I tried to tell my peers this would happen while I was in the service. I got in trouble and people tried to say I was a traitor. In the end I was right, our leaders don't seem to understand how to win a guerilla war.
+John Ahmrain I don't think they have any intention of winning that guerilla war. I think the area needs to be destabilised, probably even more than it already is. In other words, it's desirable to some parties to have groups like ISIS in power over there, causing chaos and mayhem, taking over large parts of the middle east. Eventually, and this could be what it all comes down to in my opinion; the state of Israel will be surrounded by what the world perceives to be radical islamists, right at the border of precious little Israel, threatening its existence. If the enemy is this irrationally barbaric and absurdly brutal entity, then the world won't hesitate to support a war of self defence on the part of Israel. This could give Israel the chance to drastically expand its borders, a big war will be fought, though ISIS will most likely stand little to no chance against Israel. The "Palestinian problem" will be solved during the course of this war, and I think Israel would take over much of the region, including nearby oil fields, without much complaints and resistance coming from Europe and the rest of the world, seeing as how this ISIS monster is considered a huge threat to the western way of life. I imagine this would be quite problematic for the world, as the idea of islam vs us, or us vs the non-believers, is going to cause big conflicts around the world. Besides, Europe will have its own problems to deal with. There are of course Iran and Russia and possibly China to consider, and the future doesn't look too fucking bright if you ask me. I don't know where the U.S. is going to be in all of that, but I think its power and influence would need to be restricted, and in the long run, I can see Israel becoming the ruling state in the world; wealthy, influencial and powerful. Japan and Europe would stand in need of middle eastern oil, though the U.S. has its own reserves, at least for a while. Maybe the U.S. dollar would collapse by then, I don't know. It's all about money, power and land, but religion also plays a big role in this. According to christian doomsday scenarios, Jesus has to return to rule the world, seating in what is now Israel actually. Jews themselves believe that their Messiah, their King, has yet to appear, and according to them, he would have to rule the world, seating again, in what is now Israel. So to the Abrahamic religions, the area is extremely important. I think this is why christian Americans tend to support the state of Israel, thinking that Jesus will return there. Allowing muslims to run the place would not be desirable. But to justify a big war being waged against the surrounding muslim countries, a big threat has to appear there. Arabic dictators would have to be replaced by more radical extremists, and the radical extremists are then replaced by even more radical extremists, to the point where this big war simply has to be fought, in order to save Israel from destruction. I think this is what we're seeing now in the form of ISIS, and in fact, the Arab uprisings already paved the way for this scenario. There's little doubt in my mind that the Arab spring was designed to destabilise the entire region and install more radical groups, causing chaos. In fact, religious scholars of islam were predicting this long before it even happened.
As an Iraqi, I feel deep gratitude to Chomsky. What he mentioned about the crimes and destruction of the US in Iraq is impeccably correct. I can’t comprehend how numerous American officials and columnists that say the opposite of what had happened without laughing at what they write or say
Greg Vinson It's nuanced for his own politics. He's made a career out of blaming the West for practically everything. His stance on Bosnia should make his opinion completely moot.
+Calum Brunton I wouldn't say that but he is brave, and disciplined, and honest, and a good scholar who seeks facts. I'd say the Google boys are much better in the "mind" department...intelligence is a lot different than being good at research. He's no dummy though, that's obvious.
i think the bottom line is that a lot of intellectuals and smart people in general pay money to listen to him, pay money to buy his books, and give him lots of props. Ignorant people, or people with neo-con and/or Zionist agendas (who conveniently overlook facts that don't agree with them) are quick to talk trash about him. However, I've yet to see anyone fully discredit him with a well-reasoned, logical deduction. I'd like to see such attempts.
+Unknown There is no "God" and he is probably a cia tool. That last part was just my opinion. The first part I can show to be true. Don't ask, cause I will wipe the floor with anyone that challenges it. ESPECIALLY if they want to bet silver or fiat currency.
seriosuly the guys a genius. ive never seen someone who speaks truth over their patriotism or religious beliefs but this guy here is the first. when trying to ascertain the truth you must first free yourself of your biases whatever they may be and this guy speaks as though he has done exactly just that..
You are right, we should ry to free ourselves from biases. Of course that's easier said than done since we are often not even aware of our own biases. One of the big human biases is attribution bias; we tend to attribute other's bad behaviors to the way they are and our own bad behaviors to the situation we are in. Chomsky does that in reverse, Isis is bad because of the situation the US put them in while the US is bad because of that's the way the US is. To be fair Isis is as much a productive of the people they are as the US's actions in the middle is a productive of the situation the US is in. I see little evidence that Chomsky tries to correct for that. And then there is confirmation bias, ever hear Chomsky mention any bit of US foreign policy that has been good for the world? Has there been none? Ever?
O Soul A bit hard to think of examples lol. Theres a lovely picture of an artists album cover which shows planes over peoples heads dropping boms, and in the next picture it shows the same planes dropping aid packages for those people injured in the ariel assault. I often think of the USA like that. You're right though. easier said than done and Chomsky would have to be somesort of robot if he was to be completely free of any biases. I like to think he comes close to being to free of biases more so than many other people out there.
I would take this one step further. Chomsky is an ideologue himself. He is obviously a very educated man and many of the things he says are true. The problem is with the conclusions he draws. As a European who is educated on geopolitics and history of course I see that the US in its role of hegemonial power of the modern world is acting exclusively in its own interest, and often to the detriment of others. Unlike Chomsky however I realize that that is in the very nature politics and in fact in the very nature of humanity. And as far as hegemonial powers in world history go, the US is comparatively benign. Self-criticism is of course important, but only to a certain point. If you are overly critical of yourself you become weak and unable to act. Chomskys ideology is one of self-criticism put to the extreme. And when he talks about ISIS and the middle east the problem is that he embraces a regressive point of view, the point of view of cultural relativism. He does not acknowledge the fact that Islamic nations in the middle east have a culture that is one part practicality, two parts religious doctrine and one part medieval barbarism.
Seeric85 So in short, what you are saying is yes, america is a dick but only becuase it has to be one in order to survive, coz, you know.... human nature. Chomsky is dumb and all he does hate on himself and death to islam the religion of the barbarians. Did i get that all correctly?
aibel99 It is an extreme oversimplification but mostly yes. I don`t believe Chomsky is dumb, I think he is pretty smart and well-educated. That doesn`t make him right tough, as I said, he is heavily ideologically biased. And I don`t think Islam needs to die, I think we should stop importing it to Europe in massive numbers and that it is in bad need of reformation. However, reformations, as we experienced within Christianity, are a bloody and unpleasant buisness that takes hundreds of years.
Well at time of writing (November 2023), he is almost 95 years old (born 7th December 1928) so I’m sorry to say he probably won’t be with us too much longer. I’m also a big fan of his and appreciate his calm, thoughtful and measured take on the issues. We can only hope that when he departs there will be others with his articulation and nuance to provide clarity in a world saturated with sound bite news and clickbait headlines.
I used to read Thomas Friedman of the NY Times. Friedman to me is the kind of reporter who'll go to the ends of the Earth to gather all the data but I found out no matter how much data he accumulates his postulations are plain wrong! I found this in several cases. I've only recently viewed some of Chomsky's material. Does he put forth any solutions or does he just pan America? Furthermore, Friedman's shortcomings is not limited to him. There are many people and scientists loaded with data who cannot assimilate it properly. This is found to large extent in medicine. Somehow they fail to connect the dots. Chomsky is like Ancel Keys. Keys had 22 dots that proved no relation between heart disease and saturated fat intake but he took only the 7 dots that did. Chomsky prefers only those dots which promotes his agenda. This has become a big problem in America and the world today. Global Warming Theory suffers terribly from this. Give us the entire picture and let us decide for ourselves.
+Colin Walsh Says who? Chomsky has been getting a lot of sudden flak lately, I blame the idiot Sam Harris launching his army of trolls and worshipers on anyone that calls him out on his bullshit.
lol @ calling Chomsky a coward, what a time to be alive! And yes, he's 100% right about using the body counts, you''l only disagree with him if you're a war-hungry lunatic like Harris.
***** Look buddy, we sorta agree, but to defeat terrorism and its roots, we must stop treating Saudi Arabia as an ally and start treating them a the enemy, that's the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism.
+Divain Atom "g" in street slang is probably a good thing...originally meaning "gangsta" but because of rap music and so on, being a "g" is like saying a "buddy" or "friend" pretty much..
That's a problem -I'm not the only one who lean back, get comfy, switch off listening to him! Pisses me right off when, at the end, I realise I didn't listen to 3/4 of his talk
Wahid Ali who supplied him with the gases? He didn't see the Kurds as his people. He saw them as his subjects the way global zionism sees the rest of us!
Noam Chomsky is great! I have been reading his books for many years and I believe him to be the most gifted spokesman for the American people. He cuts right to the heart of the matter and is the most insightful speaker I have listened to for many years.
Red Firefly I have very surface level knowledge of it. All I know is that Chomsky has referred to himself as it in interviews a couple of times. He is a socialist of course, but I think in advocating for libertarian socialism he is arguing that socialism allows for freedom of the individual as well as the collective society.
