dagblog - Comments for "Ichabod"

Some classic Chomsky quotes:

NCD — Sun, 17 May 2015 19:16:55 +0000

In reply to Ichabod

8 classic Chomsky quotes:

“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East
Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”

“[Regarding] Chinas actions in Tibet... it is a bit too simple to say that
China did indeed take over a country that did not want to be taken over.’
This is by no means the general view of Western scholarship.”

“The United States and Britain fought the war, of course, but not primarily
against Nazi Germany. The war against Nazi Germany was fought by the Russians."

“Do we celebrate Pearl Harbor Day every year? It’s well understood that the
Japanese attack on the colonial outposts of the United States, England, and Holland was in some respects highly beneficial to the people of Asia."

“If there had been no resistance to the Japanese attack, they might not have
turned to the horrifying atrocities that did ultimately turn many Asians against
them.”

" For what it is worth, I think that he is right, and that the bombing of Nagasaki,
in particular, was history’s most abominable experiment.” (channels Hal on this!)

“[In Bosnia] there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped
the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire [at theTrnopolje camp]... the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted...”

Last but not least (drum roll).....:

“MIT pays only thirty or forty per cent of my salary. The rest comes from other sources most of it from the Defense Department"

Trope's words are wise.

Aaron Carine — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:58:35 +0000

In reply to I think a lot of the debate

Trope's words are wise.

I think a lot of the debate

Elusive Trope — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:53:11 +0000

In reply to Ichabod

I think a lot of the debate over whose has more blood on their hands is people still desire some clear demarcation between the "good guys" from the "bad guys." Really just about everyone has some blood on their hands. People who use computers and other technologies are supporting large corporations and multi-national corporations. As long as you are on the grid, you are part of the problem. Yet it is also the only way to be part of solution. Seems to me that a lot of people approach geo-politics with this notion: the first group has a gallon of blood on their hands and this other group has a gallon and half on their hands, therefore, I will ignore the blood on the first group's hands.

I rationalized the war in

Aaron Carine — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:17:13 +0000

In reply to You can feel that your points

I rationalized the war in Iraq? Rubbish. I said both wars in Iraq were immoral. If we do the comparison thing(and if you think comparisons are irrelevant, you should tell Chomsky to stop doing it) I would pair America's killing of Iraqi civilians with the killing of Iraqi civilians by the Sunni insurgents. Then I would throw in the other jihadist massacres around the world(Lockerbie, Madrid, Luxor, Indonesia, etc.) This next point is minor, but Hal brought it up: The Bureau for Investigative Journalism's estimate of 2,400(minimum) deaths from drone strikes into Pakistan includes both civilians and combatants. The dead combatants shouldn't be equated with the people killed on 9/11.

I think the jihadists are worse than we are(although the difference isn't great enough for me to support the killing we do), but my point wasn't about who is worse; it was that the specific comparisons Chomsky was making are flawed.

I mentioned that the media paid attention to the slaughter in Gaza because Chomsky suggested that it didn't. I don't know why Hal finds this objectionable, and to say that I think the slaughter of Gazans is less reprehensible because the media reported it is batshit crazy.

Chomsky's rule that we should spend most of our time talking about the evil our side does is only valid up to a point. If during World War II, we had spent most of our time criticizing the Allies rather than the Axis, that would have been unreasonable. When much of the world, including the Moslem world, is under attack by jihadists, who are at least as great a threat to peace as the U.S. is, it is a problem that Chomsky spends one percent of his time criticizing jihadism--and even when he does, he blames it on America.

You can feel that your points

HSG — Sun, 17 May 2015 15:47:00 +0000

In reply to There are often double

You can feel that your points were relevant, they were not. If you truly want to argue that we are somehow "different" and superior because, e.g., our drones have only killed 2,400 and 3,800+ died in 9/11, how do you rationalize the war on the people of Iraq which left 500,000 to a million dead and millions more displaced? Any claim that it seemed like a good idea at the time is absurd. http://halginsberg.com/latest-media-fail-on-operation-iraqi-liberation-c...

