Harry's Place

Phew! Comparisons are too often and too lightly drawn with Zola’s J’accuse, but this truly warrants it. Why oh why though, has this not been blasted in headlines across papers like the Observer like J’accuse was?

any chance we’ll get any – you know – quotes from Chomsky to back all this condemnation up? all we get is ‘got it wrong’ but that needs to be contextualised surely – at least we could be provided with a link. Instead all there is, is bluster and leading questions from Vulliamy.

Frog, there’s plenty of material backing up Ed’s position on the web. Go and look for it yourself.

so you’re saying that a letter such as this doesn’t need to provide actual quotations and proof because they’re ‘available on the web’? hmm, how strange.

incidentally, the event being discussed in the letter happened a week ago. why the delay?

Also – surely there’s a problem with HP Sauce endorsing a letter containing the following:

a letter from Tony Blair’s office after it has been caught out cosying up to British Aerospace or lying over the war in Iraq

I read this on Marko’s site the other day. Amie is quite right, Vulliamy has composed something which is up there with the greats.

Also – surely there’s a problem with HP Sauce endorsing a letter containing the following:

Are you really suggesting that Tony Blair has never been criticised on HP?

Are we having a surreal day perhaps?

Chomsky, the Michael Moore for those Lefties with intellectual pretensions. Fortunately most normal folks have never heard of Chompers.

Oliver Kamm has done excellent work in exposing Chomsky’s rather Pilgeresque intellectual dishonesty.

The man’s a tear one moonbat, and a slimy one at that.

For Amnesty International, of all people, to honour this man is to tear up whatever credibility they have estimably and admirably won over the decades, and to reduce all they say hitherto to didactic nonsense.

Sadly all too true, and Amnesty is not the first international NGO which has in the past done good work, to go this way. Perhaps there is something about these organisations that attract hard Left moonbat types.

The list of organisations to which young idealists who wish to help their fellow man can join without compromising themselves is it seems shrinking. Perhaps there needs to be some kind of ‘kite mark’ moonbat free policy certification process…I say that only half in jest.

Meantime, young men who want to do a stint serving humanity would do far better joining the 10th Mountain Division, the 82nd Airborne Division or the Royal Marines.

“so you’re saying that a letter such as this doesn’t need to provide actual quotations and proof because they’re ‘available on the web’? hmm, how strange.”

yes, he should have provided footnotes like any normal letter-writer. what is the matter with the man?

Nick, show Pilger some respect. Don’t you realise he’s just won the Sydney Peace Prize?

Open letter to Amnesty:

Piss off and mind your own business.

i’m not asking for footnotes, I’m asking for quotes from Chomsky. The letter makes an awful lot of accusations but only quotes a tiny scrap of the man’s words.

if the evidence is irrefutable then the least the author could do is to provide it.

Piss off and mind your own business

Surely that should be Amnesty’s response to Vulliamy

Surely that should be Amnesty’s response to Vulliamy

or the victims response to Chomsky.

Amnesia Intentional has been walking this path for sometime, they now serve a higher truth. The truth is that all that is wrong in the world is caused by the ‘West’; especially the US and Israelis. Therefore criticism of the ‘West’ is right and criticism of opponents of what the ‘West’ stands for; freedom, democracy, law and capitalism, are wrong.

I saw Noam Chomsky on BBC World’s Hard Talk. Far from being a moonbat he was totally reasonable and totally in control.

However he has been subjected to constant vindictive personal attacks from the US right for the simple reason he says things they don’t want to hear.

Likewise he has been subjected to racist abuse by Zionists because he is an anti-Zionist Jew.

Hats off to the man for staying sane as he enters his eighties, despite all this unpleasantness.

Supported Faurisson, claiming that he was “a relatively apolitical liberal”, when he knew full well that he was a neo Nazi

Rubbished reports of the killing fields in Cambodia

Engaged in denial re the Muslim Bosniaks

A great humanitarian, and a model to all on the far Left.

Engaged in denial re the Muslim Bosniaks

can you please provide a link to this?

ManInTheStreet:

I also saw Chomsky on HardTalk. Sakur asked him about his call for the “de-nazification of America” and whether he felt his terminology would alienate the majority of the population instead of engaging them. His reply was that if they viewed the statement in the “proper context” they would understand his meaning. So what “context” should a person understand when he is being called a Nazi (that must be de-nazified)? The vast majority of Americans do not need Chomsky to explain what “Nazi” means.

Is that “totally reasonable and totally in control”?

Chomsky is senile. Anyone who thinks he’s “totally in control” is not very intelligent.

The context is a 1968 report in the New York Times of a protest against an exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry where children could “enter a helicopter for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets” in Vietnam, with a light flashing when a hit was scored on a hut — “even though no people appear,” revealing the extremism of the protestors. This was a year after the warning by the highly respected military historian and Vietnam specialist Bernard Fall that “Vietnam as a cultural and historic entity…is threatened with extinction …[as]… the countryside literally dies under the blows of the largest military machine ever unleashed on an area of this size.”

Chomsky was saying that the attitudes of American imperialism to the Vietnamese in 1968 was comparable to that of German imperialism to subject peoples in, say, 1942. As was demonstrated in the specific example he gave.

David T:

good list, but you missed out on Chomsky’s prediction of a “silent holocaust” in Afghanistan when the decision was made to oust the Taliban.

Lyne he didn’t couch it as a prediction, he said somethign like “we are killing 2 million people right now!”

The proper name for the group is “Amnesty International only for opponents of Regimes we oppose while all those who oppose Regimes we support should be jailed and tortured”.

Those who expect honesty from that group also believe that lotteries are fine investment vehicles. And that the American Social Security system was not designed as a Ponzi
scheme from the outset.

I’d provide quote for frog but his intellectual “skillset” would be unable to understand them.
Words more than one syllable make his brain hurt.

So what regimes which jail and torture their citizens does Amnesty support?

Supported Faurisson

Supported Faurisson’s right to free speech, actually, while maintaining that the holocaust was ‘maybe the worst crime in human history’.

Rubbished reports of the killing fields in Cambodia

An oft repeated accusation, but one that was apparently debunked by Christopher Hitchens some 25 years ago:

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985—-.htm

A great humanitarian, and a model to all on the far Left.

I’m not sure a blog which has posted articles that are broadly supportive of Operation Cast Lead, in which war crimes and possible crimes against humanity were committed (as documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, B’tselem, Breaking The Silence, Goldstone, etc) is in the best position to be lecturing others about respect for human rights, or rank apologia for atrocities.

Bart, it is rare for a person to destroy his own credibility with their words, but you have just done it.

As for Chomsky,he has made numerous apologies and rationalizations for the Khmer Rouge and its Genocide. Including trying to equivalize the Killing Fields with the oppression in East Timor by Indonesia in the 70s & 80s an exercise that involved wiping out on paper, the entire population of East Timor several times over. And yes, he did say that the US-led invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11 would result in 1 to 2 million Afghans starving to death. And he has done a lot more playing footsey with the Holocaust deniers then just defending the rights to free speech. Incidently Chomsky has said that defenders of the US and Israel do not have any rights to free speech.

BTW: What is Chomsky suppose to be lecturing about in Northern Ireland?

BTW: What is Chomsky suppose to be lecturing about in Northern Ireland?

Chomsky has produced millions of words in print and audio/visual over the years. It’s easy to take some of them out of context and twist them as several people here are doing.

It is possible that Chomsky has made a mistake over the Bosnia issue, but immediately attributing malice to a man who has campaigned tirelessly against abuses of power for decades doesn’t seem like the rational path to take.

