Chomsky: You are being lied to about Iran

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

April 20, 2009

by Kourosh Ziabari

In this interview I talked to Prof. Chomsky about Iran, nuclear issue, Washington-Tehran relations ...

Q: Prof. Chomsky; You have reiterated several times that the majority of world countries, including the members of Non-Alignment Movement, support the nuclear dossier of Iran, yet the American neo-cons are still trumpeting their hawkish mottos. Why?

A: Not only the non-aligned movement, but also the large majority of Americans believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But almost no one in the U.S. is aware of this. That includes those who are polled, and probably think they are the only ones who hold these beliefs. Nothing is ever published about it. What appears in the media, constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term “international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but quite generally.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/0...edient-chomsky/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Chomsky is great

He's right of course.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

He is an interesting linguist, and required reading in computational theory. But he is a loon, when it comes to political commentary.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What appears in the media, constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term “international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but quite generally.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/0...edient-chomsky/

... he is a loon, when it comes to political commentary.

Are his comments, above, incorrect?

[mawilson 2,133]

... he is a loon, when it comes to political commentary.

Are his comments, above, incorrect?

Yes. No-one in the world, except Israel-haters and other loons, wants Iran to have nukes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... he is a loon, when it comes to political commentary.

Are his comments, above, incorrect?

Yes. No-one in the world, except Israel-haters and other loons, wants Iran to have nukes.

What if those people you dismissed as "Israel haters and other loons" actually comprised most of the world?

Then, of course, Chomsky would be correct.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Chomsky accused the administration of treating intelligence assessments in a political manner, saying that the administration's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program contradicted the United States' National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007.

"We don't have any new evidence; we don't like it -- so reject it," Chomsky said, characterizing the administration's actions toward the 2007 estimate.

Chomsky also accused Israel of, since the 1960s, pursuing an expansionist foreign policy, which he claimed the United States has supported.

He furthered his argument by saying Israel's policies concerning Israeli settlements in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions and that the call by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to freeze the growth of settlements endorsed illegal activity on the part of Israel.

"When Kerry says, 'Freeze the settlements,' he means continue the criminal activity," Chomsky said.

Chomsky also criticized U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and opposed the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it was a tool for America and Europe to control world energy supplies.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/chomsky-has-hars...house-1.1634230

At least he is a consistent loon. If you are left of Kerry, then you are definitely on the lunatic fringe.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So we're defining anything to the right or left of establishment figures as 'lunatic'? What if they're right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This part is interesting:

The basic point was explained very candidly by Henry Kissinger. He was asked by the Washington Post why he now claims that Iran does not need nuclear energy so it must be working on building a bomb, while in the 1970s he insisted forcefully that Iran needs nuclear energy and the U.S. must provide the Shah with the means to develop it. His answer was pure Kissinger: “They were an allied country” so they needed nuclear energy. Now they are not an ally, so they do not need nuclear energy. As for Israel, it is an ally, more accurately a client state. So they inherit from the master the right to do as they please.

The IAEA has the authority, but the US would never permit them to exercise it. The new U.S. administration has given no indication that it is any different.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if those people you dismissed as "Israel haters and other loons" actually comprised most of the world?

Then, of course, Chomsky would be correct.

Fortunately, most of the world doesn't matter.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What if those people you dismissed as "Israel haters and other loons" actually comprised most of the world?

Then, of course, Chomsky would be correct.

Fortunately, most of the world doesn't matter.

So really, it's not that Chomsky is incorrect, it's just that he's speaking for people who don't matter.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Chomsky accused the administration of treating intelligence assessments in a political manner, saying that the administration's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program contradicted the United States' National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007.

"We don't have any new evidence; we don't like it -- so reject it," Chomsky said, characterizing the administration's actions toward the 2007 estimate.

Chomsky also accused Israel of, since the 1960s, pursuing an expansionist foreign policy, which he claimed the United States has supported.

He furthered his argument by saying Israel's policies concerning Israeli settlements in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions and that the call by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to freeze the growth of settlements endorsed illegal activity on the part of Israel.

"When Kerry says, 'Freeze the settlements,' he means continue the criminal activity," Chomsky said.

Chomsky also criticized U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and opposed the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it was a tool for America and Europe to control world energy supplies.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/chomsky-has-hars...house-1.1634230

At least he is a consistent loon. If you are left of Kerry, then you are definitely on the lunatic fringe.

To be honest I think the terms "left" and "right" aren't particularly useful descriptors nowadays. Surely the only thing that would define someone as "lunatic" would be if they subscribe to some form of totalitarianism.

Chomsky is definitely left-wing, but he's not a fascist or a communist.

[scandal 951]

Are his comments, above, incorrect?

Yes, he makes an elementary fallacy. See bold text in his response:

Q: Prof. Chomsky; You have reiterated several times that the majority of world countries, including the members of Non-Alignment Movement, support the nuclear dossier of Iran, yet the American neo-cons are still trumpeting their hawkish mottos. Why?

A: Not only the non-aligned movement, but also the large majority of Americans believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But almost no one in the U.S. is aware of this. That includes those who are polled, and probably think they are the only ones who hold these beliefs. Nothing is ever published about it. What appears in the media, constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term “international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but quite generally.

Since when does "a belief that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy" equate to a right to domestic uranium enrichment?

It's been the stated policy of the US for many years, including during the Bush administration, that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear energy for domestic diversification of its energy supply. That has NEVER been in debate and is non controversial. Enrichment is controversial for obvious reasons. There has been much talk of having Iran source its enriched uranium for energy needs from Russia, which also supplies its reactor technology. Iran has refused so far to consider this option. Why?

And, for Chomsky to superficially equate these two different concepts indicates the shallowness of his thinking and knowledge on this issue.

He is a buffoon on matters of politics and international affairs, I concur.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Chomsky accused the administration of treating intelligence assessments in a political manner, saying that the administration's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program contradicted the United States' National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007.

"We don't have any new evidence; we don't like it -- so reject it," Chomsky said, characterizing the administration's actions toward the 2007 estimate.

Chomsky also accused Israel of, since the 1960s, pursuing an expansionist foreign policy, which he claimed the United States has supported.

He furthered his argument by saying Israel's policies concerning Israeli settlements in Gaza violated the Geneva Conventions and that the call by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to freeze the growth of settlements endorsed illegal activity on the part of Israel.

"When Kerry says, 'Freeze the settlements,' he means continue the criminal activity," Chomsky said.

Chomsky also criticized U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and opposed the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), saying it was a tool for America and Europe to control world energy supplies.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/chomsky-has-hars...house-1.1634230

At least he is a consistent loon. If you are left of Kerry, then you are definitely on the lunatic fringe.

To be honest I think the terms "left" and "right" aren't particularly useful descriptors nowadays. Surely the only thing that would define someone as "lunatic" would be if they subscribe to some form of totalitarianism.

Chomsky is definitely left-wing, but he's not a fascist or a communist.

So facism, and communism are the only two options for a lunatic? How about anarchism and despotism, flipsides of another coin?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I puffy heart Prof. Chomsky - he is the man (after almaty and Randomizer )