Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.
Noam Chomsky
Revision as of 12:41, 25 August 2015 by MaintenanceBot (talk | contribs) (Added: alma_mater, website, birth_date, birth_place.)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (academic) | |
---|---|
Born | 1928-12-07 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States |
Alma mater | University of Pennsylvania |
Member of | Institute for Policy Studies, International Tribunal of Natural Justice, Jeffrey Epstein/Other associates, Justice for Megrahi |
Interests | US foreign policy |
Recipient of | Document:Left-leaning Despisers of the 9-11 Truth Movement |
Renowned critic of US foreign policy. |
Contents
Denial of Deep Politics
Progressive on many points, Noam Chomsky refuses to address the reality of deep politics. He has nothing to say about false flag attacks and other such deep events. He once exclaimed "Even if it were true [that 9/11 was an inside job], which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance."[1][2] It is interesting that the foundation funded Democracy Now! repeatedly chooses Chomsky to interview about 9/11.[3]
Legal Case
Name | Plaintiff(s) | Defendant(s) | Start | End | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hedges v. Obama | Daniel Ellsberg Chris Hedges Noam Chomsky Jenifer Bolen Kai Wargalla Birgitta Jónsdóttir Alexa O'Brien | Barack Obama Leon Panetta John McCain John Boehner Harry Reid Eric Cantor Nancy Pelosi US Department of Defense Mitch McConnell United States of America | 13 January 2012 | 28 April 2014 | The plaintiffs challenged the 2012 NDAA contending that indefinite detention on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban was so vague as to allow unconstitutional, indefinite detention of civilians based on vague allegations. The Court of Appeals struck down an initial agreement, and the US Supreme Court concurred, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove they would be affected by the law, so had no standing to contest it. |
Quotes by Noam Chomsky
Page | Quote | Date | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Alan Dershowitz | “... not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights.” | 17 August 2006 | Noam Chomsky web site |
FBI | “According to its analysis of the documents in this FBI office, 1 percent were devoted to organized crime, mostly gambling; 30 percent were "manuals, routine forms, and similar procedural matter"; 40 percent were devoted to political surveillance and the like, including two cases involving right-wing groups, ten concerning immigrants, and over 200 on left or liberal groups. Another 14 percent of the documents concerned draft resistance and "leaving the military without government permission." The remainder concerned bank robberies, murder, rape, and interstate theft.” | ||
John Gaddis | “John Lewis Gaddis is not only the favorite historian of the Reagan administration, but he's regarded as the dean of Cold War scholarship, the leading figure in the American Cold War scholarship, a professor at Yale.” | ||
Hypocrisy | “let me formulate a thesis. The thesis is that we are all total hypocrites on any issue relating to terrorism. Now, let me clarify the notion "we." By "we," I mean people like us — people who have enough high degree of privilege, of training, resources, access to information — for whom it is pretty easy to find out the truth about things if we want to. If we decide that that is our vocation, and in the case in question, you don't really have to dig very deep, it's all right on the surface. So when I say "we," I mean that category. And I definitely mean to include myself in "we" because I have never proposed that our leaders be subjected to the kinds of punishment that I have recommended for enemies. So that is hypocrisy. So if there are people who escape it I really don't know them and have not come across them. It's a very powerful culture. It's hard to escape its grasp. So that's thesis number one, we are all total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, on the matter of terrorism. The second thesis is stronger, namely, that the first thesis is so obvious that it takes real effort to miss it. In fact, I should go home right now because it is obvious [...] Well, from all of this an obvious conclusion follows: there is an operational definition of terrorism, the one that is actually used — it means terror that they carry out against us — that's terrorism, and nothing else passes through the filter.” | 2002 |
Related Document
Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) |
---|---|---|---|
Document:Left-leaning Despisers of the 9-11 Truth Movement | open letter | 6 July 2010 | David Ray Griffin |
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.