I’m sure he’s willing to argue with those who disagree with him, and if you still think he’s made a mistake, then perhaps he’s still not evil – perhaps just misguided on this one issue.

Meanwhile it is still the case that no one in the world has done more to expose the underpinnings and operations of imperialism in the world today, and few have done as much to expose the fairy stories that those in power have tried to push on us.

David T:You forgot to include meaningless stuff about his investments.Why? You were quite happy to do this a few years ago.

Before responding to Vulliamy’s letter, some replies are warranted.

ManInTheStreet and MindTheCrap: “So what ‘context’ should a person understand when he is being called a Nazi (that must be de-nazified)?”

Actually what Chomsky asked was whether “a kind of de-Nazification” was needed. Moving on, the context was a game in a museum in which children played at killing Vietnamese peasants. This at a time when the US was propping up a puppet regime and had already killed millions of people in the process. Given the context, the argument about a “kind of de-nazification” is now a great deal clearer. Had Chomsky said the same about the treatment of black people in the US at the time (apartheid-style discrimination, lynchings, etc), would he have been castigated in similar terms? Predictably, when Chomsky’s writings are the issue, the context is always left out.

David T: “Rubbished reports of the killing fields in Cambodia”.

What Chomsky actually wrote was that the reports may be true, that the reports may well be an underestimate of what was occurring, but that these reports were not verifiable in the standard journalistic sense. That the numbers of dead were indeed an underestimate in the end is totally irrelevant. You report what you know, not what you believe might be the case. Similarly, if in 1939 newspapers reported that the Nazis had murdered 6 million Jews, you do not praise them for having been proven right in 1945. The issue is accuracy.

David T: “Engaged in denial re the Muslim Bosniaks.”

The very opposite is the case. Chomsky was one of the commentators to point out what was actually happening: Bosnia was being partitioned by Serbia and Croatia, with the Western powers aiding Croatia’s aggression.

David T: “Supported Faurisson, claiming that he was “a relatively apolitical liberal”, when he knew full well that he was a neo Nazi.”

Mostly right. Chomsky supported Faurisson’s freedom to deny the Holocaust. Chomsky did say that he believed Faurisson was “a relatively apolitical liberal”. That is to say, he had no idea who this man was and was under the impression that he was “a relatively apolitical liberal”. For David T to presume to know that Chomsky “knew full well” that Faurisson was a neo-Nazi is to assume amazing mindreading powers. Whatever suspicions one may have about Chomsky and his knowledge of Faurrison, one cannot, however, assume, as you have done, to “know” what Chomsky really believed. No one can. You can say that Chomsky was naive for believing what he was told about Faurrison, but that would be to credit Chomsky with human failings, something I suspect Harry’s Place is unwilling to do. Whether Chomsky got Faurrison wrong or right is irrelevant: either you believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. It is irrelevant whether Faurrison is a neo-Nazi or not. No one should be denied this basic freedom. Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers (and one can of course be a Holocaust denier without being a neo-Nazi), Flat Earthers, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, etc should all be free to spread their depraved nonsense. I may be wrong – and if so, I apologise David – but if I remember correctly, you don’t actually believe in freedom of speech, do you? For instance, you believe Holocaust denial should be a crime. That is to say, the state should have the authority to criminalise thought.

Lynne T writes: “…you missed out on Chomsky’s prediction of a ‘silent holocaust’ in Afghanistan when the decision was made to oust the Taliban.”

Chomsky was referring to the warnings made by the humanitarian aid agencies. He was appalled that anyone was willing to take such a risk with so many lives. That Nato was willing to ignore the warnings of humanitarian aid agencies says much about its commitment to the Afghan people. Chomsky’s argument is an unarguable one. That the worst did not happen is irrelevant. Again, the context is left out.

Some have reasonably asked for quotes by Chomsky which would substantiate Vulliamy’s vilifications. The reason that Vulliamy himself and others have not provided these is for the simple reason that they do not exist. So we now have the ludicrous but inevitable result of those championing Vulliamy’s smears replying that if you want evidence that substantiate these smears to find it for themselves! This is some standard of argument. By this logic, Vulliamy himself (or indeed anyone) can be smeared with the charges aimed at Chomsky. Likewise, if asked to provide evidence of such depraved behaviour, the justifiable reply would be find it yourself.

As for Vulliamy. He writes: ‘In an interview with the Guardian, Professor Chomsky paid me the kind compliment of calling me a good journalist, but added that on this occasion (the camps) I had “got it wrong”. Got what wrong?!?! Got wrong what we saw that day, August 5th 1992 (I didn’t see him there)?’

Ed Vulliamy is referring to the “interview” with Emma Brockes. This “interview” included fabricated answers to questions never put to the interviewee. Brockes on numerous occasions has apologised for this “interview” and the Guardian saw fit to pull this absurd “interview” from its website. Vulliamy is using as evidence an interview which the interviewer has accepted as replete with errors and “misrepresentations”, questions never asked with answers never given. That’s quite a defence. I look forward to Vulliamy defending the journalism of Stephen Glass.

Vulliamy goes on: “It is one thing to survive the camps, to lose one’s family and friends – quite another to be told by a bunch of academics with a didactic agenda in support of the pogrom that those camps never existed”. Moreover “a massacre [in Srebrenica] on which Chomsky has also cast doubt”. Again, Chomsky is never actually quoted. Just streams of unfounded claims and smears. The best anyone has come up with is Chomsky praising Diana Johnstone’s book, hardly evidence of genocide denial or “support of the pogrom that these camps never existed”. That Chomsky has repeatedly referred to the Srebrenica massacre and the camps is an irrelevance for Vulliamy.

However, what is not irrelevant is Mr Vulliamy’s own reporting from the camps. Here is what Vulliamy reported on August 7th 1992: “Trnopolje cannot be called a ‘concentration camp’ and is nowhere as sinister as Omarska: it is very grim, something between a civilian prison and transit camp.” I do not for one moment believe that Vulliamy’s reporting here was entirely accurate (although he was there and I was not, Vulliamy can accurately say, as he did with Chomsky, that he did not see me there and thus defend his position more robustly): clearly these camps were not anything like a “civilian prison and transit camp” – but they were certainly not Auschwitz either. In that respect, one can certainly say that Vulliamy “got it wrong”. One could also say that by using Vulliamy’s mode of argument and logic that makes him a “genocide denier”, but that would not be quite right. Vulliamy’s standard is to make disgraceful charges without any evidence whatever. Interestingly enough, when Vulliamy cries “Got what wrong?!?! Got wrong what we saw that day, August 5th 1992” we only know what he is referring to through the report he filed on this matter (published August 7th 1992) in which he denies that these camps are “concentration camps”. What a pickle Vulliamy has got himself into: Vulliamy is crediting his own report that denies these camps were concentration camps as proof that these were concentration camps!

That one of the truly great journalists of the modern era is reduced to this pitiful spectacle is a shocking indictment of what passes for criticism today.

I fear the Guardian/Observer journalist, Ed Vulliamy, has allowed himself to be used by powers greater than himself – such as Richard Perle’s Neo-Con Henry Jackson Society (HJS) – based in Cambridge – of which Oliver Kamm & Marko Hoare are active members.

Who is behind the likes of the HJS ?

The answer is not pretty – but can be found here :

http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=500&start=430

Guess all the sensible people have left this thread to the Chomsky apologists like the authors of the last four comments.

It all depends what you mean by “sensible”, DA.

