America's Dumbest Intellectual

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Colin Grabow, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Wow, MBFC, it really surprises me, you making bogus accusations that you haven't even researched and then building straw men when you are refuted.

    What is "torchering"?

    If it's anything like "torturing", then maybe you should check this out. A documentary film, "Massacre in Mazar", by Irish director Jamie Doran, was shown to selected audiences in Europe last week, provoking demands for an international inquiry into US war crimes in Afghanistan.

    The film alleges that American troops collaborated in the torture of POWs and the killing of thousands of captured Taliban soldiers near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif. It documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan.

    Doran, an award-winning independent filmmaker, whose documentaries have been seen in over 35 countries, said he decided to release a rough cut of his account of war crimes because he feared Afghan forces were about to cover up the evidence of mass killings.

    Of course, all mention of the documentary "Massacre In Mazar" has been almmost totally blacked out by US news media. Oddly enough, I did find a story on the Pentagon's denial of US torture in the Washington Times:

    http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/13062002-045203-1541r.htm

    I also seem to recall stories of the US sending terror suspects to Egypt so that the Egyptians could use "interrogation" methods that are formally banned in the US and could not be hidden in the base at Cuba.

    So I don't think reports of possible US involvement in such things can be simply dismissed out of hand. In fact, given the atmosphere immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T the use of torture to gain information. You can debate whether such a thing would be justified given the surrounding circumstances but to think that "it can't happen here (or by our boys over there)" is just as naive as the people who initially refused to believe the reports of the My Lai massacre because "our guys just wouldn't do such a thing".


    Your accusation of Chomsky's supposed anti-semitism is typical of you - third-hand and laughable in light of refuting evidence that you ignore because you do not wish it to be true.

    You do know that Chomsky himself is Jewish. Right? Of course, he doesn't let his Jewishness blind him to the fact that the state of Israel isn't perfect and that the Israeli government sometimes does bad things. But then anyone who thinks that must be a raging "anti-semite" in your world, I guess.

    And of course, Dershowitz is omniscient and can never be wrong. :rolleyes: I'm sure many Jews think that anyone who criticizes Israel is an "anti-semite". And while I really can't blame them for being extremely sensitive to possible anti-semitism, I do think their outrage is misplaced in this case.

    As for Holocaust denial itself, sure the deniers are spectacuarly self-deluded and just plain wrong. The major proponents of Holocaust denial are probably anti-semites in the perjorative sense of that term although I am not a mind-reader. And, of course, real anti-semites have made use of the Holocaust denial nonsense to further their own sick agenda. Of course, they also make use of the Bible for similar purposes and I don't see anyone claiming the Bible is anti-semitic.

    Chomsky is nevertheless correct that it is not necessarily so that the belief that the Holocaust did not happen, however mistaken it is, is in itself sufficient proof positive of Jew-hating. Historical revisionists and spectacularly self-deluded people come in all stripes without being racist. For example, people try to deny that the Israeli government has never done anything wrong and the apologists sometimes go to ridiculous lengths to avoid such a painful admission. Does that mean such people are all of necessity rabid Arab-haters? American apologists try to deny that the US government has had anything do with mass murders, torture and political repression in Latin America (and other places around the world) with similar ridiculous results. Does that automatically make such people "anti-Latinites" who fanaticaly hate all Spanish-speakers?

    There is often a difference between a belief and the other beliefs of the people who hold it. For example, is a belief in God, as wrong as it may or may not be, "good" or "bad"? People say it is good because it makes some people do charitable deeds and otherwise behave themselves. But others say it bad because it makes some people kill each other and fly airplanes into office buildings. Is everyone who truly believes in God (as opposed to merely giving lip service to such a belief) a potential fanatical murderer or David Koresh? I'd say "no" because it depends on what else they believe.

    Chomsky and others can cut through the emotional aspect of the belief and see that "guilt by association" is still hella weak. That is why they are clearer thinkers than you.


