Blogcritics Comments on Chomsky Redux

Comment by Thatsrightjack on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:22:14 EST

Interesting to read a few years later. And interesting to observe that after these years Chomsky is "about right" on most acounts. The invasion of Agfanistan is a fiasco, with huge human costs and results for the average person just as bad as it was with the Taliban power (who of course the US indirectly helped to power with the aid of good friends Pakistan) - or worse for some in the world with the resumption of the opium trade. US actions abroad (Iraq invasion is a clear illustration)continue to increase terror. Even the CIA say so. On what basis do you think differently?

Comment by M. Upton on Chomsky Redux

Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:49:50 EDT

Action and reaction. If we fight against an enemy, there are going to be left-overs that continue on their war. The thing to remember is that terrorist leaders are usually educated individuals who are after power. They will create a "cause" to gather followers, then twist history to justify that "cause". Successful attacks increase the leaders' popularity, and then increase their following and power. Addressing "root causes" does not erase past wrongs, perceived or otherwise, so does nothing to end terrorism.

Comment by moriveth on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 21:10:15 EDT

I don't think Chomsky is a very insightful political thinker. But I agree with him to the extent that the 9/11 terrorists became terrorists for actual reasons. These reasons are complex but derive, in part, from anger directed at US actions and policies (some of which have indeed been unsavory, if not quite to the extent that Chomsky thinks). And it's in our interest to understand these reasons (support for Israel, the Shah and other despotic regimes, our decadent culture, and so forth), even if we think our policies are wholly justified. I honestly can't see how Oliver North himself could quarrel with the above. (Recalling the Susan Sontag furor, it hardly takes an Ollie...) This does not mean that the attacks were justified, that our policies were the only reason for the attack, or even that our policies are wrong and should be changed (though the latter is frequently the implication of many lefties--Chomsky certainly included). Chomsky isn't saying that US citizens "deserved" to die in terrorist attacks. He's arguing that the attacks occurred as a consequence of US actions--that is, US policy indirectly helped create a world in which there are a number of fanatics who want to kill Americans. It's possible to hate America a lot less than Chomsky and still grasp the distinction.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:26:41 EDT

Good point Bill, but as I said, I'm afraid his position gives him far more authority than he would otherwise have and his endless blather is taken by many as gospel.

Comment by Bill Sherman on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:14:10 EDT

Chomsky's an easy target (sad to see a mind once so challenging calcify over time), but I wouldn't worry about all those young-and-innocent college minds being "poisoned" by his writing. After all, when you're in the Marketplace of Ideas aren't you supposed to squeeze the fruit?

Comment by Eric Olsen on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:58:52 EDT

Thanks Jamie, though I was rather preachy.

Comment by Jamie on Chomsky Redux

Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:52:46 EDT

Preach on. Chomsky has been spouting idiocies for years. Sadly, it's taken 9/11 and the emotion and willpower it stirred up for people to start being outraged by the outrageous.