One man’s “sensible” could be another man’s “stupid”.

And your comment, to this man, is not sensible.

Grow up.

Could one of the charming gentlemen above explain why Chomsky co-authors books with the grotesque Edward Herman?

It all depends what you mean by “grotesque”, DJG.

One man’s “grotesque” could be another man’s “beautiful”.

And your comment, to this man, is not beautiful.

You should grow up too.

Was Ed Vulliamy drunk when he wrote this? Regardless of various debates over Chomsky’s view of the media in the Bosnian war, I’d've thought that Chomsky’s fame and stature as regarding a writer on human rights might explain why Amnesty had him give a lecture.

The silence from Ed Vulliamy (& his employers) is deafening – and deeply disturbing.

“What is veiled in silence would receive front-page headlines in societies that valued their freedom, and were concerned with the fate of the world” (Chomsky)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/5134/war_peace_and_obamas_nobel/

Was Ed Vulliamy drunk when he wrote this? Regardless of various debates over Chomsky’s view of the media in the Bosnian war, I’d’ve thought that Chomsky’s fame and stature as regarding a writer on human rights might explain why Amnesty had him give a lecture.

Maybe they should have given Pinochet a lecture based on his stature too.

One man’s “grotesque” could be another man’s “beautiful”.

And one man’s meaningless “rose by any other name” bulsshit could be another man’s entire raison d’ être.

(But that would still be no reason for an organisation dedicated to human rights to give a speech to a genocide denier.)

For David T to presume to know that Chomsky “knew full well” that Faurisson was a neo-Nazi is to assume amazing mindreading powers.

So you are saying that “the world’s foremost intellectual” not only did not know who the world’s foremost holocuast denier was but was also too damn stupid to use google to look him up?

Pull the other one!

WABOA & IF, are you just being rude – or just plain stupid.

Chomsky is clearly not a Holocaust-Denier (Faurisson) or a Genocide-Denier.

He is simply defending a precious freedom – fought for through great sacrifice; the freedom of speech; the freedom to express an opinion or belief – however outlandish it might appear to be.

As Chomsky has already said : If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in freedom of speech – Stalin believed in freedom of speech for views he agreed with.

If I believe the moon is made of cheese, I should have the freedom to express that belief. If I am challenged to provide evidence for that belief, and I am unable sufficiently to do so, then people can decide for themselves whether or not I’m a nutter.

Let history speak : people thought Galileo was a nutter – and persecuted him for it.

Galileo was proved not to be a nutter – just as I will be able to prove I’m not a nutter, by providing evidence that the moon is made of cheese ;)

If someone expresses an opinion/belied

Illuminfartus: “So you are saying that “the world’s foremost intellectual” not only did not know who the world’s foremost holocuast denier was but was also too damn stupid to use google to look him up?”

Since I can’t tell if you’re joking, I’ll assume you’re being serious. When this storm broke, Faurrison was, as far as I know, almost an unknown figure. If you were an expert in his area of literature, you just might have known his name. The furore was a result not of Faurrison’s freedom of speech but because Chomsky got involved. Faurrison became famous because of this contrived fury aimed at Chomsky. That’s the truth of the matter. Chomsky has never been beaten in argument (and his opponents are left looking utterly stupid), so his enemies (not critics) use other means. And of course Google did not exist in the seventies.

Similarly, there are plenty of neo-Nazis and depraved propagandists I have never heard of. Freedom of speech applies to them as much as it does to anyone. Having said that, I know full well who Nick Griffin and Geert Wilders are. They have as much right as anyone to say whatever they want.

As for these so-called “grotesque books” co-authored with Ed Herman. Chomsky has co-authored relatively few books with Herman and has not co-authored any with Herman for many years. Those he did co-author have stood the test of time and are excellent. I have valued many of Herman’s books, but in recent years his analysis on the Balkans has been somewhat shocking. Far too many on the Left have yet to comprehend the true nature of what happened in the Balkans: a clash between Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia, with Bosnia torn apart.

As Adam LeBor recently reminded us in the Times, Karadzic and many other Serbian war criminals were treated with the most ingratiating respect not so long ago. This at a time when their crimes were at their height. Croatian war criminals are another matter. Tudjman, Milosevic’s barbaric and criminal equal, died with barely a stain on his character. No tribunals for that thug.

Chomsky gives much of the credit for the “Five-Filter Propaganda Model” to his co-author, Ed Herman – which illustrates benovolent, gracious character of Chomsky, and also reveals the malevolent, unpleasant character of those who seek to “smear” them both :

http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=145&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

WABOA & IF, are you just being rude – or just plain stupid.

take it as being whichever is needed to get down to the level of a Chomsky-bot such as yourself.

Chomsky appears to me to not be so much defending freedom of speech as the freedom to make a fool of himself in public. The freedom to act like a three year old in a class of teenagers and the freedom to take advantage of the world’s media in order to fluff up his own ego.

Freedom of speech – it is great isn’t it?

Far too many on the Left have yet to comprehend the true nature of what happened in the Balkans: a clash between Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia, with Bosnia torn apart.

Can you tell us how the Croatians were actually going to achieve this partition of Bosnia? Given that the Croats did not themselves have an army at this time and that they had the fourth largest army in Europe, loyal to Serbia backing Serbian seperatists within Croatia itself and preparing to invade is it not more likely that Tudjman (for all his faults, and they were many for which he would have been tried had he lived) was playing for a time in a similar manner to the government of Yugoslavia itself did after it had concluded agreements to join the tripartite pact with Hitler in 1939?

It would seem to me that Chomsky gassed off on this matter without being in full possession of the facts.

Faurrison was, as far as I know, almost an unknown figure. If you were an expert in his area of literature, you just might have known his name.

It would have been almost impossible to read about the holocaust after the early eighties (when he was first tried) without coming across Faurrison’s name. As early as 1978, when he had written his famous letters to Le Monde denying the gas chambers existed he was world-famous. Chomsly himself claims in his defence of Faurisson that he had known of his work since 1974.

WABOA, I “take it” as you being both rude & stupid – your cocksureness is a function of ignorance.

As for me being a “Chomsky-bot” – I think I know what you mean – I am also an “Orwell-bot” & “Joad-bot”…and more besides.

I believe I’m “MyOwn-bot” – under the perceived illusion of being fiercely independent, and able to think clearly for myself – rather than let others do the thinking for me.

WABOA, I “take it” as you being both rude & stupid – your cocksureness is a function of ignorance.

The feeling is mutual although my ignorance is based on evidence whilst your own seems to be based upon childish emotional outbursts.

Minds which are too open and which lack the intelligence to filter information are sewers into which all the untreated wastage of the modern world pours right in. Please go away and drink some disinfectant. It will improve the smell in here no end.

My own take on the ‘Faurisson affair’ years ago is that Chomsky was defending Faurisson’s freedom of speech, at a time when that precious right was being threatened & undermined in France – the country of Voltaire, who famously said at a time of revolution : “I might disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Personally, I believe the ill-willed Faurisson (& his publishers) exploited Chomsky’s goodwill (& naivete), at the time, to their own selfish advantage. And Chomsky’s ‘enemies’ took full advantage.

I sense Chomsky learned much from the experience, and thus become more ’street-wise’, but has still managed to retain a laser-like moral integrity & goodwill which is beyond the understanding of most of us.

WABOA, ‘play the ball, not the man’ – attack a person’s ideas, not the person.

If you can manage that – which I doubt – you might be treated with less amused contempt, and taken more seriously.

