Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Noam Chomsky also endorsed a book by Diana Johnston, who wrote a revisionist book denying Serb atrocities. When Chomsky did an interview for Serb radio, the interviewer remarked that the ITV pics of the Trnpolje concentration camp were faked (this conspiracy theory did the rounds on the left and far-right kooks) Chomsky responded with "you remember".

He seems to have a shaky history with genocide and atrocity deniers.

He defended a Holocaust denier calling him "an apolitical liberal"
 
Last edited:
They've been linked to already in this thread. As that didn't have an effect, it seems unlikely that doing it again will have an effect, either. Internet fact wars are for entertainment purposes only.

The lists referred to, compiled by a far right Zionist polemicist, are junk. They are cherry-picked quotes, removed from their context, many presented as lies simply because Chomsky has failed to put the politically correct, right-wing spin on events.

The author appears to have a similar attitude to truth as those on this thread who believe that, if a poster states that the Taliban are resisting a foreign invasion, then this proves that that this poster is a Taliban and, therefore, a terrorist sympathizer.

If those posting the links and seeing value these supposed lists of lies would like to make them more convincing they could start by putting some of these "lies" back into their context and showing why they think they are lies.
 
Last edited:
The author appears to have a similar attitude to truth as those on this thread who believe that, if a poster states that the Taliban are resisting a foreign invasion, then this proves that that this poster is a Taliban and, therefore, a terrorist sympathizer.

So the foreign invaders are resisting a foreign invasion?

Cooky.

But anyway,let's address this:

The lists referred to, compiled by a far right Zionist polemicist, are junk. They are cherry-picked quotes, removed from their context, many presented as lies simply because Chomsky has failed to put the politically correct, right-wing spin on events.

What follows is a pretty in-context statement made by Chomsky.

“In the Soviet sphere of influence, torture appears to have been on the decline since the death of Stalin… Since it has declined in the Soviet sphere since the death of Stalin, it would appear that this cancerous growth is largely a Free World phenomenon.”

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
 
"Cherry-picked quotes, removed from context" sums up most of Chomsky's historical research.
 
When Chomsky did an interview for Serb radio, the interviewer remarked that the ITV pics of the Trnpolje concentration camp were faked (this conspiracy theory did the rounds on the left and far-right kooks)


The "man behind the barb wire" was the "man outside the barb wire", this much is known as proven by Thomas Deichmann. The ITV team said they were "mistaken", while Deichmann insisted that they were spreading propaganda (and got fined for "libel" in a travesty of justice).

Get your sources straight, Crusader.
 
Heh. I figured you'd be a Trnpolje Truther.

The accusation that ITV faked the footage was smashed in British courts. Look it up.
 
Last edited:
Heh. I figured you'd be a Trnpolje Truther.

The accusation that ITV faked the footage was smashed in British courts. Look it up.


I told you what was "smashed". Fact remains that Fikret Alic and the other men were outside the barb wire and the ITV team was inside. You deny that?
 
Ah, whatever, for those too lazy to follow my keywords, it's an interesting story. Here's Thomas Deichmann's report (he made a film for German TV too, i've seen it, no reasonable doubt). Why the link goes to whatreallyhappened? Preempting the Crusader's whining about the source, follow the links at the wikipedia article about the ITV journalist Penny Marshall and make up your own mind. The original publisher was sued out of existence. Evil commies, needless to say. :rolleyes:
 
Poison in the well of history
Living Marxism accused ITN of distorting the truth about Bosnia. Now, it faces ruin after losing the ensuing libel battle. Ed Vulliamy , who filed the first reports on the horrors of the Trnopolje camp, explains why an unholy alliance of Serb apologists and misguided intellectuals had to be defeated in court

Some will say that Living Marxism won the "public relations battle", whatever that is. Others will cling to the puerile melodrama that ITN's victory in the high court yesterday was that of Goliath over some plucky little David who only wanted to challenge the media establishment.
But history - the history of genocide in particular - is thankfully built not upon public relations or melodrama but upon truth; if necessary, truth established by law. And history will record this: that ITN reported the truth when, in August 1992, it revealed the gulag of horrific concentration camps run by the Serbs for their Muslim and Croatian quarry in Bosnia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/mar/15/pressandpublishing.tvnews
 
Last edited:
Ah, whatever, for those too lazy to follow my keywords, it's an interesting story. Here's Thomas Deichmann's report (he made a film for German TV too, i've seen it, no reasonable doubt). Why the link goes to whatreallyhappened? Preempting the Crusader's whining about the source, follow the links at the wikipedia article about the ITV journalist Penny Marshall and make up your own mind. The original publisher was sued out of existence. Evil commies, needless to say. :rolleyes:

Why would Penny Marshall lie about that?
 
