In contrast, Cheney's preferred method has consistently increased the threat of terrorism, which is quite natural: violence tends to increase violence and support for it in response. The current Iraq war is an illustration. It was undertaken with the expectation that it would probably lead to an increase in terrorism, as it did. That's just another of the many indications that reducing the threat of terror is not a high priority for planners, and another reason... tercüme ingilizce tercüme elektrik emlak çeviri tercüman link ekle kiral?k ev

I'll be honest, this is the first text of yours which I've read, lest someone else is doing the writing with or without your permission.  From my own experiences, it appears your name has become a bit of a "buzz-word" in several social circles, so maybe this blog doesn't belong to you.  Maybe I could read the rest of it and come to a conclusion, but it's much easier to be honest about my ignorance, as I don't think it will distract from my argument.

I'm from the New Jersey shore, and have decided to argue in my own, somewhat colloquial, language.  Though that may distract from my argument, I smell puffed chests.  My language will be my litmus test.

I often find myself in agreement with the arguments being made by those who quote you (or try).  Now I'm rather nervous.  Most Americans know damn well that our government is out of control, or at the very least, that they've been disenfranchised from it.  Christ, our elected representatives are bought and sold in a lobbying industry that supposedly helps us, while conveniently giving corporations a direct line to our federal government; it's OUR fucking line! 

In my opinion, the best thing for Americans to do is to get the existing political parties out of their local governments, so they can then take back their state governments, and finally give the federal governmnet some checks and balances of its own.

In the meantime, our federal government is a bull in a china shop.  We need to remember that it is a maliable government, which spent more than half a century figuring out how to break the Soviet Union AFTER mutual destruction was assured. 

 

All that aside, here is my argument:

Noam, you just made up the shit about the flying fortresses bombing Japan from Pearl Harbor.   Manilla maybe, but that's not my real problem.  You need to be careful when you start pulling history out of the books, and using it as a "zinger" for your own argument regarding contemporary issues. 

Yes, a lot can be learned from history, but remember, quite a bit can be manipulated as well.  The Nazi's peiced together histories of several cultures to build a fictional race which legitimized their world conquest.  You have by no means approached that zenith of untruth, but Christ, don't be Noam Chompsky and get caught making it up as you go along.

The slice of history you pulled out is moot.  Its context makes it irrelevant as support for your argument above, unless of course, you choose to ammend said argument to help disprove my own.  We probably need to wait close to a decade, and have lots of things go bad before we find ourselves in a situation where the last major western power enters the world-wide war.

For those that argue that this is the third world war, I'll ask you to find out what kind of city Dresden was, what happened to it, when, and why.  Tens of thousands of civilians are not being slaughtered on a near daily basis over multiple years, and though we like to think that the world has changed and that will never happen again, I'd like to remind you that WWI was the war to end all wars.  Never underestimate mankind's appetite for destruction. 

That is why we MUST have open, honest dialogue.  If someone doesn't understand your argument, rephrase it for them.  If they still don't get it, ask them to tell you what they THINK you said.  It's called communication: the sharing of an idea.

Your post above, makes me feel as though you're trying to give people the right idea, but with the wrong reasons.  Obviously you're not an engineer. 

A carpenter and a computer programmer will tell you the same thing: if you cut corners in the beginning of the project, the project will fail.  If you really want to give people the right idea, help them logically formulate those ideas and arguments themselves.  And then they'll do the same thing with others.  The rate at which the idea would spread is exponential, especially with the help of the Internet.

If you give a man a fish, he'll be hungry again tomorrow.  Be careful Noam.  A lot people look up to and listen to you.  They want to understand.  They want to learn how to fish.

Teach 'em.

 

That said, if I misunderstood you, or the context of your post, I apologize.  Just let me know about it ;-)

Note, if you haven't noted it for the past third of a century, Chomsky's breezy, casual, self-confident summation : "Comment is hardly necessary ...."  Oh? Sez who? It is Chomsky himself who, with a shrug of shoulders, simply sez that comment is hardly necessary.  But why should anyone believe Chomsky?

