42 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky & Christopher Hitchens: US Foreign policy

  1. When you rip off someone else's video please have the common decency to give a proper attribution including date of publication.

  2. just the intro of this video shows the difficulty of direct democracy. majority rules to deny hearing impared the ability to see the signer.

  3. I was with him until he claimed that most of the rejection of the Vietnam war was based on moral repugnance because that's how people answered the survey. I contend that the huge amount of protest and anger was because of the draft. But nobody in the 70's was going to say "My eagerness to fight against the war was basically because we were forced to go. If it were a choice, I wouldn't have cared much". But that may be exactly the case. We've never had that kind of long-term organized resistance to a war. Granted, we also had a huge casualty rate, and I'm sure that's part of it, but there wouldn't have nearly as many people there in the 1st place without the draft.

  4. Nobody REALLY listens to Chomsky as he blathers on and on. But he is so brilliant that everyone must never admit that they turn him off after 2 minutes. So, let him blather, just don't take him seriously, if you care about the USA defensive, international posture.

  5. Than you to the YouTube Video Editor for keeping this video up. I've only listened to Chomsky for about the last 2 or 3 yrs. and missed this one. Chomsky has allowed me to awaken from many decades of brainwashing. This video was published in 2013. It is now 2018. I can see that Donald Trump did not appear out of the blue. Over decades the White House, mainstream media, congressional and corporate corruption , and my own ignorance and apathy have quietly damaged democracy. We are at the point that Yeats expressed with such awe and terror in his poem, "The Second Coming". Since history repeats itself, is the "hour come round at last"? What will the answer be 5 years from today?

  6. An interesting duo. Both sold out. Chomsky claimed 9/11 was not a conspiracy by the Bush administration when obviously it was. Why? Possibly because Chomsky's alma mater, MIT, produced the inept and fake video of planes penetrating and ludicrously passing through the steel and concrete walls of the twin towers – an impossibility,. There were no planes, no Osama Bin Laden and no Islamic terrorists. The Israelis set demolition charges weeks beforehand to synchronise when detonated with the imaginary aircraft. An Israeli TV crew was on hand to record the catastrophe even before it happened. Yes, Chomsky and the late Christopher Hitchens both sold out over 9/11, and of course Hitchens also.sold out over the invasion of Iraq.

  7. Nothing brings the apologists for the USA imperialist war machine, and the Zionist shills, out from under their rocks like a Noam Chomsky video.

  8. BRILLIANT DISCUSSION.   The organizers of this mess however should be encouraged to never host another public function.  The audience might have revolted and put out those horrid lights!  "I'M SORRY OUR CONTRACT WAS UP 10 MINUTES AGO, EVERYBODY GO HOME" , What a poorly planned shit-show.

  9. tl;dr – just read the bottom, but you should read the middle part about ISIS' origin (or the attached article it's sourced from)

    Local Terrorism (such as the IRA during the troubles, Algerian resistance vs France, Palestinian resistance, Kurdish PKK) is a very real and powerful phenomenon, it results from a state power (typically foreign) that oppresses a native population (typically based on racial, religious or cultural boundaries), using collective punishment, physical separation of classes, military law and/or restricted services/curfew. The oppressed population's anger is seized upon by the militant and focussed onto the 1st-class citizens of the oppressor, as they have no army and there is no other window for retaliation.

    Global Terrorism (Al-Qaeda/ISIS) is a newer and vastly different phenomenon, that focuses on bastardised elements of local terrorism (Islam/religious solidarity vs persecution is the most significant). In my opinion, from all I've observed, Global Terrorism and the key associated organisations were nurtured and infiltrated by the central powers of the 1st world, using the arm of western Military Intelligence and its clearance hierarchy. It can't be said if this was done consciously by a group (the sort that would exist by the concentration of knowledge/power in the hands of members – whoever controls the most capital together I suppose – shared strategically with the suitably corrupt in the necessary sectors of control). Or, more likely, it simply arose by the inherent nature of such power systems to exploit opportunity. It is human nature that where space for power exists it shall be occupied by the most suited competitor, complex human systems could be likened to their components in that regard. It could simply have arisen out of decades of wars and evolving strategies and meetings because the truth is, whether is was deliberate or not, Global Terrorism is by itself the most significant boost to western military (and otherwise) power since the Cold War, debatably since WW2. The hypothetical space for power, from a Game Theory / human genome perspective, is greatest when the most established and widespread, meanwhile being the most concentrated and the most hidden from public view. Were the idea to use terrorism in such a way, with such a long-term payout, arise among those with the highest military clearance, and if they estimated +gainvsrisk, then those charged with the decision would not pass up such an opportunity. They are in those seats precisely because potential human suffering caused does not come into the equation when potential power gained is in question. They gained their own space for power by competing with rivals on the basis of their ability to serve a system that itself functions on the same fundamental competitive logic as it's components, so they calculate solutions and take actions that produce max sustained gain. I, despite (and also slightly supported by) the intense opposition and mockery that results, firmly believe something approaching this exists in the modern world, here's a brief analysis from this perspective.

