portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

faith & spirituality

dissing Chomsky gets centre collumn ???

Chomsky haters hack centre collumn?





so silly Chomsky hating trolls now get acsess to centre collumn?
Either trolls have successfully hacked PDX indy or the keepers of the temple are smoking crack. That said,perhaps Chomsky IS evil if he won"t endorse every conspiracy theory you hold dear...
This appears to be part of an ongoing program to smear anarchists. 07.Jun.2003 05:32

@

What is outrageous is that IndyMedia or Portland is insufficiently savy about what is going on to avoid being duped into doing the work of COINTELPRO. Shame on IndyMedia, Portland.

makes sense, but couldn've been tighter 07.Jun.2003 08:03

quill

I'm pretty sure the thinking was that this was obviously such a controversial issue that it reflects a lot of what's going on in peoples' minds lately... But if that was the thinking, then the feature itself could have and should have (IMHO) reflected some of the dissent to the original premise, not just slammed Noam outright without showing the other side, which is that many of us applaud Noam for not speaking out his ass about things he can't confirm. That makes him a lot more credible than.... well frankly than a lot of folks who publish to this site, or who answer calls on call-in shows and pretend they know the truth when they don't, and certainly than the politicians who read off a script, say nothing, and then answer questions in doublespeak.

He's on our side.

that's enough for me... I've learned a lot from his books, and other writings. Not perfect, nor all knowing, but I bet none of us are...and at least he's got the guts to admit it.

middle-of-the-roaders 07.Jun.2003 10:20

open mind

There are only two thing in the middle of the road: a liberal and a dead armadillo.

dissing Chomsky gets centre collumn [sic] ??? 07.Jun.2003 11:44

--

and that's your idea of news fit to post? ... COINTELPRO! INFILTRATION! THE END OF THE WORLD!!!! (let's all flail our arms in unison now!)

yes it got entire column and it will again! 07.Jun.2003 17:35

a pdx indy editor

it's so funny how people complain about not having enough "balance" on a site like this, but once one takes aim at a darling of the left, one gets slammed.

chomsky is not perfect, but more importantly his myopia re. 9/11 is part of a liberal-intellectual tendency that is preventing important work being done, i.e., an investigation into what really happened on Sept. 11, how and why. he's backing up the u.s. government on this issue, not questioning the official, and completely unsubstantiated, official conspiracy theory (the one about 19 arabs doing it, 5 of whom were identified as still living by the government of Saudi Arabia). the official story is in deep need of being questioned, and people like chomsky who are unwilling to do so need to be called to task.

the topic of a 9.11 investigation is not a left or a right issue, it is an issue of truth. isn't that what indymedia is for?

Chomsky 07.Jun.2003 22:52

Raven

Chomsky haters? Is this a serious post or some spam?

I for one, don't hate Chomsky. I do recognize that he has some personal limitations. We all do of course. The problem is though, that many people look to the Chomsky's of the world and shape their thinking accordingly.

I don't particularly care about the Kennedy assassination, but anyone who really thinks it was a lone gunman is deluded. You have to concoct ridiculous science (the magic bullet theory) to explain it. Chomsky still maintains, in the face of clear science to the contrary, that it was a lone gunman. Chomsky also accepts the government story of who did 9/11 even though the government has provided no proof to back up its claims. If Chomsky said "We do not have proof of what happened on 9/11 and there are not enough public facts to determine who did it and why." that would be fine and leaves room for questions to be asked. People give Chomsky credit for sticking to facts but he does not always do so.

All this would still not be that noteworthy until people start asking questions about what happened on 9/11 and one discovers that the liberal establishment as a whole not only supports the governments theory, but actually goes on to attack people who ask questions about it. The government which has failed to provide proof of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that it supposedly went to war about has also failed to provide proof of who carried out the attacks on 9/11 and why. That government has also squashed effort at investigating the 9/11 attacks.

The irony is that if you question the governments assertion of what happened on 9/11 and the lack of factual proof, you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. Guess you are supposed to believe what you are told. Afterall, the government wouldn't lie to you.

If you ask me... 08.Jun.2003 06:54

Skwirl ominous_squirrel@hotmail.com

The Portland Indymedia volunteers are suffering from a serious case of groupthink. There are loads of critiques of Portland Indymedia censorship or editorial bias in the compost bin, but almost none in the newsfeed. Everytime someone complains of censorship, somebody (supposidely an indymedia editor) posts "it's not censorship if you can read it in the compost bin." Uhm. No. Sorry. Burying a legit story is a type of censorship, thank you very much.

I can discern no rational rhyme or reason from what gets posted to the featured page. Obvious trolls like Emma Goldwoman rewrite the same old rant and get featured time and time again. Frankly, I think the whole idea of editorial cliques is absurd on a supposidely progressive weblog anyway when democratic community editing has been proven time and time again.

As for conspiracy theories... whatever... they're always going to be around . I'd just like to think that editors, mainstream or otherwise, would uphold a higher standard of truth than "garsh, I just thunk up that maybe cell phones don't work in planes." Is this source an expert in cell phone technology? Has anyone ever experimented with ordinary cell phones at various altitudes? Do we really know where the planes were when the calls were made? Can we trust the common story that regular cell phones were used as opposed to skyphones?

Is the 9-11 story inconsistent and unintuitive? Sure. Reality is inconsistent and unintuitive, especially after being filtered through human sense, human recollection and human retelling.

Skwirl - too much cynicism - go do something positive 08.Jun.2003 09:43

Time for tea

The Portland Indymedia volunteers are suffering from a serious case of groupthink. There are loads of critiques of Portland Indymedia censorship or editorial bias in the compost bin, but almost none in the newsfeed.>>>

That is because they are mostly posted by spammers. I notice this one isn't in the compost bin.