Bill Klaven Well it depends on what that freedom is. If you mean freedom of speech, then yes. I also believe in the freedom of the individual as long as that freedom doesn't harm others. If you mean "freedom from theft"(aka no taxes) then no. I believe it is the duty of the rich to contribute a larger share to society, within reason.
Really hope that you're not calling Chomsky an idiot. You must be talking about the US foreign policy being idiotic. Chomsky is a brilliant human being.
Thanks for talking about the Iraq sanction. I was boring right before the USA sanctions if Iraq. My parents couldn’t provide me like million other kids with proper food and nutrition. I still suffer from childhood malnutrition. I never forgive USA for destroying our country
if you follow the money it always leads to Saudi Arabia they were responsible for 11th September 15 of the hijackers came from there and yet US leaders chose to ignore this fact
+robert kelly It was interesting how the leaders allowed the rest of the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country in spite of the "no fly" rule in effect in the days following the so-called "attacks"...so, apparently, US leaders aren't "ignoring" anything...they are active participants.
+Scrapingthebottom Saudi didn't declare Jihad at the US, they just pressured the west to free Palestine from Israel's occupation. Guess what happened next, King Faisal was assassinated two years after the boycott After that incident, Al Saud became more obedient to the US and supported the us with money and oil for their protection. One point to note is that Jihadists (from AQ to ISIS) declared war on Al Saud and most of Liberal Saudis, they consider us and the government as Infidels who deserve to be killed because they support the west and Naom pointed that out when he said that isis is funded not by the government but by the very rich conservative opposition Islamists (Including Muslim Brotherhood)
@test i'd change the word "think" to "believe" in your comment....that is exactly what we have been told to believe, and the drone murders continue to this day of brown people (practically) in caves...in "our" name. tragic, really.
Noam seems to live in a faery tale world where there were no sunni/shiite/kurd disputes until the Iraq invasion started them. This is historically incorrect.
Love Noam Chomsky! However, it should be pointed out that all internal affairs are controlled by the so called religious police in Saudi Arabia. The royalty is responsible for foreign affairs. Now the royal family is not radical whatsoever, but the population in general is (at least very much so compared to the royal family). Why does the royal family not have power internally? It's logical. They know that they would be an extremely heavily opposed power (if they were to control how their citizens lived their lives) and the chances of a revolution (or something along those lines) would be significantly larger. All in all, the US is friends with the international royal Saudi Arabia, and not the national religious police which is arguably more powerful than the royal family. Ps. When is say "love Chomsky" I don't JUST mean that I love him, I mean it as an order. Like, (you need to) love Noam Chomsky.
+Rachid Mouawad Richard. I am Saudi and I commend your comment. This is so true, I really fear a day where Al Saud would be thrown out of their seats. ISIS will have its biggest and most powerful state ever since mecca is in their hands. They will change history forever. Although I agree that Al Saud have their many flaws, but I would take their ruing with little freedom and slow progress over Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS ruling with no freedom and no progress at all!!
In listening to Noam Chomsky you should always take into context that he has always been very biased against America - often described by pundits (liberal and conservative) as an "anti-americanist". He certainly has every right to those views and opinions but keep in mind that they play a major role (along with his anarchistic socialist views) in his "analysis" of Americas involvement in anything. America is ALWAYS wrong to him. I think it is a mistake to state with any type of certainty that ISIS would not have come into existence without the U.S.A.'s involvement. It may not be the same flavor but "types" of ISIS has been in existence long before the Iraq war (Taliban, Al Qaeda, Wahhabism, etc.). To ASSUME that something more extreme than ISIS - if destroyed (he didnt say may/might, he said will) will come into existence is the height of elitist hubris - which is how I view Noam Chomsky. He is a total intellectual elitist that has very little concept of the practical side of social or economic realities - especially the international side of these. He has lived his life in the halls of academia and theory. Anarchism and Socialism are cool ideas in theory but dont ever line up with those theories when they come crashing up against human nature. Anarchism is sweet liberty to a very few that have high levels of ethical values and discipline but becomes a violent hell to most. Socialism sounds wonderful with its theory of everyone having all they need until lazy people become parasites, take advantage of the charity of others and the elites run out of other people money to spend. This isnt opinion, it is provable fact. Just compare the standard of living between capitalist nations to socialist nations. Just compare nations based on the rule of law to those that have no law. I thins Noam Chomsky is a brilliant thinker that has become totally boxed in by thin thickness of his ideological beliefs and the degree to which he is out of touch with us "common people". My trivial peeve with him is that he has totally perverted the definition of Imperialism when applying it to the U.S.
+Lee Baker "My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century." (Noam Chomsky)
+Lee Baker Is my opinion that he is not anti-America. He is part of America, a very important and bright part of America. If he is against american government actions mind you that he is against the evil the american government do in the world. Living in a country that already had a legitim and democratic government overthrown by american influence it seems to me that he is a good american.
+Lee Baker ~ Interesting and relatively realistic observation. The fact is, that those who can think usually do live in the halls of academia, run major concerns or end up in politics. It should then not surprise us, that those folks are out of touch with - I won't include myself here - the "common people". To get a grip as to what makes up much of that commonness, one only has to view a number of the very many "Walmart People" flicks here on CZcams. If THAT is not only 'common', but more than that 'american' one can't really blame anyone who is 'anti-american'. This reminds me of conversations Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot are supposed to have had about Eugenics, the eliminating of parts of a society who provides no contributing values. That such thinking exists to this day, seems clear - for the moment - how we deal with civilians in those country we keep invading, calling them collateral damage. It should also not surprise us then, when such collateral damage will happen in this country one day.
This is a different version of events than the one I heard recently in an Adam Curtis documentary, he said that the Saudi Monarchy exported the fundamentalist idea of Wahhabism to prevent it from spreading in Saudi Arabia. Chomsky's interpretation which says that they were spreading Wahhabism as a power play. Is this merely a matter of different interpretations of the same events or has one of the two made a mistake?
"Patrick Cockburn spotted the emergence of ISIS much earlier than anybody else and wrote about it with a depth of understanding that was in a league of its own. "‐‐‐Press Gazette Journalist of the Year Judges 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 The Rise Of Islamic State. Excellent book 📖 written by an absolute gentleman who speaks nothing but the truth 🎩
Note that he doesn't place ANY BLAME whatsoever on the Shia and Sunnis for their violent war against each other......he mentions it in passing, but does not analyze why these two groups have been killing each other for hundreds of year and long before the US invaded Iraq (which was an awful policy decision I will agree).
+xpat73 This is Chomsky, is it not? All roads lead to America for this fellow. One would think that the U.S. is alone in its formation by force and its actions to benefit the U.S. by its invasions. American exceptionalism is the product sold by this internationalist, Noam Chomsky, and glossing over the actions of every other nation is his method.
+xpat73 Huh? He specifically talks about Sunnis and Shias within Iraq lived side by side and were intermarried (etc.) before the US invasion. There is obvious blame for violence to place on those who commit the violence. It's obvious and there's no need to articulate that. But Saddam's mostly-secular pan-Arab government had largely managed to eliminate sectarian violence in Iraq. The invasion reopened old wounds.
+suejak1 If it took a mad, brutal dictator to keep a lid on the religiously motivated animus between the different sects, clearly this is not a point in favor of Islam. Chomsky is not only disingenuous when trying to pin sectarian violence on the US, he is also self-refuting. How precarious this "peace" between the Sunnis and Shia must have been in order to descend into mayhem as soon as the tyrant was deposed. Should we have invaded? Probably not, although I would like to know how Chomsky would have dealt with Saddam. But his anecdotes of intermarriage aside, you don't get to this level of violence without deep- seeded religious and ideological differences. Let's also not forget (as Chomsky seems to) the deplorable treatment by ISIS of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, intellectuals....is this to be blamed on the US too?
