America's post-9/11 war on terror is a logical impossibility

The U.S. government has been, and continues to be, a major supporter of state-supported terrorism, favoring retaliatory or preemptive aggression over mediation in the world court, and avoiding accountability by excluding itself from the globally accepted definition of terrorism.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. government is powerfully scrutinized in Distorted Morality, a scathing thesis presented by renowned scholar Noam Chomsky.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13936.htm

Noam Chomsky and his buddy John Pilger are reknowned for their alternative views on American activities.

Its also a known fact that it help to sell their books

America's post-9/11 war on terror is a logical impossibility thanks for the link. I watched it all. I can agree (with the US's official definition, given at start in more detail, but that basically: "terrorism is violence for political goals.) I can also (as can any one honest) see that the magnitude of US violence, measured by resulting deaths, in effort to achieve political goals, easily exceeds any other organizations efforts. This is so obvious that, I will just mention one old and one new example.
(1) In the after math of the CIA destroying the democratically elected but openly left govern in Chile (on 9/11 also) about 50,000 people were "disappeared" usually by being drugged and dropped into the sea from the US helicopters supplied to the CIA's new regime.
(2) Currently, the death rate of innocents in Iraq is exceeds the more recent 9/11 terror in NYC etc every month and the regime installed to replace Saddam is filled with agents, many wearing police uniforms that are dong much of this killing. (Dumping at least 50 mutilated bodies in the streets every day 800 of these police officers were removed a few weeks ago for being part of this, but the tortured bodies found in the streets has not diminished so they must have been a small minority that fell out of favor politically.)

However, because the actual operative definition of "Terrorist" is "anyone opposing actions desired by the US government" I do not agree that it is a "logical impossibility" for the US to fight a war on terror. Certainly with this operative definition, the US government can help a military dictator, such as General Mussarrif, overthrow the elected government and proclaim him a great democratic ally in the "war on terror." The US, at least GBW, can proclaim anyone he wishes to be an "enemy combatant," throw him or her in jail, even US citizens, for no defined term without recourse to the regular courts etc. As the "operative definition" of terrorist is "opposing US actions," I am probably a terrorist.

Noam Chomsky and his buddy John Pilger are reknowned for their alternative views on American activities.

Its also a known fact that it help to sell their books

their views are more authoratative and valid than than the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head.

America's post-9/11 war on terror is a logical impossibility
Spock: Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.

Uncanny parallel.

their views are more authoratative and valid than than the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head.
No more Kool-Aid for you.

Off to Betty Ford you go.

their views are more authoratative and valid than than the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head.

Careful outlandish - Dont make presumptions

I have read Chomsky and Pilger -

Just tell me one thing please

Explain your meaning by saying "the mass of preconceptions and distorted prejudices based on ignorance that fill your head"

Are you one of those people who think the President ordered the destruction of the Twin Towers

Is that your slant???

Couldn't you have found a transcript? This guy meanders around so slowly you can see his point coming a mile away. Of course, his whole argument is predicated on a faulty definition of terrorism that would label any military action as terrorism. He said the US had used as a definition for terrorism, "any violent action to achieve political ends". I looked up the US definition of terrorism, here it is:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983. http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm
So there you go. By no means does any action taken by the US government in the war on Islamofascism meet that definition. And Mr Chomsky said he would always use the US government definitions and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Chomsky is a spin merchant - not worth his weight in horse dung

Chomsky is a spin merchant - not worth his weight in horse dung

To whom?

Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of theoretical linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.

Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known - especially internationally - for his media criticism and radical politics than for his linguistic theories.[1] [2] He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall. [3] [4] [5] Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

Sammys Wikipedia strikes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky


Look Sammy - I dont like the man, he is a critic of the west - which might suits your views - but not mine -OK

Sammys Wikipedia strikes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky


Look Sammy - I dont like the man, he is a critic of the west - which might suits your views - but not mine -OK

MIT websites:
Biography

Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His undergraduate and graduate years were spent at the University of Pennsylvania where he received his PhD in linguistics in 1955. During the years 1951 to 1955, Chomsky was a Junior Fellow of the Harvard University Society of Fellows. While a Junior Fellow he completed his doctoral dissertation entitled, "Transformational Analysis." The major theoretical viewpoints of the dissertation appeared in the monograph Syntactic Structure, which was published in 1957. This formed part of a more extensive work, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, circulated in mimeograph in 1955 and published in 1975.

Chomsky joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.) From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor.

During the years 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was in residence at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, NJ. In the spring of 1969 he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford; in January 1970 he delivered the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at Cambridge University; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, and in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, among many others.

Professor Chomsky has received honorary degrees from University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.

Chomsky has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. His works include: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax; Cartesian Linguistics; Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle); Language and Mind; American Power and the New Mandarins; At War with Asia; For Reasons of State; Peace in the Middle East?; Reflections on Language; The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. I and II (with E.S. Herman); Rules and Representations; Lectures on Government and Binding; Towards a New Cold War; Radical Priorities; Fateful Triangle; Knowledge of Language; Turning the Tide; Pirates and Emperors; On Power and Ideology; Language and Problems of Knowledge; The Culture of Terrorism; Manufacturing Consent (with E.S. Herman); Necessary Illusions; Deterring Democracy; Year 501; Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture; Letters from Lexington; World Orders, Old and New; The Minimalist Program; Powers and Prospects; The Common Good; Profit Over People; The New Military Humanism; New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; Rogue States; A New Generation Draws the Line; 9-11; and Understanding Power.

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/biography/noambio.html

Hmm, so a Linguist who thinks that he is a Political Scientist and Lawyer. Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur? Yes he is a great linguist and has helped the field of psychology, but that means squat in the world of Politics, Law, and War.

And your opinion holds more weight because...?

I didn't say it did, but certianly it doesn't hold less weight. After all this is just his opinion, nothing more.

I didn't say it did, but certianly it doesn't hold less weight. After all this is just his opinion, nothing more.

Oh I apologise. I did not realise you were also the most cited living scholar as he was.

According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall.

http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ahci/

The Arts & Humanities Citation Index® (A&HCI ®) and Arts & Humanities Search® provide access to current and retrospective bibliographic information and cited references found in nearly 1,130 of the world's leading arts & humanities journals. They also cover individually selected, relevant items from approximately 7,000 of the world's leading science and social sciences journals.

Hmm, so a Linguist who thinks that he is a Political Scientist and Lawyer. Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur? Yes he is a great linguist and has helped the field of psychology, but that means squat in the world of Politics, Law, and War.


Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur?

Too right we can TW

Sam has an attitude problem which is apparent in her posts - I suppose she supports Chomsky's views to the letter. Thats fine for her and anyone else that wishes to believe his unfounded propogandan shite, that is their choice

So, that is linguistics. Last I checked politics was not linguistics and neither was Law, or warfare, or diplomacy...

If he spoke on linguistics I would say his opinion had weight. He's not in this case so in that way he is of no more importance to me than Homer J Simpson

Oh I apologise. I did not realise you were also the most cited living scholar as he was.




You are sooo sarcastic - that is the lowest form of wit, but it suits you well. You are not a very likeable creature.

You are sooo sarcastic - that is the lowest form of wit, but it suits you well. You are not a very likeable creature.

ooh my heart is broken! stewie hates me!! WHAT CAN I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

So, that is linguistics. Last I checked politics was not linguistics and neither was Law, or warfare, or diplomacy...

If he spoke on linguistics I would say his opinion had weight. He's not in this case so in that way he is of no more importance to me than Homer J Simpson

Can we say meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur?

Too right we can TW

Sam has an attitude problem which is apparent in her posts - I suppose she supports Chomsky's views to the letter. Thats fine for her and anyone else that wishes to believe his unfounded propogandan shite, that is their choice

At least Chomsky's delusions of grandeur if any, are justified. He's obviously making a last ditch effort to gain recognition in the twilight of his wasted life.

