It is kind of amazing that more people don't seem to recognize the hypocrisy that under scores the US rhetoric on terror. As you point out, terrorism by the United States is not a new thing, its been going on for hundreds of years. The terrorism and even genocide done to the native American population really couldn't be more obvious and yet somehow its rarely acknowledged.
I must give my respect to that black lady. She gives the best introduction: In 7 seconds and she says it all. We know who Noam Chomsky is and what he does. Perfect! Some people have read that I've been condemning the introduction in open lectures at universities and organisations for quite some time now because the introduction is too long and narcissistic. Unappreciated academics take advantage of the camera and the new audience with their academic jargon. I am utterly against those professors, assistants, and chairpeople who give long and unnecessary introductions. We, the people, are listening to the lecture because we are interested in what the speaker has to say about current affairs, not the boring academics.
I agree, the audio is particularly good, especially for a Chomsky talk. The prevalence for poor audio is I suspect due to the job being given to a some student working in the audio visual department of a university to pay off their student loans. I had worked on repairing the sound of another talk on this channel, "How To Confront The Empire". Originally you couldn't really stand to listen to it there was so much static. Its not really that great now but its bearable.
***** well , thats what intros are for - to introduce . But everyone there (and everywhere else) knows who he his , and the people who introduce him are really just going for the 15 mins of fame .
***** youd keep the intro going ? If I had a chance Id ask him about his religious beliefs or something unrelated to politics . except maybe northern ireland , he doesnt mention that much
***** ehhh......strange description . Northern Ireland now has self determination and Power Sharing between Republicans and Loyalists . ( for the first time in history) That was achieved through armed resistance . The First Minister is usually a Loyalist , and the Deputy first Minister is usually Sinn Fein Theres a type of Democracy , with Palestine style "Peace-walls" separating each community
This inspirational speech only underpins the need for those who do choose to become political leaders, to be aware how at every moment they can take a better decision which aligns with the values that unite humanity. If they have innate mental wellbeing and a good quality of life, they will perform perfectly. To detoxify the political process, they should have an ethics adviser by their side who supports them, intimate knowledge of their Constitution, of international law, of human rights, of religious concepts; experience with different cultures.
The video was digitized from an old VHS tape source, so I guess that's what your referring to. Sometimes VHS holds up but often its image deteriorates over time in ways that are difficult or impossible to fix. You should have seen it before the image correction work was done.
Gripping, delightful, sickening, frightening, enlightening, nauseating. Every time I think I'm joining the ranks of the educated, the intellectual, that damned Chomsky, comes along an places me squarely back in the phylum of flat worms.Please live a long long time, I'm a masochist and never get tired of being made to feel stupid by Noam. Damned pain in ass geniuses, always pushing reality on us.
The reason why people refuse to admit that EVERY act of force (which is not done in self-defense, against someone who instigated force) is an act of terrorism, is because terrorism is evil, and so government must be evil, because government does almost nothing but perpetuate large scale force. The only government that could be moral under these terms is a libertarian government which did absolutely nothing except provide a police force to help victims of force, and an army to defend from those who initiate force from abroad. It cannot force anyone to pay taxes to support even these massively limited activities, since force is terrorism; though it can refuse to provide police protection to anyone who does not agree to pay. All other public interests, like building roads etc. would continue to prosper by the exact same public, except without any force (government), the same way the cars were built to drive on them: by private entrepreneur's.
Basically yes, getting the PBS video link to work is a little tricky but its a documentary on the PBS site called "The War of 1812". I had originally misunderstood his reference as being about the revolutionary war of 1776 but that was a mistake on my part. Interestingly though, in terms of US acts of terror, the 1776 war looks kind of worse than the 1812 war.
Has someone posted on Wikipedia a comphrehensive timeline of [broadly defined] terrorism showing the relevant facts [killed, injured, the potentially responsible parties, and response by criminal and military justice authorities]?
I couldn't find anything about Henson through Google. However, I did find some interesting things related to what you're saying. Samuel Adams, brother of John Adams, a founding father of the American revolution, could easily be described as a terrorist. Here's a sample "To get the absolute power he wanted, Adams employed every terrorist tactic he could think of or copy from others - blackmail, intimidation, house burnings, barn burnings, beating, tarring and feathering, premeditated riots, etc.
We (Americans) really need is an to form our own opinions ;instead the media forms our opinions , and we don't even realize it.thats why Noam is rarely herd on tv
“If you have a choice of what country to live in, and you’re interested in making it a better world, the best place to live is the United States.” -- Noam Chomsky, October, 2015
the United State is fucking overrated racism everywhere , essentially state run by police power. outside of your home you have no Freedom or whatsoever. you always live in fear you don't know when you going to get shot you don't even trust your neighbor fuck this hell-hole shit
+Ptofound E go live anywhere else. Name a better country. They all are imperfect, some more than others, but by comparison this country is not that bad.
Chomsky says that (I'm paraphrasing now) in order to no be a hypocrit what one accepts as OK to do on the part of oneself or one's group one must be OK for others too, and what is not OK, etc. That only makes sense within a framework of rule of law according to more or less the same laws. For such a framework to exist all the people within the framework must have at one time fought to create the framework of their wishes, and then when those oppose are silenced, perhaps by death on the battlefield, the rule of laws can come into effect. But such a condition will always remain fragile to any significantly sized group that has other rules and laws in mind if they are willing to fight for their rules and laws using means that have been made unlawful by the group that had fought to create them. So then the fight starts again, and when the challenger resorts to tactics that are unlawful in the champs realm, then by the measure of hypocrisy turned on the challenger, the champ can take up the tactics of the challenger and even other tactics that had been declared unlawful in the champ's realm. When the gloves come off the charges of "hypocrit" no longer make any sense, as they only have sense within the laws of a given realm where the laws can be enforced on members of the group by other members of the group. This is so basic I don't know why Chomsky and others just don't get it.