Graham: “Can you tell us how the Croatians were actually going to achieve this partition of Bosnia?”

As has been well-documented, Tudjman and Milosevic had a series of meetings in which they agreed to the partition of Bosnia. In any case, it must be a miracle that that is what eventually happened. Later, Dayton rewarded and essentially legitimised the aggression.

Graham: “It would have been almost impossible to read about the holocaust after the early eighties (when he was first tried) without coming across Faurrison’s name.”

Precisely my point: “after the eighties”, as you say. Chomsky signed the petition in 1979, before Faurrison’s name became pretty much synonymous with Holocaust-denial. That is to say Chomsky “intervened” very early on, and long before the issue became what it was. It’s Chomsky’s enemies who made a big show about this.

Let’s take as an example the so-called “liberal” Geert Wilders. I have very little knowledge about who or what he is (I do not really follow the Dutch political scene). I do, however, know he’s a scaremonger and a self-confessed Islamophobe. Nevertheless, I strongly support his freedom of speech and expression. But note that I support it no stronger than I support anyone else’s.

Let us suppose that Chomsky knew about Faurrison in 1974, what does that change? Nothing. I know that Eric Hobsbawm does not accept the figure of 6 million Jews massacred by the Nazis. Hobsbawm is no Holocaust denier and I accept his freedom of speech on this and any other matter.

WABOA, ‘play the ball, not the man’ – attack a person’s ideas, not the person.

That’s laughable. Since it was yourself who started “playing the man”

Now get lost. I have no time to waste on deluded lunatics who reveal their own hypocrisy and inability to comment with honesty in the space of three comments.

South Africa – US – Israel – Europe – Croatia – Bosnia – Serbia – Chomsky – Henry Jackson Society

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/11/the-south … lobby.html

Comments by Syvanen
November 2, 2009 at 11:43 pm

“The importance of a US lobby in pushing our foreign policy can be seen very clearly in how we reacted to the civil war that broke out when Yugoslavia collapsed. Basically, there was a large Croation expatriot community in the US (these were made up of the Croatian Utashi that collaborated with the Germans during WWII, the US welcomed them because they could be used in the anticommunism crusade following that war). These communities became relatively prosperous in the US and Canada over the nest 40 years. Once Yugoslavia broke up, these former Croatian fascists lobbied the US to support the Croatian forces, then is an alliance with the Moslems of Bosnia, to oppose the Serbs. There were no large Serbian communities in the US to counter this lobby. This led directly to the US supporting the Moslem and Croatian forces that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Serbian population in the province of Krajina and the Nato war against the Serbs in Kosovo.

This was one time where I had to admire Israeli foreign policy. They refused to demonize the Serbs for the simple reason that during WWII the Serbs supported an underground railroad for Eastern European Jews escaping to Israel. Not just that but the Croatian Ustashe manned the concentration camps that sent many Jews and many more Serbs to their deaths. It is sickening to see that US foreign policy is still backing these fascist Balkan parties in Kosovo and Bosnia. That is the power of ethnic lobbies.”

As has been well-documented, Tudjman and Milosevic had a series of meetings in which they agreed to the partition of Bosnia.

Well what has actually been documented is that there were a series of meetings between Tudjman and Milosevic known now as the Karađorđevo meetings. What was actually discussed at those meetings is not documented and records do not survive. However, my question is, even if Tudjman had agreed to partition Bosnia with Milosevic how were the Croats going to achieve this given they had absolutely no military with which to defend their own country at this time? As I said above, it would make more sense (and most historians see it this way) for Tudjman to have been playing for time in the defence of Croatia not considering the division of Bosnia. As for that being what eventually happened I’m afraid I cannot see this at all. Today’s Bosnian/Croat federation is in no sense a Croat state.

Precisely my point: “after the eighties”, as you say. Chomsky signed the petition in 1979, before Faurrison’s name became pretty much synonymous with Holocaust-denial.

In 1979 Faurrison’s name was all over the world’s newspapers as that is the exact period when he emerged into public with his letters. As I said, Chomsky claims to have been aware of his work since 74.

Let us suppose that Chomsky knew about Faurrison in 1974, what does that change? Nothing. I know that Eric Hobsbawm does not accept the figure of 6 million Jews massacred by the Nazis.

Hobsbawm (like most historians) may quibble at an exact number of deaths but he accepts the holocaust and does not write to newspapers questioning the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. There is an enormous difference. Chomsky, as an academic, really should understand the difference (after all, it is what he validates his own career as an academic on is it not?)

Once Yugoslavia broke up, these former Croatian fascists lobbied the US to support the Croatian forces

Damn these ninety year olds!

:-)

By the way. The ustascha were a vanguard movement which never had more than about 500 members.They were put into power by Mussolini, proved totally incapable of running a country and mostly came from very backward areas of the country – what use the Americans would have for any of them in the fight against communists is anyone’s guess. Most of them died at Poljana or were executed afterwards by Tito anyway. “Ustache” has become a byword in Serbia for anyone who is hated – even Milosevic at the end of his rule was called an ustachist.

The Civil War Explained

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 842AA2XQMo

EXCERPTS

Can someone very simply explain all the wars in Yugoslavia?
And what happened between Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia etc. It’s so confusing.

Upon reading these LONG answers I’ve decided Yugoslavian countries and Balkan Ethnic Groups are ALL worthless and pathetic, and I couldnt care less about their stupid internal conflicts. But thanks for the effort.

You have to go back in history to get the answer.

That area of the globe has been where cultures have clashed — the Mongols, the Russians, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and many others have clashed in the hills of Yugoslavia. In addition to these world empires, you have tribal, religious and ethnic conflicts that date back thousands of years. It is a mistake to think that these areas have been at peace. There are very deep seated animosities that date back centuries.

Now, the development of the current issues dates back to the end of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. At the end of WW1, England and France divided the losing empires of Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire into different nations. When the Allies — primarily England — redrew the map of Eastern Europe, they paid little attention to the existing longstanding ethnic, religious and tribal rivalries and created a number of arbitrary nations composed of warring peoples.

Following WW2, Marshall Tito was able to keep many of these hostile elements in his population from exploding Yugoslavia by playing the ethnic and tribal groups against each other. When Tito died, no one else had the skills that he possessed and the historic rivalries erupted once more into war and the artificially-created nation forged from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire following WW1 broke apart.

Can someone very simply explain all the wars in Yugoslavia?

No. (And that seems to be what has caught Chomsky out doesn’t it?)

Graham: “However, my question is, even if Tudjman had agreed to partition Bosnia with Milosevic how were the Croats going to achieve this given they had absolutely no military with which to defend their own country at this time?”

The claim that the Croats had “absolutely no military” will not hold up against the barest scrutiny. The Croats were militarily capable and proved it, with US assistance. In any case, what you seem to be saying is that Tudjman agreed with Milosevic to partition Bosnia and then realised he wasn’t in a position to do so. Somewhat strange behaviour, I must say.

Graham: “As for that being what eventually happened I’m afraid I cannot see this at all. Today’s Bosnian/Croat federation is in no sense a Croat state.”

Officially, Bosnia still exists. In reality, it does not. It has been partitioned between Serbia and Croatia. A facade is all that is left.

As for Chomsky and his defence of a Holocaust-denier. His academic reputation is irrelevant. He was simply accepting that even Holocaust-deniers should be free to say what they want. It’s a simple test of freedom of speech. Either you accept that or you don’t. Why anyone would make a big deal of this is a mystery.