You do realise that social sciences, arts and humanities journals cover philosophy, politics and current affairs?

stewie: you do need to recognise the difference between information and knowledge.

What I am giving you is information, what you are concluding is called jumping to conclusions (not knowledge).

At least Chomsky's delusions of grandeur if any, are justified.


What EXACTLY has he justified ?

Do explain...........................

ooh my heart is broken! stewie hates me!! WHAT CAN I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Wll in order:

1: Take that large chip off your shoulder. No one can beat you in a battle of twits, except maybe mars13.
2: Start reading EVERYTHING three times then sift form your own ideas. You're nothing but a puppet at this moment. Which brings me too...
3: Whatever that is pull it out of your arse and loosen up.


BTW the above is made in good humor, meant as a tease and not an actual insult. If i was going to insult you I would do much much worse.

What EXACTLY has he justified

Do explain..........................

ARE justified, not HAS. Aren't you supposed to be British?

Its there in the rest of the paragraph. Take a class in English comprehension please, or find a forum where they use words of only one syllable.

Wll in order:

1: Take that large chip off your shoulder. No one can beat you in a battle of twits, except maybe mars13.
2: Start reading EVERYTHING three times then sift form your own ideas. You're nothing but a puppet at this moment. Which brings me too...
3: Whatever that is pull it out of your arse and loosen up.

BTW the above is made in good humor, meant as a tease and not an actual insult. If i was going to insult you I would do much much worse.

I doubt you could do any better!

ARE justified, not HAS. Aren't you supposed to be British?

Its there in the rest of the sentence. Take a class in English comprehension please, or find a forum where they use words of only one syllable.


*SIGH* - You really are becoming tiresome


This is not the first occasion where you have no answer and retaliated with gooblegook


Now - just answer this question


HOW ARE CHOMSKY'S DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR JUSTIFIED ?

OMG that is just too funny.

There was something wrong with his sentence but you have made it more incorrect.

It should have been

What, exactly, has he justified?

And he has a point. You have given general thing, but you have failed to show where Chomsky has any advanced understanding of Politics, Legal matters, or Diplomacy. The burden is upon you, Sam. Or actually more precisely it is on Chomsky.

*SIGH* - You really are becoming tiresome


This is not the first occasion where you have no answer and retaliated with gooblegook


Now - just answer this question


HOW ARE CHOMSKY'S DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR JUSTIFIED ?

OMG that is just too funny.

There was something wrong with his sentence but you have made it more incorrect.

It should have been



And he has a point. You have given general thing, but you have failed to show where Chomsky has any advanced understanding of Politics, Legal matters, or Diplomacy. The burden is upon you, Sam. Or actually more precisely it is on Chomsky.

The level of literacy on this forum is pathetic.


sarcasm

Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual


Answer to both posts:

He's obviously making a last ditch effort to gain recognition in the twilight of his wasted life.

Come on Sammy dear

You are trying to worm your way out of the question again LOLOL


Now - just answer this question


HOW ARE CHOMSKY'S DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR JUSTIFIED ?

OR

WHAT, EXACTLY, HAS HE JUSTIFIED?

Answer to both posts:

“ Originally Posted by samcdkey
He's obviously making a last ditch effort to gain recognition in the twilight of his wasted life.



Is that all???

Is that your answer???

Sammys Wikipedia strikes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky


Look Sammy - I dont like the man, he is a critic of the west - which might
suits your views - but not mine -OK

devalidation of views on the basis that they don't support your views isn't a valid refutation, just your subjective views and as such dont equate to anything.

devalidation of views on the basis that they don't support your views isn't a valid refutation, just your subjective views and as such dont equate to anything.

He (stewie) did not even realise that I was not defending Chomsky's views, just attacking his (stewie's) premise.:p

Isn't that typical. Any criticism of America's policy is always automatically labeled as just an opinion.