Why, as you say, would all parties have to have fought for the rule of law? Is not International Law and other international bodies of moral consensus enough rule of law?
David Faubion HI! Rule of Law means just that. Rule requires power to enforce the laws. There are no "international" bodies with any power. For instance, note how when conflicts spark up around the world the UN calls for peace and dialog, but the groups in conflict just ignore the UN cuz they know the UN has basically no power. There is no one set of rules called "international law". The rules that govern how nations interact with each other are established by treaties between those nations, and either side can negate the treaty at will cuz there is no other international super body to enforce those treaties. In some cases, like with trade treaties, such treaties are often agreements between a group of several nations, sometimes as many as 20 or 30, and sanctions against transgressors are part of those kinds of multilateral treaties. So if nation A violates terms of the treaty in it's dealings with nation B, then nations C through M are required to all join in sanctions against nation A. But if nation A is big an powerful, like China, nations D through H may break from the herd and sign separate treaties with nation A - they just do whatever they think is in their best interest, without regard to the interests of the "people" of the world. Such is economic fighting, or war, and has been going on since as long as there have been nations and treaties. All national boundaries are the result of war and few if any moral laws were respected in the formation of those nations.Timor Leste is now a nation, after fighting to become a nation, having previously been part of Indonesia. The Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka fought a bloody, no holds barred 30 year war against the Sinhala in hopes of establishing Tamil Eelam, but they lost the war and so the entire Island is still Sri Lanka and under the control of the Sinhala, who origially gained control of the Island a very long time ago in a big war against Hindus. Every Hindu was killed or banished, and none returned until brought by the British in the 18th century to work on tea plantations. Rule of Law means rule according to the rules perferred by the victor. There are no universal morally correct rules of law written by Mother Earth. In fact from Mother Earth we get the Law of the Jungle. I refer you to the Guns 'n Roses song "Welcome to the Jungle". How have you managed to grow up so naive? I think that you are not a good student of history and different cultures. In India it is against the law to maim, kill or eat certain breeds of cow (but not a buffalo or imported breeds). Yet it is legal in India to pee or poo wherever one wishes. You might not agree with such laws, but the Indians don't care what you think as they have a very large military and they really don't like foreigners interfering with their laws and culture.
rh001YT 'That only makes sense within a framework of rule of law...' Since when? Rule of law has nothing to do with hypocrisy. If I say it's wrong for people to have premarital sex, yet I do so repeatedly when it suits me, then I'm a hypocrite. Now, since premarital sex is not illegal (not here anyway), then my hypocrisy would exist outside the rule of law. Now, where rule of law, or international law is concerned we - The U.S. - are signatures to an agreed upon set of laws that we said are important to be followed. We agreed to set up a world court which would deliberate and make rulings as to whether this or that state was in violation of the law. But, our history has been, that when it suits us we violate those laws. Why? Because we can, who's gonna stop us? That makes us not only hypocrites (because we flaunt the laws we said are necessary) but rouges and thugs. Now, another set of thugs violates those same laws and we claim with righteous indignation that in order to put those thugs in check we must 'take off the gloves' and violate the laws (we love) with even more ferocity. A world run like this can only end in a smoking heap. Which is why we instituted international laws to begin with. Now, either we respect and follow the laws that we helped write, and claimed them to be something for which to fight, or we don't because we're powerful enough to get away with it. In which case we're not only hypocrites and lairs, but thugs and an international menace.
Hi! thanks for the reply. I think you lack a sense of real politik. The ruling group, always the strongest group, establishes the laws and enforces them, because they can. But there have been and I assume will be challengers. If the challenger wins, then a new set of laws will be introduced to their liking. The strongest group, which could be a coalition, is not subject to the laws they impose, except to the extent that most of the members of the group prefer enforcement upon their group for protection against each other. And in cases where the strong rule by coalition, self imposition of the laws they create is usually necessary to hold the coalition together. The American Revolution is a good example. It was only about 1/3 of the colonists that supported rebellion against Mother England. They were rogues. At the time, rules imposed by England, such as the rules of combat, wherein armies squared off against each other, each side in uniform, were violated by the colonial rouges, who took to combat in civilian clothing, ambushes and sniping. To counter that breakdown of law the English resorted to extreme measures, such as the event, I forget the name right now, where they burned alive a whole bunch of colonists in a church. Well I'm sure you know the combat story of the American Revolution. At times, one side or the other seemed to be winning, but then the rogue colonists scored a major move on the chessboard by allying with the French, who broke rules that had been established among the colonial powers of Europe and intervened on behalf of the rogues in the English colonies in America. Once the colonists won, ambushes and sniping were forbidden by law. As it turns out, the new government of the USA was able to enforce no ambush and no sniping laws, and even today while such does occur from time to time the government is powerful enough to keep such events tamped down. But then there was the civil war, during which both sides took off the gloves, proving again my assertion that those who make the laws may abridge them, and will abridge them when abiding by them means defeat. BTW, in the civil war, when the two sides did fight according to the rules, as with the Battle of Gettysburg, the loss of life was extraordinary, as was the number who lived but were permanently maimed. Some clever cheating of some kind might have ended that battle quickly and prevented enormous suffering and death. Then there was "How the West was Won". In the ungovernable Western territories, where rule of law was weak, marshals and vigilante groups, employing any and all tactics, including kangaroo courts and summary executions, eventually won. Then the US Calvary came in, typically after the locals had finished off most of the rule breakers, and established more firmly the rule of law coming from Washington D.C. So every group that comes to power is, in your words, hypocritical, as they impose rules that they themselves had violated in their quest for power. This process does not inevitably