Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You simply called me a Brzezinski fanboy and said that that was why I disliked Chomsky. At that point I hadn't done anything else other than to criticize him (your name wasn't brought up), but you apparently felt honor-bound to defend him.

Once again making grand assumptions about people. I stated precisely why I took to his defense. One need not be invited nor prompted in order to challenge an assertion, most of all on an internet forum.

And when the hell did I "tout" my homeschooling as if it makes me superior to you? You used your education to condescend me. Have you even been reading my replies?

No, I invoked my educational experience as proof that I had a much better idea of just how well Chomsky was circulated amongst professionals, since your criticism of him was that he wrote unprofessional emotional garbage that real professionals don't take seriously. I've been there to see that this is not the case. You have not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Please get back to Noam and stay away from the personal comments. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mouthwash]

He could have been a bit better about not getting the ISI and the Saudis involved. That way it would have been more likely Massoud and the other guy (think it is Najibullah, but too lazy to google it.) in a stable position of power and violent nutters like Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar would have been sidelined.
Plus, the conflict wouldn't have been internationalized. From what I have read the internationalization of the Afghanistan War really helped to spread the ideas of violent Political Islam which is something we can all agree on isn't a Good Thing.
If you consider "turning a developing nation into a sordid patch of dirt ruled over by warlords and religious nutters" to be doing a good job, I would hate to see what your definition of 'bad job' is.

9/11 was still contingent on an extremely large variety of factors. You can't say that Brzezinski's actions "directly" led to 9/11 in any meaningful sense of the word.

Considering you have made threads solely about how your posts are designed solely to troll [X-group(s)], it is a valid question/comment.

And so that gives people leave to insult me any time they please?

There is simply no way that someone like Noam Chomsky should ever get a death threat in any country which claims to be modern and civilized, regardless of whether he is a leftist or a rightist, a libertarian or an authoritarian. To try to rationalize it on any basis is "pathetic".

So... to be a "modern" or "civilized" country, operating on your definition, there has to be no unstable or violent person in the country who would be willing to threaten or actually carry out assassinations against controversial pundits at all? That sounds, scuse me for being cliche, like what most people would refer to as "utopia."

 

[Mouthwash]

Moderator Action: Please get back to Noam and stay away from the personal comments. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

What is there to talk about? About how Chomsky is extremely punchable or wears glasses? This shouldn't count as PDMA; I'm only curious, but it seems like semi-troll threads such as these inevitably descend into ad hominem chaos after all the jokes have been made and dusted off.

 

[MobBoss]

There is simply no way that someone like Noam Chomsky should ever get a death threat in any country which claims to be modern and civilized, regardless of whether he is a leftist or a rightist, a libertarian or an authoritarian. To try to rationalize it on any basis is "pathetic".

You dont think people like Chomsky get death threats in other nations?

How quaint. That's rather like Ahmadinawhackjob claiming there are no gay people in Iran. Of course there are, and of course crazy people who make such death threats exist even in those nations you deem 'civilized'.

And again, i'm not rationalizing or defending such threats. You're making silly claims that are completely unsupportable or utterly meaningless. I'm simply pointing that out.

 

[Ajidica]

9/11 was still contingent on an extremely large variety of factors. You can't say that Brzezinski's actions "directly" led to 9/11 in any meaningful sense of the word.

I don't believe I even mentioned 9/11 in my post, let alone said his actions lead to 9/11. (Especially because I was considering mentioning that to Cheezy when he said Brzezinski's actions set the stage for 9/11.)
If my post happened to include a secret Illuminati code that did mention 9/11 I plead ignorance and offer to have a memory wipe.

And so that gives people leave to insult me any time they please?

If you didn't make yourself such a large target it would be easier to avoid accidentally insulting you.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: No real discussion going on, thread closed.