MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
November 4, 2005
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes, ‘The greatest intellectual?’ (The Guardian, October 31, 2005).
November 4, 2005
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes, ‘The greatest intellectual?’ (The Guardian, October 31, 2005).
MEDIA ALERT: SMEARING CHOMSKY - THE GUARDIAN IN THE GUTTER
Introduction
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes, ‘The greatest intellectual?’ (The Guardian, October 31, 2005;
books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,60 )
The article was ostensibly in response to the fact that Chomsky had been voted the world's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine the previous week.
The headline introduction to the article was:
“Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?
“A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.”
Remarkably, and very foolishly, this answer attributed to Chomsky was actually in response to a different question posed during the interview. In a letter to the editor published in the Guardian on November 2, Chomsky explained:
“I did express my regret: namely, that I did not support Diana Johnstone's right to publish strongly enough when her book was withdrawn by the publisher after dishonest press attacks, which I reviewed in an open letter that any reporter could have easily discovered. The remainder of Brockes's report continues in the same vein. Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear.
“As for her personal opinions, interpretations and distortions, she is of course free to publish them, and I would, of course, support her right to do so, on grounds that she makes quite clear she does not understand.
Noam Chomsky” (‘Falling out over Srebrenica,’ The Guardian, November 2, 2005)
This is how Brockes presented the discussion in her article:
“Does he [Chomsky] regret signing it [a letter in support of Johnstone‘s work]?
"‘No,’ he says indignantly. ‘It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful and outstanding work.’"
Brockes’s headline mis-matching of questions with answers in this way is a genuine scandal - a depth of cynicism to which even mainstream journalism rarely sinks.
In the third paragraph of the article, Brockes wrote that Chomsky’s “conclusions remain controversial“, namely:
“that practically every US president since the second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the ‘massacre’ at Srebrenica was probably overstated.
(Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)”
We wrote to Brockes:
“What is the source for your claim that Chomsky has disagreed with the idea that there was a massacre at Srebrenica? Where, for example, has he used quotation marks in referring to the massacre?” (Email, November 2, 2005)
It is an important question because Chomsky is adamant that no such source exists. He wrote to us of Brockes:
“... her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word ‘massacre’ in quotes. Sheer fabrication. She and the editors know perfectly well that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly not in the interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they allowed her to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate that it
is in print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask them to produce the source”. (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
We have received no reply from Brockes.
It took just minutes searching the internet for us to find numerous quotes that flatly contradict Brockes’s claims. For example, in his January/February 2005 article, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Chomsky described the November 2004 US assault on Falluja as involving “war
crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law”. He added:
“One might mention at least some of the recent counterparts that immediately come to mind, like the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years ago, a city of about the same size. Or Srebrenica, almost universally described as ‘genocide’ in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them.” (Chomsky, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005)
Clearly, then, Chomsky considers Srebrenica nothing less than a counterpart to crimes “for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law”.
Similarly, on p.208 of his book Hegemony or Survival (Hamish Hamilton, 2003), Chomsky also refers to the Srebrenica massacre - no quotation marks were used either there or in the index.
These are not the words of someone who insists in “witheringly teenage” fashion: “Srebrenica was so not a massacre.” They are not the words of someone who believes that the term massacre should be placed between quotation marks in describing Srebrenica. And yet this is what Brockes claimed in a national newspaper.
So why has Brockes not replied to our challenge? Is she unable to answer? If so, is the Guardian not morally obliged to correct this slur, or to allow it be corrected in full by Chomsky? Why have the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger, and the paper’s ombudsman, Ian Mayes, also refused to answer repeated emails from us and others?
Chomsky’s critics are ever-present in Brockes’s piece, his admirers notably absent. The critics claim that Chomsky “plugs the gaps in his knowledge with ideology“. We learn that “of all the intellectuals on the Prospect list, it is Chomsky who is most often accused of miring a debate in intellectual spam, what the writer Paul Berman calls his ‘customary blizzard of obscure sources‘".
Book reviewer George Scialabba commented on the “obscure sources” criticism in The Nation:
“After the Indochina war, Berman writes, Chomsky had no way to explain the atrocities in Cambodia. He therefore set out, basing himself on his ‘customary blizzard of... obscure sources‘ (an ungracious remark, this, coming from the author of so lightly documented and empirically thin a book as Terror and Liberalism), to demonstrate that ‘in Indochina, despite everything published in the newspapers...that genocide never occurred,’ or if it did, was all America's fault.”
Scialabba explained that what Chomsky and Edward Herman actually set out to do in The Political Economy of Human Rights was “to show how differently the crimes of official enemies are treated in mainstream American media and scholarship than are those of official allies or of America itself. Accepting without argument the existence of ‘substantial and often gruesome atrocities’ in postwar Cambodia, Chomsky and Herman reviewed the sources uncritically relied on in the mainstream, showed how inferior they were to sources that told a less convenient story and pointed out that equally credible sources that told of roughly equivalent atrocities within the American sphere of influence (for example, Indonesia's in
East Timor) were generally ignored. Not the one-dimensional soundbite Berman alleges.”
But Berman is hardly alone in misrepresenting The Political Economy of Human Rights, Scialabba noted: “Dealing fairly with the book's argument requires a modicum of discrimination, attention to detail and polemical scruple, courtesies rarely accorded Chomsky
by his critics.” (Scialabba, ‘Clash of Visualizations,’ The Nation, April 28, 2003)
And certainly not by Brockes in the Guardian.
In reality, what is so impressive about Chomsky is that he relies on impeccable sources - recognised authorities in their fields, released government documents, establishment journals and the like - all meticulously referenced so that readers can check his accuracy for themselves. It cannot be any other way, as Chomsky has noted many times - dissidents challenging established power +must+ achieve far higher standards of evidence and argument than mainstream writers because they are guaranteed to be targeted for fierce attack.
Brockes asked Chomsky if he had a “share portfolio”. Chomsky “looks cross”, we are told. From her lofty peak of wisdom and virtue, Brockes advised one of the world’s most principled and selfless opponents of oppression: “people don't like being told off about their lives by someone they consider a hypocrite“.
