Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

personal attack again huh?

my head is in the sand because I don't agree with Chomsky as a source?

I think (and may be wrong) that Hakan thinks you have your head in the sand because you refuse to read/listen to Chomsky because he's not on your side of the political spectrum. That is basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. One might call it close-minded. I hope that's not how you choose who to listen to.

[Lurch]

Hakan and FDW ...

might as reply to both here, you both said essentially the same thing.

From what I gather then ... life is a switch or black and white. I can't lop off the fringes because all I'm left with is Howdy Doody in the middle?

Sorry ... but you can cut 20% of the fat off both sides and still have a lot of nice meat in the middle to work with (about 60% if my math serves). That's all I'm saying.

If you're saying I'm guilty of preconceiving that Chomsky is pretty left leaning then guilty as charged, though I don't think anyone would disagree with that would you?

Many shades of grey in the middle to choose from on both sides.

Late to the discussion, but this strikes me as off the mark. If you think about your basic position in the scheme of the world view on Israel, Iraq, US foreign policy, etc, you probably find your own opinion firmly in the loony tunes 20% (based on my gut feeling, but I suspect worldwide support for what Israel is doing is very low, i.e. less than 20%). If my assertion is correct that the mainstream world view is as above, your position should be tossed out as part of the fringe, as defined by worldwide opinion.

Anyway, since I doubt you think your own position is loony, yet it is on the fringe by one measure, I think you can see why ignoring the fringe is a poor way to get a grasp on issues. My own 'sniff test' is to toss out anything that strikes me as illogical, massively complicated, etc. from either party. Obviously this creates an issue if there isn't enough info to evaluate the motivation of one side or the other, but at least if you have enough info you have a possibility of getting the truth of a situation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well then you'd miss out on the most credible sources if one of the so-called "fringes" is actually closer to the truth the than other side.

I would think it a better idea to read from both "fringes" and the so-called middle and see which ones have better sources and which ones resonate with your sense of the truth.

The problem is that anyone could post a article from someone on the right who has the same expertise as Chomsky, yet most on here would refuse to give the article credit, simply because it comes from a right-wing leaning person.

But we're supposed to give Chomsky credit for his article, when he is obviously left-leaning?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem is that anyone could post a article from someone on the right who has the same expertise as Chomsky, yet most on here would refuse to give the article credit, simply because it comes from a right-wing leaning person.

Well that's your assumption. Certainly no one in this thread has brought up a right-winger followed by cries out of "this guy isn't credible" from the left-wingers.

I'll be happy to read a right-wing stance on the issue if those on the right will do the same from my supposed left-winger.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

ZING!!!
Oh, and I laughed outloud when someone (I can't remember who) called Chomsky an anti-semite. Oh my, that one almost drew tears. Talk about uninformed BS from a stereotype dreamed up by the right wing to discredit their greatest nemesis. Some people should actually listen to what the guy has to say. For a leftwing "moonbat" (wtf does that grade two insult mean?) he certainly makes a lot of sense when you get past the rhetoric.

See this is the problem with things on the off topic board these days. People are in such a hurry to respond that they don't actually read.

I said the very site that FDW listed as THE lecture of middle east matters had a loooong section of opposition to Chomsky including a section about him being an anti-semite.

That was all that was said.

You take from that someone on this site is "uniformed" and then blah blah right wing blah blah.

It's in print from the source he used to put up a Chomsky lecture.

So take it for what it's worth ... there seems to be a lot of debate for a guy that is sourced as the credible one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici..._Anti-Semitism

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well that's your assumption. Certainly no one in this thread has brought up a right-winger followed by cries out of "this guy isn't credible" from the left-wingers.

I'll be happy to read a right-wing stance on the issue if those on the right will do the same from my supposed left-winger.

I'm not accusing you of doing that, but it happens.

I've seen it many times....Hell, I'm don't even quote anything from Fox, or Drudge anymore because of that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Anyway, since I doubt you think your own position is loony, yet it is on the fringe by one measure, I think you can see why ignoring the fringe is a poor way to get a grasp on issues. My own 'sniff test' is to toss out anything that strikes me as illogical, massively complicated, etc. from either party. Obviously this creates an issue if there isn't enough info to evaluate the motivation of one side or the other, but at least if you have enough info you have a possibility of getting the truth of a situation.