Where human rights are concerned, Irish AI has been a hopeless case for quite some time. Several years ago I tried to get their support in cases where Irish Catholic nuns and brothers were accused of murdering children i.e Blood Libels not greatly different from the anti-Semitic variety. They had no interest and our Irish Blood Libels eventually faded away but with the accusers unpunished.

The current Executive Director of AI in Ireland is Colm O’Gorman. About 2 years before he achieved that honour, he wrote in the Irish Times that false allegations of child abuse did NOT constitute a problem. He wrote that in March 2006, just 3 months after a former nun Nora Wall got a Certificate of Miscarriage of Justice from the Court of Criminal Appeal following her wrongful conviction for rape. The text of a letter concerning this issue is at http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/001858.html

I contacted some Jewish people in Ireland and the UK re this issue, also journalists who were sympathetic towards Israel. The little response I got, suggests that they have no interest when the Catholic Church is the target. This is short-sighted to put it mildly.

The claim that the Croats had “absolutely no military” will not hold up against the barest scrutiny.

Really? Perhaps then you could tell us who this Croatian military were at the start of the Balkan wars? Do you really think Tito had allowed nationalist defence forces which would have gone totally against his normal reasoning? No of course you don’t. It is universally accepted that the Croats had no forces when Babic declared the Krajina a Serbian republic in 1990. All Tudjman could muster at the time was two helicopters full of police which he sent to Knin. You are trying to conflate this with the situation nearly five years later at the time of Operation Storm when the Croats had armed themselves (despite western arms embargos) with the help of former Soviet republics. It is an easy mistake to make but pushing it beyond misunderstanding would be to become an apologist for Serbian aggression.

In any case, what you seem to be saying is that Tudjman agreed with Milosevic to partition Bosnia and then realised he wasn’t in a position to do so. Somewhat strange behaviour, I must say.

As already said nobody knows what actually went on at those meetings but as Milosevic was arguing from a position of overwhelming power an informed guess would be that Tudjman was offered Croatian independence (and possibly parts of Bosnia) in return for giving up the Krajina.

Officially, Bosnia still exists. In reality, it does not. It has been partitioned between Serbia and Croatia. A facade is all that is left.

I’m sorry but this is just nonsense. The current Croatian government has no interest in Bosnia and the Bosnian people (outside the ethnographic Serb republic are over 85% non-Croat. The reality does not fit the narrative which you are attempting to construct around it.

He was simply accepting that even Holocaust-deniers should be free to say what they want. It’s a simple test of freedom of speech. Either you accept that or you don’t.

Of course most people accept it – this is why we are taking advantage of freedom of speech to question why Chomsky chose to get involved with a holocaust denier. Nick Griffin has free speech but there is no reason why anyone should not question why he uses it to spout racist views.

I can’t help feeling that Chomsky (& the rest of us) are becoming embroiled in a complex & confusing issue – made more complex & confusing by those with a hidden, global agenda.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the distinct impression that almost all those who jostled for power after Tito’s death, and who were responsible for the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, have blood on their hands – criminals guilty of war crimes.

All is not what it seems.

Are we monkeys dancing to a tune played by the organ-grinder – pawns in a global game ?

I believe so.

for Graham: do some reading:
http://www.partitionconflicts.com/partitions/regions/balkans/conflict/05_04_03/
“In the summer of 1992 Croatian paramilitary groups moved to create their own ethnic territories in the mixed Muslim-Croat regions of Bosnia & Herzegovina. With the aid of Croatian troops that had originally entered Bosnia in pursuit of the war in Croatia, they took control of Mostar city, and surrounding areas in western Herzegovina.

The Croatian nationalists dismissed Muslims from public office in areas under their control, and mounted roadblocks around Mostar to curtail Muslim movement both into and out of the city.

The first small steps towards Herzegovina’s integration with Croatia had already been taken in 1991, during the war between Croatia and Yugoslavia, when thousands of Bosnian Croats joined the Croatian army, and the Croatian Dinar replaced the Yugoslav currency in some parts of Herzegovina. (Independent Croatia’s first defense minister, Gojko Susak, was a Bosnian Croat from western Herzegovina). ”
or
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Republic_of_Herzeg-Bosnia”

Richard: you are, to borrow a term Chomsky himself used when discussing Pinochet in 1978, a ‘detestable fuckpig’.

Django : I challenge you to source that quote from Chomsky regarding Pinochet in 1978.

It’s not the kind of expression which Chomsky would use – so I think the quote is a fabrication on your part – or someone else’s.

If that is the case, then to call you a “detestable fuckpig” would be a serious understatement.

Graham, I guess we’re not going to agree on Croatia’s role in Bosnia, or what has become of Bosnia. All the books I’ve read on the wars in Yugoslavia, and especially Bosnia, paint a very different picture to the one you describe. Which reminds me, I’ve yet to read Marko Attila Hoare’s books on Bosnia. Friends who have read him say he’s very good indeed. I promised myself 2009 would be the year I read his books. Oh well, there’s always 2010! Anyway, all of this is taking away from the main issue of this thread.

Graham: “..question why Chomsky chose to get involved with a holocaust denier.”

Chomsky has replied in the past: “A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for ‘falsification of History,’ and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it.”

That basically sums up Chomsky’s position and that of freedom of speech. Do you want the state, no matter how progressive and liberal, telling you what is and what is not the truth? Borrowing a line from Orwell, the old banner, which seems to have disappeared, to Harry’s Place put it rather well: “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” In the case of Faurrison, liberty meant hounding and condemning a man for believing something the state had decided was illegal.

Graham: “Nick Griffin has free speech but there is no reason why anyone should not question why he uses it to spout racist views.”

You’re not comparing like with like. Faurrison’s case cannot be compared to anything Griffin has been subjected to. The analagous situation would be Griffin being tried for believing something that the state has decided he has no right to think. As bad as the law is in the UK, thankfully it’s better than that in many European countries, where Griffin would have been tried and probably imprisoned.

All the books I’ve read on the wars in Yugoslavia, and especially Bosnia, paint a very different picture to the one you describe.

Well I don’t know which books you have been reading but Misha Glenny, Brendan Simms, Marcus Tanner and Tim Judah (to name the obvious ones) would all go along with what I have been saying. I’ve met Marko but to my shame not read any of his books so maybe I’ll manage that this year too.

On Chomsky, as I have said clearly he can use free speech to defend whoever he likes but he really shouldn’t be surprised if the same free speech is then used to criticise the causes he freely chooses to support. Nobody is saying Chomsky’s support puts him on a level with Faurisson (well some probably will but I’m not.)

Yugoslav.

Nobody said that there were not Croatian militias operating during the Bosnian war (so I am not at all sure what point you are trying to make.)

Richard W Symonds on Voltaire “I might disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

As far as we know, Voltaire never said it, although it would have fitting if he had. It has been attributed to him, but there is no evidence to suggest that he did say it. Sorry, to be somewhat pedantic. I’m having an Oliver Kamm moment. Another Kammian moment will over take me shortly: I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more…

By the way Yugoslav – you miss out the preceeding paragraphs from your own article (which give the context for the Croatian actions that you describe. Here, I will help you out:)

While the fighting spread Serbian forces began to shell the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, demanding that the Bosnian government agree to partition Sarajevo in order to create a Serb capital city. The push for a two-level partition, of the cities and the country, was to characterize the war for the next three and a half years.

By the end of spring 1992 Serbian forces had widened the east-west corridor, and set up “Bureaus for Population Exchange” all over northern Bosnia. Muslims and Croats who had not been forced to flee at the barrel of a gun were forced to pay for their own ethnic cleansing. Refugees were packed into sealed trains and sent to Croatia’s capital, Zagreb.

