Noam Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage

[INTERL0PER]

I very rarely post in here, but I'm curious as to the general opinion on this article by Noam Chomsky...

Noam Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage

I agree with his points and it's something I've found maddening for years, but I've found it particularly infuriating in the hysteria since the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Of course, the phenomenon of "Us v Them" and "they commit crimes, we fight the good fight" is hardly new, and hardly a "Western" trait, but I think it's something that is sorely overlooked in our society.

Many of us instinctively believe we are the "good" guys, while our "enemies" are simply "evil", therefore whatever we do to them is justified and whatever they do to us is unjustifiable. I believe this is completely absurd.

Thoughts?

 

[RTR ATL]

It's not surprising that he makes a very shitty analogy comparing the bombing of the RTS building to the Charlie Hebdo shooting.

 

[goldennirvana]

Muslims have a PHD in hypocrisy so I really couldn't care less if hypocrisy exists in this debate on the side of the West.

Bottom line: Islam is to free, civilized countries what cancer is to healthy flesh.

 

[Donny White]

Would have loved to have seen Hitchens and Chomsky go toe to toe.

Hitchens was basically, "kill all radical Muslims" after the ayatollah put the fatwa on his boy, Salman Rushdie.

And Chomsky has always been, "Down with the Nazi system of America."

I love and respect both and I believe Chomsky raises some great points, always gives sources, researches his talking points to the umpteenth degree, and never rattles off ideology based on idiotic conjecture.

 

[m25105]

Would have loved to have seen Hitchens and Chomsky go toe to toe.

Hitchens was basically, "kill all radical Muslims" after the ayatollah put the fatwa on his boy, Salman Rushdie.

And Chomsky has always been, "Down with the Nazi system of America."

I love and respect both and I believe Chomsky raises some great points, always gives sources, researches his talking points to the umpteenth degree, and never rattles off ideology based on idiotic conjecture.

The only thing that would suck would the turning up and down the volume, Chomsky speaks so softly : /

 

[Anung Un Rama]

in b4 "Noam Chomsky is an idiot"

 

[burningspear]

The media in each country uses propaganda to persuade the masses its doing the right things for the right reasons.

Our reactions of shock and bewilderment when these things happen is disingenuous.

 

[Zankou]

He makes some good points, but he consistently presents them in a propaganda-like manner that doesn't do him much good.

For example, he says:

"There are other questions. One would naturally ask how France upholds freedom of expression and the sacred principles of "fraternity, freedom, solidarity." For example, is it through the Gayssot Law, repeatedly implemented, which effectively grants the state the right to determine Historical Truth and punish deviation from its edicts? By expelling miserable descendants of Holocaust survivors (Roma) to bitter persecution in Eastern Europe? By the deplorable treatment of North African immigrants in the banlieues of Paris where the Charlie Hebdo terrorists became jihadis? When the courageous journal Charlie Hebdo fired the cartoonist Sin

 

[Zoti]

No wonder oil prices are dropping. Chomsky's tongue is so deep up Islam's butt he is pulling millions barrels of oil every day.

And he obviously connects the terrible attack in Norway to Zionism and Israel. What a douche.

Screw Chomsky. He is a moron.

 

[7437]

Just more tribal bullshit from both sides.

Our Western tribe is awesome, and their Muslim Tribe cannot coexist and must be destroyed.

The Western Tribe is infidels and does not worship Allah, they must be destroyed.

Same argument from both sides, same argument that is the basis of every conflict ever. Must destroy the "other"because they are different .

 

[Uchi Mata]

Chomsky holds the actions of civilians against other civilians as equivalent to the actions of governments in wars. Both can be deplorable, but they aren't equivalent. If you want to hold that killings in war are equally immoral in comparison with killings of civilians by civilians in terrorist acts, that's up to you, but it's silly to pretend they're the same thing.

In addition, Chomsky also makes no distinction regarding why certain attacks were carried out. Certainly the US killed a lot of people invading Iraq. We did it to overthrow a dictatorial power that we believed (probably wrongly) was a real danger to the nation. I am not a fan of the Iraq war or Bush by any means, but the ostensible reasons for the war were in line with modern Western values. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were a very direct assault on Western values. Chomsky may be such a moral relativist to believe that the defense vs. attack on Western values plays no role in ascertaining the morality of the acts in question, but I'm not. If you believe that Western values are superior to Islamist ones (and if you don't, why aren't you at a Madrassa in Yemen right now?) then I think it's natural and appropriate to judge attacks against those values in a harsher light than attacks in defense of those values, especially given that the attacks occurred in a Western country.