Carefully Paired Letters
On November 1, the Guardian published two letters intended to support Chomsky. Chomsky comments:
“I have to say that these letters disturb me as much or more than the original deceit -- which worked, as the letters show. Both writers assume that there is a ‘debate,’ as the editors falsely claimed, in which I question the massacre (or as they pretend, ‘massacre‘) in Srebrenica. That is all fabrication, as the editors know well. They labored mightily to create the impression of a debate in which I take the position they assigned to me, and have succeeded. Now I'm stuck with that, even though it is a deceitful invention of theirs.”
(Email copied to Media Lens, November 3, 2005)
As noted above, Chomsky was allowed a letter in response to Brockes’s article on November 2.
On the same day, the Guardian was fortunate to be able to publish an ideal letter by a survivor from Bosnia supporting Brockes’s criticisms of Chomsky and praising the paper’s own journalists.
( www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604.1606321,00.html )
We asked the editor and the comment editor if anyone associated with the Guardian had in any way solicited this letter - we have received no reply.
The paper also provided a link to an interactive guide titled “Massacre at Srebrenica“.
(
www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,474564,00.html )
Chomsky comments on this sordid affair:
“Someone sent me the letter the Guardian printed [November 2], paired very carefully with a letter from a survivor from Bosnia, which, as the editors certainly know, is based entirely on lies in the faked ‘interview’ they published.
“Same with their title: ‘Falling out over Srebrenica.’ There was no Srebrenica debate, and they know it perfectly well. I never mentioned it, except to repeatedly try to explain to Brockes that I opposed the withdrawal of Johnstone's book under dishonest press attacks that were all lies, as I showed in the open letter I mentioned. And it had nothing to do with the scale of the Srebrenica massacre, as again they all know.
“As I think I wrote you, their legal department insisted that I delete the word ‘fabrication,’ [from Chomsky’s November 2 letter to the Guardian] and I agreed. Mistakenly I now realize, after seeing how low they can sink. I should have insisted on the word
‘fabrication,’ and given the most obvious example: her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word ‘massacre’ in quotes. Sheer fabrication. She and the editors know perfectly well that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly not in the interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they allowed her to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate that it is in print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask them to produce the source. Apparently that's OK by the standards of their legal department, and their journalistic ethics.
“As for LM [Living Marxism magazine], it had nothing to do with Srebrenica at all, as they know perfectly well. Rather, with a photograph of an emaciated person behind barbed wire elsewhere in Bosnia, long before Srebrenica. But that's not the issue at all, and they all know it. The issue, as I stressed over and over when she repeatedly brought the scandalous LM affair up, is whether a huge corporation should put a tiny publisher out of business by a libel suit that they know requires huge resources to defend under Britain's grotesque libel laws. That's quite independent of what the actual facts under discussion are, but incomprehensible to people who do not even have a minimal grasp on the concept of freedom of the press.
Noam” (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
Although the Prospect poll was largely a joke, it did bring Chomsky’s name to the attention of thousands of people who would otherwise never have heard of him. But anyone who read Emma Brockes’s article in the Guardian can only have come away with one conclusion about Chomsky.
Namely, that he is an idiot - an angry, flaky fanatic given to denying obvious crimes against humanity.
This is one of the most shocking and appalling media smears we have seen - and we have been shocked and appalled many times in the past.
We spend our time well when we reflect that the source is not some rabid, right-wing, Murdoch organ but this country’s “leading liberal newspaper” - the Guardian.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the Guardian to provide the source for Brockes’s claim that “Srebrenica was so not a massacre” in Chomsky’s view. Ask them why they have so far failed to respond to emails.
Write to Emma Brockes
Email: Emma.Brockes (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
Email: Alan.Rusbridger (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian readers’ editor Ian Mayes
Email: ian.mayes (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian comment editor Seumas Milne
Email: Seumas.milne (at) guardian.co.uk
Please copy all emails to Media Lens
Email: editor (at) medialens.org
This is a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/
donate.html
A printer-friendly version of this alert can be found here for approximately one week after
the date at the top:
www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
and then, thereafter, in our archive at: www.medialens.org/alerts/archive.php
Visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org
Introduction
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes, ‘The greatest intellectual?’ (The Guardian, October 31, 2005;
books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,60 )
The article was ostensibly in response to the fact that Chomsky had been voted the world's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine the previous week.
The headline introduction to the article was:
“Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated?
“A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.”
Remarkably, and very foolishly, this answer attributed to Chomsky was actually in response to a different question posed during the interview. In a letter to the editor published in the Guardian on November 2, Chomsky explained:
“I did express my regret: namely, that I did not support Diana Johnstone's right to publish strongly enough when her book was withdrawn by the publisher after dishonest press attacks, which I reviewed in an open letter that any reporter could have easily discovered. The remainder of Brockes's report continues in the same vein. Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear.
“As for her personal opinions, interpretations and distortions, she is of course free to publish them, and I would, of course, support her right to do so, on grounds that she makes quite clear she does not understand.
Noam Chomsky” (‘Falling out over Srebrenica,’ The Guardian, November 2, 2005)
This is how Brockes presented the discussion in her article:
“Does he [Chomsky] regret signing it [a letter in support of Johnstone‘s work]?
"‘No,’ he says indignantly. ‘It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful and outstanding work.’"
Brockes’s headline mis-matching of questions with answers in this way is a genuine scandal - a depth of cynicism to which even mainstream journalism rarely sinks.
In the third paragraph of the article, Brockes wrote that Chomsky’s “conclusions remain controversial“, namely:
“that practically every US president since the second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the ‘massacre’ at Srebrenica was probably overstated.
(Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)”
We wrote to Brockes:
“What is the source for your claim that Chomsky has disagreed with the idea that there was a massacre at Srebrenica? Where, for example, has he used quotation marks in referring to the massacre?” (Email, November 2, 2005)
It is an important question because Chomsky is adamant that no such source exists. He wrote to us of Brockes:
“... her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word ‘massacre’ in quotes. Sheer fabrication. She and the editors know perfectly well that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly not in the interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they allowed her to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate that it
is in print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask them to produce the source”. (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
We have received no reply from Brockes.