    You'd be more credible if you could research your arguments beyond listening to Rush Limbaugh. You've never read anything by Chomsky let alone read most of his works to be able to weigh the evidence and Chomsky's sources for yourself, have you? I bet not. If not then you don't know what you're talking about. I know you don't want to hear that but it's true. You're like some pretentious literary geek trying to criticize, say, Faulkner without ever having read his works and relying solely on third and fourth hand hitpieces. It sounds good until one goes to the acutal source. This apparent self-interested onesidedness and lazy lack of research on your part, not the mere fact that you disagree with Chomsky, is why I say that you don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, have fun waving your spoonful of dirt around while proclaiming that you've levelled Mt. Everest.
     
  2. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    I guess they didn't teach reading for comprehension in your school. You'll notice the word "estimates" in that sentence. As in, "they don't really know". If Chomsky-bashers can try to use shaky stats in their arguments, his supporters can too.
     
  3. TheWakeUpBomb

    TheWakeUpBomb Member

    Mar 2, 2000
    New York, NY
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Fine. I've gotten you to admit your use of "shaky stats". Mission accomplished.

    Your childish retorts have become quite tiresome.
     
  4. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000
    so Joe what do you say to people who have read Chomsky, understand what he is saying, do NOT like Rush Limbaugh and still think he is a lying piece of shite?


    To me, Limbaugh and Chomsky are one in the same. Propaganda machines who have both been caught in fibs (both of whom's supporters write off as being insignificant) and who are both ignored by most of the middle grounders.
     
  5. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    You gotta love people who want to deny the truth because it is not what they want to believe and they do not wish to be responsible for the consequences, however indirect, of the policies and actions of the US elites.

    Who armed Saddam and supported him in his rise to power? Was it Japan? Was it Costa Rica? Was it Iceland?

    Why didn't our elites get rid of Saddam when we had his army destroyed and had him at our mercy since he is such a dangerious monster? Why did they instead stop, decide to leave him in power and then implement sanctions that they know don't work and that they knew would be catastrophic for his people? Why have they continued them after ten years in which the sanctrions have failed to bring about his downfall? Why did US elites then foment rebellion among the Kurds against him and then utterly fail to support them, letting him massacre them at his leisure? Answers on a postcard, please.

    That's not Chomsky's argument. Of course, it would help your credibility if you'd actually read what he has to say instead of making stuff up.

    Chomsky does not support the suicide bombers. Neither do I. Both the Palestinians and Israel have made some really stupid and immoral choices over the years and this is why there is still suffering and tragedy over there on both sides.

    Of course, some people apparently can't deal with moral ambiguity and therefore desperately to desire to see everything in terms of Hollywood action movies where there is a simple white hat and a simple black hat. They can't wrap their little minds around the concept that there might exist a situation in which the major players all wear hats of various shades of gray. So they insist on trying to turn the middle east into a childish morality play and therefore solve nothing.

    OK, this I can see. The US didn't start AIDS. I do think that it would be in our best interests to do as much as possible to fight AIDS, however, because its worldwide impact has gotten damn scary and not just in Africa. Besides, it is literally killing off overseas markets for US goods.

    Are you denying this? If so, talk about historical revisionism!

    We loved them when they fought the Russians and now we hate them after they turned around and harbored the people who crashed planes into our buildings. I'm sorry to report this, but sometimes actions have consequences. These consequences may be completely unintended but when you support a bunch of religious fanatics, you take a risk. American elites took that risk and it ultimately came back to bite the poor people who didn't deserve to die on 9/11.

    "The USA", as defined by its people, did not "cause" the 9/11 attacks in the immediate sense of the word. To deny any link between our support of those who became the Taliban, the Taliban's support of fanatics like Al Qaeda and the subsequent 9/11 attacks, however, is self-delusionary irresponsibility.

