Monday, August 30, 2004

Manufacturing Fear

Chomsky frequently states that 'terrorism' or another invented threat is used by America as a justification to invade another country. He claims that American officals and more specifically President Bush has to "'manufacture' another threat to American security to win reelection in 2004 after U.S failure in occupying Iraq." Chomsky made the claim while he was in Cuba in October of 2003. The message was clear America abuses terrorism, or invokes it, so that it can justify what it wants. One should note, however, America has yet to 'manufacture' any threats to invade any countries contrary to Chomsky's assumptions.

Leaving aside the sheer nonsense of the above statement, it is interesting to note that a similar pattern of abusing human suffering, or a fore seeable event of suffering, is done by Chomsky himself. For example take what Chomsky said when asked if he thought that America was "going to stop in Iraq" or if they would attack another country,

No, they already made this clear [they will attack another country]. For one thing they need something for the next presidential election ... So Syria is a possibility. Iran is a more difficult possibility because it's a harder country to dominate and control. Yet there is a reason to believe that for a year or two now, efforts have been under way to try dismantle Iran, to break it into internally warring groups.
Basically what Chomsky is claiming here is that America was going to invade Syria and Iran before the next presidential election. Besides the fact that Chomsky was wrong, America has yet to invade any country prior to 2004 presidential election, he has managed to ‘manufacture’ fear, with an invented threat, in the minds of all those who listen to him. If one wants evidence of this they need not look any further than the person interviewing Chomsky, Atilio A. Boron. Before Atilio asks Chomsky anymore questions he states, "This is really frightening." So Chomsky has managed to frighten at least one Chomskyte into believing America was going to war with Syria or Iran. How many others there are out there will probably never be known.

Apparently Chomsky's has become aware of his miscalculation and has reneged on his attack Iraq or Syria conspiracy theory. Hence we see him state on his website the following:
If the Iraq invasion hadn't been such a remarkable failure, by now the US would probably have gone forward with plans to subordinate the region more fully to its interests, which would mean actions against the more independent states, Iran and Syria.
However, this is in direct contradiction to what Chomsky told John Junkerman in July of 2003. Witness the following:
What they will probably do is just what Karl Rove indicated, manufacture another extremely dangerous situation. It doesn't take much to manufacture one. It doesn't have to be real, as we saw with Iraq. Whatever you think of Iraq, it was certainly no threat, but they were able to convince the country that it was a very serious threat. And if they manufacture another one then, somehow, people will forget about the problems in Iraq.
In attempt to get a clarification from Chomsky on what he really meant Junkerman asks to following, "So, if you had to predict, you'd say they were going to be moving on to another target to distract the public’s attention?" Chomksy retorts by stating the following, "If things go badly at home and in Iraq, they'll have to." So in July we have Chomsky claiming that if the occupation of Iraq becomes a complete failure President Bush will have to invent a threat, so that he can invade another country. Now Chomsky is claiming because the war in Iraq was such a 'remarkable failure' that America will no longer attack another country in the region. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. But that is exactly what Chomsky is doing. Or maybe Chomsky just thinks that winning the Presidential election is no longer in vogue at the White House. Anyway what is apparent is Chomsky can't get his story straight or even worse noticing that he was wrong he makes a bogus claim in hopes no one will notice.

When Chomsky was in Cuba he also stated,
"It is a frightened country and it is easy to conjure up an imminent threat...They have a card that they can play ... terrify the population with some invented threat, and that is not very hard to do."
The irony of it all is that Chomsky is describing American policy when in fact it is his own phony claim that America would invade Syria or Iran that has 'frightened' the 'population with some invented threat.'

27 Comments:

At August 31, 2004 at 9:48 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

:)
We've debated this in the Thanks Chomsky, Now We Know thread so no need to repeat.

It's interesting how you quote a speech by Chomsky from 2003 and not present his explanation for why the above did not happen. You are clearly aware of it as can be seen by clicking the link provided.
I know you don't agree with him but aren't you using a tactic you attribute to Chomsky all the time?

H again.

 
At August 31, 2004 at 10:59 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At August 31, 2004 at 11:44 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At September 1, 2004 at 3:44 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

"Note these are not exact quotes from Chomsky. The journalist from Common Dreams is paraphrasing Chomsky's words."

And your whole case rests on these. Shouldn't you make an effort to find the original quotes?

Or did you already?

 
At September 1, 2004 at 8:22 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

That was from something else I was going to add but I am not anymore.

 
At September 1, 2004 at 11:33 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Just let me get this straight for everybody else.

You first wrote a post.

I then reminded you that it is dishonest because you knew exactly why Chomsky's assesment didn't come true (as you quoted the guy saying this a couple of posts ago).

You then made an attempt to connect the two posts incriminating Chomsky even more but couldn't do it unless you used paraphrases of the Common Dreams journalist instead of Chomsky's original words.

I pointed this out.

Now we're back to the original dishonest post but with a little quote from Cuba added.

So I will now revert back to:

:)
We've debated this in the Thanks Chomsky, Now We Know thread so no need to repeat.