lead to a world that is a smoking heap. The world would be a smoking heap if not ruled by the strong. Pakistan is a good example....lacking strong rule over the North Western provinces resulted in frequent smoking heaps, including spillover into Afghanistan. Only in the last few years, and particularly in the last year, has Pakistan flexed it's muscle and routed most of the rebels, basically conducting warfare against it's own people. If Pakistan can enforce it's rules of law in the NW provinces in years to come the result will be an increase in properity in the region which is agriculturally viable. Dams and irrigation canals will be needed and can only be installed when the area is pacified. China is another good example. Before Mao, China was a bunch of smoking heaps. After Mao all the internal wars were ended. Though Maoist communism eventually failed, it did succeed in bring peace to the people of China at long last. From that peace China has become the #2 economy in the world. Now, we assume many of the Maoist revolutionaries, and their offspring, have converted to capitalism, which according to you makes them hypocrits. Everyone is a hypocrit, though for reasons of gain some may claim they are not. Life is a bit complicated. Parents will find rule over their children easier if they are not seen to be hypocrits. For instance a parent that smokes tobacco may nonetheless impose a rule that the children/teens may not smoke. Do you think it better that they allow their children to smoke? Now it may be harder for such a parent to enforce that rule compared to a parent that does not smoke. Anyway, when the children grow up and gain some life experience then they understand that the smoking parent's no-smoking rule was a good one, and they likely don't demonize the parent, cuz as adults they tend to understand more, and recognize those instances where they themselves are hypocrits. Your ancestors were apes. Your opposable thumb and advanced cognitive abilities make you (us) a good toolmaker and systems creator. But morally we are still apes. It was the change in the position of the thumb, walking upright which freed the hands, and changes in cognitive ability that define the difference between humans and apes. These are all physical changes - the physical changes explain the difference. But there has been no physical change in whatever you think is the source of morality.
Hi! Well, first of all, some behavior noted in one troop of babboons is not significant enough to extrapolate widely. From one instance we can suspect it might be an exception. Mao was not reacting to European or American meddling - such was insignificant in China compared to the ongoing ages old fueding of Chinese royal families and warlords. Historically Mongolia was the biggest outside thorn in the side of China, and Japan had only recently become a problem. Within each Chinese kingdom there was rule of law and peace, more or less, until a new war broke out. Mao did succeed in toppling all the royal families, replacing it with his own tyranny, which he ran from the great palace in Beijing. Mao was not Mr. Nice guy, and China would have been better off run by Kai Shek - prosperity would have come much sooner and there would have been more freedoms. After Pakistan was formed out of extreme violence bordering on genocide, she sided with the USA and received a lot of foreign aid as well as export rights to US markets. when I was a child I noticed that my underwear and socks were made in Pakistan. Later, in my 20s I noticed a lot of integrated circuits were made in Pakistan. Pakistan created it's own terrorist problem by encouraging terrorist groups to attack India in order to win back Indian Kashmir. They still do that today. As far as the Arab oil producers go, many of those states have enjoyed peace and prosperity aligned with the USA and Europe. Where this is strong rule the people do not always suffer. If strong rule includes strong national defenses there is peace. I did say that ruling groups are challenged from time to time. The challenger sometimes wins, but then it's new boss, same as the old boss, more or less. Democracy has given the people some power - but few democracies formed without huge bloodshed - in other words, the challenger did win a least to some degree. But wherever democracy has been established, along with the usual freedoms that go with it, the strong are still able to gain power, typically economically, and then politically as they can more or less, sometimes, buy off the elected representative of the people. Unlike the one babboon group you mentioned, humans have not undergone any similar change. Because humans are so bad, for there to be any peace at all the strong must impose rule of law - the laws they prefer. So Mao, the people's champion, appointed himself king and lived in the royal palace. That little fact was well pointed out in Animal Farm. The people don't have the power - never did, never will, as they are not qualified to rule. If the rulers disappeared one day there would be unimaginable chaos. Every system would break down, looting and killing would be rampant and vigilante groups would form to protect their own. We saw that in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, where the police went missing and Korean shopkeepers shot at looters from the roofs of their stores. And the majority of the looters were Latinos, mostly Mexicans I assume, who have no particular love for African Americans, but took advantage of the situation to help themselves. If the "people" all stopped working one day there would also be chaos. For some time now businesses have practiced JIT - Just In Time delivery - which means among other things that cities do not have more than a couple days of perishable foods on hand, and likely only 3 to 4 days of non-perishables. The people can't just stop working if they also want to live. But that has always been the case, nothing new there. The Mormons in Utah could survive either scenario of chaos, cuz they all put 1 year's worth of food in their storerooms. I really can't imagine "the people" doing same, though they could. If you want to know something about the character of "the people" just take stock of the tv shows they watch and the pop stars they adore! Also take note of their obesity. A nice look at how power works is the fact that prior to last year there was an active arrest warrant in the USA for Nahredra Modi conerning something related to the Gujarat riots in India in the 1980s. But as soon as Modi became PM of India the warrant was cancelled by the Democrats, who some think are the "people's party", standing arm in arm with all the poor people of the world! It is interesting that PM Modi was raised poor - in fact he was a child laborer! New boss, same as the old boss. Modi is very gung ho on capitalism and increasing economic and scientific ties with the USA. India does have a "people's party" the Aam Admi party, but they don't get many votes. I think more should vote for them, because they're tough on corruption, but they don't. The people of India are quite corrupt themselves - see Jaylalitha, a champion of "the people"! In her you see humanity being human. In the ongoing huge Vyapam scam in India the guilty stretch all the way from Chief Ministers (governors) down to the students themselves who betrayed their fellow students for a few coin. You're hopeful opinion of humanity is way off the mark - evidence contradicts you.