It took just minutes searching the internet for us to find numerous quotes that flatly contradict Brockes’s claims. For example, in his January/February 2005 article, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Chomsky described the November 2004 US assault on Falluja as involving “war
crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law”. He added:
“One might mention at least some of the recent counterparts that immediately come to mind, like the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years ago, a city of about the same size. Or Srebrenica, almost universally described as ‘genocide’ in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them.” (Chomsky, ‘Imperial Presidency,’ Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005)
Clearly, then, Chomsky considers Srebrenica nothing less than a counterpart to crimes “for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law”.
Similarly, on p.208 of his book Hegemony or Survival (Hamish Hamilton, 2003), Chomsky also refers to the Srebrenica massacre - no quotation marks were used either there or in the index.
These are not the words of someone who insists in “witheringly teenage” fashion: “Srebrenica was so not a massacre.” They are not the words of someone who believes that the term massacre should be placed between quotation marks in describing Srebrenica. And yet this is what Brockes claimed in a national newspaper.
So why has Brockes not replied to our challenge? Is she unable to answer? If so, is the Guardian not morally obliged to correct this slur, or to allow it be corrected in full by Chomsky? Why have the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger, and the paper’s ombudsman, Ian Mayes, also refused to answer repeated emails from us and others?
Chomsky’s critics are ever-present in Brockes’s piece, his admirers notably absent. The critics claim that Chomsky “plugs the gaps in his knowledge with ideology“. We learn that “of all the intellectuals on the Prospect list, it is Chomsky who is most often accused of miring a debate in intellectual spam, what the writer Paul Berman calls his ‘customary blizzard of obscure sources‘".
Book reviewer George Scialabba commented on the “obscure sources” criticism in The Nation:
“After the Indochina war, Berman writes, Chomsky had no way to explain the atrocities in Cambodia. He therefore set out, basing himself on his ‘customary blizzard of... obscure sources‘ (an ungracious remark, this, coming from the author of so lightly documented and empirically thin a book as Terror and Liberalism), to demonstrate that ‘in Indochina, despite everything published in the newspapers...that genocide never occurred,’ or if it did, was all America's fault.”
Scialabba explained that what Chomsky and Edward Herman actually set out to do in The Political Economy of Human Rights was “to show how differently the crimes of official enemies are treated in mainstream American media and scholarship than are those of official allies or of America itself. Accepting without argument the existence of ‘substantial and often gruesome atrocities’ in postwar Cambodia, Chomsky and Herman reviewed the sources uncritically relied on in the mainstream, showed how inferior they were to sources that told a less convenient story and pointed out that equally credible sources that told of roughly equivalent atrocities within the American sphere of influence (for example, Indonesia's in
East Timor) were generally ignored. Not the one-dimensional soundbite Berman alleges.”
But Berman is hardly alone in misrepresenting The Political Economy of Human Rights, Scialabba noted: “Dealing fairly with the book's argument requires a modicum of discrimination, attention to detail and polemical scruple, courtesies rarely accorded Chomsky
by his critics.” (Scialabba, ‘Clash of Visualizations,’ The Nation, April 28, 2003)
And certainly not by Brockes in the Guardian.
In reality, what is so impressive about Chomsky is that he relies on impeccable sources - recognised authorities in their fields, released government documents, establishment journals and the like - all meticulously referenced so that readers can check his accuracy for themselves. It cannot be any other way, as Chomsky has noted many times - dissidents challenging established power +must+ achieve far higher standards of evidence and argument than mainstream writers because they are guaranteed to be targeted for fierce attack.
Brockes asked Chomsky if he had a “share portfolio”. Chomsky “looks cross”, we are told. From her lofty peak of wisdom and virtue, Brockes advised one of the world’s most principled and selfless opponents of oppression: “people don't like being told off about their lives by someone they consider a hypocrite“.
Carefully Paired Letters
On November 1, the Guardian published two letters intended to support Chomsky. Chomsky comments:
“I have to say that these letters disturb me as much or more than the original deceit -- which worked, as the letters show. Both writers assume that there is a ‘debate,’ as the editors falsely claimed, in which I question the massacre (or as they pretend, ‘massacre‘) in Srebrenica. That is all fabrication, as the editors know well. They labored mightily to create the impression of a debate in which I take the position they assigned to me, and have succeeded. Now I'm stuck with that, even though it is a deceitful invention of theirs.”
(Email copied to Media Lens, November 3, 2005)
As noted above, Chomsky was allowed a letter in response to Brockes’s article on November 2.
On the same day, the Guardian was fortunate to be able to publish an ideal letter by a survivor from Bosnia supporting Brockes’s criticisms of Chomsky and praising the paper’s own journalists.
( www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604.1606321,00.html )
We asked the editor and the comment editor if anyone associated with the Guardian had in any way solicited this letter - we have received no reply.
The paper also provided a link to an interactive guide titled “Massacre at Srebrenica“.
(
www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,474564,00.html )
Chomsky comments on this sordid affair:
“Someone sent me the letter the Guardian printed [November 2], paired very carefully with a letter from a survivor from Bosnia, which, as the editors certainly know, is based entirely on lies in the faked ‘interview’ they published.
“Same with their title: ‘Falling out over Srebrenica.’ There was no Srebrenica debate, and they know it perfectly well. I never mentioned it, except to repeatedly try to explain to Brockes that I opposed the withdrawal of Johnstone's book under dishonest press attacks that were all lies, as I showed in the open letter I mentioned. And it had nothing to do with the scale of the Srebrenica massacre, as again they all know.
“As I think I wrote you, their legal department insisted that I delete the word ‘fabrication,’ [from Chomsky’s November 2 letter to the Guardian] and I agreed. Mistakenly I now realize, after seeing how low they can sink. I should have insisted on the word
‘fabrication,’ and given the most obvious example: her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word ‘massacre’ in quotes. Sheer fabrication. She and the editors know perfectly well that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly not in the interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they allowed her to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate that it is in print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask them to produce the source. Apparently that's OK by the standards of their legal department, and their journalistic ethics.
“As for LM [Living Marxism magazine], it had nothing to do with Srebrenica at all, as they know perfectly well. Rather, with a photograph of an emaciated person behind barbed wire elsewhere in Bosnia, long before Srebrenica. But that's not the issue at all, and they all know it. The issue, as I stressed over and over when she repeatedly brought the scandalous LM affair up, is whether a huge corporation should put a tiny publisher out of business by a libel suit that they know requires huge resources to defend under Britain's grotesque libel laws. That's quite independent of what the actual facts under discussion are, but incomprehensible to people who do not even have a minimal grasp on the concept of freedom of the press.