It's interesting how you quote a speech by Chomsky from 2003 and not present his explanation for why the above did not happen. You are clearly aware of it as can be seen by clicking the link provided.
I know you don't agree with him but aren't you using a tactic you attribute to Chomsky all the time?

H again.

And I'll add:

H again.

And again.


Dhimmi, we have a saying here in Slovenia that I think you should follow:
Don't spit in your own bowl
(don't know how this translates, I can elaborate if you don't understand)

 
At September 1, 2004 at 5:41 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At September 1, 2004 at 6:01 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Here it is in full what I wanted to say.

 
At September 2, 2004 at 2:45 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Dhimmy,

changing it for the fourth time throws the little credibility you did have in the wind comepletely.

"One should note that these are the words of Anthony Boadle a journalist for Common Dreams and the actual words of Noam Chomsky; however, Chomsky has yet to dispute he made the claim."

1. Your claim still rests on paraphrases, not on what Chomsky actually said. Let me give you a hint - there are some untruths in that article.

2. Following your logic, I can say President Bush said he likes to have orgies with Arnold's old mates and that doing it with Kerry is one of his favorite relaxation techniques.

Until Bush disputes what I said, it stands.

Perfect logic.

3. As for the rest, well, your whole case still rests on a paraphrase (I think the term they use in US TV law shows I've seen is 'hearsay' and it's inadmissable) so I'll reply to it when you supply the original quotes.

 
At September 2, 2004 at 9:31 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Just for you luka the Chomsky 'quote' where he says America will attack another country if things go bad. I just find it funny how you think Common Dreams is a bad source of information.

 
At September 3, 2004 at 10:04 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

OK. Here we go, take #5...

"Just for you luka the Chomsky 'quote' where he says America will attack another country if things go bad".

See, it's not that hard if you try. But the first part of your post still relies on paraphrases, doesn't it? And why did you remove the disclaimer saying so?

"I just find it funny how you think Common Dreams is a bad source of information."

I don't. Fristly, I was not objecting to 'Common Dreams' being a source of information but to your use of hearsay as evidence. Secondly, if you actually read the article instead of just fishing for quotes, you'd see that it was not a Common Dreams story but a Reuters one which Common Dreams just repeated. Thirdly, as I said above, that story contains certain untruths about what Chomsky said in Cuba. But since your case doesn't rest on the story anymore, none of this matters.




But to finally reply to your post (even though it stil partly rests on paraphrases).

"Chomsky frequently states that 'terrorism' or another invented threat is used by America as a justification to invade another country."

He does not claim 'terrorism' is an invented threat. He considers Islamic militancy a very real and present threat to the US (and others). That is why he's pointing out the hipocricy of the US government which is using the threat of terrorism or some other technique (WMDs, etc.) to invade countries who present no threat to the US. And by doing that the US government is actually increasing the threat of terrorism as is now evident in Iraq and elsewhere.


"Basically what Chomsky is claiming here is that America was going to invade Syria and Iran before the next presidential election."

Syria yes, Iran no. Reread the quote.

And this was a prediction made at the time of 'Mission Accomplished', US triumphalism, neocons & other hawks gloating over being 'right' (though things soon started to go sour or were going sour already I should say).




As for the the second part of your quote...

This seems to be your case in an nutshell:
"[I]n July we have Chomsky claiming that if the occupation of Iraq becomes a complete failure. President Bush will have to invent a threat, so that he can invade another country. Now Chomsky is claiming because the war in Iraq was such a 'remarkable failure' that America will no longer attack another country in the region. So which is it? You can't have it both ways." [my emhpasis]

This is what you call a straw man. Where did you find the 'complete failure'? Oh, it's your paraphrase? You are now making assumptions on your own paraphrases instead of using other peoples' which you did before.
This is a good example of why not to use paraphrases when making a case.

What Chomsky did say is 'if things go badly ... in Iraq, they'll have to' attack another country / invent another threat to attack another country.

'If things go badly' hardly equals 'complete failure'.


I could end my post here since now your 'So which is it?' makes no scence.








But since I'll have to reply to another version anyway, I might as well get some things out of the way.


Look up my post under this thread (the last one, points #1 to #7) to read more about what I'll try to summarize here.

This statement ('if things go bad') is from July 2003. As I noted in the other post, nobody could have predicted how big a screwup the Iraqi occupation would become. Chomsky's prediction was based on the data available at the time and while it didn't look good and one could say that things might/would go badly, very few people could imagine the occupation turning into a 'remarkable failure'.

And since it did turn into a 'remarkable failure', the option of inventing a threat by Iran or Syria goes down the toilet as the US government would have to act on a threat it invented and it cannot do that now.
[Though I might add that the threat inventions are continuing but not full throttle; along with threats.]

And then the 'If the Iraq invasion hadn't been such a remarkable failure, by now the US would...' quote...

This quote was made in reference to actual US plans for the region.

And those plans would have coincided with the needed 'invented threat' nicely had it not been for the 'remarkable failiure' of the occupation.