Invoking Hiroshima and ignoring Nagasaki disingenuous. There remain legitimate arguments, in my view, that dropping the first A-bomb had a military purpose. Nagasaki on the other hand was massacre.

In every case where you compare American/Western killings with killings by Muslims you do indeed attempt to distinguish the former as morally less reprehensible. For example, in your acknowledgement that Israel's treatment of Gazans has been "monstrous", you cannot forbear to claim that our media did indeed pay "attention to it".

Finally, you accuse Chomsky of doing what you do, that is to minimize and rationalize the crimes of "one side" while amplifying the crimes of the other. But Chomsky has explained persuasively why he focuses on the culpability of American bad actors:

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.

What's your excuse for doing the opposite?

There are often double

Aaron Carine — Sun, 17 May 2015 14:57:38 +0000

In reply to Pick your examples of death

There are often double standards, but I feel my points were relevant. Anyway, Chomsky has a double standard; his lack of indignation over 9/11, Paris, and other crimes that can't be laid at the door of the West is hard to miss. In his exchange with Leo Casey in 2001, Chomsky tried to blame the United States for the genocide in Sudan(or at least for its continuation); it's a pretty remarkable performance.

Pick your examples of death

Oxy Mora — Sun, 17 May 2015 14:48:21 +0000

In reply to Ichabod

Pick your examples of death and destruction and quibble. The examples aren't particularly relevant. Chomsky's are just the topical ones. The essential truth, found at the end of Chomsky's piece, is that there are two types of terror, "their's and our's"."

I haven't argued that

Aaron Carine — Sun, 17 May 2015 13:34:53 +0000

In reply to In answer to the question

I haven't argued that killings are less reprehensible because they are committed by Christians or Jews. I'd appreciate it if you would not misrepresent me.

In answer to the question

HSG — Sun, 17 May 2015 12:23:00 +0000

In reply to Ichabod

In answer to the question posed in the ultimate paragraph: There is no doubt in my mind that Noam Chomsky is a great humanitarian.

Here's my question to the author of this piece: If you invariably distinguish killings by Christians and Jews (and the odd Western atheist) as morally less reprehensible than killings by Muslims, are you a douche?

Americans are very good at

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 17 May 2015 06:27:13 +0000

In reply to I don't think Q understands

Americans are very good at ignoring the Christian/religious ramifications of its foreign policy and the brazen flying Christianness of every mainstream politician. It was required that Obama be seen as a Christian and not some heathen Kenyan Muslimness, and of course George's brand was built on repentant born-again tea-totaller and Bill's the southern Christian yokel. Then there are the Christian generals and Beck/Limbaugh preaching Christian nation and of course our suck-uppiness to Israel is all a whackadoo tribute to our Old Testament heritage coming soon to a rapture near you, something Reagan publicly suggested would happen in his lifetime. We frame everything in Christian & Muslim terms and then feign surprise when others don't believe our feigned ignorance bullshit. We're playing Domino Theory across the region, we have no-fly lists focused on only Muslim names, and so on. How stupid are Muslims supposed to be? How self-deluded are we? It's like the bear joke - "you didn't come here for the hunting, didya?" As for the Norwegian dude, he may have been a loner, but he's a perfect stereotype fit for the guns and anti-liberal and anti-Muslim patriot freakout that the right has been building for decades, from the survivalists whacking the Denver DJ to the Koresh ranch to the Tim McVee and so on. The loner patriot is part of the image - they don't need to be organized, they just need to be disgruntled and have a gun/explosives and rail against queers, ay-rabs, immigrants and librul oppressive guvmint. We drone-killed Awlaki for the kind of ahit-disturbing hate speech we pipe in from Limbaugh to our troops. Look at the recent quandary the right ran into when they didn't know whether to shit on government troops as King George-style repressive government or worship them as potential Brevik/McVee warriors to one day turn on the heretic Commander-in-Chief and blast our way to liberty. The right considers all the military as natural armed neocon fellow travellers supporting its narrow-minded bigoted Christian view.