So if you think killing is equally wrong regardless of the motive or status of those involved (civilians in a country not at war vs. civilians in a country at war vs. military combatants), then Chomsky is right. But if you think that you're at best a simpleton, and at worst a pedantic pseudo-philosopher more concerned with technical argument than making meaningful value judgments. Which probably describes Chomsky pretty well, actually.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Just more tribal bullshit from both sides.

Our Western tribe is awesome, and their Muslim Tribe cannot coexist and must be destroyed.

The Western Tribe is infidels and does not worship Allah, they must be destroyed.

Same argument from both sides, same argument that is the basis of every conflict ever. Must destroy the "other"because they are different .

It is not the same argument from both sides. The Western argument (and frankly this argument goes for many Muslim countries as well) is 'leave us alone and you can run your own countries as you see fit'. The Jihadist argument is 'convert to our way of life or we will kill you'. If you can't see the difference you're not trying very hard. There's a big difference between activists marching because Saudi Arabia won't let women drive and killing cartoonists for slights against your religion.

 

[ButterStoch]

Noam...calling others hypocrites...He has been doing this for a long time.

Back when he was defending the Khmer Rouge(during & after they murdered millions), he claimed the same.

He has the same basic meme for many decades & the same target audience. If you agree with the premise(The U.S.A & Israel & to a lesser extent Western civilization...is a modern Nazi Germany blah blah blah)...you will like him...if you don't he will appear to be...functionally insane.

I feel Chomsky is a hypocrite, coward & an intellectual dishonest man. It is ironic that the people he attacks...feel a duty to protect him, while the those he has lionized... would behead him.

Debating Chomskyites is like debating Noah's Ark with a religious apologist, they believe a premise...so they will only see evidence which confirms what they already believe. The feel like Hare Krishnah to me.

 

[Zankou]

He does make some good points though. The bombing of the Serbian state television wasn't quite the same, but it is *close enough* that we should be genuinely disturbed by it.

Chomsky doesn't do himself any favors by his propaganda-style approach though, minimizing the differences and bringing up a random bunch of additional grievances that basically have fuck-all to do with the situation and seem to be a litany of complaints about how France is so bad to people with dark skin.

 

[Ippwnage]

I very rarely post in here, but I'm curious as to the general opinion on this article by Noam Chomsky...

Noam Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage

I agree with his points and it's something I've found maddening for years, but I've found it particularly infuriating in the hysteria since the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Of course, the phenomenon of "Us v Them" and "they commit crimes, we fight the good fight" is hardly new, and hardly a "Western" trait, but I think it's something that is sorely overlooked in our society.

Many of us instinctively believe we are the "good" guys, while our "enemies" are simply "evil", therefore whatever we do to them is justified and whatever they do to us is unjustifiable. I believe this is completely absurd.

Thoughts?

fact is that there are two sides. you have to be on one or the other. and you should want your side to win.

 

[burningspear]

The nation with the biggest arsenal starts wars and says death is different because its war. OK!

 

[Zankou]

The nation with the biggest arsenal starts wars and says death is different because its war. OK!

To be fair, one thing you have to admit about Mohammed (PBuH), that guy really, really, really loved war.

 

[7437]

It is not the same argument from both sides. The Western argument (and frankly this argument goes for many Muslim countries as well) is 'leave us alone and you can run your own countries as you see fit'. The Jihadist argument is 'convert to our way of life or we will kill you'. If you can't see the difference you're not trying very hard. There's a big difference between activists marching because Saudi Arabia won't let women drive and killing cartoonists for slights against your religion.

Want to guess how many civilians will be killed in whatever the response to the Hebdo attack is? Ill bet it is more than 12.

We attack them, they attack us, rinse and repeat. Both sides are reactionary. They want us to bomb the hell out of them, its not a new and unexpected response. We will do it too. More people in that region will become radicalized, and attack us. Cyclical.

 

[IDL]

I find it hypocritical to blame Muslims for integration issues while promoting immigration from Muslim countries (the same countries that are being stirred up in some cases).

It's like inviting vegetarians to dinner and then complaining that they don't like the pork dish you prepared.

 

[ButterStoch]

To be fair, one thing you have to admit about Mohammed (PBuH), that guy really, really, really loved war.

& 9 year old children.