Michael Dick I would have left Hussein right where he was. The invasion of Iraq was among the worst political decisions ever made by a U.S. president and only George Bush, a religious convert and a remarkably ignorant and childlike personality, could have been persuaded to take that step. Even if it was factual that this was done to gain the oil resources of Iraq, and it is not true, this was a failure of policy not seen since the manipulations of Franklin Roosevelt to aid communist China and the Soviet Union as well as Britain and the rest of Europe against the Nazis. The oil resources were returned to Iraqi control by the Bush Administration and now are sold to China and Russia. Now these nations move to capitalism as we succumb to socialism and the control of our every interest by government. We as a people cannot make a phone call in privacy while foreigners take up ownership of all that we have built. I have watched this very carefully over the last 50 years and marveled at the incompetence of the agencies presumably formed for our protection and how we have constantly been left with less rights as Americans to the benefit of government and the agencies of government creation. All of this is directly attributed to the three branches of government, there is no malaise effecting the American people that is not caused by overbearing and duplicitous action against the people of this nation by government. The executive, the legislative and the judiciary all have acted against the Constitution and so blatantly as to not be missed by the populace, but the government makes the populace more ignorant even still with control of the schools that it holds and has held for decades. Now men like Chomsky and Rice are used as primary literature within these schools and all sense of what it is to be an American is being lost. This is now, and always has been the methodology of the Left. To take all appreciation of nationalism and patriotism from the people of a once proud nation by increment until nothing is left but a nation of one among many in the international scheme of Marxism. The American people have shown susceptibility to change by degrees and nothing shows this more that the election of a certain Marxist, not once, but twice, to the highest office in the land. Question any average American on the subject of political history and you will be amazed at the answers. These absurdly ignorant citizens have no concept of political matters whatsoever and they have been bribed by false promises to remain this way, in the vapid state of belief of the beneficence of government to their exclusive benefit. The latest example to my reading is the atrocious claim of birthright citizenship to foreigners born within our borders as the law of the land. This is the Supreme Court at its finest, to clam that the Fourteenth Amendment allows for this when the amendment expressly forbids it. They managed this direct lie of birthright citizenship in spite of the wording of the amendment that made it quite clear that the ruling was unconstitutional. So ignorant and uninterested are the citizens of this nation that they give away their citizenship to foreigners without a thought. I am left with little sympathy for my fellow Americans, this sympathy is reserved for the generations to come, those who will be left to pay the price for the ignorance and the moral laxity of those who came before them. Those who come later will be forced to realize that they were sold out by their predecessors. "A Republic if you can keep it", indeed.
+Richard Davis I would say 9/11 helped the ruling elite accelerate their plans for the US. Bush was nothing more than a puppet. The invasion of Iraq plan was already there by conservative think tanks. I guess the only thing now is to let it collapse and see if anything comes from the rubble.
I have a real question concerning this piece. My co worker Sarah is from Iraq her family immigrated to Canada at the beginning of the war. She just finished her architectural thesis on the topic of walls and Baghdad. I remember when she first started at our office she showed a presentation of her work which I was very excited about - given Rem's Koolhaas' research about the Berlin Wall etc. She showed an image of sectarian division prior to the war. I asked for her to go back to this slide, and I had wondered what the street sections of those boundaries felt like . Those could be opportunities to explore urbanisms of connection. They did appear on the map before the invasion, even prior to the US raising walls there. So did the US cause these divisions before the invasion or are they sort of naturally forming? I am unsure and curious. I am an architect / interested in urbanism.
So, Iraq and Iran were at war before 1:50 and then he said Sunni and Shia lived in peace 3:40 ?.. That war was mostly about the religious divide. Plus, I couldn't find anything on the net about the two "living in peace". Any good info on this?
The invasion of Iraq was wrong, no doubt, but no one could have foreseen the sunni shiite bloodbath. The extremists in both groups were just itching to get at each other and Hussein was brutal enough to keep the shit to shoe level. The invasion removed the iron fist from the equation, but did not create the hatred between sunnis and shiites. Islam created Islamic extremism, not America's foreign policy, tho it doesn't help. And Saudi Arabia was a fundamentalist theocracy long before U.S. intervention. Chomsky is basically saying, Islamic radicals are not at all responsible for their actions, nor are peaceful muslims responsible for their inaction in confronting the radicals.
+Derrick G 1) The US was told many times by various people in the field of international relations and foreign policy that removing Saddam Hussein would cause exactly what you're saying they didn't foresee. 2) Various interpretations of Islam gave birth to extremist sects and their organisations. 3) Who said that US foreign policy created Islamic extremism? 4) The US has been friends with the Saudi Kingdom since its inception in 1932. 5) Feel free to explain why a select group of people are responsible for the actions of others merely because they share one minor identity trait.
+Mr Ezkerrera 1) I don't doubt that some sectarian violence was expected, but no one expected the magnitude of that violence, the death toll, and how it would spread. What source do you have saying that Bush was informed about the possibility of all those occurrences? Again, some sectarian violence was expected, but no one expected almost the whole region to degrade into sectarian violence. 2) I agree with your second point 3) There are groups of people who do blame America for Islamic extremism. I know it's not the majority, but that sentiment is out there. www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/ 4) Wahhabism is the foundation to Saudi's government. Wahhabism was created before America was even a country. And just because the U.S. had diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean the U.S. helped created their society. If it was up to me, America would have nothing to do with S.A. 5) I've never said all Muslims are responsible for ISIS, but ISIS is responsible for what they do. Moderate Muslims need to do a better job in confronting the group and the ideology. And confronting the ideology is the job of Muslims. A non-Muslim isn't taken seriously if he says something like "This is not what Islam teaches".
I think actually Sam and Noam wouldn't be too far off on this subject. Sam wasn't for the war on Iraq partially because of this reason, and i think he actually agrees that ISIS is an immediate backfire of our invasion of Iraq. What he wouldn't do however is blame the US for this because of the intentions and the core of Islamism rooted in ISIS. I'm just so disappointed in Noam for not wanting to have a dialoge with Sam about this.
+Robert Fennis What makes you think it was Chomsky who didn't want to have a dialogue? It obviously was Harris with his unwillingness to amend his obvious _published_ strawmans and misinterpretation of Chomsky's opinion, as well as the contentious tone of which he approached him. There was, however, a dialogue. And Harris got put into his place and displayed to the world as the imperialist, *religious* fanatic that he is. And yes, I consider "Western exceptionalism" a religion. Sam Harris is not dealing with reality, nor is he even remotely an equal (in depth of knowledge) to Chomsky regarding foreign policy. Sam Harris simply put, is an ideologue for the worst kind. The kind that make otherwise rational human beings suspend their critical thinking in exchange for bigotry. Harris can't even be bothered to be consistent with his nonsense, read for instance his essays: _Why I Don't Criticize Israel?_ and compare it with his _Response to Controversy_ excerpt on torture regarding collateral damage.
bluesrockfan36 Yeah no, have you read the attempted dialog and mail exchange. Sam wasn't even responding because of Chomsky's tone. Indeed Sam didn't want to have a dialog but it was due to the tone of chomsky's e-mails. And regarding the rest, i'm not even bothering.
Robert Fennis I've read it multiple times. I still do so when I get bored and would like to witness the intellectual smack-down Chomsky delivered for entertainment. Oh, Sam was responding indeed. Feebly, pathetically and discourteously. You complain about tone? Don't make me laugh. Try complaining about substance, or lack thereof. As for the tone. If you're disrespectful as Harris was, if you consistently insist on strawmaning other people's belief after they themselves correct you, not once, but multiple times. You don't get to complain about the tone. Poor Harrisite you are. Oh the tone!, the humanity! A professor used big words, not a single insult and was _discourteous_ I'm going... I'm going to **snivels** bwaaaah! bwaaaah! Grow a spine, while at it, see if you can grow some balls to. Seriously. Getting triggered by the *TONE*. Jesus Christ. How pathetic are you? You're not different than the PC Nazis Harris always criticizes. No. You're worse. At least they whine about specific words, you're whining about the fucking tone.
+Robert Fennis Why would Noam waste his precious time with someone like Sam? They clearly disagree about the whole intentions thingy Harris keeps pulling, there's no point in a debate between the two.
Some commentors assert that Chomsky is "anti-american". This is completely wrong. In fact, I honestly do not even understand what it means. According to my world-views, Chomsky is pro-america. He loves america. Nobody in Italy would call anyone anti-italian only because they critizice the italian government. Chomsky answers e-mails 8 hours per day. He travels all around the world. He is probably the least isolated intellectual in the world. Regarding your point about ISIS: His views are not radical. Most experts in the field agrees with his description. Sure, there were extremist groups in the world before 9/11, and many of them were supported by the US and other powers. But it's not controversial to say that extremism has increased a lot as a result of US policy and the invasion of Iraq. Also, Saudi Arabi, a close US ally, is responsible for spreading extreme versions of islam around the world. This is not controversial. You should know that the US is viewed as the biggest threat to world peace around the world. In the internationa Gallup polls it's in the top position. However, it's also the place were most people in the world want to move. This is not contradictory at all. I love the US, but I recognize that its foreign policy is often (not always) very destructive and violent. You should read the paper Testing theories of american politics and the ensuing debate in order to understand how US politics work and why its foreign policy is not in line with public opinion, neither in the US or abroad. Also, Chomsky is not in favor of state socialism. Also, your "capitalism" is in fact state capitalism and mixed market economies. Read for instance State of innovation by Mazucatto or Is war necessary for economic growth by Vernon Ruttan. Anyway, there are versions of "socialism", i.e. social democracy, wokimg quite well. Look at Sweden or Denmark. Sure, those countries are small (Sweden is not, however, very homogenous - 15% of the population are born abroad nowadays and an even larger % has parents born abroad), but still in many sectors the government does a better job than the market. Remember that US health care is extremely expensive as measured by per capita costs, with not very good outcomes. I think it's time for US citizens to accept that you are just one of many countries in the world. And you should learn to see the difference between the country and its foreign policy.
NO!!!! We don't want that silly!... I just want to wave my precious flag, and scream to the entire planet-" WE'RE THE GREATEST FUCKING NATION ON EARTH!"... Then just go back to my two jobs, and be angry about brown people. I think things will change soon. Our new orange leader is going to give the richest people tax breaks, and when their cup is finally full, I'm sure some will "trickle down" to everyone else! This will surely work!
