Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby gsjackson » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:25 pm

kai1275 wrote:
gsjackson wrote:
kai1275 wrote:Ha! Why bother Winston. Chomsky is a Zionist with strong ties with the establishment and far left communists and Democrat party! He cannot say anything like that. It would f**k up his Street cred....


Okay, Chomsky is probably the best known and one of the harshest critics of Israel in the world. That makes him a Zionist .......how?


What he calls self-glosses himself and what he writes and advocates is completely different. He has flip-flopped on Israel many times. If you want to read harsh critics look up guys like Stephen Walt and John Marsheimer, or even Henry Makow, perhaps the harshest, for that matter.


All three were still in school when Chomsky began a scathing critique of Israel and its relationship to the US that, as far as I can tell, has remained consistent over the decades. He more or less invented the genre. Walt and Marsheimer pull their punches somewhat because they have to maintain academic careers. It's amazing they've ventured as far as they have, but they certainly didn't wade into those waters until they had tenure.

"Chomsky is a Zionist with strong ties with the Establishment .... and Democrat Party." Wrong on all three counts. He is loathed and feared by the American establishment, and is almost always at odds with the policies of the Democratic party.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA







Postby kai1275 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:48 pm

gsjackson wrote:
kai1275 wrote:
gsjackson wrote:
kai1275 wrote:Ha! Why bother Winston. Chomsky is a Zionist with strong ties with the establishment and far left communists and Democrat party! He cannot say anything like that. It would f**k up his Street cred....


Okay, Chomsky is probably the best known and one of the harshest critics of Israel in the world. That makes him a Zionist .......how?


What he calls self-glosses himself and what he writes and advocates is completely different. He has flip-flopped on Israel many times. If you want to read harsh critics look up guys like Stephen Walt and John Marsheimer, or even Henry Makow, perhaps the harshest, for that matter.


All three were still in school when Chomsky began a scathing critique of Israel and its relationship to the US that, as far as I can tell, has remained consistent over the decades. He more or less invented the genre. Walt and Marsheimer pull their punches somewhat because they have to maintain academic careers. It's amazing they've ventured as far as they have, but they certainly didn't wade into those waters until they had tenure.

"Chomsky is a Zionist with strong ties with the Establishment .... and Democrat Party." Wrong on all three counts. He is loathed and feared by the American establishment, and is almost always at odds with the policies of the Democratic party.


He may have started off criticism of it, but he has turned almost 180 on most of that. In a way, his views were "against" Israel so that they would be a better country. Like me slamming on some HA guys here with solutions instead of complete rebuke of their shitty ways and methods. He is tooo mainstream and moderate these days and has never been a realist either. His Socialist-Anarchist views are terrible and sound childish and silly, at least to me they do. Too much idealism without anything feasible about it.

The older he gets, the more mainstream his views get. For a "hardcore" social liberal he sure does ride the fence pretty hard and talks less and less. Maybe he is old and too tired to talk, but it shows us something. Many have called him out over the years with little to no response.

Also as a former card carrying Democrat running around in certain circles, don't tell me he has no influence on Democrats. That is just either ignorant or disingenuous. Have you any idea how many knuckleheads in that party worship his ass? That is like saying there are no Ron Paul fans in the Republican party.
kai1275
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:19 pm

Postby gsjackson » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:33 pm

Look, to call Noam Chomsky a Zionist and an idealist is like saying that oceans consist of desert terrain. It is the precise opposite of what almost everyone at all familiar with him believes to be the case.

So, if you're going to make the completely revisionist and contrarian case, some specifics -- what he has said, written or done -- would really help. And if you can name one policy of the Clinton or Obama administrations that he has supported, I'll be shocked. The Democratic Party is not what a handful of lefties on the fringe believe, it is the policies put forward by elected officials. I can about guarantee you that any Chomsky enthusiasts you met in the Democratic Party either have left the party by now, or will soon.

As far as his "socialist-anarchist idealism," I've never known him to present anything like a personal ideology. He's the ultimate realist, getting down and dirty with the specifics and calling attention to them. He almost never generalizes or draws broad inferences.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby kai1275 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:02 pm

gsjackson wrote:Look, to call Noam Chomsky a Zionist and an idealist is like saying that oceans consist of desert terrain. It is the precise opposite of what almost everyone at all familiar with him believes to be the case.

