--
On 11 Nov 2004 at 14:21, John Young wrote:
Chomsky, [...] He makes no apology for his attacks on
apologists for the powerful, he is merely better at it than
they are.
Wherever the master's boot smashes into the face of a child, we
can rely on Chomsky to deny the master's crimes, while
Now I certainly don't agree with a lot of Chomsky, bvut this dude clearly
has an axe to grind. For instance,
After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in Afghanistan
than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in The World Trade Center attacks.
What a fucking idiot. The 3000 were
But James, it is a no-brainer to refute an argument with
selective use of an opponents words, phrases, quotations,
arguments and beliefs. Debaters are trained and hired to
do just this as are propagandists, spin doctors, psychiatrists,
journalists, scholars, historians, pr pros, courtiers,
--
Tyler Durden wrote:
What a fucking idiot. The 3000 were already dead, the 'famine' was
about-to-be. A Chomsky nut could say Chomsky helped avert complete
catastrophe [...]
But this misses the point. Mr Donald will no doubt chime in
yammering on about Chomsky's lies, but that also
