New Chomsky Interview: "U.S. Is A Leading Terrorist State"

[ripdog]

The same Admiral Poindexter who was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran-Contra scandal? The same Donald Rumsfeld who was convicted of perjury in the Iran-Contra scandal? Go ahead and snitch to these no good lying bastards.

[MMMMMM]

The potential for the abuse of such programs is one of the best arguments against them.

What disturbs me about Chomsky's approach to such matters is that he seems unconcerned, at least outwardly, about the horrific abuses comitted by the other side. For instance, how much criticism did Chomsky heap on the Viet Cong for their genocidal actions? Similarly, he doesn't see fit that one of the world's worst tyrants, Saddam Hussein, should be removed by force (if not removed, Saddam will continue the widespread murder, torture, and rape of his own citizens as a matter of policy). To what extent is Chomsky willing to condemn behaviors by other sides than ours? How about when those other sides do far, far worse than we, on sometimes larger scales?

To what extent is Chomsky willing to support active resistance against totalitarian regimes?

Chomsky also appears to fail to distinguish between varying degrees of "bad" things and between situations which are far from parallel. For instance, our involvement in South America was not entirely misplaced or bad, although some of it was. Let's bear in mind that much of this region had been involved in brutal struggles, corruption, and political murder throughout much of their history. Generally speaking, if we had stepped in to support either side, we would probably have been supporting some bloody bastards. So when he claims this as evidence of the USA being a "terrorist state", he doesn't mention this, nor does he mention it in context of supporting resistance against the expansion of the largest and most murderous "terrorist state" ever in the entire history of the world: the former USSR. I'm not saying we were justified in all respects in the region, but Chomsky leaves out important context and fails to make some significant distinctions. Along similar lines, I have argued at length (especially with Chris Alger) that distinctions of intent need to be made regarding deaths in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The deliberate targeting of innocents for murder IS worse than collateral damage, and a philosophy embracing such targeting is disgusting and morally bankrupt. Here again, Chomsky fails to differentiate.

To the extent that Chomsky informs us of our past bad deeds, in light of hopefully avoiding mistakes in the future, he is to be commended. To the extent he deliberately leaves out the other side of the equation in order to paint us as being as bad or worse than the worst regimes on the face of the Earth (past or present), his portrayal is seriously flawed and should be highly criticized. If he says there is no difference between the USA and history's worst regimes, he is simply wrong.

[brad]

thing about operation northwoods is that it was approved all the way up to and including the joint chiefs of staff.

highest military in country said yeah, lets bomb our own guys to blame it on cuba, thats a good idea.

sec defense or president himself vetoed it.

its also not too hard to figure out how bamford got ahold of it; it was leaked to him. (so i agree he could be an idiot but someone it was convenient to use)

[andyfox]

"What disturbs me about Chomsky's approach to such matters is that he seems unconcerned, at least outwardly, about the horrific abuses comitted by the other side."

I can't presume to speak for Chomsky, but for me, the horrific abuses committed by my country are much more troubling. The abuses by the Vietcong were miniscule compared to the level of violence inflicted by the United States. But even if this were not so, I would still be much more concerned when my own government abandoned it's principles.

[IrishHand]

Well said.

[MMMMMM]

But isn't this, pardon the expression, perhaps somewhat of a narcissistic outlook? It doesn't address the sufferings of the great masses under totalitarian regimes: if another government is slaughtering vast numbers of innocent people and horribly repressing their own citizens, where is the empathy for those people if our greatest concern is for the acts of our own government? In other words, a truly humanitarian outlook must consider the needless sufferings caused by bad governments or policies--all bad governments or policies--not merely our own bad policies--and it must prioritize. Stalin murdered 20 million of his own countrymen: should the West have ignored this (what the West might actually have been able to do about may be another matter)? Didn't the North Vietnamese kill over a million South Vietnamese? And what about Pol Pot?

In the last few years, Kim Jong-il ("Our Dear Leader") has systematically let about two million of his own people starve to death--all the while stockpiling two years' worth of food and fuel for his military.

