforword.publicradio.org/programs/ - Tony Blair, Clinton, Karl Rove, and others
     
  13. watch this...


    edit: nevermind what was written here, i write stupid things when tierd...
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2006
  14. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

    I don't understand what it has to do with what you're talking about though.
     
  15. It's always a joy to hear Wafa Sultan. Check out the "external links" section for more pearls of wisdom.
     
  16. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    I've seen the video before, and I too agree with her.

    Yeah, it's a non-sequitir in the present disucssion.

    On the other hand, it does address some major issues behind the current unrest (hostilities) in the world.

    Generally, some (perhaps many) people blame external sources for their problems/suffering, when the problems or suffering is self-inflicted.
     
  17. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

    'Islamic fascists' who hate freedom? Please!

    In reference to rhetoric and double standards that is causing the Mideast to dispise the U.S.:

    The day the enemy became 'Islamic fascists'
    The president turns a new phrase to describe the 'war on terrorism'

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14304397/

    The debate of whether fascism is a correct term to describe Islamic terrorists has been ongoing and ultimately is a matter of opinion. IMO there are too few similarities and the terms "radicals" or "extremists" are more appropriate.

    So I was outraged when Bush used the term. Not only is it a cheap attempt to increase his rating on terrorism in these pre-election months, it is glaringly hypocritical. Bush and his Rapture-believing, science-suppressing, neo-con supporters need only to look in the mirror to see backward religious fanaticism and fascist nationalism. Talk about casting stones.

    I am pleased to see the news media pick up on this nonsense, and would like to know if others in PF picked up on this as well and your reactions to it.

    A second and related point made by Bush is that these Islamic fascists want to destroy us because they hate freedom. WTF?!!! How long must we tolerate having this chimp catapult his propaganda feces at us?

    Hmm...who is a more credible source? Bush and his ignorance-embracing supporters or Chomsky? Chomsky, of course! Open your mind and read what he has to say.
     
  18. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Chomsky is like quantum mechanics. Everything he says is correct, but the interpretations are viciously controversial.
     
  19. I'm gonna go with Bush and his "ignorance embracing" supporters over Islamofascist and left-wing know-nothings. Call it a vote for freedom.
     
  20. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

    Rather than just claiming that left-wingers know nothing, I'd prefer you enlighten us with your great knowledge regarding the term fascist and how, per definition, this is more applicable to Islamic terrorists than it is to the right-wing neocon Bushies.
     
  21. Here are the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.

    Islamic extremists share some similiar characteristics with fascists, so have most violent movements in history. Overall there is little they have in common with fascism. Most glaringly is lack of nationalism, a key component of fascism.

    Here is a point by point comparison.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/15545/8082

    For Bush to use that language is a sign that he is reaching out to the dittoheads, hannitized, and savaged wing-nuts in an attempt to energize the rabid base for the mid-terms.

    As Alexandra mentioned in another thread, and I paraprase;

    One must correctly identify a problem if one is to have any chance at all of solving it.

    Bush's use of the term Islamic fascist, is a sign to me that either he doesn't understand what he is saying,:surprised or that his choice of words are calculated to evoke a response.

    I think it is both, he doesn't understand, but he says what he says because Rove has made the calculations and instucted him to say it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?