So, if you're going to make the completely revisionist and contrarian case, some specifics -- what he has said, written or done -- would really help. And if you can name one policy of the Clinton or Obama administrations that he has supported, I'll be shocked. The Democratic Party is not what a handful of lefties on the fringe believe, it is the policies put forward by elected officials. I can about guarantee you that any Chomsky enthusiasts you met in the Democratic Party either have left the party by now, or will soon.

As far as his "socialist-anarchist idealism," I've never known him to present anything like a personal ideology. He's the ultimate realist, getting down and dirty with the specifics and calling attention to them. He almost never generalizes or draws broad inferences.


Noam is NOT a realist. Realists are people like Kenneth Waltz, George Kennan, Stephen Walt, Paul Craig Roberts, Henry Kissinger, guys like that. Classical, Neo-Realism, Neoclassical, etc. Noam is an Far Left Communist Anarchist. See it's fence straddling I told you about that makes him strange and inconsistent. A basic view of Left vs Right goes into fights over who gets what. That is classic political theory right there. Whenever you favor a specific group over another, how can you claim to be a realist? You cannot, because a legit realist would advocate what's best for the state itself and NOT another state, like Israel.


Even Wikipedia does not list him as one. One person thinks he would be a "Leftist Realist" Whatever the f**k that really means. Realism as a concept is typically devoid of Left or Right. It is all about the interests of the state itself, in foreign relations and domestic. Noam is a radical view type.

Left Realism[edit]
Several scholars, including Mark Laffey at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Ronald Osborn at the University of Southern California, have argued for the idea of a “Left Realismâ€￾ in IR theory with particular reference to the work of Noam Chomsky. Both Laffey and Osborn have suggested in separate articles in Review of International Studies that Chomsky’s understanding of power in the international sphere reflects the analytical assumptions of classical realism combined with a radical moral, normative or "Left" critique of the state.[8]


How would you know if those people have jumped ship yet? The few I can think of off the top of my head are still working in politics. I would have to track them down to ask them for a current update, but they are still Democrats! One of the reasons I jumped out was because I became a realist!
kai1275
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:19 pm

Postby gsjackson » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:55 pm

I'll buy left realist for Chomsky.

No one who appreciates Chomsky can in good conscience remain a Democrat. He himself is stridently opposed to both parties. As I said, in the last 13 years of Democrat presidencies, there is not a single significant policy put forward by a Democratic administration with which Chomsky has agreed.

If you're confusing Democrats with leftists, you aren't paying attention. It's not 1972 anymore. Democrats are the other half of the corporate party.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby rudder » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:53 pm

Winston wrote:That's an old video. All he does is speculate and say that there was no point for the elite to carry out 9/11.

If you want to use sheer logic, logic says that two 500,000 ton skyscrapers cannot collapse from the top at free fall speed with zero resistance straight down from fires at the top. Zero chance. It defies physics and common sense.

Chomsky is not an architect or engineer. He falsely claims that all structural engineers believe in the official 9/11 story too, as well as the collapse of the WTC from fire. That is not true. AE911Truth has 1500 architects and engineers that say the official story is impossible.

Yet Chomsky never retracted his false statement. I emailed him about it but he doesn't wish to discuss it. He said it's not important.

For some reason, 9/11 and the JFK Assassination scares Chomsky. He runs from those topics.

These professional architects and engineers from AE911Truth use sheer logic to debunk the official story in this one hour must see film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswMOB8_IAM


Would you like to modify your statement regarding AE now that you've seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
rudder
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:38 pm

Postby Moretorque » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:53 am

If it would have been nuclear radiation would have registered all over the place. Not to mention temperatures would have been well beyond Thermate levels which are around 4500 degrees. Any nuclear weapon would have created temperatures in the millions of degrees, that is what happens when nuclear fission or fusion takes place. That is why the nuclear reaction makes so much power.

The hole area under the world trade center would have been vaporized and liquified way beyond what it was no matter how small the device or sophisticated the device.

HORSE HOCKEY!
Time to Hide!
Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: books and 7 guests