Please someone, I have only one request... I want to find a single discussion that Noam Chomsky has with someone he shows respect for, and an equal part on the conversation that he himself has... I want to see a COLLABORATIVE discussion that involves Noam Chomsky. I've seen many in which he is interviewed and answers questions, in which he is adversarial the entire time, in which he is a lecturer, but none in which he has a back and forth and a peer to peer discussion... Please god tell me this man has someone on this green earth that he considers a peer worthy of giving an equal discussion to.
While I protested the start of the war in Iraq while I was at my local university - we had a student walk out - and at that time, we (America) hadn't gone to war yet -- and there were protests around the country and throughout the world -- and while I knew it would only inflame the area and make things worse -- I can't agree that warlike Muslim extremism began with our invasion of that country. If we look at the whole history of it, we can see that it began very soon after Mohammed was rebuffed in the region, and continued until the west united to stop it from taking over Europe. This is an important fact that one can't leave out in any discussion of Middle Eastern politics.
NOAM CHOMSKY ON I S I S Published on 22 Aug 2015 Chomsky on islamic fundamentalism, ISIS and the consequences of the Iraq War. Category Non-profits & Activism Licence Standard CZcams Licence NOV 23, 2015
Mr. NC is spot on the political history in Iraq. He is a super researcher. Got it all right. Days after ISIS attacked Mosul, Sec of State, Kerry, said "we need 3 years to flush them out". They were kicked out after 3 years!! How did that happen? Did the US allow the Iraqi Gov to finally gave them? I heard him say that on TV and thought: is Uncle Sam behind this?
This was much food for thought. However, I would be most interested in hearing the point of view of people who have lived through all this from the inside - the Iraqis.
There were polls prior to the invasion and the overwhelming majority knew that the motive for the invasion was control of resources. As for ISIS, if they weren't armed by the US/SaudiArabia/Israel they would be fighting with sticks. If their ranks weren't constantly being filled up through recruitment of psychos from all over the world, they'd have disappeared by now. If their wounded weren't being moved through borders and treated, they'd be dead. No need for Iraqis' opinions in those cases, we've got the facts. Their country is destroyed, they have no present and no future. No recollection of what "normal" life is...
Noam Chomsky on ISIS Published on 22 Aug 2015 Chomsky on islamic fundamentalism, ISIS and the consequences of the Iraq War. Category Non-profits & Activism MAR 23, 2016
I agree that the source of the Middle Eastern strife is very largely external, but one interesting thing to note that I don't see anyone (on this page of the comments, anyway; forgive me if someone brought this up earlier) discussing is the arbitrary way post-Ottoman Empire borders and boundaries were drawn by late-colonial western powers at the end of WWI. This Middle Eastern geopolitical trainwreck from which ISIS has risen is actually much older than 2003, or even 1950, from what I've seen and read anyway. Just my two cents.
+Andrew_Owens One google search later, it does look like a good read, but how much does it address the way European empires decided to break up the Ottoman Empire? Because that's something I would like to know more about than my current limited knowledge.
+SevenSwordsExia For that one: "A Peace to End All Peaces" www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448339747&sr=8-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace
I saw that cartoon when I was little. Mickey Mouse tried to kill a magic broom but every time he hit it with the axe the pieces would fly off and form another broom. Before long he had hundreds of brooms trying to drown him.
As someone who has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia what Chomsky has said is right the Wahhabi movement was originally a noble cause and that of removing various deviant ideas that had spread through out the Muslim world. The current Noe- Salafi form is super extreme it allows Muslims to easily call others non-Muslims and thus apply the law as though they are prostates. thus the mass killing of yazidi and shias. It hates the west for its colonial history and current ultra liberal views but rather than being critical and communicating and creating a dialogue they tend towards violence. I would argue that the current attacks on ISIS are flawed and rather it should be that other neighboring forces need to send in foot soldiers and present a counter narrative.
Love this man as one of the few truth tellers, actually who will replace him?? His intellect is so fantastic, I can't imagine he will ever be replaced, and yet he has been ineffective in moving the masses in the US to the truth, Makes me so disheartened to hear people talk so hatefully against such a fantastic human being, To me he is so much greater then anyone I have researched, this is truly a great man.
+59Disciple 99,9% of American citizens (and basically any other citizens) are inane, remote-controlled turds. That's the simple answer why Noam Chomsky doesn't move shit.
I'm glad he made the point to criticize the underlying philosophy of groups like ISIS, and the fact that it has its roots in Saudi Arabian Islamic scholars primarily from the 19th century. Saudi Arabia would probably implement many of the same draconian punishments that ISIS does if it didn't have partnerships with so many western powers. It has broadcasted this fundamentalist ideology throughout the world and is now reaping what it has sewn.
That last statement is grisly. But definitely his opinon look at the core of the problem. That perspective that no powerful want to address, because it is not economics, not politics, not war. It is perhaps too human for political and military to deal with.
it puzzles me that it apparently is so very hard to understand for an incredible number of people that actions have consequences. and the more radical the actions are, the more radical the consequences are. world-politics is not a game. it seems like a great number of US americans and also people in other western countries do not understand that wars in the middle east affect real people. they cannot relate to or empathize with syrians e.g.. that's just "not my people" and maybe not even people at all. so it doesn't really matter what happens to them. as soon as this backfires, those people's image becomes even worse. then they are not only "not people", they are monsters. that their own monsters actually triggered conflicts on purpose, is ignored by or unknown to them.
I tried to tell my peers this would happen while I was in the service. I got in trouble and people tried to say I was a traitor. In the end I was right, our leaders don't seem to understand how to win a guerilla war.
+John Ahmrain I don't think they have any intention of winning that guerilla war. I think the area needs to be destabilised, probably even more than it already is. In other words, it's desirable to some parties to have groups like ISIS in power over there, causing chaos and mayhem, taking over large parts of the middle east. Eventually, and this could be what it all comes down to in my opinion; the state of Israel will be surrounded by what the world perceives to be radical islamists, right at the border of precious little Israel, threatening its existence. If the enemy is this irrationally barbaric and absurdly brutal entity, then the world won't hesitate to support a war of self defence on the part of Israel. This could give Israel the chance to drastically expand its borders, a big war will be fought, though ISIS will most likely stand little to no chance against Israel. The "Palestinian problem" will be solved during the course of this war, and I think Israel would take over much of the region, including nearby oil fields, without much complaints and resistance coming from Europe and the rest of the world, seeing as how this ISIS monster is considered a huge threat to the western way of life. I imagine this would be quite problematic for the world, as the idea of islam vs us, or us vs the non-believers, is going to cause big conflicts around the world. Besides, Europe will have its own problems to deal with. There are of course Iran and Russia and possibly China to consider, and the future doesn't look too fucking bright if you ask me. I don't know where the U.S. is going to be in all of that, but I think its power and influence would need to be restricted, and in the long run, I can see Israel becoming the ruling state in the world; wealthy, influencial and powerful. Japan and Europe would stand in need of middle eastern oil, though the U.S. has its own reserves, at least for a while. Maybe the U.S. dollar would collapse by then, I don't know. It's all about money, power and land, but religion also plays a big role in this. According to christian doomsday scenarios, Jesus has to return to rule the world, seating in what is now Israel actually. Jews themselves believe that their Messiah, their King, has yet to appear, and according to them, he would have to rule the world, seating again, in what is now Israel. So to the Abrahamic religions, the area is extremely important. I think this is why christian Americans tend to support the state of Israel, thinking that Jesus will return there. Allowing muslims to run the place would not be desirable. But to justify a big war being waged against the surrounding muslim countries, a big threat has to appear there. Arabic dictators would have to be replaced by more radical extremists, and the radical extremists are then replaced by even more radical extremists, to the point where this big war simply has to be fought, in order to save Israel from destruction. I think this is what we're seeing now in the form of ISIS, and in fact, the Arab uprisings already paved the way for this scenario. There's little doubt in my mind that the Arab spring was designed to destabilise the entire region and install more radical groups, causing chaos. In fact, religious scholars of islam were predicting this long before it even happened.
+XaeeD damn
+John Ahmrain Didn't Obama bring the troops home?
+XaeeD You are in serious need of a history lesson.
Joe Schmoe Aren't we all?
As an Iraqi, I feel deep gratitude to Chomsky. What he mentioned about the crimes and destruction of the US in Iraq is impeccably correct. I can’t comprehend how numerous American officials and columnists that say the opposite of what had happened without laughing at what they write or say
Chomsky has to be one of the greatest minds of our time
+Paulie Walnuts His work is nuanced, intelligent, and extremely well informed with his vast background knowledge, your comment is none of the above.
Greg Vinson
It's nuanced for his own politics. He's made a career out of blaming the West for practically everything. His stance on Bosnia should make his opinion completely moot.