Noam” (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
Although the Prospect poll was largely a joke, it did bring Chomsky’s name to the attention of thousands of people who would otherwise never have heard of him. But anyone who read Emma Brockes’s article in the Guardian can only have come away with one conclusion about Chomsky.
Namely, that he is an idiot - an angry, flaky fanatic given to denying obvious crimes against humanity.
This is one of the most shocking and appalling media smears we have seen - and we have been shocked and appalled many times in the past.
We spend our time well when we reflect that the source is not some rabid, right-wing, Murdoch organ but this country’s “leading liberal newspaper” - the Guardian.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the Guardian to provide the source for Brockes’s claim that “Srebrenica was so not a massacre” in Chomsky’s view. Ask them why they have so far failed to respond to emails.
Write to Emma Brockes
Email: Emma.Brockes (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
Email: Alan.Rusbridger (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian readers’ editor Ian Mayes
Email: ian.mayes (at) guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian comment editor Seumas Milne
Email: Seumas.milne (at) guardian.co.uk
Please copy all emails to Media Lens
Email: editor (at) medialens.org
This is a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/
donate.html
A printer-friendly version of this alert can be found here for approximately one week after
the date at the top:
www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
and then, thereafter, in our archive at: www.medialens.org/alerts/archive.php
Visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org
Comments
Hide the following 36 comments
Like being savaged by a rabid sheep
05.11.2005 12:59
M
Correct url
05.11.2005 21:49
Martyn
Chomsky and Brockes - both bad
06.11.2005 13:47
But, Emma Brockes is also bad. She is one of the liberals that cheerleads wars against the Serbs in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and she repeated numerous lies. First of all, 'Srebrenica' is a propaganda tool not based on fact. As Chomsky pointed out, it was used as a base to attack Serbs - over 200 Serb villages were burnt and destroyed, and their inhabitants slaughtered, by them. The Daily Telegraph interview the Srebrenica commander, and he boasted of his videos of decapitated Serb villagers. Srebrenica forces then attacked, and left themselves vulnerable. Bosnian Serb forces took this opportunity to seize the enclave and end the attacks. They were within their right to do so - this was not a "safe area", as it was constantly being used to attack. Srebrenica Muslim leaders in fact testify that they were set up for this by the Muslim leadership, who were, according to their own reports, told by Clinton that a massacre of thousands would be needed before the States could get involved.
Bosnian Serb troops then handed out sweets, assured everyone they would not be harmed, and met with Muslim representatives, who they told had the choice of either staying in Srebrenica or leaving to Muslim-held territory. They chose the later. Transport was then arranged, and the women and children then left. Serb forces had gone thru crowds looking for known Muslim terrorists - note, looking for known ppl, not just anyone - to arrest etc. Then what happened next is uncertain. Dutch troops heard of no massacre. Many of the men had already made it to Muslim-held territory. Others were killed in continued fighting. Others were probably executed. To what extent each happened is unknown.
Others were also killed by a group called the 42nd Sabotage Division of the Serb army. This was a multi-ethnic division initially composed only of Croats. Members of that divison asert that they were paid substantial amounts of money to massacre Muslims. As some had previous links to French intelligence, and many went on to fight as merceneries elsewhere for French interests, some suggest that French intelligence may have organised this. Regardless, massacres certainly went against orders from the top - explicit instructions from the political and military leadership to obey Geneva conventions etc.
As for the bodies, these could well be of dead Serbs, Muslims who died in fighting, Muslims that had nothing to do with Srebrenica, or even the dead from WW2, whose bodies were never dug up.
What exactly happened in Srebrenica will never be known in the current climate of propaganda, whether the Bosnian Serbs did indeed commit mass atrocities, whether they committed a few, or whether they committed barely none. What is certain, though, is that the propaganda of Srebrenica genocide is untrue. For one thing, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women and children go!
Brockes and her buddy Vulliamy also go on about the LM issue. The fact is that LM were factally correct when they asserted that the pictures of so-called concentration camps were completely rigged and faked. But they still lost under fucked up British libel, becaue they couldn't PROOVE that ITN reporters had LIED deliberately.
It is very telling I find that Brockes takes Chomsky up on this fake genocide and Bosnia isse, over which ppl like her love to crusade, despite the fact he has said practically nothing about Bosnia, rather than unfashionable issues like Holocaust denial and Israel-hatred.
jo
jo is also bad
06.11.2005 14:27
In fact I'd go so far as to argue that jo has misrepresented Chomsky to a greater extent than Emma Brockes.
Dr. Livingstone
unbelievable...
06.11.2005 15:00
Chomsky's defence of Holocaust denier Faurrison is well known. He signed an open letter supporting his "freedom of speech", which in fact was never in question. French intellectuals condemned him for this. He also wrote an intro to his book, talking about what good research it is. He has also asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. And Normal Finkelstein, his colleague and protege, is practically an open Holocaust denier, accusing survivors of making up stories etc.
Try looking it up on google or something, unless of course you're afraid that the far left dogmas that control you will turn out to be total bullshit. I used to believe all that crap - trying thinking independently, you'll soon see through it.
jo
Still no source
06.11.2005 16:10
Your other zionist posts precede this one.
We can all google - and find that you give a disputed version of events. What is your source?
That is the question.
Dr. Livingstone
scandaleuse
06.11.2005 17:48
You aren't likely to convince anyone of anything by referring to 'you ppl' 'incapable of independent thought' etc and making exaggerated claims to support your views. Attacking Brockes attack on Chomsky isn't a defence of Chomsky, especially as you add a few smears of your own.
Chomskys 'defence of Faurrison' is claimed by the author to be a defence of freedom of speech ( when you put "freedom of speech" in quote-marks it implies that you do not believe in freedom of speech - I hope this is not so ) and you have shown no evidence to prove your bold assertion. "French intellectuals" condemning anyone is hardly proof - French intellectuals also widely criticised his linguistic studies simply for challenging the prevailing Francophone dominance in linguistics at the time (Barthes etc) yet he is widely credited with revolutionising the subject.
