Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[gtc]

Weird. For the second time in this thread, I have to say that I've no idea how you could have read the quote that way. I might hazard a guess here: he wasn't talking about WW2.

His was a blanket condemnation of American military action in the last century. He wasn't making a distinction so I don't think we should read one into what he wrote.

If he wants to ammend his post then he can.

(Also, Finland was not quite a German ally during the war. As Ben Goldacre would put it, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. I know, this is way outside the scope of this thread, but I had to mention it.)

I am aware of that which is why I wrote that they allied themselves to Germany.

 

[paulheinze]

Is noam chomsky a good source on the Cold War?

Check his sources, then you can decide for yourself. I often make the effort, to get the sources he cites in his footnotes at least on crucial statements.
In my experience he is a good source.

 

[paulheinze]

Well, there is also balkanwitness:

http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/Articles-Bosnia.htm#Srebrenica

and:

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2005/12/chomskys-genocidal-denial.html

Srebrenica was actually overstated. Cruelties happened there. But it was used as a propaganda vehicle to get support to attack Jugoslavia. I would like to remind of the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the wars in 90s where 200000 Serbs where the victims. As Croatia enjoyed support by the NATO, this crime did not receive the attention it deserved.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Srebrenica was actually overstated. Cruelties happened there. But it was used as a propaganda vehicle to get support to attack Jugoslavia. I would like to remind of the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the wars in 90s where 200000 Serbs where the victims. As Croatia enjoyed support by the NATO, this crime did not receive the attention it deserved.

Nope, Credible sources say 8000 people were murdered at Srebrenica.

Em, 200000 people were not massacred

Em, the problem with refugees is whether or not they were coerced into fleeing and by whom.

This is like denying the holocaust yet saying the (illegal) expulsions of the sudeten germans was worse.

As well as that, several croats were indicted at ICTY for Operation Storm.

 

[dc1971]

Noam Chomsky is an important part of this balanced breakfast. Fortified with 9 vitamins and iron, Noam Chomsky is the morning pick-me-up that keeps on delivering all day long.

HA HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! Nice!

"I was saying BOOuuurns!!"

DC (Dick Cheney I am not!)

 

[Skeptic]

Noam Chomsky is a linguistics professor. He has no more training or knowledge in politics than the guy shooting his mouth off next to you in the local bar, or, to give a better example, Oprah.

This being the case, whether or not to trust his views about politics depends on how reasonable those views are, not on his celebrity status.

But he is on record supporting the world's worst dictators, floating conspiracy theories, being chummy with holocaust deniers and neo-nazis, and much more besides.

Why, then, take anything he says about politics seriously? On what grounds?

 

[Eyeron]

I found this interesting article from Wiki on criticism of noam chomski:

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

And in the section with Harry S Truman I just learned that Chomsky is prone to making quotes up to suit his criticisms of America and capitalism. So if he makes things up how is he a good source? Since he makes things up, it seems he jsut cannot be trusted.

 

[Prometheus]

For me, it depends what is meant by 'source'. If you're looking for a trustworthy authority to settle an argument, then I'd say, in general, no.

However, if you're looking for a source from which to begin researching a topic, then yes. One thing is usually certain: virtually anything Chomsky says will be pored over, and picked apart by both fans and foes from all over the political spectrum, so he makes a good jumping off point from which to reconnoiter the diversity of opinions on topics he writes about.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And in the section with Harry S Truman I just learned that Chomsky is prone to making quotes up to suit his criticisms of America and capitalism. So if he makes things up how is he a good source? Since he makes things up, it seems he jsut cannot be trusted.

Sorry? We're talking about an author who has written several dozen books over nearly forty years and the critics have to come up with an error he made in the first edition of his first book? That's telling enough.

In the first book that I wrote, American Power and the New Mandarins, in the first edition there’s a slight error, namely that I attributed a quote to Truman which was in fact a very close paraphrase, almost verbatim paraphrase of what he said in a secondary source. I got a note mixed up and instead of citing the secondary source I cited Truman. It was corrected within about two months, in the second printing. There isn’t a scholarly monograph that doesn’t have a similar error somewhere. There have been at least a dozen articles, if not more, using this to denounce me, to prove that you can’t believe anything that’s said by anybody on the left, etc.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Sorry? We're talking about an author who has written several dozen books over nearly forty years and the critics have to come up with an error he made in the first edition of his first book? That's telling enough.

But still, denying the Srebrenica Massacre is probably a biggie, as well as cavort with Holocaust Deniers, write apologia for the Khmer Rouge and Milosevic.

As well as that, Oliver Kamm has done some good deconstructions of Chomsky's books.

Heck, there is an excellent review on amazon of failed states that tears it to shreds.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3CJYZRHLEANN7/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0805079122#wasThisHelpful

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why does Chumpsky believe a bedrock moral is "we must apply to ourselves the same standards we do to others" (pp 3, 81)? Who is he to tell anyone what a state's morality is or should be, and besides, isn't he just unconsciously parroting the Christians' Golden Rule (p 4)?