    If I give a known murderer a gun and he goes off and shoots my friend to death I may not have "caused" my friend's death in the sense of immediate intended action but my action of giving the gun to the murderer was partly and indirectly responsible and I should learn to be more careful who I give guns to. That is in a nutshell the critique made of US actions that unintentionally and indirectly let the 9/11 attackers do what they did. That is all - a simple recognition that we should think twice before supporting evil people even if they are "the enemy of my enemy" because we may get burned later. We didn't "deserve it". We didn't "cause" it in the perjorative sense of that word. The attacks were not "just" and the people who committed them were wrong in so many different levels and deserve to be punished for their crimes. If you have a problem with any of those statements, I pity you.
     
  6. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    There's no other reason to deny the Holocaust, though. The evidence that it happened is absolutely overwhelming, so much so that to take an opposite view is a sign of an agenda of some sort. And I'm not able to think of an agenda in that instance that wouldn't be anti-Semitic, ruling out insanity to a degree that the person making the argument wouldn't be in the public discourse to begin with.

    Yeah, logically and technically, we could be talking about someone insane, or ignorant. But for practical purposes, the probability of a Holocaust denier without an anti-Semitic agenda is nil.
     
  7. Father Ted

    Father Ted BigSoccer Supporter

    Manchester United, Galway United, New York Red Bulls
    Nov 2, 2001
    Connecticut
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    So the next time there is some war in Europe, Asia, Africa or wherever, it is not in our interest to support any side, much like the Irish and Swiss do: always stay neutral no matter what?
     
  8. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Show me one who can refute his theses about how the US elites wield power and the role of the US media in this system. That's the key thing. That is what Chomsky-bashers have been spectacularly unable to do despite 40 years of intense effort. Depsite all their self-hype and hoopla they simply haven't demolished the mountain.

    In contrast to Chomsky, it's not just a pitiful few of Limbaugh's individual "facts" or sources that can be dismissed. It's the very logic of his metarguments in favor of extreme neoliberal economics, radical "libertarianism" and the "conservative" faction of the "culture wars" that is refuted. Having a few bad sources or mistakes exposed in 40 freaking years is not a bad record for any political commentator. Having not only a good deal of your "facts" but your very logic refuted in just a few years is another.

    Not only that but Chomsky does not have to resort to Limbaugh's demagogic techniques to debate people either. For example, while Chomsky can be bitingly sarcastic like Limbaugh, he does not play upon racism or other popular prejudices and fears like Limbaugh and some other "conservatives" winkingly do (remember Willie Horton?) when they talk about "welfare cheats" and such. Chomsky is explicit about what he says and does not hide behind analysis-stopping slogans and winking, libel-skirting labels.

    A better analogy for Limbaugh would be if there was an unreconstructed Stalinist out there spouting thrice-refuted pro-Stalinist nonsense all over our airwaves about how great a place North Vietnam is to live in or how the Soviet Union had built real socialism or some other crap. Such a person would truly be the "Limbaugh of the Left".
     
  9. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, there are over 200 nations in the world, so the US sanctions are having little effect.

    It's those sanctions IN COMBINATION WITH THE WHOLE FREAKIN' WORLD that is having an effect.
     
  10. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    heh heh heh :rolleyes:
     
  11. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Who is the 800lb international gorilla pushing the sanctrions, making sure its allies don't sneak off and do business with the bad boy and strong-arming as many dissenting countries as possible into obeying the sanctions? Is it Bhutan? Is it Luxembourg? Is it New Zealand?

    If the US called off sanctions or came up with a better set of them that would actually hurt Saddam instead of his people, things would change overnight.

    I'm not pro-Saddam. I think the Allied forces should have gone in and whacked him when American soldiers died to give our leaders the opportunity to do so ten years ago. I think it was evil for our leaders to decide to leave him in power and then utterly cynical of them to then to moan about how dangerous and evil he is (and he certainly is evil no doubt about that) whenever there's some domestic crisis that they want peoples' attention diverted from.
     
  12. TheWakeUpBomb

    TheWakeUpBomb Member

    Mar 2, 2000
    New York, NY
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Really? He certainly seems fond of throwing around the term "Nazi".
     