Chomsky is just a single person and an over-reliance on any single figure is unbecoming of anarchists, and there is certainly points worth criticising him for - you haven't mentioned any of them and you seem to have traded your former 'far left dogmatic crap' for another pile of keech. One final point - anarchists aren't far left or far right, the terms do not apply meaningfully.
Danny
,
06.11.2005 17:59
jo
.
06.11.2005 22:41
Chomsky was attacked throughout Brockes' piece for his alleged support for evil "Srebrenica deniers", which is complete nonsense. In my original post I defended Chomsky from the various slanders flung at him by her, and refuted her propaganda.
I used to be left-wing and believe Chomsky, Pilger, etc. They are in fact liars. For example, Chomsky always quotes Kennan's 1948 (or thereabouts) NSC document. He quotes him as talking about propping up any old right-wing regime just because they're anti-Communist, and all sorts of things like that. He was in fact saying that was what the US should NOT do, and yet Chomsky quotes him as saying that was his plan.
jo
Post the link Jo
06.11.2005 23:02
Haidar
.
07.11.2005 00:25
Jo, please do some basic research on the build-up to the Cold War before you start denying that things like this happened. Client wars and wars by proxy were fought throughout the middle of the twentieth century - so much so, in fact, that the UN's intented aim of identifying an aggressor and imposing sanctions in a conflict situation could not take place, because the aggressor was always funded by either the US or the Soviet Union. In fact, the only time they could act was when the Soviets boycotted the Security Council over North Korea's invasion of South Korea. America (and Britain, incidentally) supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in order to overthrow Abdul Nasser's USSR-sponsored government, they funded bin Laden's troops who were fighting off the Soviet advance into Afghanistan....I could go on...
Josh
e-mail:
josh@joshhallphotography.co.uk
Nonsensical attack.
07.11.2005 10:16
Hear Hear!
Jo:
Anarchism is simply the empowering of all people under a truly democratic framework and protecting them from unjust exploitation.
Chomsky is a famous defender of free speech. The notion of free speech is that everyone has the right to express their thoughts. The concpet is universal. I'm sure if someone brought out a book called "Chomsky: the Crazy, Stinking, Lying Jew" he'd defend their right to publish.
I think holocaust deniers like Ernst Zuendel are at best crackers at worst scum, but also I believe they have a right to say what they like and have their say vigorously challenged in public by those who disagree. For me to believe otherwise would be to suggest that some people possessed The Truth and others should be made to step in line. That would be authoritarian and thereby non-anarchist. And it was THAT realisation that led me to discover what I was.
I do actaully believe largely that I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. It's called holding beliefs. Every talking ape suffers from this delusion. I however choose to recognise that actually I have no right to seek to impose my beliefs on others and they have every right to tell me what an idiot they think I am and me to argue back... ad infinitum. Any other system is a clear abuse of human rights.
"He has asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic." Well, it isn't necessarily! It's just the belief that perhaps history isn't as stated. I'll concede that the area is a magnet to the extreme right. But one doesn't logically equal the other. Is the acknowledgement of the holocaust some sort of palpable test of jewish ethnicity. Is Chomsky now to be considered a non-jew? Are you calling him a race traitor???
Assuming that you are Jewish Jo, don't you think it's time that Jews made Israel aware that they of all people should know better to be acting as they are?
Does that make me an anti-semite too?
M
slur campaigns
07.11.2005 15:58
most worryingly these campaigns can work. i know several young bosnian muslims with whom i worked in turin who share the stated anti-chomsky view following what they believe him to have asserted with regards to srebrenica. they arejust as unwilling to provide evidence to support such claims, but as a result refuse to read anything written by the author! these attacks, though unfounded in any rational sense of the word, do influence the world views of large numbers of individuals. it should be our golden rule number one; as soon as an author is attacked as an individual, rather than someone making a rational critique of their work, the alarm bells should begin to ring. if not, we enter the media land of the political soundbite, and then we're fucked, cos blair and his little friends are much better at it than we are (they have nice suits).
the george kennan quote can be found on www.understandingpower.co.uk in the online footnotes to chapter five. the footnote is number 76.
for N.S.C memorandum no 1 1948, see understanding power.co.uk, footnotes, chapter five, footnote number 75.
i struggle to see jo's problem with these sources, but look them up and make up your own minds.
love and rage
free(rational)speachforall
.
07.11.2005 19:08
For the Faurisson affair, see this article, which is a bit biased in favour of Faurisson, portraying him as a victim of Jewish assault rather than a neo-Nazi that some outraged young Jews pretty understandably attacked, but still has a lot of info:
Some-one earlier said they assumed I was Jewish. I'm not. I'm just against Holocaust denial for some strange reason...
As for the question about whether I consider Chomsky some kind of "race-traitor"; that's ludicrous. The word is anti-Semite. He is not an extremist, venom-spitting kill-the-Jews anti-Semite, but with his obsession with the Jewish state, his defence of Holocaust denial, his support for anti-Semitic Israel-haters, and what he claims about the power of US Jews and their evil exploitation of the Holocaust, he's clearly anti-Semitic. His colleague Finkelstein is even worse.
jo
It's the Suede-denim Secret Police...
07.11.2005 20:16
I don't hate Jews, but I hate Israeli crimes and I love free speech.
I'll be hiding under my bed when you come to round me up for Thought Crimes.
M
stop making excuses for anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial
07.11.2005 21:02
Read the link. Faurisson's free speech was never in question. The letter Chomsky signed was clearly pro-Faurisson, who was a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier. Chomsky then repeatedly defended Faurisson. This was what he originally signed:
Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor [nice words for a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier] of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question. [Note the quotation marks for the "Holocaust". Because it didn't happen of course... And the phrase "historical research", which suggests that he is a real historical researcher rather than a neo-Nazi distorting history and denying the FACT of the Holocaust]
Since he began making his findings [Chomsky claims findings is a neutral word. It is not. It implies that he discovered some truthful facts. "Claims" would have been relatively neutral.] public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him [Pure nonsense. As a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier he was certainly attacked by anti-Nazi intellectuals etc. But he was only attacked by some outraged Jewish students. People on Indymedia also want to attack BNP ppl, who are probably less bad than Faurisson]. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives. [Further "research". The officials - probably Jew-controlled - "fear" his research. Can anyone claim this is neutral regarding his claims??? And he was denied to no libraries. A Jewish Documentation centre denied him access, that was all. I think you can understand their reasons.]