Graham: “Well I don’t know which books you have been reading but Misha Glenny…”

I rather think Glenny is on my side of the argument, Graham! His Fall of Yugoslavia is an excellent book and the history he outlines is more in line with what I’ve been suggesting.

As for Simms, I’ve got his book at home and have been meaning to read it for some time. I can’t wait to get to the bit in which the mighty Malcolm Rifkind tells the US who’s boss! Or the powerful Douglas Hurd confounds US foreign policy! All in all, it’s a farfetched thesis: Rifkind and Hurd broughty the State Department and Pentagon to their knees.

Well the relevant sections in “The fall of Yugoslavia” would be on P101 where Glenny talks about the Yugoslav army fighting against the Croat police and embryonic army and 102/3 where he states quite clearly that the only weapon the Croats had against JNA (Yugoslav army) agression was economic. Throughout these pages it is repeatedly stated that the Yugoslav army (4th largest in Europe at the time) was basically fighting against Croat policemen armed with handguns.

‘Upon reading these LONG answers I’ve decided Yugoslavian countries and Balkan Ethnic Groups are ALL worthless and pathetic, and I couldnt care less about their stupid internal conflicts.’

This is pure racism. Still, it does not come as a surprise to learn that this hero-worshipper of Chomsky has a racist view of the Balkan peoples.

to graham
I did not miss anything. I gave you the links.
But it is good that you are reading. Read both articles in totality. Or visit that area and you will find that Croatia is more present there then B&H state and that Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia is still very live in people lives and minds.

Yugoslav.

You missed the point under discussion. Before you can read anything you need to learn how to read. As for visiting the area I have done frequently and you are talking nonsense as you very well know.

Once again.

Your article says that there are SOME Bosnian Croatian politicians who advocate a third entity in Bosnia.

Compare this with my statement (that you objected to) that the current government of Croatia has no interest in Bosnia and then go back to your article and read clearly the statement from the President of Croatia:

Stjepan Mesić, president of Croatia, has opposed the creation of a third entity, stating that: “if the current division of Bosnia Herzegovina into two entities does not function, it will not function with divisions into three entities”.

Stjepan Mesić, president of Croatia, has opposed the creation of a third entity, stating that: “if the current division of Bosnia Herzegovina into two entities does not function, it will not function with divisions into three entities”.[

Marko Attila Hoare
7 November 2009, 11:50 am

“Upon reading these LONG answers I’ve decided Yugoslavian countries and Balkan Ethnic Groups are ALL worthless and pathetic, and I couldnt care less about their stupid internal conflicts.”

This is pure racism. Still, it does not come as a surprise to learn that this hero-worshipper of Chomsky has a racist view of the Balkan peoples.

Nice try, Hun – but it appears you also have a reading problem.

On closer inspection of this :
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091003223842AA2XQMo
you will find, Attilla, that you cannot pin that quote on a “hero-worshipper of Chomsky” – if that’s me you’re misquoting.

If I am a “worshipper” of anything, it is truth – something which you, Hun, seem to have a problem with as Henry Jackson Society’s “Senior Director-European Neighbourhood” – a Society full of Zionists & Neo-Cons (& their apologists), with the likes of Richard Perle as their “Patron”.

And just to remind you, Attila, calling someone a Zionist is NOT racist or anti-Semitic – before you throw your Neo-Con toys out of the Zionist pram.

I am not anti-Semitic – but I am anti-Zionist. There is a chasm of difference between the two – as you well know, Hun – and that is not a racist comment.

From someone from Kingston Polytechnic (sorry, University), you should know better.

You should grow up too.

I am not anti-Semitic – but I am anti-Zionist.

You are also a pure racist as regards the people of the Balkans.

Pure b#######, WABOA – and you know it – and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for peddling lies.

Quite why you are not drowning in your own deceit & hypocrisy, I will never know.

I’m no saint – I’m human thus fallible, selfish, make mistakes, and too often full of b###s### (ask my wife & children!), but I can spot your moral blindness from 500 yards in bad light.

Stop dancing to the tune of the most powerful, and start dancing to your own.

Your contrived, manufactured arguments, especially against Chomsky, are simply vacuous – and fall to pieces on the briefest closer inspection.

All that you can do – in desperation – is be personally offensive, rude & insulting – like a group of immature kindergarten kids in thrall to the bully.

Grow up, for goodness sake !

to Graham,
Our discussion is out of topic and I miss some other topics (Biljana Placsic, I agree totally with introductory article), because I stop my regulary reading of HP (which i find as mostly Zionist site, which I will probably spoil comparing right of Bosnian Serb for self-determination in Bosnia, or Croatia) and what they were doing with Zionist and right for self-determination of Jews and Arabs and what they are doing in Palestine -Israel. For me people of territory which is under foreign control ( colonial power ) have that right (right of self-determination) but not ethnic groups that live mixed with other ethnic group trying to dived and destroy that entity, area or existing country. Nationalism , such strong and evil ideology , becomes disastrous for such communities.
You should be probably aware that stronghold of Croats nationalism was Herzeg- Bosnia and that part stay in Bosnia only because temporary that suited Tudjman in his battles and plays with Miloshevic. Those nationalist did the same ethnic cleansing as they counterpart Serbs. In Mostar they tried to destroyed and eliminate all Mostar Muslim population ( in 1993 you could watch that live on TV) and because they did not succeeded in that , Herzeg-Bosna without Mostar is not very desired goal. I visited Mostar 3 months ago (to visit my Croats relatives which I have been visiting for last 50 years) and its present division was almost unbearable for me (”you are talking nonsense as you very well know”.).
Mesic or father Petar Matanović (from Tuzla) are rather exceptions then norm.
“The current Croatian government has no interest in Bosnia and the Bosnian people ” (assumed that Bosnian Croats are Bosnian people) is utter nonsense ( they all have or could have Croatian Passport).

Having the right to have a passport does not mean that a government is interested in annexing the territory in which you live. Were that the case, the British government (pace Joanna Lumley’s efforts) could justifiably be accused of attempting to take over Nepal.

Of course there were terrible crimes committed by Croats in Bosnia but to deny the overall responsibility for the Balkan wars of Serb nationalists backed by a powerful army is just plain ridiculous.

As far as Chomsky goes I rather think he is the academic of choice for stupid people (or at best for people who may understand their area of speciality – often a science- well but don’t have the time to study history or global politics.) He seems to attract fanatics seeking a grand narrative to explain a complicated world in a simple way, and his followers (as on this thread) often come across as slightly loony and desperate.

Getting beyond the old “if you aren’t with us you are against us” nonsense (which has crippled the left for years) would be a vast improvement on their outlook. Dispensing with the hero worship of cult figures such as Chomsky because there are no Stalins around to fawn over would at least move them into the 2nd half of the twentieth century but I fear that the effort of the intellect required to get them into the here and now is beyond most of them.

graham.
stop putting your thoughts in other people minds,
I did not talk about annexing the territory, only interest in people as you put it. Read your sentence.
and about “deny the overall responsibility for the Balkan wars of Serb nationalists backed by a powerful army is just plain ridiculous.” I did not mention that at all , and when I said: “…. topic Biljana Plavcsic, I agree totally with introductory article) (you could probably conclude what I think about Serbian nationalists and their responsibilities for the wars
that topic was:” Bosnia now: the past and the future facing each other” Cross-posted from CAFÉ TURCO” if it that is not clear.

