tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post5385391145552983609..comments2023-08-17T06:18:52.958-07:00Comments on Bilbo's Blog: An Hypothesis for Understanding Noam Chomsky: Fear of the Extraordinary? Bilbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-13485992207070362602014-04-27T19:40:29.732-07:002014-04-27T19:40:29.732-07:00Interesting articles. I may set aside some time to...Interesting articles. I may set aside some time to read through some of this debate. Chomsky has also continued to debate various points on the matter after the article I posted. E.g. here (from 2003/2004):<br /><br />http://www.chomsky.info/letters/200312--.htmJDBhttp://www.egalicontrarian.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-24798167721129504412014-04-27T18:30:37.294-07:002014-04-27T18:30:37.294-07:00And Howard Jones.And <a href="http://hnn.us/article/3446" rel="nofollow">Howard Jones</a>. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-30176663402153396442014-04-27T18:16:34.163-07:002014-04-27T18:16:34.163-07:00And then there's Galbraith.And then there's <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/177332/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation" rel="nofollow">Galbraith</a>. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-23560514582061650252014-04-27T18:04:56.462-07:002014-04-27T18:04:56.462-07:00If this article in the Nation is really based on n...If <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/galbraith-and-vietnam?page=0,0" rel="nofollow">this article in the Nation</a> is really based on notes from the actual times, as it implies, then there seems to be fairly good evidence that Chomsky's thesis is wrong.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-49855825872851083662014-04-27T17:54:30.007-07:002014-04-27T17:54:30.007-07:00I found this review" that claims that recent ...I found <a href="http://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/JFK,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone/JFK,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone.htm" rel="nofollow">this review"</a> that claims that recent historical research has refuted Chomsky's thesisBilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-85193193082734813532014-04-27T16:48:05.385-07:002014-04-27T16:48:05.385-07:00Peter Dale Scott made an interesting observation ...Peter Dale Scott made an interesting observation <a href="http://www.infowars.com/peter-dale-scott-911-deep-events-and-the-curtailment-of-u-s-freedoms/" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br />"<i>Chomsky had no trouble perceiving as a “fraud” the Tonkin Gulf incidents that led the U.S. to attack North Vietnam, and the resulting Congressional resolution that had already been drafted some months in advance.[4] But he is not interested in the close analogies between the Tonkin Gulf incidents of 1964 and the 9/11 incidents of 2001, which were almost immediately followed by the Patriot Act, likewise already drafted well in advance. Chomsky argues that the 9/11 movement has drawn “enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism.”[5] But the strong analogies between the Tonkin Gulf deception and the 9/11 deception have energized and activated me, and not me alone.</i>"Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-36546385981495059892014-04-27T16:26:21.019-07:002014-04-27T16:26:21.019-07:00Interesting analysis. Peter Dale Scott responds t...Interesting analysis. Peter Dale Scott responds to him in a book, but I couldn't find anything online in a brief attempt. I find it difficult to believe that JFK would have been willing to escalate U.S. forces from 16,700 to over 500,000. After all, this is the same guy who refused to approve air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had already approved. <br /><br />On the other hand, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which many (including me) think was an Operation Northwoods type event, didn't occur until early August of 1964, quite a bit later than the assassination. I had though it occurred in January of '64, which would have meant that it was clearly in the works by the assassination. So now I would need to say that somehow the military already knew that they needed a false flag operation nine and a half months ahead of time. That seems more implausible. <br />Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-55716029097457464142014-04-27T14:45:00.228-07:002014-04-27T14:45:00.228-07:00Chomsky's work on the JFK/Vietnam issue is act...Chomsky's work on the JFK/Vietnam issue is actually quite extensive, e.g. here (beginning in paragraph 4):<br />http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209--.htmJDBhttp://www.egalicontrarian.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-38922599069005649842014-04-27T14:30:50.114-07:002014-04-27T14:30:50.114-07:00The use of 9/11 to invade Iraq was certainly illeg...The use of 9/11 to invade Iraq was certainly illegitimate. The case for invading Afghanistan is probably more debatable. <br /><br />Often people who doubt the official JFK narrative think that our military was behind it, with the motive being to make sure that there would be a president who backed an escalation of the war in Vietnam. So in that sense, there is a parallel between the JFK and 9/11. Chomsky and others might argue that JFK would have escalated the war anyway, but I don't think we know either way for sure. If our military was behind the assassination (and I think they were), I suspect they didn't know either, but were afraid that their failure to get JFK to invade Cuba was a portent to what he would do in Vietnam. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-88154626790461494932014-04-27T14:20:09.266-07:002014-04-27T14:20:09.266-07:00Incidentally the institutional point would be weak...Incidentally the institutional point would be weaker in the case of 9/11, since 9/11 has been of great use to institutions in a way that the JFK assassination was not.<br /><br />Although, since Chomsky thinks the use of 9/11 was illegitimate whether it was an inside job or not, even this might not make much of a difference to him.JDBhttp://www.egalicontrarian.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-37328156346202299312014-04-27T13:56:57.634-07:002014-04-27T13:56:57.634-07:00I think Chomsky made clear somewhere that his &quo...I think Chomsky made clear somewhere that his "who cares" remark was in reference to who shot JFK, not about 9/11. But otherwise, I suspect your analysis is correct. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-729465143554744766.post-79141121810899893952014-04-26T21:13:30.817-07:002014-04-26T21:13:30.817-07:00While I'm not at all sure of this, I think one...While I'm not at all sure of this, I think one of the things you would find if you were to study his political..... arguments (I'm not sure he has a "political philosophy" proper) is that he's much more interested in how institutions function and change than he is in how particular good or bad actors affect things. I suspect this contributes a little to his disinterest in truther ideas. This explains one of his most controversial remarks (in a Q/A setting) about how "who cares" and how it wouldn't have any "significance" if it were proven true that Bush et al orchestrated 9/11. Similarly on JFK, he says something like: "People get shot all the time. So what if one of them was John F. Kennedy?" I <i>think</i> the idea here - expressed in a no doubt intentionally shocking way - is that while particular abuses come and go, long-term systems and institutions are the real locus of political power and interest, and should be the focus of activism. There was actually a recent piece in Slate somewhat relevant to this (although I've only skimmed it!):<br />http://www.salon.com/2014/04/23/noam_chomsky_was_right_why_the_koch_brothers_are_obscuring_the_real_enemy/<br /><br />(I should note, my use of "disinterest" re: 9/11 is probably a little misleading, since he's given the topic far more time than have most people of his level of independent scientific and political respectability.)JDBhttp://www.egalicontrarian.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com