We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.
We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.
Chomsky further insisted that Faurisson was an "apolitical liberal", not a Nazi, and not an anti-Semite. So its not anti-Semitic to write that in requiring Jews to wear the yellow star starting at the age of six "Hitler was perhaps less concerned with the Jewish question than with ensuring the safety of German soldiers" (Vérité, p. 190)? Or to write that gas chambers did not exist? Or that Germany and the Jews were both responsible for the war, and the former perhaps not at all?
Here's Chomsky's opinion:
"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."
jo
...
07.11.2005 21:34
I thought you were against facism???
M
?????????
07.11.2005 21:56
jo
Jo away
07.11.2005 22:17
I see - and it's QUOTE nothing to do with free speech UNQUOTE and you're not Jewish but you can call someone who is anti-semitic!
There are sites where your views would be welcomed - why are you casting your pearls before us unfortunate swine?
Twat
This isn't your cup of tea
lol, grasping at straws-
07.11.2005 22:52
"There are sites where your views would be welcomed - why are you casting your pearls before us unfortunate swine? "
And you then resort to (reeally childish and very bad) insults. Why do you want people you don't agree with to leave, rather than listen to alternative views?
jo
Unappreciative swine
08.11.2005 00:09
I think not!
Zionist bollocks is everywhere - it isn't needed here.
Your views are everywhere
don't feed the trolls
08.11.2005 02:12
can i just remind everyone not to feed the trolls, there is no point, it waists all of our time. we can all identify an idiot when we see one. if joe wants to keep arguing against noam, ok. but if she doesn't even provide evidence, it really isn't worth writing back, any one with a brain can see that it is bollocks. indymedia needs to reflect the views of INDIVIDUALS who can differentiate between conjecture and a genuine political discussion.
unfortunately it sems that individuals have taken to insulting each other over indymedia, and posting responses which do not even attempt to answer earlier posts (such as those of joe). i can't see any need to ignore joe's claims, just ask joe to provide details of any articles which prove any point joe has made (the links provided are obviously inadequate and unreliable, should anyone wish to read them.)
the only relevant point is that joe has failed to present any (rational, proven) points whatsoever. ignore this crap. if indymedia descends to the level at which people post without providing any reference to (actually existing) sources, then we might as well be the mainstream bull-shit media. fuck that.
joe, seriously provide the link to the srebrenica quote or just back down. i can't find it anywhere, and please don't accuse anyone of anti-semitism without some kind of rational reason, it really is an ugly accusation to make. i have never seen so much time wasted on such wank. i hate the politics of (the nation state) israel, to any rational observer that does not make me an anti-semite. let's have a rational debate, not some bull shit slanging match over the internet. ok?
truelovelivesonlollypops&crepes
where's the evidence?
08.11.2005 02:24
"here's chomsky's opinion"
please provide an exact link or reference to this statement.
if you can't, please retract it, indymedia doesn't need conjecture of this kind. if there is a point to be made, make it with direct reference to evidence, don't provide abstract 'quotes'. this is not how adult arguments work.
love and rage
irate
.
08.11.2005 03:33
In my opinion the article is biased in favour of Chomsky/Faurisson, but its unbiased enough to give every side's view. All its sources are listed at the bottom, in the form of internet links.
I didn't present sources at first because I've read this stuff - historical facts - a million times in countless places. I didn't just spot it on an internet site yesterday. I suggested they google it for themselves. They claimed either that there was nothing on the internet about it or that i should do it for them. So eventually I found this and posted this link. And they resorted to pathetic attempts at insults, and ignoring what I'd actually said.
Face it, Noam Chomsky defended a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. He is therefore either a complete moron or an anti-Semite, or both.
Btw I don't know what Srebrenica quote you are referring to. I initially posted about Srebrenica, defending Chomsky from Brocke's typical slander, but was attacked over the Holocaust issue. And btw I've only accused Chomsky of being anti-Semitic, and I've qualified that by saying that he's not an extremist lets-kill-the-Jews, but his views are clearly anti-Semitic. No-where in all this debate have I accused anyone else of being anti-Semitic, or of being anti-Semitic for criticising Israel. Obsessively attacking Israel out of all of proportion to its real or alleged sins is a different matter.
jo
and to the last poster
08.11.2005 03:36
jo
monopoly on suffering?
08.11.2005 06:24
Chomsky has advocated the right of holocaust deniers to publish their views so that they can be torn apart by those with concern for the actual evidence**, whilst preventing the deniers presenting them self as heroic martyrs in pursuit of forbidden truth. Thats a classical free speech position, a la Voltaire's "I despise what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
* chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust - he explicity argues that Faurisson should be refuted not censored - see manufacturing consent documentary.
** to be fair, he signed a petition, of which he signs thousands. Its not as if he went out and adopted Faurrison as a poster boy for free speech.
semite
irate
08.11.2005 08:39
Jo:
This is EVERYthing to do with free speech. Something which you seem to hate. The designation of re-examining the holocaust as an idea cannot be automatically "anti-semitic", and even if it were all humans are entitled to freedom of expression.
Why would a non Jew take such an interest in calling a Jew a Jew hater... and that on a site where you'll find a lot of anarchist opinion...
You aren't going to win many converts here. So, my final word is in assent to the previous poster who drew your attention to there being more suitable venues on the web for your opinions.
M
Sourcery
08.11.2005 09:03
So, now, using a tool offered by jo, we can examine the claims contained in jo's posts, namely :
"Chomsky is a fanatic. He signed an open letter supporting a French Holocaust denier, and wrote a forward to his book, calling it oustanding research. He has asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic, and that New York is run by Jews therefore they don't need a Jewish state. Etc, etc."
"Chomsky's defence of Holocaust denier Faurrison is well known. He signed an open letter supporting his "freedom of speech", which in fact was never in question. French intellectuals condemned him for this. He also wrote an intro to his book, talking about what good research it is. He has also asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. And Normal Finkelstein, his colleague and protege, is practically an open Holocaust denier, accusing survivors of making up stories etc."