+Calum Brunton I wouldn't say that but he is brave, and disciplined, and honest, and a good scholar who seeks facts. I'd say the Google boys are much better in the "mind" department...intelligence is a lot different than being good at research. He's no dummy though, that's obvious.
i think the bottom line is that a lot of intellectuals and smart people in general pay money to listen to him, pay money to buy his books, and give him lots of props. Ignorant people, or people with neo-con and/or Zionist agendas (who conveniently overlook facts that don't agree with them) are quick to talk trash about him.
However, I've yet to see anyone fully discredit him with a well-reasoned, logical deduction. I'd like to see such attempts.
+Calum Brunton No, he is just a regressive Islamic apologist.
Mr. Chomsky, don't you dare to leave planet earth on such perilous times!!!!!!!!!
+The American Imperialist
Truth hurts, huh?
IF YOU FELLOWS ARE THE VOICE OF THE OPPOSITION TO CHOMSKY, I KNOW I'M ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE MATTER.
Payador Perseguido God bless Chomsky, the world needs more men like him.
+Unknown There is no "God" and he is probably a cia tool. That last part was just my opinion. The first part I can show to be true. Don't ask, cause I will wipe the floor with anyone that challenges it. ESPECIALLY if they want to bet silver or fiat currency.
Psy0psAgent Calm down, child.
seriosuly the guys a genius. ive never seen someone who speaks truth over their patriotism or religious beliefs but this guy here is the first.
when trying to ascertain the truth you must first free yourself of your biases whatever they may be and this guy speaks as though he has done exactly just that..
You are right, we should ry to free ourselves from biases. Of course that's easier said than done since we are often not even aware of our own biases.
One of the big human biases is attribution bias; we tend to attribute other's bad behaviors to the way they are and our own bad behaviors to the situation we are in. Chomsky does that in reverse, Isis is bad because of the situation the US put them in while the US is bad because of that's the way the US is. To be fair Isis is as much a productive of the people they are as the US's actions in the middle is a productive of the situation the US is in. I see little evidence that Chomsky tries to correct for that. And then there is confirmation bias, ever hear Chomsky mention any bit of US foreign policy that has been good for the world? Has there been none? Ever?
O Soul A bit hard to think of examples lol. Theres a lovely picture of an artists album cover which shows planes over peoples heads dropping boms, and in the next picture it shows the same planes dropping aid packages for those people injured in the ariel assault. I often think of the USA like that.
You're right though. easier said than done and Chomsky would have to be somesort of robot if he was to be completely free of any biases. I like to think he comes close to being to free of biases more so than many other people out there.
I would take this one step further. Chomsky is an ideologue himself. He is obviously a very educated man and many of the things he says are true. The problem is with the conclusions he draws. As a European who is educated on geopolitics and history of course I see that the US in its role of hegemonial power of the modern world is acting exclusively in its own interest, and often to the detriment of others. Unlike Chomsky however I realize that that is in the very nature politics and in fact in the very nature of humanity. And as far as hegemonial powers in world history go, the US is comparatively benign. Self-criticism is of course important, but only to a certain point. If you are overly critical of yourself you become weak and unable to act. Chomskys ideology is one of self-criticism put to the extreme.
And when he talks about ISIS and the middle east the problem is that he embraces a regressive point of view, the point of view of cultural relativism. He does not acknowledge the fact that Islamic nations in the middle east have a culture that is one part practicality, two parts religious doctrine and one part medieval barbarism.
Seeric85 So in short, what you are saying is yes, america is a dick but only becuase it has to be one in order to survive, coz, you know.... human nature. Chomsky is dumb and all he does hate on himself and death to islam the religion of the barbarians.
Did i get that all correctly?
aibel99
It is an extreme oversimplification but mostly yes. I don`t believe Chomsky is dumb, I think he is pretty smart and well-educated. That doesn`t make him right tough, as I said, he is heavily ideologically biased. And I don`t think Islam needs to die, I think we should stop importing it to Europe in massive numbers and that it is in bad need of reformation. However, reformations, as we experienced within Christianity, are a bloody and unpleasant buisness that takes hundreds of years.
I hope he never dies. This guy has volumes of insight into what's really going on globally. It's fascinating yet very sobering.
Well at time of writing (November 2023), he is almost 95 years old (born 7th December 1928) so I’m sorry to say he probably won’t be with us too much longer. I’m also a big fan of his and appreciate his calm, thoughtful and measured take on the issues. We can only hope that when he departs there will be others with his articulation and nuance to provide clarity in a world saturated with sound bite news and clickbait headlines.
Noam Chomsky really has done his research. I respect that.
He *is* research.
+Logic Enforcer You realise that there are many other viable means than just killing right?
***** I think I understood it. To paraphrase, the US can be protective of Syria without invading or bombing.
+kazakhseven If your research is limited to certain dogma this is what happens.
I used to read Thomas Friedman of the NY Times. Friedman to me is the kind of reporter who'll go to the ends of the Earth to gather all the data but I found out no matter how much data he accumulates his postulations are plain wrong! I found this in several cases. I've only recently viewed some of Chomsky's material. Does he put forth any solutions or does he just pan America? Furthermore, Friedman's shortcomings is not limited to him. There are many people and scientists loaded with data who cannot assimilate it properly. This is found to large extent in medicine. Somehow they fail to connect the dots. Chomsky is like Ancel Keys. Keys had 22 dots that proved no relation between heart disease and saturated fat intake but he took only the 7 dots that did. Chomsky prefers only those dots which promotes his agenda. This has become a big problem in America and the world today. Global Warming Theory suffers terribly from this. Give us the entire picture and let us decide for ourselves.
I wish Naom was as popular on youTube as the Biebs
+Colin Walsh
Says who?
Chomsky has been getting a lot of sudden flak lately, I blame the idiot Sam Harris launching his army of trolls and worshipers on anyone that calls him out on his bullshit.
lol @ calling Chomsky a coward, what a time to be alive! And yes, he's 100% right about using the body counts, you''l only disagree with him if you're a war-hungry lunatic like Harris.
***** Maybe he is truly upset with all the injustice happening in the world to muslims??
Nomiee Caan Most of Chomsky's haters think that injustice to all Muslims is justified.
***** Look buddy, we sorta agree, but to defeat terrorism and its roots, we must stop treating Saudi Arabia as an ally and start treating them a the enemy, that's the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism.
Such a G
+Andy Lad O.G.
+Andy Lad acronyms mean different things to different people,,, i assume u mean "such a God" or "such a Genius" or... so many choices.
then why doesn't he just say that instead of being mysterious?
+Divain Atom "g" in street slang is probably a good thing...originally meaning "gangsta" but because of rap music and so on, being a "g" is like saying a "buddy" or "friend" pretty much..
+Andy Lad the greatest free thinker of our time
excellent, Chomsky is always worth a listen...
He has this "lean back, get comfy and listen to absolute truth-voice"
That's a problem -I'm not the only one who lean back, get comfy, switch off listening to him! Pisses me right off when, at the end, I realise I didn't listen to 3/4 of his talk
Great history lesson, amazingly uplifting
noam chomsky is the true and ultimate great and honest human being.his views always based on truth.
Wahid Ali who supplied him with the gases? He didn't see the Kurds as his people. He saw them as his subjects the way global zionism sees the rest of us!
Noam Chomsky is great! I have been reading his books for many years and I believe him to be the most gifted spokesman for the American people. He cuts right to the heart of the matter and is the most insightful speaker I have listened to for many years.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us". -Pogo
I m a libertarian leaning loving conservative, but this is a reason why I love him. His critiques of foreign policy are just absolutely true.
Bill Klaven I am a democratic and ethical socialist, and I like him even more.
Red Firefly Do you adhere to his libertarian socialism?
Bill Klaven I don't know much about libertarian socialism. Could you tell me anything about it?
Red Firefly I have very surface level knowledge of it. All I know is that Chomsky has referred to himself as it in interviews a couple of times. He is a socialist of course, but I think in advocating for libertarian socialism he is arguing that socialism allows for freedom of the individual as well as the collective society.
Bill Klaven Well it depends on what that freedom is. If you mean freedom of speech, then yes. I also believe in the freedom of the individual as long as that freedom doesn't harm others. If you mean "freedom from theft"(aka no taxes) then no. I believe it is the duty of the rich to contribute a larger share to society, within reason.
He really had the balls to say this in public
Absolutely worship this man! The pillar stone of intellectual.
I love listening to Professor Chomsky talk, I think he's a great historian and takes people back to the past to remind them of the facts!!
Human intelligence has its limits. Human idiocy and scoundrels unlimited.
Really hope that you're not calling Chomsky an idiot. You must be talking about the US foreign policy being idiotic. Chomsky is a brilliant human being.
His a really honest man god bless you Chomsky
One of the most underrated philosophers of our life time.
'The natural dynamic of a conflict like that is that the most extreme elements begin to take over.'
Thanks for talking about the Iraq sanction. I was boring right before the USA sanctions if Iraq. My parents couldn’t provide me like million other kids with proper food and nutrition. I still suffer from childhood malnutrition. I never forgive USA for destroying our country
Great stuff as Always
Thanks for sharing! Could someone please link me to the article by Graham Fuller that Chomsky is referring to in the beginning of this interview?
