November 20, 2007 10:04 PM
Noam Chomsky On Iran
(h/t Manila Ryce)
It's amazing. After seven years of spin, deception, obfuscation and outright lies on the part of this administration on a constant basis, hearing a quiet voice of truth can be revelatory. Real News interviewed Noam Chomsky on U.S. policy towards Iran and Chomsky lays out the past to the present to highlight not only how the U.S. has reated Iran with little more than imperialistic hegemony, but also contrary to our own interests.
Good Idea. Good Post.
the single most intelligent unheard voice in America today
frist??
Noam Chomsky keeps casting pearls to swine. 99% of Americans dont give a fuck about politics. We dont care if Chomsky tells us the truth about our government and their activities in the Middle East. 99% of us have no clue how to find Baghdad on a map. We just wanna drink beer & watch football. Only a tiny percentage of us ever bother to vote. We don't vote for American leaders; we vote for American Idol.
Does it bother anyone else that Noam knew Pat Tillman was against the war and said nothing while Bush & co. made him into a poster boy for the right?
chomsky = truth
truth = chomsky
WAKE UP!!! get over it
DO something for your country
CD @ 4:
No, because you are not providing anything to support your claim, or the (possible) circumstances surrounding it.
Chomsky is an American hero. Too bad much of the country has no idea who he is. Not even NPR allows his voice to be heard. The bastards.
mrogi @ 3:
After listening to hundreds/thousands of hours of speeches and debates featuring Chomsky, it must be said that I think he has a great deal more faith in the body politic than could reasonably be expected. Politically he is a syndicalist - to be a syndicalist you HAVE to have faith. His greatness comes not only from his searing analysis, but also from a deep understanding of the mechanisms of control that our Masters deploy. ie: why do we want to just drink beer and watch football? Why are we not engaged?
Please can I implore you to watch this video, in 2 parts, with Chomsky speaking of the two kind of democracies - the ideal form (wide in scope and depth), and the actual form, with it's controlled and narrowly defined narrative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9OP2YXKIFs
Hmmmm....only the NUMBER 1 of the top 100 most influential intellectuals in the world and he resides in the United States. Seems to me we should hear from him more often. I don't watch a lot of corporate mainstream news, but I can assume they are beating his door down to have him give this honest, factual, and intellectual opinion that we American's are all looking for...Right...Right??? Ahh Fuck, nevermind...to hell with it!!!
Noam Chomsky is the Clarice Starling of American politics. He has spent his entire adult life trying to silence the lambs. He has yet to understand this immutable law of nature; The ignorant and stupid cannot be saved.
Here is another look at one of America's intellectuals who is still in full vigor.
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisepisode=45
MacDaKnife @ 6:
According to Tillman's mother Pat was going to meet Noam Chomsky after his return from Afghanistan. Chomsky has confirmed that he agreed to this.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a returning solider who wants to speak in private with a well known opponent of the war is already against the war.
So Chomsky knew Tillman was against the war in Iraq and when the right wing made Tillman their poster boy he did nothing.
US policy in general has been belligerent towards Iran since the fall of the Shah, but the recent escalation is tied, I believe, to Iran's stated intention to found an Oil Exchange which would be based on the Euro rather than the Dollar. Petro-dollars have been propping up US spendthriftiness for quite some time - the collapse of the petro-dolllar will probably bring about another Great Depression - but it will be a fate which we earned.
CD @ 12:
Do you know how dumb you sound?
..... I enjoyed seeing that real news website linked I became a tiny monthly contributor. Their introductory video was well worth sitting through. Anyone providing a wider spectrum of what goes on around the world with people in places that are dots on the map is def sumpin worth getting behind. Reson #3,874 why I am glad I jettisoned my cable subscription package.
mrogi @ 10:
they don't need to be saved, they are the majority.
the cons only care about their fountain of youth of having other people's relatives die in wars
Ever notice how the MSM and the Warmongers always use the phrase, "Iranian Nuclear Program"? I expect the Iranians to defend themselves fully. Good bye 5th(?) Fleet and hello Armageddon. No hurries. Probably after the next NeoCon AIPAC approved pResident gets installed. Killer Hillary.
Peace.
Juba @ 14:
Making personal attacks doesn't help you.
CD @ 19:
That is true CD. It is also very possible that Tillmans parents wanted that prerogative held for themselves. Either way, what Chompers says about Iran vis a vis Nuclear Weapons is true.
Peace.
Essential reading:The Coup That Changed The Middle East
Human @ 20:
The "that is true CD" was in relation to "Making personal attacks doesn't help you."
Peace
OMG chomsky on C&L!!!!!
thias makes up for the basketball post!!!!
ty
ty
ty
ty
ty
Juba @ 14:
Why do I sound dumb? I am just looking for some clarification. It seem out of character for Mr Chomsky do what he is accused of doing.
Can someone tell me how to view parts 2-4?
Less Politically Correct or Kosher people have been on his points for months now. All Chomsky gets to do is stamp a circle-U on it, for a the ever fearful b'nai b'rith retards scared of goyish opinion. But for this he does a great job.
It is curious why Chomsky rarely appears in mainstream media. Has Olbermann had him on?
midori @ 27:
Forget the mainstream, I'm curious as to why the "netroots" doesn't take his views more seriously. I am so grateful that Crooksandliars has finally decided to highlight Chomsky's powerful commentary on current events. Thank you!!
I'VE BEEN READING THIS SITE FOR ABOUT 2 1/2 YRS AND FINALLY, FINALLY YOU PUT CHOMSKY ON - THIS MAN IS THE MOST ETHICAL, INTELLIGENT FIGURE OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURY.
Chomsky has been a big supporter of the occupation of Iraq and thinks the U.S. ought to stay there. Also, let's just say that his attitudes towards Israel and Palestine are full of double-standards...
As someone who has studied linguistics a little, I think he brought craploads to the field. He's incredibly intelligent. But his political opinions often leave much to be desired.
Shawnmeat @ 30:
Shawnmeat, that's a load of rubbish! I hope that your utter inaccuracy is simply unintentional and that you're not deliberately trying to spread lies and falsehoods about Chomsky and his political positions.
Chomsky has been 100% opposed to the illegal and immoral US military occupation of Iraq from the beginning, and continues to be. He is likely more outspoken on this (and on many other issues) than any other single individual.
He has a very similar and longstanding position on Israel's illegal and immoral military occupation of Palestine.
Either you've never read a word by Chomsky (which I hope is the case) or you're a malicious and slanderous person. Either way, shame on you for spreading lies and falsehoods about a true political hero!
Nico
Noam is the man.
Real News is the place.
Catch 'em now, before they're banned from 'the land of the free, the home of the brave', 'the bastion of free speech in the whole, wide world',
This travesty the bushies are creating.
I think Chomsky has a very realistic view of the world and the situations.
He is smart enough to actually see multiple paths, even if they seem to object each other in our view.
@ Shawnmeat :
If Chomsky supports the occupation, his reasons will probably be different then those others use.
He might think of it as the wrong occupation that might be replaced by a better one. (a really international one, possibly peace keepers)
Now, both sides might agree as the best resolution for each side.
If the occupation pulls out prematurely, it would be harder to get peace keepers in.
Those that have 'won' will probably not be willing to give it up again.
Palestine and Israel as well. I also feel the land steal for Israel was wrong and a crime, but also think it would be wrong to just remove Israel.
I would rather see a resolution that will help both sides and not only support one side in screwing over the other side.
Think about the past topic about if a cell is a human being.
Others and myself have both pro-life and pro-choice views. Many think they conflict but I would call those people simple-minded fools.
Hardly anything is black&white and no one should think in those patterns.
The only reason I think Chomsky is ignored so widely is because that's the only defense left against the level of truth he brings. A certain amount of character smearing is fun of course, but when it comes to rebutting his arguments and defending their own, Chomsky always quashes his opponents to the point that it's embarrassing for them.
So the media has taken the more prudent step of marginalization and unofficial blackballing. This treatment is repeated even among liberals and (centrist) progressives because quoting Chomsky or giving him any platform whatsoever, is risking being tarred and banned yourself. Quote Chomsky in a college paper even passingly--no matter how impeccably cited his own sources might be--and you'll get your hands slapped guaranteed.
That he so frightens his critics is probably the best evidence that he is one of--if not the--most cognizant and truthful analyzers of American foreign policy today. And since foreign policy and truth go to together like oil and water in our country, Chomsky has been and will remain (no matter what happens) just shy of a public pariah.
That's what happens if you don't accept the central tenants of our national myth--America is always good, America always has everyone's best interests at heart, America loves democracy, America errs only in giving and trusting too much, and that anyone America attacks is automatically evil. You are not allowed to play. If you openly attack these accepted truths then you must be dismissed as both a crazed liar and an enemy of all that is good.
Mainstream politics in America is for rubes.
I love Chomsky.
His debate with Dershowitz was beautiful.
I was going to write about some lectures I've been to but I think I'll just leave it at that.
I love Chomsky. :)
Good post. More Chomsky and less Fox News on C&L.
To: Occidental Tribalist,
Do you really think that b'nai b'rith people listen to Noam Chomsky? If so you are totally oblivious or don't know what the phrase means. and chomsky isn't kosher. take your "subtle" antisemitism to some other site.
CD @ 4:
You are saying it was Chomsky's responcibility to voice Pat Tillmans views?
Chomsky has plenty to say, speaking for himself.
You might try the same thing.
How are you speaking for Pat Tillman, by sniping at Chomsky?
You and your thoughtless comment bother me, not Chomsky
Shawnmeat @ 30:
MAJOR MORON, a liar to boot, and THE KING of double standards. (Isreal was wrong to take the land but would be wrong to give it back)
I would like to redirect you to FOX as they peddle your brand of bullshit.
Shawnmeat @ 30:
complete bullshit. Chomsky has never supported the invasion nor the occupation of Iraq at any time.
Nice to see Noam here. I have been lurking for a couple years and have always thought that there was not enough Chomsky on this or other progressive blogs.
More Noam please. Zmag.org has been the best Chomsky resource on the internets, but maybe C&L can give them a run for their $$ on that. I would love to see C&Ls resources and community presenting more Chomsky.
aren't the US crime family in Iraq? Is that illegal?
Ha! I've watched interviews wherein Chomsky was dead-set against removing troops from Iraq, saying that it would be wrong to pull out. Love him or hate him he's not always right - and I say that having agreed with many things he has said before. Accuse me of slander all you like, but as someone who has read his share of Chomsky and watched his share of speeches, I know for a fact that he has been against pulling out of Iraq. Sorry!
I also understand it is popular to slam Israel (for some reason, the left is expected to) and defend the poor, misunderstood and misrepresented Palestinians but a look at the history of the entire twentieth century illustrates that the creation of the Jewish state was not a planned, evil coup but rather the result of endless slaughters which forced the Jews to migrate in order to survive (the Holocaust was merely the straw that broke the camel's back for the U.N.) as well as a spectacularly failed assault by Palestine and its myriad supporters to wipe out those Jews who had settled in a tiny corner of the Palestinian state once and for all. We must remember that no one was originally supporting these Jews, who were on the brink of extermination, at all - even nations like Britain who said that they would. They weren't taking them in, even.
When it comes to Chomsky, I find his views particularly one-sided in that he'll speak on the tyranny of Israel but the endless attacks upon Israel (the bombs shot out of public schools in residential areas of Lebanon, for example) are more of a footnote than anything else and I think that's a shame.
Paul @ 2:
I often see "frist" written on the C & L discussion board. Can someone please tell me what that means? Thank you in advance. (^_^)
Another truth-sayer that is never heard from via MSM.
This regime does not want the truth to raise it's ugly head.
I live in a small NW Ohio farm town, and much to my delight and surprise, the local library orders in all Chomsky books for me to read. I follow this mans words carefully and try to catch any appearance that he has on television. I must disagree vehemently with Shawnmeat as I have never seen or heard Chomsky make the comments attributed to him by Shawnmeat. Perhaps Shawnmeat is just misinformed or simply mistaken. However I think Shawnmeat just has some problem with perceived "anti-semitics" as you will note he seems to fall back on that disingenuous argument regarding Israel.
Thank you C&L for bringing forth Chomsky and his very forthright portrayal of American subterfuge. This is not the same America I grew up in.
|"That the creation of the Jewish state was not a planned, evil coup but rather the result of endless slaughters which forced the Jews to migrate in order to survive (the Holocaust was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back for the U.N.) as well as a spectacularly failed assault by Palestine and its myriad supporters to wipe out those Jews who had settled in a tiny corner of the Palestinian state once and for all. We must remember that no one was originally supporting these Jews, who were on the brink of extermination, at all - even nations like Britain who said that they would. They weren’t taking them in, even."
I thought there was something smelly about your post. The above is for the most part false - you're understanding of the creation of Israel appears to be clouded by your zionist inclinations. I suggest you read more about the history of Israel.
Also - would you mind posting a link to where Chomsky has said he is against U.S troops leaving Iraq?
I could be wrong - but you should appreciate that your posting seems a deliberate attempt to smear Chomsky for what you regard as "anti-Israel" criticisms....
Shawnmeat @ 30:
Supporter of the occupation of Iraq? I mean, WTF? Chomsky != Iraq Occupation supporter.
Chomsky? On C&L? Holy cow!! Now that is a first!! Probably the most intelligent, most informed man in the United States today!!
CD asked at the top of the thread:
"Does it bother anyone else that Noam knew Pat Tillman was against the war and said nothing while Bush & co. made him into a poster boy for the right?"
CD, those who know Chomsky on a personal level or have corresponded with him (and he does respond to virtually all e-mails and letters) know that he fiercely guards the privacy of any personal correspondence (and objects strongly if people break what he considers to be a trust in this regard).
The fact is that what Pat Tillman told Chomsky is not in the public domain, so I don't see how you can form a judgement about it. All we know is that Pat Tillman enjoyed reading Chomsky, corresponded with him and arranged a meeting with him for after his tour in Afghanistan had ended. And of course, we all know how that ended.
Whatever Tillman said to him, Chomsky would have considered it a violation of Tillman's privacy to publish it or state it without his permission. You can argue that this was an exceptional case, but Chomsky was being consistent with his stated views on privacy.
The truth has come out in any case since Pat's family and friends in the Army Rangers have made this and other information public. Isn't it better that they were the ones to tell us?
Geez, I actually have tears in my eyes - I can't even write about Tillman without getting upset.
Kudos to Nicole Belle for putting Chomsky on Crooks and Liars, by the way. I think it's important that traditional Democratic voters and more radical leftists build on what they have in common to further progressive politics in America. We need to work together on the issues that count the most.
Shawnmeat @ 43:
Name one or two... we who are skeptical of your claim will seek them out and find out for ourselves.
Shawnmeat will not provide any links or evidence to substantiate his claims because they are false, end-of-story. Chomsky has never supported the illegal invasion and/or subsequent occupation of Iraq . . .
. . .anyway this thread is about Iran, and in typical right-wing fascion Shawnmeat changes the subject from Chomskys views of Iran to his (supposed) views on Iraq and some inane diatribe implying Chomsky (a jew) is anti-semetic becuase of his views of Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Shawnmeat can not handle the truth so he has to avoid it at all cost.
Between CD's and Shawnmeat's inane lies and disinformation, is it any wonder Americans are so misinformed?
I see it all the time in my political science course at school. A self proclaimed 'conservative' student will re-peat something he read on the Internet as gospel, but when challenged to back up said information with facts, they say they can't remember exactly where they read what they now tout as fact and conventional wisdom. Of course informed people generally have nothing to fear from such subterfuge, but the uniformed then go on the repeat the misinformation, ad nauseum.
Because of this, informed people have a responsibility to correct and call such people out for their bullshit. CD and Shawnmeat, I take this opportunity to say you're both unable to back up your anecdotes, and should refrain from such bullshit in the future. Not that I expect you will, but hopefully others will be around to do so when you mislead in the future.
Mmhm. None of those who are dismissing me out-of-hand are interesting in the truth, let alone the idea that one of their heroes offered an opinion that they disagreed with.
I suppose he's entirely objective in his views towards Israel, that he never changed his mind on whether or not a U.S. presence needs to be maintained in Iraq, and of course, he's never met with Hezbollah leaders to endorse its existence.
And, psst - I am not a conservative.
Shawnmeat @ 55:
Thank you for clearing that up for us, Mr. Dershowitz...
Shawnmeat @ 54:
Where is your link about Chomsky advocating a US presence in Iraq? Oh that's right, you don't have one. You're being obtuse and misleading and don't want anyone to discover this by showing any "proof". Because said proof will show your full of shit, distorting what someone may have said, into what you wanted to hear. If I'm wrong then prove it. Not with more hot air and links that don't speak to this particular issue, but verifiable facts.
As far as you believing he isn't fair to Israel, I could give a shit less. Israel needs to be reprimanded, especially by American Jews, and American intellectuals in general. Zionists always equate any criticism of Israel as unfair, so there you are.
Dude you linked to Little Green Footballs? I'm sorry I didn't see that before wasting my time speaking to an idiot who says he's not a conservative, then links to a conservative site only fucktards visit. Life to is too short to waste it communicating with your ilk.
Juba @ 53:
At no point did I lie.
Alex Higgins @ 50:
If Chomsky really wanted to end the War in Iraq he would have spoken.
Instead he did nothing.
No you didn't lie CD, I'm sure you really believe the shit you spout. But your analysis of Chomsky being okay with the invasion of Iraq is utter nonsense. It makes me wonder if you have any idea who Chomsky is or what he stands for. You have no way to prove your absurd allegations other than your own twisted logic applied to situation you have no inside information about. So unless you were somehow privy to Chomsky's private thoughts, as well as the Tillman's, you have no credible facts to back up your claims.
That, my friend is worse than telling lies. Because what you're doing is spreading obtuse gossip and flights of fancy, that obstructs real discourse. So give it a fucking rest.
I really don't find Noam that thrilling to be honest. He more often than not leaves me with the sense of "Um, okay, no duh...and?"
He combines common sense with historical and political knowledge...I know quite a few political science and history students at my university with towering intellects who can piece together the same knowledge. What it comes down to is there are voices who have a crack at expressing themselves due to circumstances within society and there are those that don't. It so happens Noam is claimed as this grand intellectual in our time. Um...
I'm sorry - Just because he speaks in an pretentiously low-volume and barely-contained bored monotone doesn't mean his observations are all of a sudden outstanding insights. Cheese and rice, get off the hero worship bandwagon.
He's kind of like the Dr. Phil of political science. Not always right...but he interprets situations intelligently and pieces together the information well.
+ his assertion that there is "practically no evidence" that Iran is involved in the insurgency in Iraq is completely incorrect. Making assertions about reality that are false—or just this side of demonstrably false—just creates more confusion for everybody. US policy toward Iran is overly aggressive AND Iran is very much involved in the insurgency in Iraq.
shawnmeat (@30) stated: "Chomsky has been a big supporter of the occupation of Iraq and thinks the U.S. ought to stay there."
!!!!!!!??????
It's ridiculous that completely false "up is down" distortions about Chomsky's position on Iraq are tossed around here without any links or evidence to corroborate them.
Challenged on this the poster linked to a completely unrelated and irrelevant piece from Little Green Footballs(!) having to do with Hezbollah.
WTF? Why let facts get in the way of your opinion, right?
The following excerpt from the April 3rd 2006 interview by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now makes clear that Noam Chomsky does not support US occupation of Iraq. In it Chomsky states unequivically that the United States is morally obliged to pay "massive reparations" to the people of Iraq and must adhere to their wishes for withdrawal by whatever timetable they choose. In fact, at the very beginning of this text Chomsky says we must establish and adhere to a basic moral principle that an "invading" nation has no rights per se, but only resposibilities to follow the the wishes of the people of the invaded country.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/03/1319200
AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe, Noam Chomsky, in immediate withdrawal, that the troops should withdraw immediately?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think we should estab-- there is a certain principle that we should adhere to. The principle is that invading armies have no rights whatsoever. They have responsibilities. The prime responsibility is to heed the will of the victims and to pay massive reparations to the victims for the crimes they’ve committed. In this case, the crimes go back through the sanctions which were a monstrous crime, through the support for Saddam Hussein, right through his worst atrocities, but particularly, those of the invasion. Those are the two responsibilities of an occupying army.
Well, you know, the population has made it pretty clear. Even U.S. and British polls make that clear. Overwhelming majorities want the U.S. to set a timetable to withdraw and adhere to it. Britain and the United States refuse. Reparations, we can’t even talk about; that's so far from consciousness in the doctrinal system. Well, I think that answers the question. Doesn’t really matter what I think. What matters is what Iraqis think, and I think we know that pretty well. The reason the U.S. and Britain aren’t withdrawing are those I mentioned. You know, the consequences of independence for Iraq would be an ultimate nightmare for them. And they’re going to try to do anything they can to prevent Iraqi democracy, as they’ve been trying in the past.
AMY GOODMAN: And the argument that they will just descend into civil war and that the sectarian violence will increase, and the U.S. went in and now has a responsibility not the leave a mess?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I mean, the Germans could have given the same argument in occupied Europe, the Russians in the satellites, the Japanese in Asia, and so on. Yeah, they could have all given the same argument: well, we went in, and now we have a responsibility to ensure that terrible things don't happen, and so on. And the argument had some validity. So, when the Germans were driven out of France, let's say, there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed by -- as collaborators, and in Asia, even more so. But is that an argument for them? No. It’s none of their business.
We don't know what will happen, and it’s not our decision to make. It’s the decision of the victims to make, not our decision. Occupying armies have no right to make the decision. We could have an academic seminar about it, in which we could discuss the likely consequences. But the point is it’s not for us to say..."
Anyone familiar with the basic premises of his politics, as articulated over the past 40 years or so, would not be surprised to learn that the internet is chock full of similar quotations by Chomsky.
"Based on what we know as evidence" is a key phrase in Chompsky's statement. His audience will stay just as uninformed after listening to him. It is a comfortable niche to be loved by people with a fixed view but no time to read, looking for a professor to validate. I've read many of his books. There is truth in them..BUT:
I predicted with total accuracy that Chompsky would not like any of the front-runner candidates and I agree with Mark..that low monotone is pretentious. It is a deep cynical view that refuses to acknowledge for instance, that President John F Kennedy WAS heading in the direction of disbanding Dulles's rogue element in the CIA and WAS heading in the direction of, after an election victory of 1964, reducing troops in Viet Nam ("After all, it is their struggle"). "Rethinking Camelot" is a repititious diatribe by Chompsky which claims the opposite.
Further, his and Amy Goodman's tight-lipped defense of Sami Al Arian takes the cake for misleading the country's well-intentioned progressive community. Al Arian IS one of the prime channeling sources of money for hezbolah and the daddy of all anti-semitic terrorist groups--the Muslim Brotherhood. Watch the Al Arian speeches available on JohnLoftus.com.
"I predicted with total accuracy that Chompsky would not like any of the front-runner candidates"
Duh... why would he be expected to like any of the corporate crony democrats?
If you really wanna know where Noam is coming from, watch a movie called "Manufacturing Consent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the...
mrogi @ 3:
Most American kids today are idiots. By kids I mean, 12 to 25... Wake up!!! What you don't care about is going to kill you...
Comments are closed on this entry