"Free speech has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to avoid the issue. I'm not saying that Chomsky shouldn't be allowed to flirt with Holocaust denial if he wants to (although it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in many European countries like Germany). I'm simply saying that it shows he's an anti-Semite. I've already explained that the Faurisson affair was not about free speech either, it was about supporting a Holocaust denier. Either admit that Chomsky was anti-Semitic or attempt to defend them, either will be entertaining."
"Face it, Noam Chomsky defended a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. He is therefore either a complete moron or an anti-Semite, or both."
Firstly the threads throughout those quotes from jo's posts are that:
1) CHOMSKY DEFENDED A HOLOCAUST DENIER
The petition reads:
"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.
Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.
We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.
We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."
No defence of Faurisson there.
"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East, where I describe the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history")"
No defence of Faurrison there.
Now - heres how the article says that Chomsky defended Faurrison:
"Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort"
In a nutshell:
I find no evidence to support the claims that he is an anti-semite or a neo-nazi - as far as I can see, he is an "apolitical liberal of some sort" - if he were either it would make it "all the more imperative" to defend his civil rights. of his civil rights.
So - in summary - Chomsky says - this man has views diametrically opposed to my own on the question of the Holocaust. I find no evidence that he is an anti-semite or a neo-Nazi - but if he is then it is vital to defend his right to freedom of speech.
In no way does the article use Chomsky's words to prove that Chomsky defends the views of Faurisson - it shows that he defends the right of Faurisson to hold his views.
2) CHOMSKY WROTE A FOREWORD FOR FAURISSON'S BOOK.
From the article:
"Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. Serge Thion then used it as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge. Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed. Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter."
So, in fact an article written by Chomsky was used, without Chomsky's knowledge, as a preface for the book. Chomsky later asked for the article not be used in that was because he did not think the French intellectual community would understand 'freedom of speech' and later regretted that request. No evidence is offered that Chomsky said anything about Faurisson's evidence being "outstanding"
3)THE MATTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.
Thats an amazing claim in light of the source now proffered by jo - who clearly sought out a source that didn't give away the original source on which s/he formed this impression.
"In December 1978 and January 1979, Robert Faurisson, a French professor of literature at the University of Lyon, published two letters in Le Monde claiming that the gas chambers used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews did not exist. [1]
Subsequently, Faurisson was assaulted by Jewish students. His classes were suspended on the grounds that the university could not guarantee his safety. As a result of a TV interview, he was found guilty of defamation and incitement to racial hatred and given a suspended 3-month prison term, and a 21,000-franc (€3,200) fine. In addition he was ordered to pay for the reproduction of the judgement in national newspapers and television, an extremely costly, even financially ruinous, sentence. This latter requirement was dropped after he appealed [2]. In 1989, long after the affair died down, Faurisson was beaten more badly, suffering a broken jaw, broken ribs, and head injuries. Image of Faurisson in hospital."
Lets see now - Faurisson makes claims and then he is beaten, his classes are suspended, he is found guilty of "defamation and incitement to racial hatred" and then beaten again.
And jo says there "Free speech has nothing to do with this"
Really?
anyway - on with the source:
The petition is clearly about free speech, Chomsky's essay is clearly about freedom of speech and look at "final thoughts" on the source.
When someone is physically attacked, threatened with prison, stopped from doing their job, and beaten again all because of their views, then to deny that this is a matter of free s[eech is absurd . pro-Israeli 'activists' are now attacking academics who express pro-Palestinian views in a very similar manner. It seems clear that pro-Israeli lobbyists have an investment in attacking anyone whose ideas do not support their racist state. That they are diametrically opposed to free speech.
4) CHOMSKY HAS ASSERTED THAT HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC
jo's source offers 2 Chomsky quotes:
""I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)"
""In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue."
So, it appears that in reality Chomsky has asserted that Holocaust denial is not AUTOMATICALLY anti-semitism.
Jo - the claims you made are not backed up by your source. You said that freedom of speech "was never in question" - it clearly was - you said that Chomsky defended a holocaust denier - when actually he said that whilst Faurisson's views were diametrically opposed to his own, he defended his right to hold those views - you said that Chomsky "wrote a foreword" for Faurisson's book - in fact a Chomsky essay was used without Chomsky's knowledge - you said that Chomsky has asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-semitic - in fact he said it does not not automatically prove a hatred of Jews.
In the process you showed us how the zionist lobby is diametrically opposed to freedom of speech when ideas that dispute the legotomacy of the racist state are expressed.
I bid you good day!
Dr. Livingstone
Read the whole thing Jo not just the bits you don't like
08.11.2005 11:34
"On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense."
Sim1
response
08.11.2005 12:05
Denying the Holocaust IS anti-Semitic. Read any literature about the history of Holocaust denial, or just about the Holocaust, and you will know that. And Faurisson is clearly anti-Semitic - he had connections with neo-Nazis, wrote that Jewish children wore the star to protect German soldiers, and Jews were perhaps solely responsible for starting WW2. And yet Chomsky claimed that Faurisson was not at all anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi.
"Thats a classical free speech position, a la Voltaire's "I despise what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"."
It was not just a free speech petititon a la that. It spoke of Faurisson's "findings" and "research", called him a respected scholar, and put the Holocaust in quotation marks, implying its non-occurence, and referred to it as the "Holocaust issue", implying there is any legitimate debate to be had over whether it occured.
"to be fair, he signed a petition, of which he signs thousands. Its not as if he went out and adopted Faurrison as a poster boy for free speech."
Actually, thats exactly what he did. He went on to write an introduction to Faurisson's book (he allowed him to use it, then requested he not, then subsequently said that his only regret was his request that he not use it).
"Why would a non Jew take such an interest in calling a Jew a Jew hater"
Actually, my original post was about Srebrenica, barely mentioning Holocaust denial. You don't have to be Jewish to oppose Holocaust denial.
"No defence of Faurisson there."
No-one can seriously maintain that that petition was neutral, rather than a defence of Faurisson. I draw your attention to:
"respected professor" "conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question" "his findings" "crude attempt to silence him" "Fearful officials"
Those parts all go beyond a standard free speech petition. Those are not neutral words and prhases at all.