Chomsky is my hero!
chomsky is spot on- thankyou for posting this.
I hope the community can help me with this question.. Where is the rest of this talk?
Very insightful...
in Russia there's saying that translates roughly: That which we were fighting, is what got us at the end
6 degrees of Chomsky...
he don’t never lie
Maybe i'm not looking in the right places. Does anyone have a link to Fuller's piece?
if you follow the money it always leads to Saudi Arabia they were responsible for 11th September 15 of the hijackers came from there and yet US leaders chose to ignore this fact
+robert kelly It was interesting how the leaders allowed the rest of the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country in spite of the "no fly" rule in effect in the days following the so-called "attacks"...so, apparently, US leaders aren't "ignoring" anything...they are active participants.
+robert kelly What year was it that Saudi Arabia declared a Jihad on the USA? 1973 I think.
+Scrapingthebottom Saudi didn't declare Jihad at the US, they just pressured the west to free Palestine from Israel's occupation. Guess what happened next, King Faisal was assassinated two years after the boycott
After that incident, Al Saud became more obedient to the US and supported the us with money and oil for their protection.
One point to note is that Jihadists (from AQ to ISIS) declared war on Al Saud and most of Liberal Saudis, they consider us and the government as Infidels who deserve to be killed because they support the west and Naom pointed that out when he said that isis is funded not by the government but by the very rich conservative opposition Islamists (Including Muslim Brotherhood)
@test i'd change the word "think" to "believe" in your comment....that is exactly what we have been told to believe, and the drone murders continue to this day of brown people (practically) in caves...in "our" name. tragic, really.
+test your articulate words take discourse to the next level
I will never forgive the US and Britain for what they have done around the world.
Then first step is to stop using US and Britain products, like CZcams. . .
Is there a good source for when he says that Sunni and Shia Muslims have been living peacefully together, before the US invaded?
We blew it up and went road warrior - I sort of knew this from having lived in these troubled times Bernie Sanders 2016
Noam seems to live in a faery tale world where there were no sunni/shiite/kurd disputes until the Iraq invasion started them. This is historically incorrect.
Love Noam Chomsky! However, it should be pointed out that all internal affairs are controlled by the so called religious police in Saudi Arabia. The royalty is responsible for foreign affairs. Now the royal family is not radical whatsoever, but the population in general is (at least very much so compared to the royal family). Why does the royal family not have power internally? It's logical. They know that they would be an extremely heavily opposed power (if they were to control how their citizens lived their lives) and the chances of a revolution (or something along those lines) would be significantly larger. All in all, the US is friends with the international royal Saudi Arabia, and not the national religious police which is arguably more powerful than the royal family.
Ps. When is say "love Chomsky" I don't JUST mean that I love him, I mean it as an order. Like, (you need to) love Noam Chomsky.
+rencrow And how did the Wahabbis come to power? T.E. Lawrence.
+Rachid Mouawad Richard. I am Saudi and I commend your comment. This is so true, I really fear a day where Al Saud would be thrown out of their seats. ISIS will have its biggest and most powerful state ever since mecca is in their hands. They will change history forever.
Although I agree that Al Saud have their many flaws, but I would take their ruing with little freedom and slow progress over Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS ruling with no freedom and no progress at all!!
That's some dope urban camo, Chom.
Noam has a lethal mind.
hey I don't know who's that guy is but all he said it's the truth
In listening to Noam Chomsky you should always take into context that he has always been very biased against America - often described by pundits (liberal and conservative) as an "anti-americanist".
He certainly has every right to those views and opinions but keep in mind that they play a major role (along with his anarchistic socialist views) in his "analysis" of Americas involvement in anything. America is ALWAYS wrong to him.
I think it is a mistake to state with any type of certainty that ISIS would not have come into existence without the U.S.A.'s involvement. It may not be the same flavor but "types" of ISIS has been in existence long before the Iraq war (Taliban, Al Qaeda, Wahhabism, etc.). To ASSUME that something more extreme than ISIS - if destroyed (he didnt say may/might, he said will) will come into existence is the height of elitist hubris - which is how I view Noam Chomsky.
He is a total intellectual elitist that has very little concept of the practical side of social or economic realities - especially the international side of these. He has lived his life in the halls of academia and theory. Anarchism and Socialism are cool ideas in theory but dont ever line up with those theories when they come crashing up against human nature.
Anarchism is sweet liberty to a very few that have high levels of ethical values and discipline but becomes a violent hell to most. Socialism sounds wonderful with its theory of everyone having all they need until lazy people become parasites, take advantage of the charity of others and the elites run out of other people money to spend.
This isnt opinion, it is provable fact.
Just compare the standard of living between capitalist nations to socialist nations. Just compare nations based on the rule of law to those that have no law.
I thins Noam Chomsky is a brilliant thinker that has become totally boxed in by thin thickness of his ideological beliefs and the degree to which he is out of touch with us "common people".
My trivial peeve with him is that he has totally perverted the definition of Imperialism when applying it to the U.S.
+Lee Baker
Sorry for the typos - sometimes I'm too lazy to proof-read my posts.
+Lee Baker
"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by
my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be
the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more
important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to
denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical
value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century." (Noam Chomsky)
+Lee Baker Is my opinion that he is not anti-America. He is part of America, a very important and bright part of America. If he is against american government actions mind you that he is against the evil the american government do in the world. Living in a country that already had a legitim and democratic government overthrown by american influence it seems to me that he is a good american.
+Lee Baker ~ Interesting and relatively realistic observation. The fact is, that those who can think usually do live in the halls of academia, run major concerns or end up in politics. It should then not surprise us, that those folks are out of touch with - I won't include myself here - the "common people". To get a grip as to what makes up much of that commonness, one only has to view a number of the very many "Walmart People" flicks here on CZcams. If THAT is not only 'common', but more than that 'american' one can't really blame anyone who is 'anti-american'. This reminds me of conversations Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot are supposed to have had about Eugenics, the eliminating of parts of a society who provides no contributing values. That such thinking exists to this day, seems clear - for the moment - how we deal with civilians in those country we keep invading, calling them collateral damage. It should also not surprise us then, when such collateral damage will happen in this country one day.
+Lee Baker you know little about islam thats clear also i assume you are in the bubble so to speak and thats why you dont understand his views
Does anyone know how I can add subtitles to a youtube video?
This is a different version of events than the one I heard recently in an Adam Curtis documentary, he said that the Saudi Monarchy exported the fundamentalist idea of Wahhabism to prevent it from spreading in Saudi Arabia. Chomsky's interpretation which says that they were spreading Wahhabism as a power play. Is this merely a matter of different interpretations of the same events or has one of the two made a mistake?
"Patrick Cockburn spotted the emergence of ISIS much earlier than anybody else and wrote about it with a depth of understanding that was in a league of its own. "‐‐‐Press Gazette Journalist of the Year Judges 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The Rise Of Islamic State.
Excellent book 📖 written by an absolute gentleman who speaks nothing but the truth 🎩
Chomsky blaming usa? That's weird.....
Note that he doesn't place ANY BLAME whatsoever on the Shia and Sunnis for their violent war against each other......he mentions it in passing, but does not analyze why these two groups have been killing each other for hundreds of year and long before the US invaded Iraq (which was an awful policy decision I will agree).
+xpat73 This is Chomsky, is it not? All roads lead to America for this fellow. One would think that the U.S. is alone in its formation by force and its actions to benefit the U.S. by its invasions. American exceptionalism is the product sold by this internationalist, Noam Chomsky, and glossing over the actions of every other nation is his method.
+xpat73 Huh? He specifically talks about Sunnis and Shias within Iraq lived side by side and were intermarried (etc.) before the US invasion.
There is obvious blame for violence to place on those who commit the violence. It's obvious and there's no need to articulate that. But Saddam's mostly-secular pan-Arab government had largely managed to eliminate sectarian violence in Iraq. The invasion reopened old wounds.
+suejak1 If it took a mad, brutal dictator to keep a lid on the religiously motivated animus between the different sects, clearly this is not a point in favor of Islam. Chomsky is not only disingenuous when trying to pin sectarian violence on the US, he is also self-refuting. How precarious this "peace" between the Sunnis and Shia must have been in order to descend into mayhem as soon as the tyrant was deposed.
Should we have invaded? Probably not, although I would like to know how Chomsky would have dealt with Saddam. But his anecdotes of intermarriage aside, you don't get to this level of violence without deep-
seeded religious and ideological differences. Let's also not forget (as Chomsky seems to) the deplorable treatment by ISIS of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, intellectuals....is this to be blamed on the US too?
Michael Dick
I would have left Hussein right where he was. The invasion of Iraq was among the worst political decisions ever made by a U.S. president and only George Bush, a religious convert and a remarkably ignorant and childlike personality, could have been persuaded to take that step. Even if it was factual that this was done to gain the oil resources of Iraq, and it is not true, this was a failure of policy not seen since the manipulations of Franklin Roosevelt to aid communist China and the Soviet Union as well as Britain and the rest of Europe against the Nazis. The oil resources were returned to Iraqi control by the Bush Administration and now are sold to China and Russia. Now these nations move to capitalism as we succumb to socialism and the control of our every interest by government. We as a people cannot make a phone call in privacy while foreigners take up ownership of all that we have built. I have watched this very carefully over the last 50 years and marveled at the incompetence of the agencies presumably formed for our protection and how we have constantly been left with less rights as Americans to the benefit of government and the agencies of government creation.