Most used excuses by Americans:
1. our country is so big. That's why we have these domestic problems (crime, poverty, violence, inequality, etc). You can't compare it to other nations.

2. that is just an opion.

Being world’s leader in linguistics, does not make one an expert in some other field, but in Chompski’s case, his demonstrated willingness to very thoroughly research a field and to think out side the box is undeniable. These two characteristics are why he transformed the field of linguistics so drastically that he invented a new field. If you have a dictionary about 20 or 25 years old to compare with, look up the meaning of “grammar.” The old one will not have words to the effect, quoting from entry 4 of mine:

“body of rules whose output is all the permitted sentences in a language, while excluding those not permitted.”

Exploration of these rules IS the modern field of linguistic. Chompski’s invention is a fascinating field providing deep incites into how the mind of man functions. The boring old linguistic that traced the evolution and use of particular words is nearly dead. The grammar you learned in high school, such as (1) do not split infinite* or (2) end sentence with preposition,** etc. is even more stupid.***

The views of someone who has demonstrated exceptional ability to delve deeply into a field and the ability to independently think outside the box etc. should not be lightly dismissed, by people possessing less than 1% of his researched information as appears to be common here. - But of course that is just MHO.
---------------------------------------------------
*This stupid, un-natural, rule comes for prior “Worship of Latin” by all scholars. - In Latin, it is impossible to “split the infinitive” as it is just a different suffix to the verb stem.
**As “up” and “with” are both prepositions, GB Shaw, speaking of rule (2), sarcastically remarked: “That is something, up with which I will not put.”
***Every time my computer's spell checker notes I am violating one of these stupid rules, I want to yell: "Idiot this is English, not Latin!" It is also worth noting that "double negation" may logically be a positive, but it is part of the human endowment, common in all languages, and thus rarely is a source of missunderstanding (except by "Mr Spock types").

Summary: Views of great minds, like Chompski and Shaw, should at least be given careful consideration. If Shaw, the leading anti-war, anti-establishment thinker of his day, were alive today he would be a strong supporter of Chompski. Shaw was also a linguist, but of “pre-Chompski” Linguistics, of course. His other passion was vegetarianism. Once Shaw defined a "fork" as: "a tool for sticking pieces of dead animals in the mouth."
I wonder is Chompski a vegetarian too? (Great minds often have similar views in many fields.)

Correction: I may have some confusion of Shaw with B. Russel above. Russel was definitely anti-war, anti-establishment, but too lazy to look it up. - I work 95% from memory and some times it tricks me. There is good, I think true, story of Russel, R., at dinner party seated next to fat old woman, W.:: R. "OMG you're ugly." W. "You sir, are drunk." R. "yes I am, but in the moringing I will be sober."

Wll in order:

1: Take that large chip off your shoulder. No one can beat you in a battle of twits, except maybe mars13.
2: Start reading EVERYTHING three times then sift form your own ideas. You're nothing but a puppet at this moment. Which brings me too...
3: Whatever that is pull it out of your arse and loosen up.


BTW the above is made in good humor, meant as a tease and not an actual insult. If i was going to insult you I would do much much worse.

ha ha ha ha ha. LOL Sam changed "her" avatar.

ha ha ha ha ha. LOL Sam changed "her" avatar.


Thats about all she can change.

Thats about all she can change.

And that is about the best argument you can come up with.

and avoiding accountability by excluding itself from the globally accepted definition of terrorism.

have any links to this 'globally accepted definition of terrorism'?

TW Scott:

Hmm, so a Linguist who thinks that he is a Political Scientist and Lawyer.

It's not our fault if you and stu didn't bother getting yourselves an education.

Never heard of Chomsky before?

No idea what his knowledge of politics is, or who considers his views worth reading?

I thought not.

Why speak from a position of zero knowledge? You just make yourselves look foolish.

If you read my posts earlier - you will see that I have said that I have read Chomsky's and Pilgers work.