Romo Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 First of these are not my thoughts I am posting them for discussion. The thoughts come from a book by Noam Chomsky called The Culture of Terrorism published in 1988.<br /><br />Chomsky argues the US has developed a culture of terrorism through its actions in Central America, bombing of Libya etc..<br /><br />"...innumerable people around the world are entitled to bomb Washington causing tens of thousands of casualties in retribution for the acts of the terrorist commanders who operate there with impunity."<br /><br />I am sure this book has been quoted in the media since 9/11 several times but I figured I would bring it up incase some people havnt heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest <Kefka> Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 hehe... you know my view. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 Mr. Chomsky's response to 9/11.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sk.com.br/sk-chom2.html" target="_blank">http://www.sk.com.br/sk-chom2.html</a><br /><br />I don't necessarily agree with some of the comments he made about how this event would end up costing the American citizen, and certainly not his comments on Sudan, but here is his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 Another interesting tid bit on the man.<br /><br /><a href="http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/about/angeles_html" target="_blank">http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/about/angeles_html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted March 13, 2002 Author Share Posted March 13, 2002 He is certainly an interesting personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Hmmm... I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the opinions of college professors who hide themselves away in academia all their lives, and then smugly judge the way our leadership performs. <br /><br />He says he doesn't leave the country because he wants to improve it? Bullsh!t. <br /><br />If he really wanted to fix what he perceives as problems in this country he'd take that big brain of his and all that fiery passion and actually run for office, or become a lobbyist or actually DO something. Instead he writes books, talks to rich folks and thinks real hard about things. Bully for him.<br /><br />This guy strikes me a just another Abby Hoffman. An aging Boomer who isn't happy unless he's got something to complain about. Go ahead and give the government the finger Noam. You old rebel, you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted March 14, 2002 Author Share Posted March 14, 2002 Im skeptical to think that people who run for office are necessarily trying to "fix things". I know this isnt exactly what you are saying but I dont think you can discount someones desire to improve your country just because he dosnt run for office and criticizes it.<br /><br />While you may be right. He may just be someone who likes to complain just for the sake of complaining I would rather have those people around then yes men who go along with everything. <br /><br />The great thing about democracy is that it brings out a multitude of opinions of which everyones is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Don't get me wrong Romo sits to pee. I'm no fan of politicians either. But sitting around b!tching about the government seems to be a favorite hobby of the average academic. This guy happens to be real good at it. Big deal.<br /><br />Now, I'm no MIT professor, and I've only read the two pieces presented on this board, but I already see major inconsistencies in the man's thinking: <br /><br />First he says "..innumerable people around the world are entitled to bomb Washington causing tens of thousands of casualties." Then when those folks take heed and DO cause thousands of casualties he turns around and says "Today's attacks were major atrocities" and "that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt."<br /><br />Waitaminnit. Didn't he say these people were ENTITLED to cause such damage? Is it a horrendous crime or aint it? Apparently backpedalling isn't just a crutch for the ignorant. If it's not a crime, Cromsky is simply a hypocrite. If it IS a crime, he is heinously irresponsible for endorsing the action personally.<br /><br />Knowing your facts is great. But presenting them in a reasonable and responsible manner is much, much more important. I know of 3,500 Americans who would most likely agree with me if they were still alive today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted March 14, 2002 Author Share Posted March 14, 2002 I think you misunderstood my first post which was probably my fault. For a modern american history class I am taking I read a chapter of the book i mentioned published in 1988.<br /><br />That quote was more specifically refering to Central America, El Salvador and Nicaragua in particular. I also dont think he was necessarily saying that these people have a right to do this damage/murder. <br /><br />I got that from it that he was just counter-arguing claims from the Reagan govt saying that they were allowed to bomb Libya because of they sponsor terrorist activity, i may be wrong but i believe this had to do with Pan Am 103 and Libya's involvement.<br /><br />This might explain his seeming inconsistancies. I do agree that alot of academics do spend too much time debating and arguing then acutally going out and doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Well, I don't need a textbook to tell you what an ultra-liberal college professor would say about Reagan's foreign policy record, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not about to start losing sleep every time some old hippie bashes the Republicans. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 The bombing of Libya was in retaliation for the bombing of a disco in Germany, and another bombing the previous month (I think it was an airport, but I'm not sure) in which an 8 year old girl was killed. Pan Am 103 was several years later. Before we hit Libya, they were THE major player in terrorism. (France actually got nailed considerably more than we did.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kefka Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Go Romo sits to pee go... Go Romo sits to pee go! ... hehe <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted March 14, 2002 Author Share Posted March 14, 2002 thanks for the clear up riggo-toni. i was only 10 when the US bombed Libya and dont remember it. I knew France had previous terrorist problems but i thought they were mostly from Algerian sources, caused in part by France's occupation of that country post-WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 15, 2002 Share Posted March 15, 2002 Notice to in one of the articles, not only does he get grief from other liberal academics, he also ,in a way, questionshis own research. That and he seems to prove himself a bit of a racist as far as arabs go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.