Graham, I would really suggest you read a little more Chomsky – and try & understand a little more where I’m coming from.

That way, we stand a chance of having a more intelligent exchange of views – instead of having a cock-fight.

I am trying to understand more about the Balkans – but it ain’t easy !

Just take time out to read this (an article by Seumus Milne in yesterday’s Guardian, Sat Nov 7 2009), to get a more insightful idea of the reason why the likes of Oliver Kamm, Marko A. Hoare & Ed Vulliamy are being used to ’smear’ the likes of Chomsky – and ‘muddy the waters’ on complex issues such as the Balkans – to further a covert geo-political agenda :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

Symonds WAS the author of the racist comment about the Balkan peoples that I quoted; the link he posted in response doesn’t indicate otherwise. He posted that comment under his own name in the Gatwick City discussion forum. Then, in his 8:47pm comment above, he wrote those lines again without quote marks or comment. It’s no good him now trying to distance himself from it.

In fact, Symonds just can’t stop digging:

‘I am trying to understand more about the Balkans – but it ain’t easy !’

Not easy for someone like you, Richard, who clearly isn’t the sharpest tool in the box and who no doubt finds all foreigners a bit scary and difficult to understand.

Q: What do you call someone who raves against ‘Zionists’ and views the Balkan peoples as untermenschen ?

A: A Chomsky supporter !

It would help your case substantially, Hun, if what you said above was true !

I posted that “racist” comment (not said by me, sadly for you Attila) to try & ‘get a handle’ on this complex, confusing issue – made more complex & confusing by the likes of the Zuonist-NeoCon Henry Jackson Society.

The “racist” comment which I quoted was an illustration of the exasperation many people feel when trying to understand the problem, and pin-point who is the most guilty of war crimes.

Mr Hoare, use your education & intelligence to help others understand, not use such gifts to further your own – and your paymasters – hidden political agenda.

Oh dear, it looks like Symonds is tying himself in knots trying to extricate himself from what he wrote. Now he says:

‘I posted that “racist” comment (not said by me, sadly for you Attila) to try & ‘get a handle’ on this complex, confusing issue’

Now he admits to having posted a racist comment to ‘get a handle on this complex, confusing issue’, suggesting he does identify with the comment after all, and does find racism an acceptable approach to problems he lacks the intelligence to understand.

He also puts the word ‘racist’ in quote marks. Why would he do this ?
The statement ‘Balkan Ethnic Groups are ALL worthless and pathetic’ is racist by anyone’s standards. Or is he trying to deny this ?

‘If I am a “worshipper” of anything, it is truth’

Hahahahaha !!

I give up – your comments verge on the near-libelous – with a dangerous idiocy lying beneath.

graham.
stop putting your thoughts in other people minds,
I did not talk about annexing the territory, only interest in people as you put it.

My apologies. I thought we were still talking about your objection to me saying the Croat government had any interest in Bosnia. Please put your objection to me again so I can get the slightest idea of what you are going on about now.

God help us Richard – you want me to read both Chomsky AND Shameless Milne in order to uncover a “conspiracy” run by a few bloggers? But experience tells me that Chomsky has nothing to teach me whilst Milne is part of a conspiracy of middle-class Stalinists who exist merely to stop the left doing its job of standing up for the workers. Why would I want to read such stooges of the Illuminati? :-)

God help us indeed, Graham, from the likes of you & HJS’s ‘Attila’ !

If you lot weren’t so lethally dangerous, you’d be a bad joke.

“Now he admits to having posted a racist comment to ‘get a handle on this complex, confusing issue’, suggesting he does identify with the comment after all, and does find racism an acceptable approach to problems he lacks the intelligence to understand” (Marko Attila Hoare).

That’s why Mr Hoare & his HJS apologists are so dangeous : look at the use of the word “suggesting”, and think about it…

There are countless links which I post on the Gatwick City of Ideas Forum – with views I don’t share :

http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&start=0

Just because I post them, is that “suggesting” I agree with them.

Of course not !

Here is another example of the manipulation of language by the likes of HJS :

“Chomsky, says Vulliamy, has encouraged the ‘revisionist’ view which denied the character of the camps (even if it was others such as Thomas Deichmann, writing in Living Marxism magazine, who were the direct authors of this denial”[see Ed Vulliamy, ‘Poison in the well of history’, Guardian, 15 March 2000]).

graham,
it is very simple:
you said “The current Croatian government has no interest in Bosnia and the Bosnian people ” and I commented that statement, which is very different from saying that present Croatian government has interest of annexing part of Bosnia, which is not probably truth for the present government, but not so sure for past or future Croatian governments, but I did not discuss that. It means that Croatian government obviously has interest in Bosnia and the Bosnian people especially in Croats living in Bosnia, which have Croatian passports and voting in Croatian elections.

‘your comments verge on the near-libelous’

So in other words, my comments are not libellous. They are not even near-libellous. They are verging on the near-libellous ! Seems like I don’t have to worry much if you try taking me to court.

Not exactly a verbal wizard, are you, Symonds ?

If you lot weren’t so lethally dangerous

Aye, its hard being licensed to kill in the comments boxes. Sometimes the lizard people invest me with such power that I can feel my foreskin tingling as I type.

Just because I post them, is that “suggesting” I agree with them.

Even Mr Chomsky uses quotation marks to indicate when he is quoting. Anarchy is all very well but even Kropotkin needed punctuation!

Yugoslav.

But your initial objection was historical – so i still have little idea what you actually want to argue about.

Debating with Symonds is a bit like shooting at a barn door from ten feet away.

‘Henry Jackson Society’s “Senior Director-European Neighbourhood” – a Society full of Zionists & Neo-Cons (& their apologists), with the likes of Richard Perle as their “Patron”.’

But this is a good thing, surely ?

‘Kingston Polytechnic (sorry, University)’

Sounds like our Chomskyite friend believes that higher education should be the preserve of the privileged few, and doesn’t have much respect for institutions of learning that seek to broaden the access of ordinary people to it.

Veritably, the powers that be must tremble whenever he puts pen to paper.

‘lethally dangerous’

Mea culpa

Richard’s “open” forum is funny

Admin:

Just to let the “powers that be” know that I had to delete two more spammers on this board that appeared over night.

Not just one spammer but two (its a conspiracy I tell you!)

Richard W:

If we don’t believe in freedom of speech & expression for people whose views we detest & despise, then we don’t believe in freedom of speech & expression. Period.

Ah but the powerful decide who the spammers are! Down with the tyrants of gatwickcity!

Mock all you wish – but I know who is ‘pulling our plonkers’ – which makes your mocking all the more stupid – but very understandable.

Mock all you wish – but I know who is ‘pulling our plonkers’

As a Chomskyite I’d say it was pretty obvious that you are pulling your own.

‘Mock all you wish – but I know who is ‘pulling our plonkers’ – which makes your mocking all the more stupid – but very understandable.’

Graham, it looks like Richard has got us bang to rights. We’d better tell our Zionist paymasters that we’ve been busted…

Damn. There does my new ferrari…

I wondered how long it would take before someone (Graham) called me a “Chomskyite” – a childish use of language serving to ridicule those who happen to hold a different point of view to their own.

If I wanted to compete in being childish, I could call you “Neo-Labor Blairites”, “Eustonites”, “Jacksonites”, Neo-Thatcherites/Reaganites etc….but I won’t stoop to that low level.

I think Orwell talks a lot of uncommon sense about power, propaganda & realpolitik, but that doesn’t make me an “Orwellite”.