Rogers' Rangers was established in 1751[11] by Major Robert Rogers, who organized nine Ranger companies in the American colonies. These early American light infantry units, organized during the French and Indian War, were actively called "Rangers" and are often considered to be the spiritual birthplace of the modern Army Rangers. Major Rogers is credited with, among other things, drafting the first set of standard orders for rangers. They even resorted to cannibalism while chasing Indians.
I wasn't aware of Rogers Rangers, in looking them up it does look like they played a significant role in the Native American genocide. Interestingly they started as a British force and then later became aligned with the patriots. The accounts of cannibalism however appear to be due to direr circumstances of facing starvation as apposed to a deliberate tactic of terrorism. Even so though, it seems clear they were in the business of terrorizing the Indian population.
You'll need to hold your breath for about 32 minutes on the lead up to this talk, its not the worst intro and though I kind of suspect sarcasm you'll find the full intro here: watch?v=Mccf6cYlixk
as an Afghan I should say: 1. Taliban are not the people of Afghanistan as Mr Chomsky says. 2. during and after the 9/11, the official government of Afghanistan was still the northern alliance as it was holding the Afghan Seat in the UN. 3. the majority of Afghans were fighting against the Taliban. 4. Taliban were in alliance with international terrorists who were terrorizing the Afghan people. 5. the absolute majority of the Afghans supported and still are supporting the overthrow of the Taliban and are still fighting the Taliban. 6. it kills me when people like Chomsky are using the Afghan people and our plight to the benefit of their ideology. please do not do it, particularly when do not know anything serious about the country and the people.
Thank you for that clarification. I wonder how Professor Chomski would reply to your insider knowledge. Could you please link us to the point in this speech where Chomsky makes the apparent error? (e.g., 25:20.)
All of your points either have nothing to do with what Chomsky said or are completely false, please do show us where he specifically says that since he has said the opposite in many other talks, for decades.
AzaadHamisha2016 Shoreshi You’re a liar. I’m an Afghan and just visited Afghanistan a few weeks ago for 2 months. The Afghans HATE the government (your beloved warlords from Northern Alliance control it). Yes, they hate the Afghan government more than the Taliban and Isis together. This is what the people in KABUL said, the capital which is controlled by Afghan soldiers and police. What about rural people who LOVE the Taliban and Isis and support them. Why? Because your beloved warlords (mainly Northern Alliance) destroyed and still destroy the country through corruption and oppression. This is the reality. You’re a shill for American propaganda and your fake “victory” in Afghanistan. No wonder the majority of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. You can’t fight facts. You’re either deluded or a war criminal loving piece of shit.
oh the ways that people find to justify the things they wanted to do anyway- defend the fuel sources for your war machines, nothing else matters- where will it all end? bless this voice of sanity!
Since even the commissioners of the official 9/11 report have refuted its findings years ago, it is stunning that Chomsky, Hedges, and Goodman, not to mention Taibbi, Klein, Watts, Gore, ........ is somebody applying pressure and where?
he only deals with factual information he can account for academically. He would be taking a big risk if he was to begin questioing 911. He was heavily pressed on it in a 3hr interview you can find here. He just thinks it is too much for the white house to commit such a crime against its own people. id say he is probably half afraid of it and just avoiding it for various reasons. afterall, is it really his responsibility to take on the establsihment with this, when in fact they should have a process of their own for discovering such crimes.
I still agree with Chomsky at times but more often now with broad qualifiers. When I was a young student I thought very highly of him. Many years later, and with a lot of real world experience, I see how flawed, biased and factually inaccurate he often is. Makes me realize how far I have come since being a young, impressionable and naïve student so many years ago. It is readily apparent that Chomsky is a product of an extremely sheltered academic life. Much that he professes to believe in is unrealistic in theory and absurd in concept. A brilliant mind that often draws flawed conclusions.
37:00, 39:00 43:00 58:15 1:16:00 minutes very important. The title is very inspiring.
Very informative! We need thoughts like this on a continuous basis.
It is kind of amazing that more people don't seem to recognize the hypocrisy that under scores the US rhetoric on terror. As you point out, terrorism by the United States is not a new thing, its been going on for hundreds of years. The terrorism and even genocide done to the native American population really couldn't be more obvious and yet somehow its rarely acknowledged.
I must give my respect to that black lady. She gives the best introduction: In 7 seconds and she says it all. We know who Noam Chomsky is and what he does. Perfect!
Some people have read that I've been condemning the introduction in open lectures at universities and organisations for quite some time now because the introduction is too long and narcissistic. Unappreciated academics take advantage of the camera and the new audience with their academic jargon.
I am utterly against those professors, assistants, and chairpeople who give long and unnecessary introductions.
We, the people, are listening to the lecture because we are interested in what the speaker has to say about current affairs, not the boring academics.
I'm gonna have to watch this again
i've just read, much better i think
@@giovanicobhc Could u give me the link maybe in order to read it?
And thank you.
4:00 us war on terror started w Reagan (20 yrs before 9/11$
I agree, the audio is particularly good, especially for a Chomsky talk. The prevalence for poor audio is I suspect due to the job being given to a some student working in the audio visual department of a university to pay off their student loans. I had worked on repairing the sound of another talk on this channel, "How To Confront The Empire". Originally you couldn't really stand to listen to it there was so much static. Its not really that great now but its bearable.