I can discern no rational rhyme or reason from what gets posted to the featured page. Obvious trolls like Emma Goldwoman rewrite the same old rant and get featured time and time again. Frankly, I think the whole idea of editorial cliques is absurd on a supposidely progressive weblog anyway when democratic community editing has been proven time and time again.>>>

Go start one then.

As for conspiracy theories... whatever... they're always going to be around . I'd just like to think that editors, mainstream or otherwise, would uphold a higher standard of truth than "garsh, I just thunk up that maybe cell phones don't work in planes.">>>

The one story I read about the cellphones (dont have an opinion about the calls being fake or not) was by a scientist who hired a plane and went up with various cell phones to various elevations and tested them.

what's your point again? 08.Jun.2003 12:02

LK

or do you have one?

He needs to be challenged 08.Jun.2003 14:28

Jack Straw

Thanks, portland IMC, for featuring this critique of Chomsky. He needs to be challenged, his denial re 9/11 and attacks on people who question the official story and his acceptance of it are sickening. And i say this as someone who has identified with the anarchist movement since the early '70s. This is not an attack on that movement, and if some people take it that way, this shows how we have developed a very unhealthy attachment to icons, the very antithesis of anarchist thought. By the way, i posted a comment about the evidence at the original feature, re some of the ways the official story violates the laws of physics. For people who call themselves free-thinking anarchists to accept such an open violation of logic in public discourse is a very negative development for the movement.

"objectively speaking" 08.Jun.2003 20:36

sceptic

Thanks Portland indymedia for being so progressive that it allows debate and questioning of intellectual Chomsky. America has been conditioned to love celebrities and given the fact that there is no real organized "left" in the States the American left searches desperately for some Man/God to worship. Contradictions of the Man/God? Who cares. He has been writing some good shit and has many readers and a fan club so why bother really looking at what this Man/God is doing "objectively". To accept the line of the military-industrial-media-complex and to put down arrogantly people who question and who want the truth is to be "objectively" on their side even though "subjectively" he claims to hate the State. He has claimed openly that ALL governments are violent yet he still sees hope in fighting to take over the government. He goes around accepting crowns from the very institution that he hates. He claims that educational institutions conspire to produce ignorance (sorry, he doesn't use the word 'conspire' here but that is this not what he means by the statement "education is imposed ignorance"?) Objectively his present stand on 9-11 is so reactionary that even Descartes must be turning over in his grave. (By the way, Chomsky also looked up to Bertrand Russell who was a eugenicist was he not? Objectively, what message does he send to his "followers" by this hero worship of Russel l ? I admired Chomsky for years and learned many facts from his research and I agree with his main line: the States will never allow any alternative just classless society to emerge. But to say that there is still some democracy in the states( after 9-11???!!!) is absurd and bad faith on his part. It's time that truly progressive people move beyond Chomsky.

Mystery solved 09.Jun.2003 13:25

The Amazing Kreskin

"5 of whom were identified as still living by the government of Saudi Arabia"

They were using stolen passports. You got any more brain busters, Einstein?

NOT a Chomsky hater, BUT- 09.Jun.2003 15:19

Jerry in Austin jchamkis@bga.com

I used to WORSHIP Chomsky- but then 911 and as they say, EVERYTHING changed. He was very quick to dismiss ANY possibility the US Govt. had any foreknowledge, had any involvement, had any reason to hide the facts. This is madness or senility. Operation Northwoods. Waco. Syphillis tratment witheld. Plutonium injections to unwitting sublects. The Black Panthers. This is a government that should be required to show it's hands every time a cookie jar is broken. Get off the goddamn 'conspiracy theory' bandwagon. A conspiracy is when two or more people agree to violate the law. If you don't think that is going on all around you all the time in government offices you are sound asleep. If you think the US Govt. wouldn't harm American citizens you need to talk to some Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome victims. I live 60 miles south of Waco. People here will NEVER forget what happened there. Chomsky did a lot for progressive thought- but he has failed to understand the new paradigm. I do not hate him for this or even hold it against him, but he has become a denier of the worst in this administration and thereby a de-facto Bush supporter. As such, he has become irrelevant. It's really sad the right-wingers are asking more questions about the rush to fascism than left wingers.

Austin, TX

exactly kreskin 09.Jun.2003 16:42

concerned

Of course the terrorists were using stolen passports. The question is how could the FBI know who was responsible for the attacks as they claimed immediately afterward? They found the surprisingly intact passports that survived the incernation of everything else that supported their case that it was a certain set of individuals, when clearly, the terrorists were not those individuals at all (since they are still alive and well). So the brain buster is why don't more americans see that the FBI was lying when it claimed to know who the terrorists were?

exactly Kreskin 10.Jun.2003 17:50

Shiu Hung shiuhung@pacbell.net

Add to the fact that while the USG claimed 'intelligence/military' failure on 9/11, they managed to come up with the names of the alleged 19 hijackers and Osama Bin Ladin, not more than two hours after the attack. If intelligence failure is the case, then how in the name of common sense that they could come up with so much intelligence information immediately after the attack? How, in the name of common sense, that everything on the hijacked planes that hit the WTC disintegrated -- including the black boxes -- and an id card of one of the hijacker managed to escape the devestation, and landed in an open area where an FBI agent conveniently found this id card? According to the official narrative, the WTC collapse was caused by the plane crash and heat from the burning of the jet fuel, since building #7 was not attacked, how come it collapsed identical to the twin towers? These are just some basic common sense questions which St. Chomsky failed to address with regards to 9/11, and people on the left still thinks he's legitimate? What has Chomsky done since 9/11 to advance the discovery and indictment of our high officials? I am not going to be as polite as some of you and to say Chomsky is a "modified limited hangout" -- period! Shiu