To ignore such atrocities and give tyrants free rein, we have only to do what you seem almost to be suggesting: focus on our own policies since they may be more personally troubling. I do agree that we need to critically examine and perhaps change some of our own policies, but if we should focus on this nearly exclusively it would be tantamount to ignoring the sufferings of countless millions under the most brutal and tyrannical regimes today--and this approach even strikes me as overly self-absorbed, perhaps even selfish. Granted, we can't overthrow every little tinpot dictator all at once--there are just too many--but the worst tyrants days' should be numbered, and we should do what we can to help the millions suffering under totalitarianism and tyranny, to the extent that we reasonably can.

So I believe it is a pragmatic and moral mistake to focus too heavily on either our own flaws or on the flaws of others--all else being equal, we should certainly focus primarily on our own, but since all else isn't equal, and since certain regimes are far worse than our own government, focus on them must be near the top of the list as well--if we profess to be concerned about humanity as a whole, and if we empathize with the sufferings of those under despotic or totalitarian forms of government. If we are merely trying to develop our own characters or system as best we can, I would agree with you, but I feel a common bond with the whole of humanity which will not allow me to ignore the sufferings of millions which are directly brought on by totalitarian governments. If some brutal bastard is causing this type of suffering on a large scale, and if we can do something to remedy the root of the problem, then I really think we, and the rest of the free world, should take matters in hand and act.

[MMMMMM]

It's disingenous of Chomsky to say that nobody but the USA fears Saddam--it's the USA and Israel that Saddam has called for jihad against. And if the Kuwaitis don't fear him it's only because they know the USA will defend them as it was before. Saddam hasn't threatened Europe--yet--so why should they fear him.

Just once I'd like to hear Chomsky loudly condemn Castro, China, North Korea, the Palestinian terrorist organizations, etc. Just once.

[brad]

'Just once I'd like to hear Chomsky loudly condemn Castro, China, North Korea, the Palestinian terrorist organizations, etc. Just once'

ill post something because i think youve got noam mischaracterized.

anyway once i was out of work and went to a party and this other person was out of work and i started lecturing him and telling him what he should do and then someone came over and pointed out that i was unemployed too and they started laughing at me ...

[brad]

Archive | ZNet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Questions and Answers Following the Massey Lectures
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 1988

From the Necessary Illusions Page

The Massey Lectures given by Noam Chomsky were aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) from November 28 - December 2, 1988. Chomsky's book Necessary Illusions (South End Press, 1989) is based on those talks. These are some of the questions a panel of Canadian journalists asked Chomsky afterwards. Words that are unclear from the tape appear in round brackets. Editorial additions are indicated by square brackets.
DF = David Frum
PW = Peter Worthington, editor of the Ottawa Sun
KM = Kevin McMann,filmmaker and reporter
MD = Margaret Daley, CBC
Mod = Moderator
NC = Noam Chomsky