After all, his flippancy comes immediately after a hopelessly vague allusion to "specialists in terror and intelligence agencies" who - he wants us to believe - affirm his opinion.  Yet Chomsky never names 19, or 12 or even 5 of these so-called "specialists", much less quote where they say differently from critics who, with good reason, complain of the appeasement of terrorists.

According to a popular myth, Chomsky "proves" what he says and has impeccable "sources" (which few readers take the time to check up on).  Yet the truth is the exact opposite : ever since the 1970's, Chomsky's quicky, smooth, breezy style ("style : that's the man himself") has been to make grand, vast claims in the space of a half-sentence and then quickly move on.

Anyone who reads Chomsky's debates on the philosophy of mind with, say, Professor John Searle of Berkeley, will find the exact same literary style from Chomsky.  This self-assured casualness is deeply part of him, and not just in his political writings.

"That breeze, those trees, it's all part of the tender trap." 

 

 

Orwells world is coming true. i'm scared for freedom of speech which will further entrench subtle change in mental maps of american citizens which would allow further manipulation by these individuals in power who serve nobody but their own special interests on the backs of their citizens. what's the deal pretty soon if i look the wrong way i'll be a 'terrorist'. racial profiling is already underway. through coding the hominids are naturalizing fears preparing themselves for the endless war of terror. i can hardly wait for the history books in 2008. what's the deal? terror is bushism american citizens need to shut down the system in order to 'fix' it. the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed by trained professionals instead of borderline mental cases who hear things. here's how you beat the war on terror: turn off your television.

Luckily for future generations , the war is not QUITE recognizable as a war between ALL the rich and the poor. We will need peace in future and lets hope the lies of our leaders and the power of our weapons will reduce the social shakes. ( Hehehe )

The present US doctrine does nothing but fuel terrorism and the process has also divided the nation. I doubt that any real progress will be made in dealing with terrorism. It's like the war on drugs ... you can't control it and there is no way to stop it. Way to much money to be made. It always boils down to the almighty dollar. There is money to be made in the middle east and peace does not translate into dollars. Critical event, impressionable and fearfull society, new doctrine = money. Neat and simple equation that cannot easily be neutralized. The New America! My deepest sympathy to all who will suffer, and that includes us North of the Border! Leaders are born and politicans are bred the latter never make it to government. This all started a long time ago and the momentum it has gained makes it increasingly hard to stop it. All governments are guily of it and all socities suffer because of it. Who knows what the future holds but I'm sure that peace is not figured into the equation as of yet. Due process has been taken away from American citizens how can you expect it to be given to the rest of the world?

One of the worst effects of this "war on terror" is that it has become a rhetorical cover to justify a massive crackdown on dissident groups in many countries from Uzbekistan (where torture is encouraged to gain "intelligence" for the "global war on terror")to the Phillipines (which just received almost double the military aid it received from the U.S government the previous year)to Jordan (where dissenting newspapers are shut down and journalists jailed) to Djibouti (where non-state neewspapers are banned. And this is just the short-list.

How to Fight Terrorists? Dr. Chomsky, sir, terrorists/freedom-fighters aren't born as such, rather you become that. The United States, through their reckless policies, in their ever attempt towards capitalistic globalization create singularities who are opposed to this movement: the singularities join together to form a multitude; this is what is happening. Of course, the US is going to label anyone who opposes its Emprire a terrorist: It gives them justification for intervention--means towards an end; defeating terrorism, entirely fabricated, will lead to our end--capitalistic globalization. I'll be out there fighting against the US, the question is: Will you? Or, do you prefer to sit at your computer screen preaching about America's wrong-doing? Capitalists are so clever in coming up with new ways to keep us isolated and alienated...technology allows capitalism to remain...