Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 08 2002 @ 02:13 AM CDT

yea Chomsky always knows just how to say it. He should write for a greating card company. heh. No seriously though it\'s a good article though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 08 2002 @ 01:16 AM CDT

yet another fantastic peice from chomsky.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 08 2002 @ 09:53 AM CDT

Why does Chomsky not tell us that before 9-11, Sudan offered Bin Laden to the United States?

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

\"After supposedly breaking with the Saudi rulers - though we doubt the story - bin Laden went to Sudan. Soon the Sudanese tired of his presence. In March, 1996, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, then the Sudanese Minister of State for Defense, offered to extradite bin Laden either to Saudi Arabia or the United States.

\"The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist.\" (\'The Washington Post,\' 3 October 2001)

U.S. officials turned down the offer of extradition. \'The Washington Post\' article that reported this goes into some length quoting U.S. officials attempting to explain exactly why they turned down the offer. The officials are quoted explaining that the Saudis were afraid of a fundamentalist backlash if they jailed and executed bin Laden, that they resented Sudan, that the U.S. resented Sudan, that the U.S. didn\'t have sufficient evidence to put him on trial. Everything, in fact, except the simplest explanation: that bin Laden was a U.S. asset - either part of the CIA, or someone whom the CIA used. Perhaps the \'Washington Post\' writers were hinting at this explanation when they wrote:

\"And there were the beginnings of a debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.\" (\'The Washington Post,\' 3 October 2001)

Emphasis on the word \'treat\' as in \'pretend that he was.\'

In any case, the Sudanese offer of extradition was turned down.

\"[U.S. officials] said, \'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don\'t let him go to Somalia,\' Erwa, the Sudanese general, said in an interview. \'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, \'Let him.\'\"

\"On May 15, 1996, Foreign Minister Taha sent a fax to Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. His government had asked bin Laden to vacate the country, Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.\" (\'The Washington Post,\' 3 October 2001)

Note: \"We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, \'Let him.\'\"

I find this chilling.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 08 2002 @ 09:55 AM CDT

Why feels, that this article should be aptly renamed as: \"What Chomsky has not learnt.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 09 2002 @ 04:27 PM CDT

He noted that in a different essay. A single article can\'t include every minisule little detail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 09 2002 @ 05:35 PM CDT

\"Well before September 11, it was understood that, with modern technology, the rich and powerful would lose their near-monopoly of the means of violence and could expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.\"

How has modern technology caused the rich and powerful to lose their monopoly on violence? It seems to me that the main technology of the terrorism of 9/11 is ancient - the sacrifice of one\'s own life for a belief system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 09 2002 @ 02:38 AM CDT

i don\'t think there is any logic in saying \"he didn\'t include one un-related fact, therefore the article represents his intellectual short-comings.\"
if chomsky were trying to write an article on bin-laden\'s associations to the united states, he would have. also, i\'d wager money that chomsky \"has learnt\" it.
if you\'re going to try and criticize an article written by chomsky, at least come up with something relative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 10 2002 @ 04:58 PM CDT

what can i say? chomsky\'s the man! he truly makes the term \"the pen is mightier than the sword\" a valid statement! thanx for the article

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 16 2002 @ 01:13 PM CDT

... IMHO, because Chomsky - like Malatesta and other social anarchists - is simply a sensible, no-nonsense man, who values practical results (while also being positively idealistic) rather than catastrophic (and rather millennaristic) extreme-eco-B$.

Some primitivists always seem to forget that, historically, anarchism is a syncrethic form of thought, and also the \"ultimate\" logical result of Enlightenment and secularization: Chomsky may not be a revolutionary - but he\'s certainly much more of a *modern* (and even post-modern) anarchist than Zerzan & Co.!

What makes me most nervous about some primitivists (without adjectives!) - and \"anarcho-capitalists\", for that matter - is their essentially \"either-or\", \"throw away the baby with the bathwater\" attitude: not anarchistic at all, as there is no synthesis...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 15 2002 @ 12:29 PM CDT

so why do primitivists hate chomsky?

http://www.primitivism.com/chomsky.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 11 2002 @ 10:44 PM CDT

Anyone want to cross reference the themes and make some links with this article printed in the Guardian (uk):

\"Why we still don\'t get it, one year on\"
by Mark Hertsgaard -

Perhaps the greatest lie told to the American public about the September 11 terrorist attacks is that they prove the outside world hates us. President Bush, for example, has repeatedly warned Americans about foreign \"evil doers\" who loathe everything we stand for. The US media has been no less insistent, referring time and again to \"Why they hate us\", as one Newsweek story put it.

Americans are ignorant about the outside world mainly because most of what we\'re told about it is little more than semi-official propaganda. Our political leaders portray the acts of our government, military and corporations in the best possible light, and our news media do little to challenge these self-serving declarations...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,789970,00.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 06:14 PM CDT

Chomsky is a revolutionary actually, listen to his 1970 lecture at MIT called \"government in the Future\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 18 2002 @ 10:58 PM CDT

here what i dont get am s.s.I. and i change my address were live before so report it to them...and tell them that am live with my mom and dad they say they want to cut me back what up with that when the ass only give me 500 dollars a month ....that not very much money...it really piss me off what the gov try to do to me ......
please right me with your comments i love anrachy
anrachy rules all the way// for the people by the people the ways it should be !!!!!!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]