    Whatever lies underneath it, the strategy/desired result of Global Terrorism is quite clear. It is used as a tool domestically for population control (to justify draconian laws that seize people's rights in the interest of those with capital, to sow division culturally/racially/ideologically/nationally, especially towards middle-easterners/muslims and as literally the sole justification for the NSA/GCHQ operation XKeyScore), to maintain instability in the middle east without implying the west (which has been the aim of western powers since the fall of the Ottoman Empire), to justify western military operations in the middle east and sway huge proportions of the population to actively supporting such wars.

    Why the middle east? 3 reasons: resources/oil, geostrategic importance (being the bridge for 3 continents with complex political/cultural dynamics inbetween) and the last, undervalued one is Pan-Arab Nationalism/muslim solidarity. Since the 1900s and especially following WW1, there was a massive surge in popular support for Morrocco-the Levant-Saudi Arabia to be a single nation as they were under the Turks (remember, these countries didn't exist back then, Europe drew up the map between themselves). This movement was widespread, people were intelligent and connected with/inspired by intellectual movements in the west. Needless to say it was quickly squashed by the west, with wars, intelligence ops, puppet states and the creation of Israel. However as a result, the ideology itself, I believe, died in the same way as Obi-Wan Kenobi. The land had been connected by a spiritual/cultural bond for up to a 1000y, united in industry by the Ottomans, united in identity by Islam, language, culture; this bond was severed quite precisely by the profit-driven forces of western capitalism, who set up puppet states like Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and of course Israel, the aggressive extension of the west, Darth Vader if you will. When a bond like that is broken it doesn't disappear, just like the longing to return home didn't disappear in the Palestinians even as the only ones who remember the Nakbha die out. People were still connected, though they were trapped their fractured cultures – with their wounds – flowed over the walls and borders, their collective psyche imprinted with the break. So the more pressure that was applied to the Middle-East by foreign and internal powers, the stronger the impact of this break – and all its consequences – became, the stronger the collective instinct to resist became, despite how divided and contained it was. The Arab Spring could be described as a direct result of this break and the continued aggression and could be traced back to the nations impacted by the west/Israel after the Ottomans fell and by the map Europe drew up, the "force" that was sectioned off and suppressed. The Spring occurred in all and only the countries most affected (along the coast from Morrocco, not west of Iran, not north of Syria), and it came out of nowhere. The spring was not a "Muslim" phenomenon by any stretch.

    Then along comes ISIS. They're a terrorist group, but unlike the pre-9/11 instances of terrorism, they're again lacking the key element: the oppressive foreign power of a population. Yes, they arose out of the ashes of a US war, but the US were gone, all foreign powers gone. Instead ISIS fed off the energy of the Arab Spring and the resulting Civil War in Syria, which they had no stake in. In fact they directly transformed young minds over the internet using the surge of rebellion caused by the spring. ISIS was a new phenomenon, and here's how it started: a handful of men, mostly officers from Saddam's regime, were imprisoned in a US Camp called "Bucca". Witnesses from this camp report frequent torture, and psychological techniques were used also, for example the inmates were housed in groups wearing different colours, with different priveleges for each group. Once the US left Iraq, these men travelled, with a small team <100, straight to Syria, where they set up fake religious missions, spotted the corrupt/opportunistic, and got them to spy on the population. They used blackmail to persuade people to join ISIS, or to spy on other rebel groups from within. They gathered enough to hold sway over any semblence of authority. They used targetted killings of dissenters/ left-wing activists and any one who pointed out what was going on. People soon feared them, and rightly so. They had a detailed plan, a complex system of hierarchies was quickly established, each officer (or "caliph") was in control of his domain, but under watch always by both his peers, bosses and even underlings. Traitors are sniffed out instantly and killed. This was a military operation, one that closely resembled how Saddam's regime operated (which was, after all, nudged into power by the CIA). The plans were found when Haji Bakr (the likely head of the operation, a Military Intelligence officer from Saddam's regime no less, who was held in Camp Bucca) got caught on the wrong side of town when rebels took it, a local rebel group sent copies of the plans to Der Speigel. I believe that Al-Qaeda were infiltrated also, and working to the same cynical end, but of course there is little to back that up with. ISIS I am certain of, the tracks they left were unavoidable, and telling.