SUMMATION:
But since the occupation turned into a complete failure both the actual plan to further 'democratise' the Middle East (propagated mainly but not exclusively by the neocons and actually meaning bringing the only few 'rouge states' under US control) and any 'invented threat' plans cannot be carried out. Not in a scale that would bring to an invasion anyway. If things were only 'bad' and not a 'remarkable failure' this might still be possible. Now it is not.

 
At September 3, 2004 at 10:16 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

'If things go badly' hardly equals 'complete failure'.


Are you for real? I am not going to reply to this nonsense. Thats about as funny as your claim:

'I haven't read' does not mean the same as 'I didn't read' or 'I have never read', does it?

 
At September 3, 2004 at 10:19 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

oh and that should have been an 'or' not an 'and.' My bad.

 
At September 4, 2004 at 4:48 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Dhimmi,

I didn't expect you to reply. You never reply when you're backed into a corner. It's a pattern. See these posts:


Noam Chomsky and Al-Jazeera,

Thanks Chomsky, Now We Know,

The Anger of Noam Chomsky: Part II,

The Anger of Noam Chomsky,

Noam and His Lies,

Chomsky And Democracy,

Chomsky and the Media: From the Inside,

Read what Chomsky said in Hanoi,

Meet Chomsky's Foil,

Bobby Fischer ... Yet another Self-Hating Jew.

This does not mean you concede the point(s) of course. You can still believe you are correct.


To return to the post...

So in your view, 'If things go badly' is the same as 'complete failure'?

OK. I can see you objectivity shinning through.
But if this gives you an excuse not to deal with the rest of my post (again), feel free to use it.

And calling whatever I wrote nonsense after you had changed the post 5 times and still use paraphrases to make your point is, well, hypocritical.

 
At September 4, 2004 at 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As you've read all of the anti-Chomsky writers, Luka, you know that they always write themselves into a corner, then give up. BTW, I'm not a "Chomskyite", though the guys writing comments about Kerstein's latest post are definitely cultists (of American Libertarianism.)

- Strelnikov

 
At September 5, 2004 at 3:11 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

The 'Chomskyite' comment was meant as sarcasm, not seriousely.

"the guys writing comments about Kerstein's latest post are definitely cultists (of American Libertarianism.)"

Yes. I noticed. I mean, liberalism is anti-semitism?

Dhimmy, you agree?

Might provide for some interesting debates in any case (though I won't be doing this for much longer since I see there's no point - another thing I'm sorry to say Chomsky seems to be right about).

 
At September 7, 2004 at 12:12 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

So we can't comment on the most recent post?

Nevermind. That whole article is a straw man anyway...

 
At September 8, 2004 at 5:52 AM, Blogger Dennis said...

Off topic:

I sent you a mail the other day regarding a translation of a Swedish article, so if you haven't checked your mail the last couple of days you should.

 
At September 8, 2004 at 9:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Dhimmi, have you given up on comments?

- Strelnikov

 
At July 11, 2005 at 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, lukab why don't you "educate" us, tell us about his explanation for why we didn't invade more "sovereign" nations. do you actually know? if you do you didn't mention word one of it. oh please educate us.

chomsky's got some catching up to do, so far his "explanations" about iraq have been nothing but assumptions and opinions, and now you wonder why Dhimmi stopped replying, who wouldn't get tired of a chomsky loyalist (goddamn, even i don't support bush on every damn thing he says)

i don't suck bush's dick, why must you suck chomsky's

 
At July 11, 2005 at 12:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol and he's sorry that chomsky's right, ha ha... fuck head

 
At October 30, 2005 at 7:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, great website, I don't know how I didn't come across it sooner. Please do stop by my jewish reference website and let me know what you think.

 
At October 5, 2006 at 5:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

''Chomsky frequently states that 'terrorism' or another invented threat is used by America as a justification to invade another country.''

Very misleading, Sound like you think chomksy accuses the US of inventing threats and not as chomsky puts forward 'propogates them for its own devices when it pleases [sic]'.

 
At August 18, 2007 at 7:30 PM, Anonymous Buy Levitra said...

Great article! Thanks.

 
At August 19, 2007 at 12:49 AM, Anonymous Phentermine said...

Thanks for interesting article.

 
At September 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonimous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

 
At January 17, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Blogger dhd said...

This momentousdecree wow gold came as a great beacon gold in wow light of hope buy wow gold to millions of negroslaves wow gold kaufen who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice.maplestory mesos it came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night ofcaptivity.but one hundred years later,maplestory money we must face the tragic fact thatthe negro is still not free.maple money one hundred years later,sell wow gold the lifeof the negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles ofsegregation and the chains of discrimination. one hundred yearslater,maple story money the negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in themidst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.wow powerleveling one hundred yearslater,maple story power leveling the negro is still languishing in the corners of americansociety and finds himself an exile in his own land. so we havecome here today to dramatize wow powerleveln an appalling condition.in a ms mesos sense we have come to our nation''s capital to cash a check.when the architects of our republic wow powerleveln wrote the magnificent wordsof the constitution and the declaration of independence, theywere signing a promissory note maplestory power leveling to which every american was tofall heir.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home