Why the link goes to whatreallyhappened? Preempting the Crusader's whining about the source...

Hey. Empress. Don't be like that. I happen to think whatreallyhappened?.com is sterling source material. I especially commend their scholarship on the Jewish plot behind 9/11 and the JFK assassination.

I also agree that people should make up their mind who to believe; the British High Court, or Marxist moonbats.
 
Why would Penny Marshall lie about that?


No idea what you mean by "that" - you could at least properly formulate your little "questions" -, but it's likely that it was covered in Deichmann's report which you apparently didn't read. They never claimed it was a concentration camp - that was added by the media -, they "just" delivered the pictures. ITV wanted a story and it's likely that the team believed the other horror stories coming out of Bosnia and took those pictures as "symbolic" and useful for the "good cause", knowing full well that they completely distorted the reality of what they found at that refugee camp.

Anyway, Chomsky doesn't have to fear a libel suit from ITV and agreeing with someone calling the pictures "fake" is certainly not a far stretch.
 
Last edited:
When Chomsky did an interview for Serb radio, the interviewer remarked that the ITV pics of the Trnpolje concentration camp were faked (this conspiracy theory did the rounds on the left and far-right kooks) Chomsky responded with "you remember".


It's bad form to not deliver sources to stuff you are talking about. I was interested and looked it up. Here is a transcript of that interview done in 2006 for TV, not radio. Video (Part 1 of 4):



edit: the full quote

DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out.

NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and 'we can't have Auschwitz again.' The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven't a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he's reporting is not done in malice and he can't prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don't have the pocket-money, it's obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws.

So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn't prove it wasn't done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You've read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful.


For proof of the last paragraph see Mycroft's Guardian snippet above. :D

NOVO, the (still existing) magazine which printed Deichmann's original german report didn't get into trouble AFAIK. I heard by now there are special laws in parts of the US to protect citizens against the frivolous UK libel laws.
 
Last edited:
So why did the Marxist moonbats get their asses kicked in the supreme court. Why did they abandon their defence?
 
Last edited:
So why did the Marxist moonbats get their asses kicked in the supreme court. Why did they abandon their defence?


Travesty of justice based on frivolous libel laws, as mentioned already. If you don't like how I treat you, like you've indicated, here's the chance to acknowledge that you were just parroting what you've read elsewhere (I know where) without having any deep understanding of the issue.

Far above I talked about "sane right-wingers" and Mycroft was one of the people I thought of while talking about this. A smart guy who seems to have at least an ounce of intellectual honesty. Him starting three new threads in this subforum today while not answering to what I've outlined here, following him again "just asking questions" without substance, doesn't help to uphold that picture.
 
Travesty of justice based on frivolous libel laws, as mentioned already.

Frivolous? They accused the journalists of fraud.

If you don't like how I treat you, like you've indicated,

Eh? :boggled:

Do you think I've got hurt feelings or something?

here's the chance to acknowledge that you were just parroting what you've read elsewhere (I know where) without having any deep understanding of the issue.

Of course I read about the case elsewhere. I didn't find out about it by meditating. You read about it elsewhere as well. At a site which claims Mossad killed JFK.

And you never answered why the Marxists punked out in court.
 
Last edited:
That is an aspect of Chomsky. Related is that he has improved the technique, pioneered by Senator Joe McCarthy. This technique consists of making so many statements and bouncing around so much that it is not possible to hold them all for a coherent argument.
Much of Chomsky's work is directed at illustrating broad US political tendencies that extend over time and geography. How would one go about that without "making many statements" and "bouncing around"?
 
Travesty of justice based on frivolous libel laws, as mentioned already. If you don't like how I treat you, like you've indicated, here's the chance to acknowledge that you were just parroting what you've read elsewhere (I know where) without having any deep understanding of the issue.

Far above I talked about "sane right-wingers" and Mycroft was one of the people I thought of while talking about this. A smart guy who seems to have at least an ounce of intellectual honesty. Him starting three new threads in this subforum today while not answering to what I've outlined here, following him again "just asking questions" without substance, doesn't help to uphold that picture.

I read your link and am considering what it says. I haven't put anything new here because I don't have anything new to say. I'll certainly let you know when I do. :)
 

Back
Top Bottom