"So - in summary - Chomsky says - this man has views diametrically opposed to my own on the question of the Holocaust. I find no evidence that he is an anti-semite or a neo-Nazi - but if he is then it is vital to defend his right to freedom of speech.
In no way does the article use Chomsky's words to prove that Chomsky defends the views of Faurisson - it shows that he defends the right of Faurisson to hold his views. "
How on earth can you maintain that he isn't defending Faurisson??? He claims he's not an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi, which he absolutely WAS!!
"Chomsky later asked for the article not be used in that was because he did not think the French intellectual community would understand 'freedom of speech' and later regretted that request. No evidence is offered that Chomsky said anything about Faurisson's evidence being "outstanding"."
You are just repeating Chomsky's claims. He is happy with his work appearing as a forward for a neo-Nazi Holocaust denial book. He also exchanged friendly lettes with Faurisson.
As for the "outstanding" thing, I appear to have misremembered that. I was thinking of all the references to "findings" "historical research", etc.
"Lets see now - Faurisson makes claims and then he is beaten, his classes are suspended, he is found guilty of "defamation and incitement to racial hatred" and then beaten again."
A neo-Nazi was assaulted by some outraged Jewish students, because he was denying the Holocaust that probably killed their aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Poor, poor neo-Nazi!!!! His classes were suspended because he was being so controversial they couldn't assure his safety. In many countries, including the UK, incitement to racial hatred is illegal. That is considered beyond free speech. I don't hear IndyMedia speaking up for Nick Griffin when he's condemned for that.
"When someone is physically attacked, threatened with prison, stopped from doing their job, and beaten again all because of their views, then to deny that this is a matter of free s[eech is absurd . pro-Israeli 'activists' are now attacking academics who express pro-Palestinian views in a very similar manner. It seems clear that pro-Israeli lobbyists have an investment in attacking anyone whose ideas do not support their racist state. That they are diametrically opposed to free speech."
So the evil Jews are persecuting their critics. You now implicitly side with Faurisson, the victim of the evil Zionist Jews.
"you said that Chomsky defended a holocaust denier - when actually he said that whilst Faurisson's views were diametrically opposed to his own, he defended his right to hold those views "
Chomsky said, over the course of the dispute, that he did not agree with Faurisson, but that Faurisson was doing "historical research", and claimed that he was not a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite. That's called defending him....
"you said that Chomsky "wrote a foreword" for Faurisson's book - in fact a Chomsky essay was used without Chomsky's knowledge"
Chomsky supports its inclusion as a foreward to a neo-Nazi Holocaust denial book, and regrets requesting it not be used.
"you said that Chomsky has asserted that Holocaust denial is not anti-semitic - in fact he said it does not not automatically prove a hatred of Jews"
Chomsky said: "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust". That is exactly the same as what I said - Chomsky says that denying the Holocaust does not make one anti-Semitic. It clearly does, as anyone with knowledge of its history, or of Faurisson, will tell you.
jo
It turns out that the source was useless
08.11.2005 12:15
Your mind is tied up in zionist knots.
I bid you farewell.
Dr. Livingstone
.
08.11.2005 13:02
I assume an IndyMedia and Noam Chomsky campaign is forthcoming.
jo
???
08.11.2005 15:40
Attacking anarchists for defending free speech is as stupid as attacking the Amish for pacifism or vegans for not eating meat... it's THAT simple.
I doubt you'll find m/any on IM that support the claims of people like Zuendel; but *plenty* that'll defend is right to spout whatever crap he chooses.
This has been made clear already. So, we can safely assume you are only here to troll in your persistence in rubbishing anarchist belief in human rights.
Why not go bother some REAL holocaust deniers, you are only going to be frustrated by the comments you get here.
M
But what does it mean?
08.11.2005 16:11
Coincidence.
The word 'Holocaust' has a distinct and separate meaning to the word 'genocide', a word more suitable for the destruction en mass of 250million ++ people in such a small space of time.
Some wool is decending over thy eyes.
If we can mention the tribal/ethnic alligences of some of the victims of ww11 as well as the tribal/ethnic alligences of some of their persecutors, why can't we do the same for the victims of jewish terror in stalinist russia? 20 million christain russians surely deserve the same moral outrage?
No.
Ceased being jewish a long time ago - its just a word after all. If you want to bend yer neck to some omnipresent devine being thats your lookout.
I don't. So please, 'self hater', not 'anti-semite' in your slurs.
joeseph
Don't call Jo a troll
09.11.2005 22:35
"French left-wing intellectuals were all shocked by Chomsky's signing that open letter" -Jo
All French left wing intellectuals or just a couple of them ? I happen to know a few and they all agree with Chomsky. So thats not strictly too, at best an exageration that proves nothing anyway. The number of people who believe something and the strength with which they believe it has no relevance to whether it is true, regardless of nationality or intellectual ability.
"I used to be left-wing and believe Chomsky, Pilger, etc. They are in fact liars. For example, Chomsky always quotes Kennan's 1948 (or thereabouts) NSC document. He quotes him as talking about propping up any old right-wing regime just because they're anti-Communist, and all sorts of things like that. He was in fact saying that was what the US should NOT do, and yet Chomsky quotes him as saying that was his plan." - Jo
That is not true, I think you may have misread Chomsky and drawn unfortunate conclusions from your misreading. It is unfortunate you feel the need to doubt other peoples sincerity while unwilling to prove your own. Following is a quote from Chomsky that disproves what you have said without diminishing Chomsky at all:
'Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely interesting illustration of the dovish position...Kennan went on to explain the means we have to use against our enemies who fall prey to this heresy:
"The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but...we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful since the Communists are essentially traitors....It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communists."- Kennan
Policies like these didn't begin with postwar liberals like Kennan. '
-Chomsky
Danny
...
10.11.2005 09:13
A troll in my mind is someone who goes to an internet location with the sole intention of pissing people off. "I'll got to IndyMedia and start attacking Chomsky from a Zionist POV..."
Calling her what she is doesn't amount to repression. There are plenty of venues freely availible to her for her opinions.
She can spout all the Zionist pish she likes elsewhere, but when she does it here, it's trolling.
I don't see anyone asking for her to silenced. Just for her to piss off somewhere else more suitable on her own volition.
Hey, she could start up www.ihatechomsky.il
M