Noam Chomsky on the attacks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Sledgehammer

The Fly
Joined
Aug 25, 2000
Messages
292
Location
Athens GR
Just found this interesting article from a man I respect very much.

On the Bombings
by Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry
at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil iberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are
innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world
will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a
village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=el&group=soc.culture.usa&selm=M97o7.59705%24TW.320837%40tor-nn1.netcom.ca



------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen
 
The man is an idiot.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
Noam Chomsky is a professor of lingusitcs at MIT in Massachusetts. Very well respected. He basically tells things as they are with little regard to what people want to hear.

His book What Uncle Sam Really Wants will tell you more about U.S foreign policy than you will ever learn in a texbook or on the news. HIGHLY reccomended.
 
Thanks for that Doctor Gonzo- I will have to check that book out, the last book I read on American government things was Pj O'Rourke's 'Parliament of whores' and let me tell you that was an interesting read, but I have heard a lot about Noam Chomsky and am interested to learn what he has to say
smile.gif
 
Mr Chomsky is totally right. If there is one thing this entire tragedy has got to do it is this...

Americans must wake up to the fact that the world does not revolve around them. They are not the rulers of the world. They are not immune to attack and they are now finding out that they are just as vulnerable to attack than the rest of us.

Americans must also now begin to realise just how hated they are in certain parts of the world. There were certain people in the streets of countries cheering the deaths of thousands of people, for fuck's sake. Is that normal? You have to ask yourself, why were they doing this? You can't come back and say "because they are sick"... maybe they are... but if it had happened in, say, Italy, there wouldn't have been all this cheering. Why is that?

The people are dead and won't be coming back, but killing 10,000 other innocent human beings because 10,000 innocent human beings are dead is not the answer.

We live in a practically global society. We have the satellite tv... we can watch from almost any other country... we have this, the internet... we can speak to people from all over the world.

Now there is a global problem... terrorism. It's always been there, but now it is on a grand scale. And a global problem requires a global answer. America needs the help of the rest of the world right now... not the other way around. Take a step back and look how many countries are behind America... even Russia are 100% backing them. This is unprecedented because everyone knows terrorism is a threat to their own country. It could - and does - happen to anyone.

Those advocating nuclear strikes against countries we don't even believe are responsible are basically signing their own death warrant. Because if you thought 10,000 people dying was bad enough, if you start a nuclear war you are looking at 10,000 TIMES that amount dying... probably including yourself.

If there is one thing this entire atrocity has pointed out, it is the inherently racist world we live in. There was a debate programme on tv tonight and it was scary... it basically ended with everyone pointing the finger at everyone else... the muslims blaming the americans blaming the arabs blaming the christians blaming the oil and so on and so on.

If a worldwide pact to rid the world of organised terrorism on this scale is agreed to, then these poor people will not have died in vain.

If America goes into its shell and pretends the rest of the world does not exist - at least not the bits which it feels fit to destroy - then we may as well all smell the flowers while we can.

Put it this way... would you agree to a decision which would greatly enhance the chances of your own death and thousands of others?
 
Originally posted by Sledgehammer:
Just found this interesting article from a man I respect very much.

On the Bombings
by Noam Chomsky

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry
at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil iberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are
innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world
will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a
village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much
worse lies ahead.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=el&group=soc.culture.usa&selm=M 97o7.59705%24TW.320837%40tor-nn1.netcom.ca


Um, okay, Prof. Chomsky. So what do we do? Should we withdraw all of our troops and military support from the Middle East, then watch as Israel gets bombed to a crisp and Saddam Hussein wipes out the Western world with a few million barrels of anthrax?

Obviously, the above sentiments are exaggerated, but the point is that there are very good reasons why the US should continue to stick its nose into Middle East politics.
 
Didn't read all the posts...this may have already been said. I in fact did hear a member, I believe of Congress, saying that this means we MUST have a missile defense system in place. Hard to argue against that.
 
Originally posted by bonofnattic:
Didn't read all the posts...this may have already been said. I in fact did hear a member, I believe of Congress, saying that this means we MUST have a missile defense system in place. Hard to argue against that.

How could that have helped what happened on Tuesday?

------------------
All we are saying is give peace a chance //oo\\
 
Noam Chomskey doesn't seem understand very much and tries to say that what happens is understandable. BS! He has NO understanding of the US Military or the USA's role in the world.
 
"the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right" - no wonder certain persons weren't in agreement.. oh well...

just keep those people who have died, have been wounded, who have lost loved ones and those who don't know where their loved ones are, those looking for survivors and any1 trapped under the rubble, in your hearts - afraid many are out for revenge and to sew up america's pride... forgetting the real tragedy

[This message has been edited by frogbat (edited 09-14-2001).]
 
frogbat:

From the "hard jingoist right" I must remind you that while it IS a tragedy, it's not MERELY a tragedy.

The attack and murder of thousands of American civilians on American soil is an ACT OF WAR.

Forget that, and we will allow this to happen time and time again. We will dishonor the victims of this attack by having to dig even more fresh graves.


And bullet, for a moment I'll grant that the world may not revolve around the U.S. -- despite the fact that the United States leads the world economically, despite the fact that any U.N. military action fails without us, despite the fact that we are the very cutting edge of technology, and despite the fact that the global culture is so heavily influenced by us.

Even if the we are not the world's first concern, we are OUR OWN first concern, and we have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force. And killing 10,000 civilians will solve nothing, but killing 10,000 terrorists, thugs, dictators, and despots will.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
Are these 10,000 despots, dictators, thugs, etc all going to be in one place at the same time - at a big 'mad fucker' expo?
 
Well said Tizer!

Tell me Bubba, how killing these Americans is an act of war? Were these workers, fireman, policemen, children, bystanders fighting in some war the rest of the world doesn't know about?

Act of War....For fucks sake.

I feel like Im repeating myself, frogbat.
I feel like Im repeating myself, frogbat.
 
No, of course these terrorists won't be in one spot. But we have the technology to hopefully harm as few civilians as possible.

I say "hopefully" because two things could go awry:

1) Whoever is responsible for Tuesday's attack could line his military and industrial centers with civilian hostages, forcing us to leave the targets undamaged or kill innocent civilians in the process.

2) Much worse, civilians in the harboring countries could do much what the Japanese did towards the end of World War II: the civilians could willingly stand between us and our targets. They could vow to fight until the last man standing.

In either case, we should certainly not go out of our way to harm civilians. We should do what we can to limit civilian casualties. But, make no mistake, we must be willing to do whatever it takes to defeat and destroy our enemy. If a civilian is between us and our enemy, we must still be willing to pull the trigger.

After all, this will be a war.

And, more than that, I doubt lives will be saved. If presented with the above scenario, we cn save the lives of the civilians by not pursuing the terrorists. But then, the terrorists will survive to strike the U.S. again, creating more AMERICAN casualties in numbers that equal or maybe surpass Tuesday's attack.

(Do you honestly think the attack was an isolated, one-time affair?)

It is "us vs. them", not in the sense that one's ideas prevail. It is in the sense that if we do not destory our enemies, they WILL destory us.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
Sweet Jesus, Angela.

HOW DO YOU THINK WARS GET STARTED??

Do you think the two sides meet together in a U.N. conference room and decide to have a war together? You think they agree on who to target, who not to target, and when to take a break for lunch?

WARS ARE STARTED BY ONE SIDE ATTACKING ANOTHER. THESE ATTACKS ARE CORRECTLY NAMED "ACTS OF WAR".

Tuesday was a deliberate attack of American citizens on American soil. It caused thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages.

How is NOT an act of war?

And how can you be so incredibly dense?

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
And where are your enemies bubba? Standing at a convention with a big target marked "here we are boys, come and get us"? your aims may be valid but i suspect in practicality unrealistic. Is it justifiable to kill 20,000 civilians as "collateral" damage to avenge the death of 10,000 civilians? Is an afghanistani civilian killed in an act of war any less a person than an American done in the same fasion? I don't think so.
Chances are you may get rid of 50 or 100 terrorists in such an action but create a generation of new anti-american sentiment and terorrists for generations to come.
And with respect to the folly of the missile defence, why not put some of the obsene amounts being spent into security on the ground where it would be more effective?
The world is particularly shocked by the events this week because it has taken terrorism to a new level, more so than because of the nationality or race of its victims.



------------------
In the stillness of the evening
When the sun has had its day
I heard your voice whispering...
 
Bubba,

Im not going to debate you and your ideas on this as i know you are hurting, and ive promised myself im not going to say anything that appears to incite a grieving nation, but...

What would Jesus Do?

I know this will not come over well but I dont recall him rallying anyone to arms...remember Peter in the Garden?
 
<sigh>

The terrorists themselves have camps, bases, supply warehouses, training facilities, and staging facilities. I may not know where they all are, but I'm sure the CIA knows -- or will very soon know.

The countries that harbor the terrorists can be found quite easily: look on a map. In terms of individual targets, there are military bases, industrial centers, governmental offices, bridges, air fields, ports.

Attaking these locations is a pretty standard procedure -- at least since World War II.

Or did you study that in history?

In terms of collateral damage and civilian casualties, you must remember a few things:

1. We can and will probably do everything can to limit those casualties, unlike the terrorists who aimed for a specifically civilian target.

2. THIS IS A WAR. Civilian casualties happen; it is unavoidable.

3. We are not just retaliating for the lives we lost, we are ensuring the lives of countless others. If we do not destory the enemy, they will strike again and again; OUR civilian death toll will quickly reach the hundreds of thousands.

This will not be an attack "in the same fashion". Ours will not be the unprovoked sneak attack.

Missle defense would not have helped here, but you can't guarantee that ANYTHING we institute will help prevent a second attack. More airport security, and they'll use a truck bomb or a missle or a biological weapon, or poison in the water.

That's the funny thing about terrorism. They seek out the unguarded area and exploit it. And we can't guard everything.

Finally, in a point blank answer to whether killing 20,000 civilians is justified, I have to say yes.

IF we had NO CHOICE but to either kill 20,000 civilians or subject the nearly 300 million Americans to a constant stream of further attacks and an existence living in fear, I would choose the 20,000 civilians. No question.



------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
I concur with Brettig to a certain extent (i wouldn't care to use religious arguments as he knows hehe)

Bubbs, I would sincerely advise you to tone down in regards to certain aspects of your posts and responses, you're only aggrevating matters. Its a forum, people have different views no need to bite their heads off. I've had experience in the past here of going after some1 vehemently and it just backfires on you. You have lots of respect here, u are unfortunately doing very little to keep it.

p.s I admire Chomsky a lot just wish he'd stick to political writings and claim that linguitics should never be taught again
biggrin.gif
 
Dont sweet Jesus me Bubba. This may very well START a war. What fucking war are you imaging these people were involved in? This kind of act usually leads to a retaliatory attack, and so on, til there is war as we know it. Blah blah blah. We all know how wars start. But how the hell can you justify this as war? Killing civilians. Yes they are (civillians) the unfortunate victims in war all the time. But America is facing an enemy with no name, no face. There is a lot of information regarding who is responsible, but no one is sure yet.

Act of War is a term thrown around too loosely. Is it a war you want? Really? because with attitudes like some shown here, America may very well have one. And what will it do? Justify the deaths of these civilians? Save face of the American Government? Resolve the issues the group responsible have with the American Government? Kill a whole lot more, those who do not wish to fight, those who have no gripe worthy of killing? Boost the economy? They say a war is good for the economy. Not being an economist I cant comment on that.