DF: You say that what the media do is to ignore certain kinds of atrocities that are committed by us and our friends and to play up enormously atrocities that are committed by them and our enemies. And you posit, in fact you say in the Massey Lectures, that there's a test of integrity and moral honesty which is to have a kind of equality of treatment of corpses.
NC: Equality of principles . . .
DF: I mean that every dead person should be in principle equal to every other dead person.
NC: That's not what I say. That's not what I say at all.
DF: I'm glad that's not what you say because that's not what you do.
NC: Of course it's not what I do. Nor would I say it. In fact I say the opposite. What I say is that we should be responsible for our own actions primarily. That's something quite different.
PW: But you were equating one (Polish) [priest] to one hundred priests.[1]
NC: I wasn't equating them. I was comparing the treatment of them. If you want my value judgement - we should give much more attention to one priest whom we've killed than to one hundred priests that they've killed. Notice that this is exactly the . . .
DF: That's not your method.
NC: That's exactly my method.
DF: Because your method is to ignore . . . not only to ignore the corpses that are created by them, but also to ignore the corpses that are created by neither side but are irrelevant to you're ideological . . .
NC: That's totally untrue.
DF: Well, let me give you an example.
NC: Okay.
DF: One of your own causes that you take very seriously is the cause of the Palestinians, and a Palestinian corpse weighs very heavily on your conscience, and yet a Kurdish corpse does not.
NC: That's not true at all. I've been involved with Kurdish support groups for years. That's absolutely false. I mean, just ask the people who are involved - you know, they come to me, I sign their petitions, and so on and so forth. In fact if you look at the things we've written . . . I mean, I'm not Amnesty International, I can't do everything, I'm a single person. But if you read, say, take a look, say, at the book that Edward Herman and I wrote on this topic. We wrote a book about this in 1979 [2]. In it we discuss three kinds of atrocities, not two, three kinds of bloodbaths. What we called benign bloodbaths - which nobody cares about, constructive bloodbaths - which are the ones we [the U.S.] like, and nefarious bloodbaths which are the ones that the bad guys do. Constructive bloodbaths are things like the Indonesian massacres, which we [the U.S.] supported. Nefarious bloodbaths are like, Pol Pot. But we also discussed ones that nobody cares about, like Burundi. For example, we have probably the only discussion in the literature, I guess, of the massacres that were going on in Burundi at that time. We probably have the only discussion in the literature, at least that I know of, of the massacres that were going on in Burma. Now, in fact, not only is what you say not true, but it's the opposite of the truth. We went out of our way to find the kinds of bloodbaths that are just ignored because nobody cares about them. Now again, let me stress, I'm not Amnesty International. I do not have the ludicrous egotism which makes me the arbiter of all atrocities over the world. I'm not trying to give an A to this country and a B minus to this country and so on. The principle that I think we ought to follow is not the one that you stated, it's the principle we rightly expect Soviet dissidents to follow. What principle do we expect Sakharov to follow, let's say? What lets us decide whether Sakharov's a moral person? I think he is. Sakharov does not treat every atrocity as identical. He has nothing to say about American atrocities. When he's asked, he says I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them. What he talks about are Soviet atrocities, and that's right. Because those are the ones that he's responsible for. You know, it's a very simple ethical point - you're responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. You're not responsible for the predictable consequences of someone else's actions. Now, we understand this when we're talking about dissidents in the Soviet Union but we refuse to understand it when we're talking about ourselves for very good reasons. Commissars in the Soviet Union don't understand it about dissidents. Commissars in the Soviet Union attack Sakharov and other dissidents because they don't talk about American crimes. We understand exactly why that's just hypocrisy and cynicism when they do it and we should understand the same when we do it. Now the fact of the matter is that I spend a fair amount of effort on crimes of official enemies. There are a fair number of people in the United States and Canada, from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, who are there because of my personal activities on their behalf. But I don't take any pride in that particularly, I just do it because I'm interested in it. The most important thing, for me and for you, is to think about the consequences of your actions. What can you affect? Those are the ones you primarily ought to be concerned about. Of course every corpse is a corpse, but there are some you can affect and there are others you can't do much about. You know, like I can be worried about things that happened in the eighteenth century but I can't do much about them.
PW: It strikes me that you're a living refutation of the thesis that you can't get a certain point of view across. You've hardly been a shrinking violet over the past thirty years but it seems to me the effect of your theme has been virtually zilch except for a few of the elite who support it. It seems to me the great mass of the American people, the workers, either don't understand it or reject it totally.
NC: First of all I don't agree with your factual assumption. I think it's exactly the opposite of the truth.
PW: What factual assumption?
NC: What you said is . . . you said correctly that I haven't been a shrinking violet and you said the effect has been zilch except for elements of the elite. The facts are exactly the opposite. The effects on the elite are zero and the effects on the general population are not insignificant. Not just me. I'm one person. There are a lot of people doing this sort of thing and we have much greater outreach than we've ever had before. Not through the elite media. As I said before, I travel around the country all the time. I can't accept a fraction of the invitations that come. I'm booked up solidly two years in advance and I probably don't accept . . . maybe 10% of the invitations that come in.

[brad]

i remember listening to him (on audio recordings) and a lot of times hell say things like 'and n. korea is a horrible dicatatorship, tremendous human rights abuse, people are basically slaves, or serfs'

anyway ill post that when i find it or whatever. its just that its not his main point, that kind of stuff is a given.