Thank you for making me slightly less stupid. In my short life like to know truth.
Those who sincerely seek the truth shall find it
Truth won’t be found with the Marxist
Thank god for the short Intro
*****
well , thats what intros are for - to introduce .
But everyone there (and everywhere else) knows who he his , and the people who introduce him are really just going for the 15 mins of fame .
*****
youd keep the intro going ?
If I had a chance Id ask him about his religious beliefs or something unrelated to politics .
except maybe northern ireland , he doesnt mention that much
*****
ehhh......strange description .
Northern Ireland now has self determination and Power Sharing between Republicans and Loyalists .
( for the first time in history)
That was achieved through armed resistance .
The First Minister is usually a Loyalist , and the Deputy first Minister is usually Sinn Fein
Theres a type of Democracy , with Palestine style "Peace-walls" separating each community
This is definitely one of my favorites.
This inspirational speech only underpins the need for those who do choose to become political leaders, to be aware how at every moment they can take a better decision which aligns with the values that unite humanity. If they have innate mental wellbeing and a good quality of life, they will perform perfectly.
To detoxify the political process, they should have an ethics adviser by their side who supports them, intimate knowledge of their Constitution, of international law, of human rights, of religious concepts; experience with different cultures.
The video was digitized from an old VHS tape source, so I guess that's what your referring to. Sometimes VHS holds up but often its image deteriorates over time in ways that are difficult or impossible to fix. You should have seen it before the image correction work was done.
Gripping, delightful, sickening, frightening, enlightening, nauseating. Every time I think I'm joining the ranks of the educated, the intellectual, that damned Chomsky, comes along an places me squarely back in the phylum of flat worms.Please live a long long time, I'm a masochist and never get tired of being made to feel stupid by Noam. Damned pain in ass geniuses, always pushing reality on us.
Love it! I feel ya.
You're pretty pathetic. Best, Noam.
Sickening and nauseating he is, this evil piece of shit. That' s for sure.
The reason why people refuse to admit that EVERY act of force (which is not done in self-defense, against someone who instigated force) is an act of terrorism, is because terrorism is evil, and so government must be evil, because government does almost nothing but perpetuate large scale force. The only government that could be moral under these terms is a libertarian government which did absolutely nothing except provide a police force to help victims of force, and an army to defend from those who initiate force from abroad. It cannot force anyone to pay taxes to support even these massively limited activities, since force is terrorism; though it can refuse to provide police protection to anyone who does not agree to pay.
All other public interests, like building roads etc. would continue to prosper by the exact same public, except without any force (government), the same way the cars were built to drive on them: by private entrepreneur's.
a short introduction? my god how far we have fallen. introductions are meant to last 5 to 15 minutes while the audience waits with held breath
Basically yes, getting the PBS video link to work is a little tricky but its a documentary on the PBS site called "The War of 1812". I had originally misunderstood his reference as being about the revolutionary war of 1776 but that was a mistake on my part. Interestingly though, in terms of US acts of terror, the 1776 war looks kind of worse than the 1812 war.
Thanks
Has someone posted on Wikipedia a comphrehensive timeline of [broadly defined] terrorism showing the relevant facts [killed, injured, the potentially responsible parties, and response by criminal and military justice authorities]?
I couldn't find anything about Henson through Google. However, I did find some interesting things related to what you're saying. Samuel Adams, brother of John Adams, a founding father of the American revolution, could easily be described as a terrorist. Here's a sample
"To get the absolute power he wanted, Adams employed every terrorist tactic he could think of or copy from others - blackmail, intimidation, house burnings, barn burnings, beating, tarring and feathering, premeditated riots, etc.
'Higher priorities than human rights' ..whoever says such things...either get rid of them, or run.
6:00 same people worked w Reagan as w Bush war on terror (Cheney etc)
What The American PEOPLE. .Need To Hear....but Refuse To Believe...
We (Americans) really need is an to form our own opinions ;instead the media forms our opinions , and we don't even realize it.thats why Noam is rarely herd on tv
President Trump lol
George Carlin said comparable things, with humour, but when someone doesn't want to hear...
Don't knock hypocrisy it is the only thing that separates us from the animal kingdom.
***** No its not its vague and unspecific ! If you want to see a comment worth reading look no further than above at AMSRWhisperLight 's comment !
+Roland Hawken ....that was NOt intelligent at all. What an OFFENSE to the animal kingdom.
+tiberio135 Depends which way you look at it , I thought I was paying them a compliment.
At least the audio is great!! So many Noam vids have shite sound.
THANK YOU MR. CHOMSKY
“If you have a choice of what country to live in, and you’re interested in making it a better world, the best place to live is the United States.” -- Noam Chomsky, October, 2015
the United State is fucking overrated racism everywhere , essentially state run by police power. outside of your home you have no Freedom or whatsoever. you always live in fear you don't know when you going to get shot you don't even trust your neighbor fuck this hell-hole shit
+Ptofound E go live anywhere else. Name a better country. They all are imperfect, some more than others, but by comparison this country is not that bad.
Canada is the shit if you're white and privileged.
Ptofound E Bitter much?
