Noam Chomsky, MSM, and "La La La"

[Annie]

Links at site. When the 'left' sounds like Pat Robertson, the MSM 'silence' the voice, so they can bring it out again, when it sounds more 'reasonable.'

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20532_Chomsky_Supports_Hizballah&only

Chomsky Supports Hizballah

Mainstream media have totally ignored the meeting of MIT professor Noam Chomsky with the leader of the Hizballah terrorist gang, Hassan Nasrallah, in which Chomsky called the US a “leading terrorist state.”

The only media outlet in the world (besides Drudge Report) that carried a report on this meeting is ... Al-Manar, the official Hizballah propaganda channel, banned by the US State Department: Noam Chomsky: Hezbollah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified. (Hat tip: rogue.)

Noam Chomsky the famous US intellectual anti Israel and US foreign policies visits Hezbollah’s Headquarters and meets Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the South suburb of Beirut which was once called by the former US Secretary George Shultz as the plague of the Middle East.

No doubt that the meeting was striking. Noam Chomsky the US intellectual disregards US warnings of its nationals not to go to Lebanon, and goes to southern suburbs of Beirut the stronghold of Hezbollah, which is on the US terrorist list and meets its Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. Chomsky, a wild critic of US foreign policy, said Hezbollah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified.

CHOMSKY clearly stated “I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and persuasive argument that they should be in the hands of Hezbollah (the arms) as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position reporting it correctly and it seems to me reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can’t be a deterrent.”

When asked about the US list of terrorist states, he said if the US was to stick to the clear and precise definition of terrorism in its code of laws, it would be the leading terrorist state.

Chomsky said “... I’ve been writing about terrorism for the last 25 years, always using the official US definition, but that definition is unusable, and the reason is when you use that definition it turns out not surprisingly that the US is one of the leading terrorist states. And other states become terrorist or none terrorist depending on how they are relating to US goals.”

He added “So for example Iraq was a terrorist state up until 1982. In 1982 it was removed from the list of terrorist states and the reason was that the Reagan administration wanted to provide Saddam Hussein with aid: means all equipments of mass destruction, weapons, and so on and therefore it was removed from the list of terrorist states. It was no longer a terrorist state. And the same goes for Syria. Syria has been on the terrorist list for a long time. But in 1994, I think it was that Clinton offered to remove Syria from the list of terrorist states if it agreed to US-Israeli proposals for the settlement of Golan Heights issue. Well Syria wanted to get its territory back so it stayed on the list of terrorist states.”

Chomsky said he got what he expected from this meeting: a reasoned and intelligent analysis of the Lebanese situation and the international situation. He said he learned a lot of things that he wouldn’t have known. Chomsky also visited Shatila camp of Palestinian refugees, the scene of the Israeli-led massacre in 1982.​

Curious, isn’t it, that mainstream media have imposed a complete blackout on Chomsky’s meeting with the leader of a terror gang?

 

[Avatar4321]

Can anyone explain to me why Chomsky is exalted as this intellectual giant when i read like five minutes of his work and find it incredibly stupid?

 

[dilloduck]

Can anyone explain to me why Chomsky is exalted as this intellectual giant when i read like five minutes of his work and find it incredibly stupid?

Maybe that's why the MSM felt no need to cover it.

 

[Annie]

Maybe that's why the MSM felt no need to cover it.

That's got to be it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Chomsky has made some important contributions to the field of linguistics.

Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, often considered to be the most significant contribution to the field of theoretical linguistics in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, which challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the so-called Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky

His generative grammer theory is probably the most important contribution to the field of linguistics in the last century. Its influence can be found in biology, mathematics, computer science, and psychology. I've had some experience with its implication during several of my freshman year courses. Regardless of his political beliefs, Chomsky has made serious contributions to our understanding of the world and, more importantly, ourselves.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Chomsky has made some important contributions to the field of linguistics.

Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, often considered to be the most significant contribution to the field of theoretical linguistics in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, which challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the so-called Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky

His generative grammer theory is probably the most important contribution to the field of linguistics in the last century. Its influence can be found in biology, mathematics, computer science, and psychology. I've had some experience with its implication during several of my freshman year courses. Regardless of his political beliefs, Chomsky has made serious contributions to our understanding of the world and, more importantly, ourselves.

Yes. But his politics are wacked out. He's a fraud. He's as deep as a puddle.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes. But his politics are wacked out. He's a fraud. He's as deep as a puddle.

Stop insulting puddles.

 

[Agnapostate]

To revive this, Chomsky's meeting with Nasrallah really didn't indicate an endorsement of Nasrallah's political views any more than Bush's meeting with Hu Jintao indicated an endorsement of Hu's political views, especially considering that those of Chomsky are far more developed than those of Bush.

It's also quite interesting that this perspective is portrayed as "hidden information" not revealed by the mainstream media, yet itself ignores the rather fundamental fact that Chomsky met with several leaders and activists in Lebanon utterly opposed to Hezbollah and Nasrallah.