All of this is directly attributed to the three branches of government, there is no malaise effecting the American people that is not caused by overbearing and duplicitous action against the people of this nation by government.
The executive, the legislative and the judiciary all have acted against the Constitution and so blatantly as to not be missed by the populace, but the government makes the populace more ignorant even still with control of the schools that it holds and has held for decades. Now men like Chomsky and Rice are used as primary literature within these schools and all sense of what it is to be an American is being lost. This is now, and always has been the methodology of the Left. To take all appreciation of nationalism and patriotism from the people of a once proud nation by increment until nothing is left but a nation of one among many in the international scheme of Marxism.
The American people have shown susceptibility to change by degrees and nothing shows this more that the election of a certain Marxist, not once, but twice, to the highest office in the land.
Question any average American on the subject of political history and you will be amazed at the answers. These absurdly ignorant citizens have no concept of political matters whatsoever and they have been bribed by false promises to remain this way, in the vapid state of belief of the beneficence of government to their exclusive benefit.
The latest example to my reading is the atrocious claim of birthright citizenship to foreigners born within our borders as the law of the land. This is the Supreme Court at its finest, to clam that the Fourteenth Amendment allows for this when the amendment expressly forbids it.
They managed this direct lie of birthright citizenship in spite of the wording of the amendment that made it quite clear that the ruling was unconstitutional. So ignorant and uninterested are the citizens of this nation that they give away their citizenship to foreigners without a thought. I am left with little sympathy for my fellow Americans, this sympathy is reserved for the generations to come, those who will be left to pay the price for the ignorance and the moral laxity of those who came before them. Those who come later will be forced to realize that they were sold out by their predecessors. "A Republic if you can keep it", indeed.
+Richard Davis
I would say 9/11 helped the ruling elite accelerate their plans for the US. Bush was nothing more than a puppet. The invasion of Iraq plan was already there by conservative think tanks. I guess the only thing now is to let it collapse and see if anything comes from the rubble.
I have a real question concerning this piece. My co worker Sarah is from Iraq her family immigrated to Canada at the beginning of the war. She just finished her architectural thesis on the topic of walls and Baghdad. I remember when she first started at our office she showed a presentation of her work which I was very excited about - given Rem's Koolhaas' research about the Berlin Wall etc. She showed an image of sectarian division prior to the war. I asked for her to go back to this slide, and I had wondered what the street sections of those boundaries felt like . Those could be opportunities to explore urbanisms of connection. They did appear on the map before the invasion, even prior to the US raising walls there. So did the US cause these divisions before the invasion or are they sort of naturally forming? I am unsure and curious. I am an architect / interested in urbanism.
thefunambulist.net/contributors/sarah-almaki/
So, Iraq and Iran were at war before 1:50 and then he said Sunni and Shia lived in peace 3:40 ?.. That war was mostly about the religious divide. Plus, I couldn't find anything on the net about the two "living in peace". Any good info on this?
The invasion of Iraq was wrong, no doubt, but no one could have foreseen the sunni shiite bloodbath. The extremists in both groups were just itching to get at each other and Hussein was brutal enough to keep the shit to shoe level. The invasion removed the iron fist from the equation, but did not create the hatred between sunnis and shiites.
Islam created Islamic extremism, not America's foreign policy, tho it doesn't help. And Saudi Arabia was a fundamentalist theocracy long before U.S. intervention. Chomsky is basically saying, Islamic radicals are not at all responsible for their actions, nor are peaceful muslims responsible for their inaction in confronting the radicals.
+Derrick G 1) The US was told many times by various people in the field of international relations and foreign policy that removing Saddam Hussein would cause exactly what you're saying they didn't foresee.
2) Various interpretations of Islam gave birth to extremist sects and their organisations.
3) Who said that US foreign policy created Islamic extremism?
4) The US has been friends with the Saudi Kingdom since its inception in 1932.
5) Feel free to explain why a select group of people are responsible for the actions of others merely because they share one minor identity trait.
+Mr Ezkerrera
1) I don't doubt that some sectarian violence was expected, but no one expected the magnitude of that violence, the death toll, and how it would spread. What source do you have saying that Bush was informed about the possibility of all those occurrences? Again, some sectarian violence was expected, but no one expected almost the whole region to degrade into sectarian violence.
2) I agree with your second point
3) There are groups of people who do blame America for Islamic extremism. I know it's not the majority, but that sentiment is out there.
www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/
4) Wahhabism is the foundation to Saudi's government. Wahhabism was created before America was even a country. And just because the U.S. had diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean the U.S. helped created their society. If it was up to me, America would have nothing to do with S.A.
5) I've never said all Muslims are responsible for ISIS, but ISIS is responsible for what they do. Moderate Muslims need to do a better job in confronting the group and the ideology. And confronting the ideology is the job of Muslims. A non-Muslim isn't taken seriously if he says something like "This is not what Islam teaches".
I think actually Sam and Noam wouldn't be too far off on this subject. Sam wasn't for the war on Iraq partially because of this reason, and i think he actually agrees that ISIS is an immediate backfire of our invasion of Iraq. What he wouldn't do however is blame the US for this because of the intentions and the core of Islamism rooted in ISIS.
I'm just so disappointed in Noam for not wanting to have a dialoge with Sam about this.
+Robert Fennis
What makes you think it was Chomsky who didn't want to have a dialogue?
It obviously was Harris with his unwillingness to amend his obvious _published_ strawmans and misinterpretation of Chomsky's opinion, as well as the contentious tone of which he approached him.
There was, however, a dialogue.
And Harris got put into his place and displayed to the world as the imperialist, *religious* fanatic that he is. And yes, I consider "Western exceptionalism" a religion.
Sam Harris is not dealing with reality, nor is he even remotely an equal (in depth of knowledge) to Chomsky regarding foreign policy. Sam Harris simply put, is an ideologue for the worst kind. The kind that make otherwise rational human beings suspend their critical thinking in exchange for bigotry. Harris can't even be bothered to be consistent with his nonsense, read for instance his essays:
_Why I Don't Criticize Israel?_ and compare it with his _Response to Controversy_ excerpt on torture regarding collateral damage.
bluesrockfan36 Yeah no, have you read the attempted dialog and mail exchange. Sam wasn't even responding because of Chomsky's tone. Indeed Sam didn't want to have a dialog but it was due to the tone of chomsky's e-mails. And regarding the rest, i'm not even bothering.
Robert Fennis
I've read it multiple times. I still do so when I get bored and would like to witness the intellectual smack-down Chomsky delivered for entertainment.
Oh, Sam was responding indeed. Feebly, pathetically and discourteously. You complain about tone? Don't make me laugh.
Try complaining about substance, or lack thereof.
As for the tone. If you're disrespectful as Harris was, if you consistently insist on strawmaning other people's belief after they themselves correct you, not once, but multiple times.
You don't get to complain about the tone.
Poor Harrisite you are.
Oh the tone!, the humanity! A professor used big words, not a single insult and was _discourteous_ I'm going... I'm going to **snivels** bwaaaah! bwaaaah!
Grow a spine, while at it, see if you can grow some balls to.
Seriously. Getting triggered by the *TONE*. Jesus Christ. How pathetic are you?
You're not different than the PC Nazis Harris always criticizes.
No. You're worse. At least they whine about specific words, you're whining about the fucking tone.
+Robert Fennis
Why would Noam waste his precious time with someone like Sam? They clearly disagree about the whole intentions thingy Harris keeps pulling, there's no point in a debate between the two.
+Unknown Having read the dialogue myself, it's unclear if Noam disagrees with Sam.
I can't tell which one is Chomsky?
I am inclined to agree with his analysis in this video.
Why should anyone take this guy seriously? He's a linguist, not a damn historian.
are YOU serious? stick around and
learn something
+Cuauhtemoc Your logical fallacy is...
Conor Hughes wtf?!
Some commentors assert that Chomsky is "anti-american".
This is completely wrong. In fact, I honestly do not even understand what it means.
According to my world-views, Chomsky is pro-america. He loves america. Nobody in Italy would call anyone anti-italian only because they critizice the italian government.
Chomsky answers e-mails 8 hours per day. He travels all around the world. He is probably the least isolated intellectual in the world.
Regarding your point about ISIS: His views are not radical. Most experts in the field agrees with his description. Sure, there were extremist groups in the world before 9/11, and many of them were supported by the US and other powers. But it's not controversial to say that extremism has increased a lot as a result of US policy and the invasion of Iraq. Also, Saudi Arabi, a close US ally, is responsible for spreading extreme versions of islam around the world. This is not controversial.
You should know that the US is viewed as the biggest threat to world peace around the world. In the internationa Gallup polls it's in the top position. However, it's also the place were most people in the world want to move. This is not contradictory at all. I love the US, but I recognize that its foreign policy is often (not always) very destructive and violent.