Muahahaha. At least that fascist scumbag is honest. "Chumpsky", eh? You have a strange standard for "excellence", Sentryman.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Muahahaha. At least that fascist scumbag is honest. "Chumpsky", eh? You have a strange standard for "excellence", Sentryman.

So anyone who disagrees is a fascist eh?

Besides, his other points still stand.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you understand what he is saying? He's defending bigotry. Chomsky's political work is completely based on the premise that one should live up to his own moral standards. He's saying for all those decades look, we say we are a benevolent force spreading freedom and democracy, but the facts show a different picture. We should change that.

Most of his critics try to prove that he paints the US in an unfairly black light and only sees the flaws - they think that in instances where the US influence is destructive, it is because of incompetence, mistakes, etc, but never out of calculated self-interest.

Very few people are, like the amazon reviewer, so bold to say hell yeah, he's right, we act out of self-interest and don't live up to our proclaimed moral values - but who cares? USA! USA! USA!

If you share this view, Chomsky's whole criticism falls indeed flat on its face, but in that case you are completely discredited as a discussion partner in the views of anyone, religious or not, who bases his moral understandings on some kind of Golden Rule/Categoric Imperative.

What do you call that?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Do you understand what he is saying? He's defending bigotry. Chomsky's political work is completely based on the premise that one should live up to his own moral standards. He's saying for all those decades look, we say we are a benevolent force spreading freedom and democracy, but the facts show a different picture. We should change that.

No, Chomsky lives in some parallel dimension where everything ever done by the US is absolutely evil.

The US has been largely benevolent throughout WW2 and beyond. Of course, Indochina was a mess, but my main point is that Chomsky only sees the US as irredeemably evil.

Most of his critics try to prove that he paints the US in an unfairly black light and only sees the flaws - they think that in instances where the US influence is destructive, it is because of incompetence, mistakes, etc, but never out of calculated self-interest.

Would you call trying to stop another Mao or Stalin calculated self-interest?

And Chomsky is portraying the US as the devil. No wonder tyrants and bin laden love him and plug his death to america books.

Very few people are, like the amazon reviewer, so bold to say hell yeah, he's right, we act out of self-interest and don't live up to our proclaimed moral values - but who cares? USA! USA! USA!

And chomsky is "Death to AMERIKKKA!" just like any maoist third worldist, or jucheist.

Plese show me in the review where the reviewer said the US acted out of self interest.

What the reviewer was doing was giving him a fisking, or a point by point refutation.

Besides, the review used concise facts and Chomsky is just another Len Hart in his distortions.

If you share this view, Chomsky's whole criticism falls indeed flat on its face, but in that case you are completely discredited as a discussion partner in the views of anyone, religious or not, who bases his moral understandings on some kind of Golden Rule/Categoric Imperative.

The writer was pointing out Chomsky writes with an axe to grind.

And Chomsky himself has been inconsistent with his values due to support for Pol Pot, Milosevic, Mao, Axis Japan, hezbollah and other villains in the past.

What do you call that?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Did you read "Failed States"?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Did you read "Failed States"?

unfortunately, i do not have an amazon account, and i do not know if i can find any copies anywhere nearby.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, go to a library. I haven't read it eighter. Aren't we both in a bad position to judge if the reviewer really refuted Chomsky? His very sloppy use of quotes doesn't make it easier:

Chumpsky is one of those "who believe that the International Court of Justice" had standing to pass judgment on the U.S.' actions in Nicaragua. Yes, Mr. Chumpsky, it is a question of your belief -- your faith -- isn't it? What is it with you and Nicaragua, anyway?

So, i recommend you make yourself familiar with the work of the man before you believe stuff like that. Who provides you with links like that anyway?

I read a couple of his books, the latest was his post-9/11 "Hegemony or Survival". I think it's an important book and recommend it. You will find that Chomsky doesn't think in categories like d/evil.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, go to a library. I haven't read it eighter. Aren't we both in a bad position to judge if the reviewer really refuted Chomsky? His very sloppy use of quotes doesn't make it easier:




So, i recommend you make yourself familiar with the work of the man before you believe stuff like that. Who provides you with links like that anyway?

I read a couple of his books, the latest was his post-9/11 "Hegemony or Survival". I think it's an important book and recommend it. You will find that Chomsky doesn't think in categories like d/evil.

Thing is i don't know if my library stacks it either.

I tried goign through rethinking camelot once. Takes a hard stomach.

 

[Meed]

The US has been largely benevolent throughout WW2 and beyond.

History easily demonstrates otherwise. Of course this is somewhat subjective and has little to do with whether Chomsky is a reliable source of information or not.

Your posts in the thread have been factually unreliable, poorly sourced (blog posts that contradict themselves, amazon.com reviews, retracted newspaper articles), and biased toward your worldview that the United States is benevolent. And the arguments you've tried to make are that Chomsky is unreliable, poorly sourced and biased toward his worldview that the United States is immoral. Why do you fail so hard at living up to your own standards?

 

[Meed]

Noam Chomsky has lied about 9/11 and thus has no credibility in my opinion.

Thanks for backing me up. I love having someone jump in to accuse Chomsky of not being radically anti-US enough.