I was just watching some Noam Chomsky debates/interviews, and one came up where he’s talking about 9/11 and how all power systems profitted from it. I agree, but he mentioned that the Russians love it because it gives them an excuse to continue committing their atrocities in Chechnya. I Wikipedia’d it, but I can’t seem to find what he’s talking about. It looks like there are human rights abuses with torture and all in Chechnya. That’s all I could find. He also talked about China’s oppression in western China (as opposed to eastern China?).
Anyone know what two things he’s talking about specifically?
I’m not for sure on this. However…What, a decade ago or so now (maybe longer)…there were a series of apartment building bombings in Moscow (or something like this). The government blamed it on the Chechens—though government involvement seemed at least somewhat likely, if not quite likely.
I also recall him mentioning it somewhere in one of his other speeches (perhaps at one of the Supporters Summits?), but I don’t remember exactly where. Here is the link to his media page:
Most people still refer to western China as “Tibet”. In fact, just about everyone does, with the exception of people like Noam Chomsky (even the Communist Chinese do!). An attack on peoples’ sovereignty is an attack on their civil rights, and only leads to further abuses even with respect to the most peaceful and compliant people. Collectivists will never admit the connection.
It’s possible Chomsky chooses to refer to Tibet as “western china” (if that’s what he’s talking about) because, after Perenti’s scathing review of Tibetan feudalism, he is trying to avoid support for that autocratic system and show more support for “tibetan” democracy.
Even the Dalai Llama said were he put back in power, he would not put back the previous system (he’d be democratic).
I’m not for sure on this. However…What, a decade ago or so now (maybe longer)…there were a series of apartment building bombings in Moscow (or something like this). The government blamed it on the Chechens—though government involvement seemed at least somewhat likely, if not quite likely.
It is extremely unlikely, just as it is extremely unlikely that the United States government was behind 9/11. I suggest that it is exactly what it appears to be, a bunch of fanatics who were angry at the respective imperial centers and decided to take it out on the population via propaganda of the deed.
There is no record of any democratic government engaging in mass slaughter of its own citizens when not threatened with secession. Foreigners, different story, but democratic systems tend to restrain direct violence against citizens and prefer managerial oppression.
There is also the documented fact that terrorists, especially Islamic, do exist and hate the US Government.
Anyone know what two things he’s talking about specifically?
Funny, you would think a professor of linguistics would have something to say, but I have never witnessed Chomsky say anything. Honestly, the man is a sham whose ideas in liguistics, political structure, economics, and philosophy/sociology I am non cognitive to.
Even if he happenstances on to a correct conclusion, the arguments themselves are almost always nonsense, I guess that is left wing (i.e. traditional) anarchists in general though.
I’m not sure if this is what Chomsky is referring to, but the United States was “forced” (in some ways) to turn their head in regards to Russia’s policies concerning Chechnya. It would be blatantly hypocritical for the Americans to chastise the Russians for “counter-terrorism” in Chechnya, while the Americans were doing it in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even if he happenstances on to a correct conclusion, the arguments themselves are almost always nonsense, I guess that is left wing (i.e. traditional) anarchists in general though.
Very much. He takes the same gestalt and targets that the mainstream left and Reds find socially acceptable: corporations, military and arms, executive power are always to blame; rather than welfare, schools and democratic processes.