You should read the paper Testing theories of american politics and the ensuing debate in order to understand how US politics work and why its foreign policy is not in line with public opinion, neither in the US or abroad.
Also, Chomsky is not in favor of state socialism. Also, your "capitalism" is in fact state capitalism and mixed market economies. Read for instance State of innovation by Mazucatto or Is war necessary for economic growth by Vernon Ruttan.
Anyway, there are versions of "socialism", i.e. social democracy, wokimg quite well. Look at Sweden or Denmark. Sure, those countries are small (Sweden is not, however, very homogenous - 15% of the population are born abroad nowadays and an even larger % has parents born abroad), but still in many sectors the government does a better job than the market. Remember that US health care is extremely expensive as measured by per capita costs, with not very good outcomes.
I think it's time for US citizens to accept that you are just one of many countries in the world. And you should learn to see the difference between the country and its foreign policy.
Holy shit ,I thought Chomsky was talking from the start. I was like OMG his voice is totaly different now LOL
Chomsky 2016. Just imagine that.
Yeah imagine. It would be terrible.
Yeah, you might get free healthcare instead of invading and bombing 5 countries and killing millions of people
NO!!!! We don't want that silly!... I just want to wave my precious flag, and scream to the entire planet-" WE'RE THE GREATEST FUCKING NATION ON EARTH!"... Then just go back to my two jobs, and be angry about brown people. I think things will change soon. Our new orange leader is going to give the richest people tax breaks, and when their cup is finally full, I'm sure some will "trickle down" to everyone else! This will surely work!
Lol, I know, it would be a nuke town
wisdom..... opens the truth
You speak the truth Sir.
Please someone, I have only one request... I want to find a single discussion that Noam Chomsky has with someone he shows respect for, and an equal part on the conversation that he himself has... I want to see a COLLABORATIVE discussion that involves Noam Chomsky. I've seen many in which he is interviewed and answers questions, in which he is adversarial the entire time, in which he is a lecturer, but none in which he has a back and forth and a peer to peer discussion...
Please god tell me this man has someone on this green earth that he considers a peer worthy of giving an equal discussion to.
I have the same jumper he is wearing.
One of the most wise modern philosophers...
si une personne pouvait en faire une version sous-titrée français, ce serait très sympathique :)
I haven't seen any more reasonable explanation than his
another transparent lecture from Prof. Noam Chomsky. sharing
While I protested the start of the war in Iraq while I was at my local university - we had a student walk out - and at that time, we (America) hadn't gone to war yet -- and there were protests around the country and throughout the world -- and while I knew it would only inflame the area and make things worse -- I can't agree that warlike Muslim extremism began with our invasion of that country. If we look at the whole history of it, we can see that it began very soon after Mohammed was rebuffed in the region, and continued until the west united to stop it from taking over Europe. This is an important fact that one can't leave out in any discussion of Middle Eastern politics.
Great speech 💬
This is a serious video, but the two people in it are at least 30 years older than I am and yet have MUCH more hair than I do.
-7 years ago
Hope you hopped on fin bro.
If what he says is true the world has become a very scary place.
sadly, it's true and based on facts
GOD BLESS THIS GOOD MAN MR CHOMSKY.
How do you bring about peace in an area of the world which doesn't seem to want peace?
Load of bollocks.
By funding extremist fundamentalist cells and bombing countries into the stone age, obviously
NOAM CHOMSKY ON I S I S
Published on 22 Aug 2015
Chomsky on islamic fundamentalism, ISIS and the consequences of the Iraq War.
Category
Non-profits & Activism
Licence
Standard CZcams Licence
NOV 23, 2015
who makes US foreign policy? What are their names?
Only 90% are lapping this up with a spoon
They did more than provide a backdrop
"the sunlight of intellect never sets on Chomsky's empire" pretty much sums up the comments section.
Mr. NC is spot on the political history in Iraq. He is a super researcher. Got it all right.
Days after ISIS attacked Mosul, Sec of State, Kerry, said "we need 3 years to flush them out". They were kicked out after 3 years!! How did that happen? Did the US allow the Iraqi Gov to finally gave them? I heard him say that on TV and thought: is Uncle Sam behind this?
Is that Robert Lifton?
This was much food for thought. However, I would be most interested in hearing the point of view of people who have lived through all this from the inside - the Iraqis.
There were polls prior to the invasion and the overwhelming majority knew that the motive for the invasion was control of resources.
As for ISIS, if they weren't armed by the US/SaudiArabia/Israel they would be fighting with sticks. If their ranks weren't constantly being filled up through recruitment of psychos from all over the world, they'd have disappeared by now. If their wounded weren't being moved through borders and treated, they'd be dead. No need for Iraqis' opinions in those cases, we've got the facts.
Their country is destroyed, they have no present and no future. No recollection of what "normal" life is...
Noam Chomsky on ISIS
Published on 22 Aug 2015
Chomsky on islamic fundamentalism, ISIS and the consequences of the Iraq War.
Category
Non-profits & Activism
MAR 23, 2016
I usually don't agree with Noam Chomsky's views but I agreed with everything he said in this film. Finally he is beginning to talk words of wisdom.
History books, everyone s. Not just your perspective, then the right idea can happen
I agree that the source of the Middle Eastern strife is very largely external, but one interesting thing to note that I don't see anyone (on this page of the comments, anyway; forgive me if someone brought this up earlier) discussing is the arbitrary way post-Ottoman Empire borders and boundaries were drawn by late-colonial western powers at the end of WWI. This Middle Eastern geopolitical trainwreck from which ISIS has risen is actually much older than 2003, or even 1950, from what I've seen and read anyway. Just my two cents.
+SevenSwordsExia Read "The Devil's Game" by Dreyfuss.
+Andrew_Owens One google search later, it does look like a good read, but how much does it address the way European empires decided to break up the Ottoman Empire? Because that's something I would like to know more about than my current limited knowledge.
+SevenSwordsExia For that one: "A Peace to End All Peaces"
www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448339747&sr=8-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace
Thanks. I'll keep those two in mind. You've been a great help, Mr. Owens.
life is too short so let's keep it peaceful please
I saw that cartoon when I was little. Mickey Mouse tried to kill a magic broom but every time he hit it with the axe the pieces would fly off and form another broom. Before long he had hundreds of brooms trying to drown him.
How come so many people don't see the world the way Chomsky does or they just don't care?
TOWER 7 ,, EXPLAIN PLEASE
As someone who has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia what Chomsky has said is right the Wahhabi movement was originally a noble cause and that of removing various deviant ideas that had spread through out the Muslim world. The current Noe- Salafi form is super extreme it allows Muslims to easily call others non-Muslims and thus apply the law as though they are prostates. thus the mass killing of yazidi and shias. It hates the west for its colonial history and current ultra liberal views but rather than being critical and communicating and creating a dialogue they tend towards violence. I would argue that the current attacks on ISIS are flawed and rather it should be that other neighboring forces need to send in foot soldiers and present a counter narrative.
I'm glad I live in Australia
Love this man as one of the few truth tellers, actually who will replace him?? His intellect is so fantastic, I can't imagine he will ever be replaced, and yet he has been ineffective in moving the masses in the US to the truth, Makes me so disheartened to hear people talk so hatefully against such a fantastic human being, To me he is so much greater then anyone I have researched, this is truly a great man.
+59Disciple
99,9% of American citizens (and basically any other citizens) are inane, remote-controlled turds.
That's the simple answer why Noam Chomsky doesn't move shit.
+Ma Nuel Now you're just insulting remote-controlled turds. They've got more brains than my ranting mob of fellow Americans.
+59Disciple He is being intellectually dishonest, only a bunch of gullible retards buy his bullshit.
You reap what you sow
I'm glad he made the point to criticize the underlying philosophy of groups like ISIS, and the fact that it has its roots in Saudi Arabian Islamic scholars primarily from the 19th century. Saudi Arabia would probably implement many of the same draconian punishments that ISIS does if it didn't have partnerships with so many western powers. It has broadcasted this fundamentalist ideology throughout the world and is now reaping what it has sewn.
He is saying that U.S. created the context in which ISIS can thrive. He is not saying that U.S. directly created and funded it.
That last statement is grisly. But definitely his opinon look at the core of the problem. That perspective that no powerful want to address, because it is not economics, not politics, not war. It is perhaps too human for political and military to deal with.
And here we go America is going back in 2021
Fuller articles have few misconception by the way..
And that is?
Like his positions but boy his voice does drone unlike The Hitch who's a joy to listen to
Love him
it puzzles me that it apparently is so very hard to understand for an incredible number of people that actions have consequences. and the more radical the actions are, the more radical the consequences are.
world-politics is not a game. it seems like a great number of US americans and also people in other western countries do not understand that wars in the middle east affect real people. they cannot relate to or empathize with syrians e.g.. that's just "not my people" and maybe not even people at all. so it doesn't really matter what happens to them.
as soon as this backfires, those people's image becomes even worse. then they are not only "not people", they are monsters.
that their own monsters actually triggered conflicts on purpose, is ignored by or unknown to them.