Now I'm loony? You can certainly have that opinion if you wish, but it's very insulting. There's not a loony bone in my body, I think things through on my own, but don't tend to go to the utopian solutions on things.

I don't know why I try so hard to not be attack driven on my own site ... lord knows that type of position never seems to pay itself back as this string shows.

I don't think our sniff tests are all that different, and to be honest I'm not running around the internet hammering Chomsky on a daily basis. FDW presented him as what people should read shorty after saying someon wasn't educated on these matters.

That bugs me. The guy is a source sure, but with an axe to grind.

does he make some points? Sure ... but then so do every one of these guys on both sides, and many of them make the same points. Doesn't mean missing out on one or two leaves you with an incomplete picture.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not accusing you of doing that, but it happens.

I've seen it many times....Hell, I'm don't even quote anything from Fox, or Drudge anymore because of that.

Well, I think the real reason people criticize Fox and Drudge is not because of their overtly political bias but the poor quality of their articles and sources. Something that is not the case with Chomsky. But yes, if you could provide an article that refutes Chomsky's claims without ad hominem attacks, conjecture or bad academics then I would be more than happy to read it. Unfortunately, there aren't many.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well that's your assumption. Certainly no one in this thread has brought up a right-winger followed by cries out of "this guy isn't credible" from the left-wingers.

Which is kind of what I'm saying ...

I'm glad ... it's the same thing. Slanted so heavily you have to question almost everyting they say. It's tiresome.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Well, I think the real reason people criticize Fox and Drudge is not because of their overtly political bias but the poor quality of their articles and sources. Something that is not the case with Chomsky. But yes, if you could provide an article that refutes Chomsky's claims without ad hominem attacks, conjecture or bad academics then I would be more than happy to read it. Unfortunately, there aren't many.

You may be the first to say that. Maybe we should ask Lanny what he thinks of Fox?

Drudge has links to articles from various news outlets, and yes their page is very hard to get used too. Doesn't bother me, news is news.

[Flash Walken]

'Cutting 20 percent of the fat' from both sides is just an argument for self-reinforced ignorance.

Alan Dershowitz, who holds a 'centre-right' position on israel is certainly a much more credible source than Chomsky.

[Hakan]

I am still imploring you Bingo to go read a book by Chomsky on the middle east before you so rashly criticize him as a fringe voice.

He's a pre-imminent authority of the political history of the region. You may be surprised.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So take it for what it's worth ... there seems to be a lot of debate for a guy that is sourced as the credible one

Well that's what you'd expect isn't it? If one side doesn't want anyone to hear what he has to say, they are going to make the guy seem not credible and will do their best to attack him.

What should be avoided are the guys that nobody thinks are credible. The guys that a lot of people think are credible and one side attacks are the guys we should be reading IMO.

“Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities.”
--The Guardian

http://www.americanempireproject.com/chomsky/index.asp

The above link has some quotes from reviews of his book by various publications, you may find it interesting.

For being so non-credible it really is fascinating how widely quoted he is, isn't it?

"Arguably the most important intellectual alive."
--The New York Times

"Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel. With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out...The questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered. Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening."
--Business Week

"[Chomsky has] a proud defensive independence, a good plain writer's hatred of expert mystification, a doctrine of resistance which runs against the melioristic and participatory current of most contemporary intellectual life....Such men are dangerous; the lack of them is disasterous."
--New Statesman

"[Chomsky] continues to challenge our assumptions long after other critics have gone to bed. He has become the foremost gadfly of our national conscience."
--Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, New York Times Book Review

"9-11 was practically the only counter-narrative out there at a time when questions tended to be drowned out by a chorus, led by the entire United States Congress, of 'God Bless America.' It was one one of the few places where the other side of the case could be found; and intelligent patriotism entails knowing the arguments you have to answer. And, outlandish as it may seem to most Americans today, it is possible that, if the United States goes the way of nineteenth-century Britain, Chomsky's interpretation will be the standard among historians a hundred years from now."
--The New Yorker on 9-11

"This book contains liberatory knowledge...[there is] an incredible amount of new research and understanding to be gained from reading these important chapters....[A] major contribution to the history of women in the U.S."
--Counterpoise on Turning the Tide

“Noam Chomsky . . . is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance.”
--The Nation

"A detailed and careful reminder that just because someone in authority says something, it isn't necessarily true. Chomsky is speaking truth to power. In doing so he makes life better for each of us, offering us hope and strength."
--Peacework on Necessary Illusions

"A thought-provoking book brimming with important information. Chomsky is to be praised for his efforts to show that the major media, like the schools, function as propaganda organs of the state."
--American-Arab Affairs on Necessary Illusions

"Chomsky strips away layers of propaganda not recognized as propaganda, brilliantly sifting through political discourse."
--John Pilger

"Better than anyone else now writing, Chomsky combines indignation with insight, erudition with moral passion. That is a difficult achievement, and an encouraging one."
--In These Times

"For nearly thirty years now, Noam Chomsky has parsed the main proposition of American power--what they do is aggression, what we do upholds freedom--with encyclopedic attention to detail and an unflagging sense of outrage."
--Utne Reader

"One of the West's most influential intellectuals in the cause of peace."
The Independent

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm glad ... it's the same thing. Slanted so heavily you have to question almost everyting they say. It's tiresome.

And you've come to this conclusion that Chomsky is "slanted so heavily" by reading his works or not?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The guy is a source sure, but with an axe to grind.

What axe does he have to grind? What's his "hidden" agenda? How is he profiting from his views?

You've made the accusation, now you should back it up.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, trying not to be a dick, but re-read what I posted. If they have two Israeli solidars they can trade them for 200 Hezbollah fighters that Israel may have locked up.

You are just avoiding answering the question.

I know the purpose of why they captured the soldiers. What I am asking is why didn't they capture civilians instead? They could still try to negotiate an exchange with civilian captives.

If Hezbollah's sole purpose (like you claim) is to simply kill Jews and cause terror (sic), then why did they go after military captives in this situation? Surely civilians would be easier to capture and would be worth as much in an exchange.

Could it be that Hezbollah does actually have a military goal, and they didn't just wake up one day wanting to kill Jews?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Here's a question that just came to mind:

If Hizbollah is hiding in civilian areas, and they aren't wearing uniforms, and they hide their missiles in homes (etc)..... How can any of these 'civilian casualty' figures be accurate? Any Hizbollah member would also look like a civilian and probably be counted as such, wouldn't they?

And a similar question I often wonder is:

If a civilian population is armed, has military training, has a history of agression, and is considered to be occupying another person's land; are they still civillians?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Best to blame the Brits fot that one?

Blame the Brits for Zionist settlers from all over Europe killing Arabs in Palestine during the late 19th and early 20th century? OK....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

So it is all in the timing?

Yes, because thet were displaced (forcably in some cases) by Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans.

So what? Everybody is from somewhere else. Most of the Jews left, while some stayed and eventually form the other Semetic people of the region (most of whom converted to Islam). Does converting to a different religon mean they don't have a right to live there? The ancient Hebrews had to displace (through force) the original inhabitants at one time too. They weren't the 1st people there. It is really convenient if you are only going to the Exodus and ignoring everything before and after.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What axe does he have to grind? What's his "hidden" agenda? How is he profiting from his views?

You've made the accusation, now you should back it up.

unless there's a rule book I've never seen I think you can have an axe to grind without an agenda, though I guess they can be one in the same.

He's very anti-US, and very anti-US foreign policy ... it flows through almost every topic in that lecture you quoted (which I did just read by the way ... or skimmed if I'm to be honest as it wasn't easy to read - partly guilty of rolling my eyes, and the fact that I have two kids and I can't devote three minutes to any one topic).

The man can school me in Israeli history, and in middle east history, but then that's never been my point.

You can't discount history, and certainly you can't forget history, but the now is important too.

One one side you have a democracy protecting it's own self interests and national security. I think as I've said, they've taken it too far, but that doens't change the fact that everyone country within 1000 miles wants them dead, pushed into the sea or disemboweled.

That's what I can't get my head around on this topic. Nobody wants civilians killed but how can anyone take the Hezzbollah or Palestinian side when they use suicide bombers and spout complete ethnic hatred towards the other side.

He points hard to Oil, but doesn't hit the even bigger issues in the region ... religion and intolerance.

And yes I think his anti-US stance clouds the issues for him big time.

Just my opinion.