@@ptofounde3215 Uh, okay............😂
Chomsky says that (I'm paraphrasing now) in order to no be a hypocrit what one accepts as OK to do on the part of oneself or one's group one must be OK for others too, and what is not OK, etc. That only makes sense within a framework of rule of law according to more or less the same laws. For such a framework to exist all the people within the framework must have at one time fought to create the framework of their wishes, and then when those oppose are silenced, perhaps by death on the battlefield, the rule of laws can come into effect. But such a condition will always remain fragile to any significantly sized group that has other rules and laws in mind if they are willing to fight for their rules and laws using means that have been made unlawful by the group that had fought to create them. So then the fight starts again, and when the challenger resorts to tactics that are unlawful in the champs realm, then by the measure of hypocrisy turned on the challenger, the champ can take up the tactics of the challenger and even other tactics that had been declared unlawful in the champ's realm. When the gloves come off the charges of "hypocrit" no longer make any sense, as they only have sense within the laws of a given realm where the laws can be enforced on members of the group by other members of the group. This is so basic I don't know why Chomsky and others just don't get it.
Why, as you say, would all parties have to have fought for the rule of law? Is not International Law and other international bodies of moral consensus enough rule of law?
David Faubion HI! Rule of Law means just that. Rule requires power to enforce the laws. There are no "international" bodies with any power. For instance, note how when conflicts spark up around the world the UN calls for peace and dialog, but the groups in conflict just ignore the UN cuz they know the UN has basically no power.
There is no one set of rules called "international law". The rules that govern how nations interact with each other are established by treaties between those nations, and either side can negate the treaty at will cuz there is no other international super body to enforce those treaties.
In some cases, like with trade treaties, such treaties are often agreements between a group of several nations, sometimes as many as 20 or 30, and sanctions against transgressors are part of those kinds of multilateral treaties. So if nation A violates terms of the treaty in it's dealings with nation B, then nations C through M are required to all join in sanctions against nation A. But if nation A is big an powerful, like China, nations D through H may break from the herd and sign separate treaties with nation A - they just do whatever they think is in their best interest, without regard to the interests of the "people" of the world.
Such is economic fighting, or war, and has been going on since as long as there have been nations and treaties.
All national boundaries are the result of war and few if any moral laws were respected in the formation of those nations.Timor Leste is now a nation, after fighting to become a nation, having previously been part of Indonesia. The Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka fought a bloody, no holds barred 30 year war against the Sinhala in hopes of establishing Tamil Eelam, but they lost the war and so the entire Island is still Sri Lanka and under the control of the Sinhala, who origially gained control of the Island a very long time ago in a big war against Hindus. Every Hindu was killed or banished, and none returned until brought by the British in the 18th century to work on tea plantations.
Rule of Law means rule according to the rules perferred by the victor. There are no universal morally correct rules of law written by Mother Earth. In fact from Mother Earth we get the Law of the Jungle. I refer you to the Guns 'n Roses song "Welcome to the Jungle".
How have you managed to grow up so naive? I think that you are not a good student of history and different cultures. In India it is against the law to maim, kill or eat certain breeds of cow (but not a buffalo or imported breeds). Yet it is legal in India to pee or poo wherever one wishes. You might not agree with such laws, but the Indians don't care what you think as they have a very large military and they really don't like foreigners interfering with their laws and culture.
rh001YT 'That only makes sense within a framework of rule of law...' Since when?
Rule of law has nothing to do with hypocrisy. If I say it's wrong for people to have premarital sex, yet I do so repeatedly when it suits me, then I'm a hypocrite. Now, since premarital sex is not illegal (not here anyway), then my hypocrisy would exist outside the rule of law.
Now, where rule of law, or international law is concerned we - The U.S. - are signatures to an agreed upon set of laws that we said are important to be followed. We agreed to set up a world court which would deliberate and make rulings as to whether this or that state was in violation of the law. But, our history has been, that when it suits us we violate those laws. Why? Because we can, who's gonna stop us? That makes us not only hypocrites (because we flaunt the laws we said are necessary) but rouges and thugs. Now, another set of thugs violates those same laws and we claim with righteous indignation that in order to put those thugs in check we must 'take off the gloves' and violate the laws (we love) with even more ferocity. A world run like this can only end in a smoking heap. Which is why we instituted international laws to begin with.
Now, either we respect and follow the laws that we helped write, and claimed them to be something for which to fight, or we don't because we're powerful enough to get away with it. In which case we're not only hypocrites and lairs, but thugs and an international menace.
Hi! thanks for the reply. I think you lack a sense of real politik. The ruling group, always the strongest group, establishes the laws and enforces them, because they can. But there have been and I assume will be challengers. If the challenger wins, then a new set of laws will be introduced to their liking. The strongest group, which could be a coalition, is not subject to the laws they impose, except to the extent that most of the members of the group prefer enforcement upon their group for protection against each other. And in cases where the strong rule by coalition, self imposition of the laws they create is usually necessary to hold the coalition together.
The American Revolution is a good example. It was only about 1/3 of the colonists that supported rebellion against Mother England. They were rogues. At the time, rules imposed by England, such as the rules of combat, wherein armies squared off against each other, each side in uniform, were violated by the colonial rouges, who took to combat in civilian clothing, ambushes and sniping. To counter that breakdown of law the English resorted to extreme measures, such as the event, I forget the name right now, where they burned alive a whole bunch of colonists in a church.
Well I'm sure you know the combat story of the American Revolution. At times, one side or the other seemed to be winning, but then the rogue colonists scored a major move on the chessboard by allying with the French, who broke rules that had been established among the colonial powers of Europe and intervened on behalf of the rogues in the English colonies in America.
Once the colonists won, ambushes and sniping were forbidden by law. As it turns out, the new government of the USA was able to enforce no ambush and no sniping laws, and even today while such does occur from time to time the government is powerful enough to keep such events tamped down.
But then there was the civil war, during which both sides took off the gloves, proving again my assertion that those who make the laws may abridge them, and will abridge them when abiding by them means defeat.
BTW, in the civil war, when the two sides did fight according to the rules, as with the Battle of Gettysburg, the loss of life was extraordinary, as was the number who lived but were permanently maimed. Some clever cheating of some kind might have ended that battle quickly and prevented enormous suffering and death.
Then there was "How the West was Won". In the ungovernable Western territories, where rule of law was weak, marshals and vigilante groups, employing any and all tactics, including kangaroo courts and summary executions, eventually won. Then the US Calvary came in, typically after the locals had finished off most of the rule breakers, and established more firmly the rule of law coming from Washington D.C.
So every group that comes to power is, in your words, hypocritical, as they impose rules that they themselves had violated in their quest for power.
This process does not inevitably lead to a world that is a smoking heap. The world would be a smoking heap if not ruled by the strong. Pakistan is a good example....lacking strong rule over the North Western provinces resulted in frequent smoking heaps, including spillover into Afghanistan. Only in the last few years, and particularly in the last year, has Pakistan flexed it's muscle and routed most of the rebels, basically conducting warfare against it's own people. If Pakistan can enforce it's rules of law in the NW provinces in years to come the result will be an increase in properity in the region which is agriculturally viable. Dams and irrigation canals will be needed and can only be installed when the area is pacified.
China is another good example. Before Mao, China was a bunch of smoking heaps. After Mao all the internal wars were ended. Though Maoist communism eventually failed, it did succeed in bring peace to the people of China at long last. From that peace China has become the #2 economy in the world. Now, we assume many of the Maoist revolutionaries, and their offspring, have converted to capitalism, which according to you makes them hypocrits.
Everyone is a hypocrit, though for reasons of gain some may claim they are not. Life is a bit complicated. Parents will find rule over their children easier if they are not seen to be hypocrits. For instance a parent that smokes tobacco may nonetheless impose a rule that the children/teens may not smoke. Do you think it better that they allow their children to smoke? Now it may be harder for such a parent to enforce that rule compared to a parent that does not smoke. Anyway, when the children grow up and gain some life experience then they understand that the smoking parent's no-smoking rule was a good one, and they likely don't demonize the parent, cuz as adults they tend to understand more, and recognize those instances where they themselves are hypocrits.
Your ancestors were apes. Your opposable thumb and advanced cognitive abilities make you (us) a good toolmaker and systems creator. But morally we are still apes. It was the change in the position of the thumb, walking upright which freed the hands, and changes in cognitive ability that define the difference between humans and apes. These are all physical changes - the physical changes explain the difference. But there has been no physical change in whatever you think is the source of morality.
Hi! Well, first of all, some behavior noted in one troop of babboons is not significant enough to extrapolate widely. From one instance we can suspect it might be an exception.
Mao was not reacting to European or American meddling - such was insignificant in China compared to the ongoing ages old fueding of Chinese royal families and warlords. Historically Mongolia was the biggest outside thorn in the side of China, and Japan had only recently become a problem. Within each Chinese kingdom there was rule of law and peace, more or less, until a new war broke out. Mao did succeed in toppling all the royal families, replacing it with his own tyranny, which he ran from the great palace in Beijing. Mao was not Mr. Nice guy, and China would have been better off run by Kai Shek - prosperity would have come much sooner and there would have been more freedoms.
After Pakistan was formed out of extreme violence bordering on genocide, she sided with the USA and received a lot of foreign aid as well as export rights to US markets. when I was a child I noticed that my underwear and socks were made in Pakistan. Later, in my 20s I noticed a lot of integrated circuits were made in Pakistan. Pakistan created it's own terrorist problem by encouraging terrorist groups to attack India in order to win back Indian Kashmir. They still do that today.
As far as the Arab oil producers go, many of those states have enjoyed peace and prosperity aligned with the USA and Europe. Where this is strong rule the people do not always suffer. If strong rule includes strong national defenses there is peace.
I did say that ruling groups are challenged from time to time. The challenger sometimes wins, but then it's new boss, same as the old boss, more or less. Democracy has given the people some power - but few democracies formed without huge bloodshed - in other words, the challenger did win a least to some degree. But wherever democracy has been established, along with the usual freedoms that go with it, the strong are still able to gain power, typically economically, and then politically as they can more or less, sometimes, buy off the elected representative of the people.
Unlike the one babboon group you mentioned, humans have not undergone any similar change. Because humans are so bad, for there to be any peace at all the strong must impose rule of law - the laws they prefer. So Mao, the people's champion, appointed himself king and lived in the royal palace. That little fact was well pointed out in Animal Farm.
The people don't have the power - never did, never will, as they are not qualified to rule. If the rulers disappeared one day there would be unimaginable chaos. Every system would break down, looting and killing would be rampant and vigilante groups would form to protect their own. We saw that in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, where the police went missing and Korean shopkeepers shot at looters from the roofs of their stores. And the majority of the looters were Latinos, mostly Mexicans I assume, who have no particular love for African Americans, but took advantage of the situation to help themselves.
If the "people" all stopped working one day there would also be chaos. For some time now businesses have practiced JIT - Just In Time delivery - which means among other things that cities do not have more than a couple days of perishable foods on hand, and likely only 3 to 4 days of non-perishables. The people can't just stop working if they also want to live. But that has always been the case, nothing new there.
The Mormons in Utah could survive either scenario of chaos, cuz they all put 1 year's worth of food in their storerooms. I really can't imagine "the people" doing same, though they could. If you want to know something about the character of "the people" just take stock of the tv shows they watch and the pop stars they adore! Also take note of their obesity.
A nice look at how power works is the fact that prior to last year there was an active arrest warrant in the USA for Nahredra Modi conerning something related to the Gujarat riots in India in the 1980s. But as soon as Modi became PM of India the warrant was cancelled by the Democrats, who some think are the "people's party", standing arm in arm with all the poor people of the world!
It is interesting that PM Modi was raised poor - in fact he was a child laborer! New boss, same as the old boss. Modi is very gung ho on capitalism and increasing economic and scientific ties with the USA.
India does have a "people's party" the Aam Admi party, but they don't get many votes. I think more should vote for them, because they're tough on corruption, but they don't. The people of India are quite corrupt themselves - see Jaylalitha, a champion of "the people"! In her you see humanity being human. In the ongoing huge Vyapam scam in India the guilty stretch all the way from Chief Ministers (governors) down to the students themselves who betrayed their fellow students for a few coin.
You're hopeful opinion of humanity is way off the mark - evidence contradicts you.
Rogers' Rangers was established in 1751[11] by Major Robert Rogers, who organized nine Ranger companies in the American colonies. These early American light infantry units, organized during the French and Indian War, were actively called "Rangers" and are often considered to be the spiritual birthplace of the modern Army Rangers. Major Rogers is credited with, among other things, drafting the first set of standard orders for rangers. They even resorted to cannibalism while chasing Indians.
5:00
How many eehs .
I can't stand listening to this bloke
I wasn't aware of Rogers Rangers, in looking them up it does look like they played a significant role in the Native American genocide. Interestingly they started as a British force and then later became aligned with the patriots. The accounts of cannibalism however appear to be due to direr circumstances of facing starvation as apposed to a deliberate tactic of terrorism. Even so though, it seems clear they were in the business of terrorizing the Indian population.
You'll need to hold your breath for about 32 minutes on the lead up to this talk, its not the worst intro and though I kind of suspect sarcasm you'll find the full intro here:
watch?v=Mccf6cYlixk
I DIDN.T SAID, NIETZSCHE AND CHOMSKY ARE A SAME PHILOSOPHS!!!
Kant is a protestants Philosoph, Hegel to, but never Feuerbach, Nietzsche or Buggle!!!
Noam Chomsky?.. What's the origin of his name?
as an Afghan I should say: 1. Taliban are not the people of Afghanistan as Mr Chomsky says. 2. during and after the 9/11, the official government of Afghanistan was still the northern alliance as it was holding the Afghan Seat in the UN. 3. the majority of Afghans were fighting against the Taliban. 4. Taliban were in alliance with international terrorists who were terrorizing the Afghan people. 5. the absolute majority of the Afghans supported and still are supporting the overthrow of the Taliban and are still fighting the Taliban. 6. it kills me when people like Chomsky are using the Afghan people and our plight to the benefit of their ideology. please do not do it, particularly when do not know anything serious about the country and the people.
Thank you for that clarification. I wonder how Professor Chomski would reply to your insider knowledge. Could you please link us to the point in this speech where Chomsky makes the apparent error? (e.g., 25:20.)
+David Faubion I second that.
All of your points either have nothing to do with what Chomsky said or are completely false, please do show us where he specifically says that since he has said the opposite in many other talks, for decades.
AzaadHamisha2016 Shoreshi You’re a liar. I’m an Afghan and just visited Afghanistan a few weeks ago for 2 months. The Afghans HATE the government (your beloved warlords from Northern Alliance control it). Yes, they hate the Afghan government more than the Taliban and Isis together. This is what the people in KABUL said, the capital which is controlled by Afghan soldiers and police. What about rural people who LOVE the Taliban and Isis and support them. Why? Because your beloved warlords (mainly Northern Alliance) destroyed and still destroy the country through corruption and oppression. This is the reality. You’re a shill for American propaganda and your fake “victory” in Afghanistan. No wonder the majority of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. You can’t fight facts. You’re either deluded or a war criminal loving piece of shit.
thank you for this informative you tube. i still think the easy way out is head in sand.
George mc fly 🙈🙉🙊🍗🍟
oh the ways that people find to justify the things they wanted to do anyway- defend the fuel sources for your war machines, nothing else matters- where will it all end? bless this voice of sanity!
Automatic dislike
Be nice if he wouldn't dismiss the 9/11 issue. He's a constant disappointment on this.
Since even the commissioners of the official 9/11 report have refuted its findings years ago, it is stunning that Chomsky, Hedges, and Goodman, not to mention Taibbi, Klein, Watts, Gore, ........ is somebody applying pressure and where?
he only deals with factual information he can account for academically. He would be taking a big risk if he was to begin questioing 911. He was heavily pressed on it in a 3hr interview you can find here. He just thinks it is too much for the white house to commit such a crime against its own people. id say he is probably half afraid of it and just avoiding it for various reasons. afterall, is it really his responsibility to take on the establsihment with this, when in fact they should have a process of their own for discovering such crimes.
"find here" but no link??? wtf.
He wrote a book about it silly ,maybe you should check it out .
Did you write a book about it ?
When listening to Professor Chomsky I feel like a 5 yr old, in terms of comprehension.
great noam chomsky
Chomsky is my favorite Martian.
I still agree with Chomsky at times but more often now with broad qualifiers. When I was a young student I thought very highly of him. Many years later, and with a lot of real world experience, I see how flawed, biased and factually inaccurate he often is. Makes me realize how far I have come since being a young, impressionable and naïve student so many years ago. It is readily apparent that Chomsky is a product of an extremely sheltered academic life. Much that he professes to believe in is unrealistic in theory and absurd in concept. A brilliant mind that often draws flawed conclusions.
+B Steele "I see how flawed, biased and factually inaccurate he often is"
Examples and sources or it didn't happen lol.
only those blessed could see the truth
+B Steele Examples?
Was this supposed to have content? If not, why did you bother to type it out?
Anarchy...