One last thing before I say something I shouldnt, if your mind set can cope, remember you and I do not know each other. You have a hide to turn this personal. Perhaps you will continue as before and it wont surprise me so much next time. Your call.
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

IF we had NO CHOICE but to either kill 20,000 civilians or subject the nearly 300 million Americans to a constant stream of further attacks and an existence living in fear, I would choose the 20,000 civilians. No question.

What a horrible, false delema!


------------------
"I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens", Woody Allen
 
Americans are upset. The world is upset. We all want justice, we all place a high priority on the purging of those terrorists so that this never happens again.

It's just that I don't believe in blind vengeance, and I hope it is not what drives the american response, because I fear it will be a bigger mistake.
 
Originally posted by brettig:
What would Jesus Do?

Y'know, I'm honestly not sure what Jesus would do. But I believe there WAS a call to arms:

Right between the Last Supper and the betrayal in the Garden, in Luke 22:36:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (KJV)

And I'm certain that God the Father commanded the army of Israel to not only fight, but to wipe out the enemy, on several occasions.

The question of war depends greatly whether the war is just, and this time, I believe it is.

And, frogbat, I am trying very hard to be as civil as possible, but other forum members are not making things any easier. Beyond the genuine disagreements, there have been some really flippant remarks -- most recently, one member asked whether the civilians killed were fighting a secret war, and that is an infuriating statement.

Beyond that, I understand that my positions are harsh. But I believe that such positions are necessary, particularly if we do declare war. It took harsh sentiments to bring us into World War II when we were not yet armed fully. It took harsher sentiments for commanders to send the soldiers to Normandy, and for the soldiers to wade into the the hail of gunfire to take that beach. And it took a terribly cold sentiment to decide that the best thing for this country and its troops was to drop atom bombs on Japanese cities.

Stern committment was needed then, as I believe it is needed now. As such, I will neither tone down my views or silence my views for the sake of getting along.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
Angela:

The TERRORISTS started the war Tuesday.

I still don't see how you can possibly say that this isn't a war. What makes you think that?

And this "no name, no face" crap is simply that: crap. We've identified the terrorists; they all had names and faces. We're pretty sure we know who their leader is. He has a name and face too. And we're also pretty sure what countries helped. And their leaders also have names and faces.

I don't mean to turn this into something personal, but I cannot fathom how you can look at the actions of Tuesday and call it anything less than starting a war. War is not what I want, but it is what we NOW have.

Sledgehammer:

The United States had to face that dilemma when deciding whether to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

It is not a false dilemma.

zoomerang:

This is not blind vengence. This is the only appropriate response that I see.

The mistake would be to do nothing, to let the attacks continue, to give the terrorists time and opportunity to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

September, streets capsizing,
Spilling over, down the drain


"You know, by God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're goin' up against. By God, I do. We're not just gonna shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy...bastards by the bushel."
from the film Patton
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

And, frogbat, I am trying very hard to be as civil as possible, but other forum members are not making things any easier. Beyond the genuine disagreements, there have been some really flippant remarks -- most recently, one member asked whether the civilians killed were fighting a secret war, and that is an infuriating statement.




Flippant. Interesting. So is how pedantic you are. Perhaps you are a bit dense too for missing the sarcasm. You though, have no right to attack anyone for their views, while maintaining you are allowed yours. You prioritise your concerns how you will, as will I.


------------------
"Don't act so humble - You're not that great"
 
Good points...but I dont think Jesus ever sanctioned violence, thats why i made the point of talking about Peter...here was a guy who did what he did with emotion and rage, but with the best intentions at heart...but what did Jesus say to that?

"Put your sword back in its place", Jesus said to him, "for all who live by the sword will die by the sword."
Matthew 26:52

And to be frank, Jesus' ultimate victory was through surrender...an interesting point to digest at this time...
 
Back
Top Bottom