Are you unable to comprehend that someone might actually be trying to think for themselves – and as clearly as possible.

By the way, Hun, what are your ‘rewards’ as Executive Director-European Neighbourhood of the Zionist-NeoCon Henry Jackson Society (HJS) based at Cambridge University….and who provides the primary financial backing for HJS.

Give a straight answer, and you might be taken more seriously.

‘If I wanted to compete in being childish, I could call you “Neo-Labor Blairites”, “Eustonites”, “Jacksonites”, Neo-Thatcherites/Reaganites etc….but I won’t stoop to that low level.’

For Symonds, racism, snobbery, personal abuse and wild references to ‘Zionists’ are all acceptable, but not using words ending in ‘-ite’, apparently.

What high standards of discourse he does maintain.

I wondered how long it would take before someone (Graham) called me a “Chomskyite” – a childish use of language serving to ridicule those who happen to hold a different point of view to their own.

No its just a purely descriptive form for somebody who keeps going on about Chomsky.

If I wanted to compete in being childish, I could call you “Neo-Labor Blairites”, “Eustonites”, “Jacksonites”, Neo-Thatcherites/Reaganites etc….but I won’t stoop to that low level.

that’s because you realise that in doing so you would just be constructing a phantom enemy in order to tie up your simplistic Chomskyan narrative which basically goes “if you disgree with anything I say you must be a “neo-Labour blah blah” etc etc.

Are you unable to comprehend that someone might actually be trying to think for themselves – and as clearly as possible.

somebody somewhere probably is, but it sure as hell isn’t you.

Come on now, try harder.

‘who provides the primary financial backing for HJS’ ?

Well, duh ! The Jews, obviously. Oh sorry, I mean the ‘Zionists’. Supported by the CIA, British intelligence and the Big Corporations.

Really, don’t you know anything ??

Someone who thinks they know everything (aka a Know-It-All) knows nothing of any real importance or value – ‘Attila’ should know that.

I again challenge you to answer the question & tell the truth, Hun – something which you seem to find quite difficult :

Who is the primary financial backer behind the Cambridge-based Henry Jackson Society ?

Simple question.

Who is the primary financial backer behind the Cambridge-based Henry Jackson Society ?

Is it that well known shadowy group known as “The Jackson 5″?

I ask again, Paxman-like : Who is the primary financial backer behind the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) ?

You seem to have gone quiet, HJS Executive Director ?

Ssshhh, Graham, it’s supposed to be a secret.

It’s the Joos, Symonds, don’t you know ? You know, your favourite people.

The HJS is part of the Neocon-Zionist conspiracy for world domination.

Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers ?

Richard needs some help at this conspiracy lark. Let’s point him in the direction of one of his spiritual predecessors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesta_Webster

Or perhaps to this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

I’m not interested in Conspiracy Theories – sorry guys.

But I am interested in analysing power, and taking ‘educated’ guesses on the basis of historical truth :

For example, the CIA-backing of the Left-leaning Encounter Magazine – co-edited by Kristol :
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_(magazine)?wasRedirected=true

In the absence of any answer from Henry Jackson Society’s Executive Director, my ‘educated guess’ is that the HJS is primarily financed by something like the Office of Special Plans (OSP) attached to the US Pentagon.

I’m not interested in Conspiracy Theories – sorry guys.

In the absence of any answer from Henry Jackson Society’s Executive Director, my ‘educated guess’ is that the HJS is primarily financed by something like the Office of Special Plans (OSP) attached to the US Pentagon.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Encounter (magazine)

Encounter was a literary magazine, founded in 1953 by poet Stephen Spender and early neoconservative author, Irving Kristol. The magazine ceased publication in 1990. Published in the United Kingdom, it was a largely Anglo-American intellectual and cultural journal.

Spender served as literary editor until 1967, when he resigned[1] due to the revelation that year of the covert CIA funding of the magazine, of which he had heard rumors, but had not been able to confirm. Thomas W. Braden, who headed CIA IOD’s operations between 1951 to 1954, said that the money for the magazine “came from CIA, and few outside the CIA knew about it. We had placed one agent in a Europe-based organization of intellectuals called the Congress for Cultural Freedom.”[1][2]

Encounter celebrated its greatest years in terms of readership and influence under Melvin J. Lasky, who succeeded Kristol in 1958, and would serve as the main editor until the magazine closed its doors in 1991. Other editors in this period included Frank Kermode and D. J. Enright.

Show References

Show External links

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol
Western Philosophy
Modern philosophy
Full name Irving Kristol
Born January 22, 1920
Brooklyn, New York
Died September 18, 2009 (aged 89)
Falls Church, Virginia
School/tradition American neoconservatism
Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the “godfather of neoconservatism”.[1] As the founder, editor, and contributor to various magazines, he played an influential role in the intellectual and political culture of the last half-century;[2] after his death he was described by The Daily Telegraph as being “perhaps the most consequential public intellectual of the latter half of the 20th century”.[3]

Show Background

Show Ideas

Show Quotations

Show Articles

Show Books

Show References

Show External links

‘In the absence of any answer from Henry Jackson Society’s Executive Director, my ‘educated guess’ is that the HJS is primarily financed by something like the Office of Special Plans (OSP) attached to the US Pentagon.’

If it makes you happy to believe that, dear boy, then I’m happy to oblige.

Also Halliburton, GlaxoSmithKline, Starbucks, McDonald’s and Marks and Spencer.

And Mossad, obviously.

Dick Cheney’s Halliburton

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton?wasRedirected=true

In the early 1990s Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.[22]
In the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services.[citation needed]
In 1998 Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton. Former United States president George H. W. Bush worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948–1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.[citation needed]

Marks & Spencer …ummmm.

In our local M&S they are selling potatoes from….you’ve guessed it : Israel. Funny that.

Kline – as in Smith-Kline. Ummmmmm.

http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/k/bl_name-KLEIN.htm

So, correct me if I’m wrong Hun, your Henry Jackson Society (HJS) is financed by some of the largest USrael-UK corporations in the world ?

Ummmmmm.

In our local M&S they are selling potatoes from….you’ve guessed it : Israel. Funny that.

So. You have been into Marks and Spencers have you?

You Zionist stooge!

Perfect candidates for the “Military-Industrial-Complex”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex?wasRedirected=true
as part of the “Full Spectrum Dominance” agenda ?

Disclaimer: my claim above, that the Henry Jackson Society is funded by Halliburton, Marks and Spencer, etc., was just a joke. None of those organisations really is funding the HJS, to the best of my knowledge.

I didn’t think even Symonds would be stupid enough to believe me – the reference to Mossad should have been a dead give-away.

But apparently…

:-)))))

Your dangerous stupidity, Hun, comes as no surprise.

The question therefore still remains to be answered truthfully :

WHO IS THE PRIMARY FINANCIAL BACKER BEHIND THE HENRY JACKSON SOCIETY (HJS) ?

An HJS Executive Director either does not know – or he’s not telling.

“Careless talk costs lives” – and I certainly don’t “joke” about Mossad – the Israeli Secret Service.

Whatever the truth behind the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), of this there is no doubt :

The HJS is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ and the likes of Kamm & Hoare are mere ‘PR fronts’.

Anyone who values real democracy should keep a very close eye on them :

http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42&start=10

“Careless talk costs lives”

Excellent work Pike. As one of my chaps used to say “they don’t like it up em”.

Is this the same Hoare who has graced Harry’s Place ?

http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=1307

Apparently so.

Richard W. Symonds – the new Sherlock Holmes.