  13. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Well said.
     
  14. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Can you be more specific? How has Chomsky used racism, religious intolerance or sexism to unjustly scapegoat an entire ethnic group in order to distract people from the real problems they face? Where is Chomsky's Willie Horton? Where are his version of "welfare cheats" (ie., "blacks") or "international bankers" (ie., Jews)? Where does Chomsky blame Israel's bad decsions on all of "Judaism" the way some "Christians" in the American Right blame 9/11 on all "Islam"?
     
  15. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Do you always bring it this weak? I mean, I thought Chomsky was a Nazi holocaust denier? Now he's supposedly insulting everyone by calling everyone Nazis. I wish the Chomsky-bashers would get their story straight.
     
  16. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Since when has insanity ever stopped someone from engaging in public discourse? I don't think Hitler was in perfect mental health, for example.

    I think at least some of the deniers don't want to believe it's true not because they hate Jews but because they don't want to believe that educated, modern, supposedly civilized, 20th century white people (in short, people much like themselves) could do such a mind-bogglingly evil thing. I can see the appeal of Holocaust denial to Germans who simply don't care about Jews enough to hate them but who also can't handle the fact that their fellow countrymen killed not only Jews but massive numbers of Gypsies, Slavs, gays and many other smaller groups as well. Not everyone has the balls to be able to admit that "it can happen here".
     
  17. TheWakeUpBomb

    TheWakeUpBomb Member

    Mar 2, 2000
    New York, NY
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    You said that Chomsky "does not hide behind analysis-stopping slogans and winking, libel-skirting labels". I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong.
     
  18. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Nobody on BigSoccer has ever argued against Chomsky on a theoretical level. Most likely, they never will.
     
  19. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Why haven't you answered any of my questions?

    I said "we should think twice before supporting evil people even if they are "the enemy of my enemy" because we may get burned later."

    How do you turn a call for more intelligence and care in choosing allies into the absolute command to "never takes sides ever"?
     
  20. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Where has Chomsky called a blanket population "Nazis"? I don't think he's ever said "Amercians are Nazis" or implied that all or even most Israelis are Nazis.

    I have seen him draw parallels between specific practices of the Nazis (and Soviets, too) and those same practices as used today. It's one to thing say "The Nazis typically did such and such a thing and here is an example of a modern country doing that same thing" and saying "They're all Nazis". Or "feminazis" in Limbaugh's case.
     
  21. Colin Grabow

    Colin Grabow New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, DC
    Rush Limbaugh a radical libertarian? That's rich.

    And when did this supposed refutation of neoliberal economics take place?
     
  22. TheWakeUpBomb

    TheWakeUpBomb Member

    Mar 2, 2000
    New York, NY
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    And when did I ever say that he did?

    In some of Chomsky's writings and conversations with him I've read on the web, he tends to throw terms like "neo-Nazi" and "Nazi" into conversations to make his point, I presume. This tends to short-circuit the discussion, and is very much "analysis-stopping". And it's also lazy, and particularly galling coming from a linguist.
     
  23. cossack

    cossack Member

    Loons
    United States
    Mar 5, 2001
    Minneapolis
    Club:
    Minnesota United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's something that dovetails interestingly with the above comments on intellectualism and stupidity. It is another attack from a conservative. His name is Peter Murphy! I have a feeling he didn't write Stigmata. Anyway, he totally misinterprets Zizek's use of Lacan, particularly the concepts of "real" and "center". As a result, the stupidity lies in his brief counterthoughts on not only Zizek but Chomsky and Edward Said as well.

    http://www.scim.vuw.ac.nz/comms/staff/Folly.htm

    I'd be curious to know some of your thoughts on Howard Zinn. Is his People's History merely to be shrugged off as irrelevant for the defence of the downtrodden or is it (as I believe) useful in an academic context for important events eluding standard textbooks in highschool and college?
     

Share This Page