    Here are a couple of sources, I can provide more on request: www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

    It's funny, because just like in so many other regards (such as people carrying tablets around that spy on them while feeding them info, or the machiavellian bending of sociopolitical language), this is George Orwell's 1984 coming to fruition. An enemy, who you know deep down you have to fear and hate, keeps launching rockets at your cities, blowing up your loved ones. But you never see them, only pictures and videos of them sneering, and the enemy keeps changing.

    Do you believe the centres of power on planet earth are waging wars as a result of terrorist attacks? Do you think they set up a multi-billion dollar data-mining operation that spies on their citizens' internet and phone use because it might stop a few more terrorist attacks? Do you believe that the blinking face you see on television, gurgling honor for the dead of the latest attack, feels the slightest genuine, conscious remorse for the death?

    If you don't, contact me at [email protected], no one can trace this account's usage, I use TOR on a separate PC for that account, though this one is my real account. I don't want to talk to any one about theories they follow that are specific, or based on spurious evidence. I just think the conscious need to connect. Trolls welcome too.

  10. and that is why minorities always get fucked, sometimes its between accommodating the minorities or the majorities..guess who always gets their way? yes, and also, the clap your hands system and whoever clapped harder means the people spoke was ancient spartas' specialty…whoever yells louder=democracy won.
    however great chomsky always is he never really delves seriously into the true grey areas of reality, morality and the rest, seems to me he doesnt want to confuse the peasants with indecisiveness…but the fundamental flaw in that is that in the end, without really true perspective, if the peasants win a big victory they will inevitably become the next elite, and the cycle will continue forever as it always has..there must?? always be an elite…

  11. I have heard Chomsky on other shows. And when asked a question he goes on and on and on. Smart but boring.

  12. Hindsight is fun and informative. WE can listen to Chomsky ply his crystal ball and judge if he was correct or just a Leftist aping the Leftist line.
    At 31:15 Chomsky begins to explain to his flock the future of Bosnia and the sinister plans of the Left. He states that Bosnia will be divided between the Serbs and the Croatians.
    Well….Chomsky was wrong.

  13. Chomsky simply informs his audience that everybody but them are assholes. Moral narcissism messaged and fondled.
    The Far Left, represented by Chomsky feel free to criticize both the right, calling them all Nazis, and by the Left which is deemed fake and uselss.
    Important to note that Chomsky has no solutions for any of the problems he points his finger at, he certainly does not live his life like a Communist, he is a well paid hypocrite …

  14. Just by looking at the comments I can see Nobody actually watched the whole clip. THERE IS NO DEBATE. Chomsky speaks for the first hour before Hitchens comes and says a few words about him, how they met and also praising him. Then Chomsky answers questions. Everyone just saw the title and automatically started stating who's best and trying to win points for either side. Before saying something, at least be informed.

  15. And what if another Country other than the U.S pulls ahead military like some other Country with fucking a tenth of the values we have I think he would be singing a different song if that happened.

  16. Ok so Chomsky thinks the U.S should save the world lol He acts like we have done absolutely nothing for the world he starts naming all this shit we are defunding. Hey dude you just named 10000 we are funding to help people that we are closing down so at some point we were funding a million fucking things to help the world that your complaining we are cutting. He has to admit those thing existed to at some point we were doing something decent because you are saying its such a horrible thing that we are cutting these amazing programs. The guy can never give the U.S or the west any due sure we have fucked up and it could be way better but the world is pretty fucking good world poverty has been drastically cut since the 80s not to mention a poor person today was a rich person 30 years ago.

  17. Poverty has gone way down since the cold war sure its not perfect but Chomsky is such a miserable prick America has made a lot of mistake but we helped cut poverty in half in the world since the 80s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *