Printable View
cool, 300 posts
AA, another serious question: when you say "I have read enough to know he is full of shit", how much is enough ? one book, one chapter ? intro only ?
You have not shown one evidence of his lies actually, but only quotes from other people. That's hardly evidence. Surely you don't expect us to fall for that one ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
^
WTF?
This are not just "quotes" from others, but evidence of what Chomsky said and what the documents CHOMSKY quotes actually said.
Fine, you can not refute any of the evidence given so you will dismiss it without any analysis. Not exactly an intellectual giant? No wonder you are a fan of the bif man. Ignore the evidence provided by respected academics who slam Chmsky's methodology, not his conclusions.
But you are a true believer. If you really wanted to prove your point, you could go to the sources provided you and you could see with your own eyes the falsehoods Chomsky spreads.
If you think Chomsky claiming the CIA claimed US bombings killed 600,000 when the CIA report said no such thing makes him credible, well you have to be a true believer.
It's only a case of "he said, she said", hardly evidence at allQuote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
so at the end, it's really a question of who you believe or who has the biggest credibility to believe. I will take Chomsky over any government propaganda or CIA reports. The CIA lies, you should know that by now. Remember Iraq WMD ?
Zedhex
With the failure of each and every political enitity Chomsky has supported (Khmer Rouge, Soviet Union, etc...), what would you call supporters of these obviously failed policies?
Bright?
What would you call supporters of a person who calls to be an anti-capitalist while living the lifestyle of the rich? Intelligent?
What do you call the believers of doctrine created with false data? (Ok, we could call them supporters of G.W. Bush, but what of others?)
The problem here is that "Political Science" is in fact a misnomer. There is very little science in it - it's basically all opinions from one side or another. Physical evidence is ther very last thing that political "scientists" consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
"It's only a case of "he said, she said", hardly evidence at all."
Are you really this stupid or just blinded by idealogy.
It is not he said she said. Chomsky claims documents say this when the WRITERS of those documents claim Chomsky is misrepresenting their work.
You don't want your beliefs questioned, I understand. But Chomsky is a fraud and there is a mountain of evidence proving this. Ignore it all if you want to, but it will only demonstrate your ignorance.
Zedhex
true very true, if Chomsky just said this is my opinion, fine. But he uses lies and distortions to back up his claims.
Regan did not make the quote Chomsky said he did about Islamic fighters. The CIA report Chomsky uses to support his claim that 600,000 people were killed by US bombs did not say so.
Sure, anyone can give an opinion, But when you falsify evidence to support your claim you are a liar. Chomsky is a liar.
Let us just take a single Chomsky lie, the following
Chomsky’s Lie: “The crime of the Sandinistas was to carry out successful development… they immediately began to divert resources to the poor part of the population.”
Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization (Ocean Press, 1999), p57.
The Truth: For decades, Nicaragua had experienced some of the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia. Even the Soviet bloc blamed the regime for wrecking the country.
Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), pp183-4.
Does anyone what to challenge the fact that Chomsky made this claim or challenge the fact that the economy of Nicaragua nosedived after the regime Chomsky supported took over?
Give it a try. Did or didn't Chomsky lie on this issue?
If I were in a discussion with a bunch of Chomsky fans, I would refrain from insulting them, irrespective of my personal opinion. There are other forums on this site for those kinds of tactics. I am merely pointing out that you were proclaiming that the Choms attacked the messenger but not the message (in numerous posts I might add), whereas you are just as guilty of this as they are (and indeed started earlier... a quick search led me to post #48, much earlier than any insults from them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
^
Shit dude, this is an internet forum, not an academic journal. I have provided evidence of my position, the Chomsky lovers have not.
you only showed your opinion, not any evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
here below another example, the guy say one thing and do the opposite, typical right wing loony tactic, not answering to his lies or distract the reader from the real issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by zedhex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
^
Again, no evidence in support of the leftist position and a personal attack on me and ignoring the evidence presented.
Amazing the close-mindedness of the Left
Here, read the following and tell me did or did not Chomsky lie here
Chomsky’s Lie: “The crime of the Sandinistas was to carry out successful development… they immediately began to divert resources to the poor part of the population.”
Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization (Ocean Press, 1999), p57.
The Truth: For decades, Nicaragua had experienced some of the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia. Even the Soviet bloc blamed the regime for wrecking the country.
Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), pp183-4.
Does anyone what to challenge the fact that Chomsky made this claim or challenge the fact that the economy of Nicaragua nosedived after the regime Chomsky supported took over?
Dollars to donuts no Chomsky supporters will respond to this evidence presented, instead they will continue their pathetic personal attacks on me.
"I will take Chomsky over any government propaganda or CIA reports."
CHOMSKY WAS USING THE CIA REPORT AS HIS EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE LIED ABOUT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.
THIS IS NOT A CHOMSKY VERSUS CIA DEBATE.
READ WHAT IS WRITTEN BEFORE RESPONDING AND MAKING YOURSELF LOOK STUPID!!!!!!!!!!
What happened to primary sources? No wonder you've got such a skewed view if all you've done is read anti-Chomsky articles. Great research AA!Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
Seems there are plenty. AA has cued up many "statements" made by Chomsky that appear to be falsification or at best misinformed. I would be the first to admit my ignorance when it comes to Chomsky but I see no specific rebuttal from the Chomsky supporters regarding any AA "anti Chomsky" posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Because there's no point in doing so. AA's entire intent in flooding the thread with cut 'n pastes is to 'shout down' others.Quote:
I would be the first to admit my ignorance when it comes to Chomsky but I see no specific rebuttal from the Chomsky supporters regarding any AA "anti Chomsky"
Even if they were addressed he'd simply totally ignore any inconvenient point(s) made and dribble on about something else.
There's no point debating someone who shifts the posts and invents their own rules as they go.
Seems AA gave plenty of "evidence" in his subsequent posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Agree. He would be much better served without the "READ WHAT IS WRITTEN BEFORE RESPONDING AND MAKING YOURSELF LOOK STUPID!!!!!!!!!!" comments but he has posted several instances of "apparent" lies. Are any debatable or are they indeed lies? I have been reading this thread and find it quite interesting. I'm only an observer in the audience so I really don't know!Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
To be honest I barely even glanced at them. Certainly can't discount them but very little point even if they could all summararily be debunked; he'd merely Google and cut 'n paste a screed of others. It's not worth the hassle as you're not debating with AA, you're debating with 3rd person's that AA cut 'n pastes from. The arguments are not even his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
His modus operandi's pretty clear now; cut 'n paste; repeat; make series of unsubstantiated claims; ignore any direct questions asked; repeat; cut 'n paste; repeat... ad infinitum.
A troll by any other name. :)
Yes it's one thing saying Chomsky lied because a CIA or World Bank report says so, it's another thing to say I have read his book and found that it is bias or inconsitent with what I have read elsewhere.
The post where you quoted Chomsky as saying the US bomboing of Cambodia caused 600,000 deaths and led to the emergence of the Khmer Rouge as a political force, the article doesn't contend that the US bombing led to the rise of the KR only that Chomsky got the figures wrong, therefore by association the US bombing leding to the rise of the KR is a lie fabricated by Chomsky.
I've never read this by Chomsky but I have read elswhere that the US bombing was the cause, so I would state that as a fact. Regarding the figures involved, the article was written in 1976? Certainly you must agree that the means and reliability of gathering data has changed dramaticallly over the last 30 years.
AA you have taken a stance against the majority, which in a way is to be commended, but your reliance on second hand opinion undermines your credibility.
Nobody here is denying that Chomsky is a dissident with a socialist agenda, but that's not entirely a bad thing is it if he can help inform us 'the layman' of what governments and NGO's are doing in our name. Chomsky's greatest strength is his accessability and concise expainations to the general public.
Eric Hobsbawm is Englands most acclaimed historian, but he is a leftist.
Why then is he recommended reading for the basis of modern history and commerce in the private school system?
His analytical disection of history may be in part bias, in so much as it deals with social consequences of political actions, but his works are monumental in their clarity and breadth and therefore accepted as worthwhile reading for anyone that wishes to understand the machinations of modern history.
With all due respect I would suggest you read 'Hegemony or Survival' by Chomsky,
it's one of his more recent works and deals with US foreign policy.
Make up your own mind about it and then come back and offer a critique.
I'm sure you can find something in there that is inconsitent with your own beleifs, but I think you will find it very hard to write off the whole book or it's author because of the occasssional inconsistency or his political bias, when you see that the majority of the sources he uses are avaliable in the public domain as UN or US government reports.
Good luck and happy reading.
P.S. I'm not sure which of your 4 catagories of responses this one fits into, but if you are really interested in taking this discussion above the low point it has reached, please humour me and read the book. Perhaps we should all read it and discuss it. Maybe I've missed something that you can point out to me.
“To be honest I barely even glanced at them”
Not surprising, you don’t want to evaluate evidence, you want to call your opponents names. You have made up your mind, anything left is right, any information that is anti-american is good information.
“Yes it's one thing saying Chomsky lied because a CIA or World Bank report says so”
HOW FRICKING THICK ARE YOU? CHOMSKY CLAIMED THE CIA REPORT BACKED UP HIS CLAIM WHEN IT CLEARLY DID NOT. CHOMSKY LIED BECAUSE CHOMAKY SAID A CIA REPORT SAID SOMETHING IT DID NOT!!!!!
“I've never read this by Chomsky but I have read elswhere that the US bombing was the cause, so I would state that as a fact.”
OK, you read it “somewhere” and therefore it is a fact. Ok, you answered my previous question, now I know how fricking thick you are.
Anyway, the point was CHOMSKY CLAIMED THE CIA CLAIMED THE US BOMINGS KILLED 600,000. Whether 600,000 were killed or not is a different matter, CHOMSKY CLAIMED THE CIA SAID THIS, THE CIA DID NOT SAY THIS SO CHOMSKY LIED, EVEN IF 600,000 WERE KILLED BY US BOMBINGS (which is absurd).
CAN ANY OF YOU CHOMSKITES READ? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?
^Learn to use the quote function. It's hard enough discerning meaning from your ranting as it is without the mixed 'n matched fonts/caps.
Well I'm certainly not going to look into all these alleged 'Chomsky Lies', particularly not from a Blog entitled '200 Chomsky Lies'! But I've scanned through them, and will comment on a couple.
First off lets define the parameter- a Lie is a deliberate falsehood. These 'Chomsky lies' you have cut n pasted AA refer to alleged mistruths rather than deliberate lies, which is not the same thing. I am not saying Chomsky has never made a mistake, or uttered a false statement. I do not consider him to be a Liar though. Unsurprisingly, a cursory glance at the accusations I know something about fall way short of the mark-
So, all of a sudden 'succesful development' means economic growth only? :rolleyes: Baloney- what Chomsky was referring to was the Sandinista reforms. He was also referring to the first few years of Sandinista rule- which actually were quite good. Then things got worse with the declaration of a US trade embargo, the violent Civil insurgency, and other factors. Quoting Wiki-Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
"A 1980 literacy campaign, using secondary school students, university students as well as teachers as volunteer teachers, reduced the overall illiteracy rate from 50.3% to 12.9% within only five months.[93] The key large scale programs of the Sandinistas included a massive National Literacy Crusade (March-August, 1980), social program, which received international recognition for their gains in literacy, health care, education, childcare, unions, and land reform.[94][95] In September 1980, UNESCO awarded Nicaragua with the “Nadezhda K. Krupskaya” award for their successful literacy campaign. This was followed by the literacy campaigns of 1982, 1986, 1987, 1995 and 2000, all of which were also awarded by UNESCO."
Nicaragua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A grand example of quoting Chomsky deliberately out of context- it is the Author that could be more accurately accused of lying, or at least being selective with the truth.
Actually, GDP growth was about 5% for the first two years of the Sandinista's. Then it began plummeting. Why? Several factors-
A full Trade embargo against Nicaragua imposed by the Reagan administration
The end of the Soviet era- which meant an end to all Eastern Bloc aid
Natural disasters also devastated the economy
The violent Contra insurgency, which deliberately targeted economic infrastructure (for example mining it's main Port). This was, of course, largely funded by the US.
Economic mismanagement by the Sandinista regime also.
There is no Chomsky lie to be found there.
Another non-sequitur is that Nicaragua had enjoyed economic growth over the previous two decades. Yes it had, over two decades- however the least 6 or 7 years of the Somoza regime were an absolute economic disaster, leaving the country saddled with huge debt and with it's economy in ruins- Managua, the capital, had never even been rebuilt from a disastrous earthquake. The author conveniently fails to mention that.
Both statements are true- this is a total non-sequitur. Stalin was originally allied with Chiang Kai Chek- I learnt that in School history. He soon switched to the Maoists however, and proceeded to supply them with large quantities of arnaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn
Frankly, that accusation is a crock of shit. No Chomsky lie there.
Again, here is the evidence.
Chomsky’s lie “the [American] bombing [of Cambodia], which the CIA estimates killed around 600,000 people, mobilised the Khmer Rouge…””
A Rational Reaction,” The Liberal, UK, December 2004-January 2005. Cf.: “from the time of the first sustained US bombings [of Cambodia] in March 1969 through April 1975… 600,000 people were killed, according to CIA estimates,” Deterring Democracy (Vintage, 1992), p72.
The Truth: The CIA estimate referred to “war-related deaths” caused by all sides, not to the death toll from the bombing, which was not discussed. The CIA noted that the figures were “debatable” and concluded: “None of these estimates is well founded.” The 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself, and is more than twice the actual number of war-related deaths.
Marek Sliwinski, Le G?nocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse D?mographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), p48
Chomskyite No. 1 “so at the end, it's really a question of who you believe or who has the biggest credibility to believe. I will take Chomsky over any government propaganda or CIA reports. The CIA lies, you should know that by now. Remember Iraq WMD ?”
WTF? Chomsky uses the CIA as his source for his information, but he is not lying because he is more credible than the CIA? Explain this? WTF goes through the mind of an Chomskyite? Is it not a lie if you lie about a lie, or something like that?
Chomskyite 1s second attempt, “you only showed your opinion, not any evidence” WTF? I used CHOMSKY”S OWN WORDS and then the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SOURCE HE CITED. That is not evidence? WTF is evidence? Please explain, this leftist logic is not anything I have seen accepted in academia.
Chomskyite No 2 “What happened to primary sources?” WTF? I supplied dozens of primary sources, CHOMSKY”S OWN WORDS!!!!!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PRIMARY SOURCE IS? WTF ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chomskyite No. 2 second attempt, “To be honest I barely even glanced at them.” WTF, first you claim the sources are false, but later when confronted you claim you do not know if they are true or false and have no inclination to find out, but you still believe in your hero? WTF?
Chomskyite No. 3 “Yes it's one thing saying Chomsky lied because a CIA or World Bank report says so,” WTF? WHO CLAIMED A CIA OR WORLD BANK REPORT SAID CHOMSKY LIED? CHOMSKY CLAIMED A CIA REPORT SAID US BOMBINGS IN CAMBODIA KILLED 600,000, THE REPORT DID NOT SAY THAT. EASILY CHECKED, and CHOMSKY LIED. CARE TO CHALLENGE THIS? CARE TO CLAIM CHOMSKY DID NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM? CARE TO CHALLENGE THE FACT THAT THE CIA REPORT DID NOT SAY THIS?
Chomyskite No 3 again, “I've never read this by Chomsky but I have read elswhere that the US bombing was the cause, so I would state that as a fact. Regarding the figures involved, the article was written in 1976? Certainly you must agree that the means and reliability of gathering data has changed dramaticallly over the last 30 years.”
WTF? DID THE ORIGINAL CIA REPORT CHANGE OVER TIME? SURE, ONE COULD MAKE A CASE THAT CHOMSKY WAS JUST STUPID FOR SUPPORTING THR KHMER ROUGE, BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT HE LIED ABOUT WHAT HIS SOURCES SAID.
PS Ant, Don’t try to respond, you are completely out of your league and each response makes this more and more evident
"Actually, GDP growth was about 5% for the first two years of the Sandinista's. Then it began plummeting. Why? Several factors-"
Doesn't matter why, Chomsky claimed the Sandinistas were having success in devlopment, they did not. Obvious lie. If he said that the Sandinistas had a failed development policy and it was mainly due to the US embargo, then that would be opinion, slightly loony, but still an opinion and not a lie.
"Stalin was originally allied with Chiang Kai Chek- I learnt that in School history."
WTF is your source? I provided a number of sources that contradict this. In fact, (I have read a few books on this) the standard belief if that at the time of World War II, both nationalists and the communists were "allied" against the Japanese and Stalin promoted this alliance to ensure a Japanese defeat, but after the end of the war, the Russian supplied a lot of support to the communists. So Stalin never actually supported the nationalists, but instead supported the communists but did not want open warfare between the two Chinese factions until the Japanese were defeated.